CHURCHES MUST PAY BIRTH CONTROL: COURT

Associated Press ^ | 10/20/06

[rzeznikj at stout]

There is a reason why the Church is against contraception.

While it's complex (for a much better explanation, I'd highly recommend reading Christopher West's Theology of the Body for Beginners), I'll try my best to give a really brief explanation...

I. Married life is a continuation of the sacrament of marriage; and sexual activity between man and woman is meant to be a reaffirmation, renewal, and expression of their wedding vows.

II. As in Gn 2:24, man and woman join together to become one flesh.

III. Marriage images God's love for us, and the sexual union symbolizes the complete mutual giving of man and woman. Thus the sexual union visualizes the very mystery of God and is a sign of the sacrament of marriage

IVa. According to Pope John Paul II, the "language of the body" (West, ToBB p.104) speaks about this very mystery and its being a sign.

IVb.Inserting contraception into the equation produces a counter-sign. Or, as Christopher West puts it, contraceptive sex proclaims that "God is NOT life-giving love," which in itself is a sacrilege.

V. Because of this, contraception denies the totality of the conjugal act and thus turns the "I do" of the wedding vow into an "I do not."

VI. Since the conjugal act is the ultimate representation of God's love for us, and contraception perverts that representation, it is thus unacceptable to use contraception.

Disclaimer--As I'm currently reading up on the Theology of the Body--so I'm in no way an expert (and I might not be 100% on the money). If anyone's more knowledgeable about it, feel free to chime in...8^)

[BlackElk]

I think that all hospitals that are licensed are required by some inane and ridiculously expensive federal mandate to serve all emergency cases within their competence. I may be wrong.

[BlackElk]

Again, may God continue to bless you and yours.

Thank you for your kindness and prayers for Fr. Weslin. Like General Patton before Bastogne, he needs all the prayers he can get from chaplains who stand in well with the Lord.

[ninenot]

Hell, I'd be happy to supply real arms and ammo for THAT march...

[Frank Sheed]

Hey include me! I doubt arms would be needed though. Just a few hundred crucifixes and a gallon or so of holy water should dissipate the majority of all the opposition as they melt in front of our very eyes. Sort of Dracula-like.

F

[armydoc]

"When I was hungry you gave me to eat, when I was thirsty you gave me to drink, when I was in prison you visited me......come, enter into the kingdom of my Father" Are these not "works" of grace and faith through love?

Absolutely. Our good works are extremely important. They please God. They strengthen our Christian witness. They build up rewards in heaven. They don't, and can't secure our salvation, however. In this case, Jesus was talking to those who, because of their faith in Him, had already secured their salvation. Their good works were credited to them. Presumably, many good works flowed from their salvation- they had "worked out" their salvation, as Paul had exhorted, with God's help. Some produced more good works than others. Notice, however, that they are not admonished for their sins, of which they undoubtably had many. Their sins had already been "deleted" from their accounts because of their faith in Christ- it is like they never happened. Therefore, only their good works, however few they may have been, remain on their "accounts". But make no mistake, the good works did not secure their salvation. Faith in Christ and His finished Work did that.

"When I was hungry, you did not give me to eat, when I was thirsty you did not give me to drink, when I was in prison you did not visit me.....depart from Me"

This group, however, did not have faith in Christ. Therefore, their sins did remain on their "accounts". Notice that this group is not praised for any "good works" they had done during their lives. Undoubtably, they had done some, perhaps many. However, without faith in Christ, thier sin remains and "good works" account for nothing.

So, the discriminator is faith. This is clear in scripture. Now, I believe that once saved, good works naturally flow from the believer. Again, this is a result of salvation, not the means.

[Cvengr]

Marriage isn't a religious establishment. It is a Divinely established institution. Believers and unbelievers may enjoy the blessings of that institution and live very healthy lives when abiding by the legitimate authority within those institutions. Three other divinely established institutions include free will (volition), family, and national governance.

Those who rebel from those institutions merely bring additional suffering and misery into their lives and others around them. One doesn;t have to have faith in Christ in order to inherit many of the blessings of those institutions. They were provided for believer and unbeliever alike.

[Inwoodian]

" My Kingdom is not of this earth." Catholic Charities should withdraw from the hospitals and/or charities which require Catholics to fund practices antithetical to their beliefs. Abortion will be next if not stopped now.

[Campion]

This group, however, did not have faith in Christ.

That's by no means clear, and is something you're reading into the text. And what do you do with "Not everyone who says, 'Lord, Lord' will be saved, but only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven"??

[sweetliberty]

"Evil. Pure evil from the court."

I've come to expect nothing more.

[armydoc]

That's by no means clear, and is something you're reading into the text. And what do you do with "Not everyone who says, 'Lord, Lord' will be saved, but only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven"??

It is clear when taken with the entire context of Scripture. If you want to take it your way, then if you have ever been guilty of not visiting prisoners or feeding the poor, then you are a goat, and you are damned. If that's the case, we are all damned. I don't believe that, nor do you. Notice that in this passage Jesus addresses the sheep as ones who are "blessed by the Father" and talks of them taking their "inheritance". This makes it clear that they are already sons of God. Not so with the goats.

Do you suggest that the sheep had committed no sin? Do you suggest that the goats had done no good works? Or do you propose that it all comes down to a cosmic balance, in which the good works are weighed against the bad?

Regarding the "Lord, Lord" passage, it is obvious that a verbal profession of faith does not equate to a saving faith. There are countless tares among the wheat, as you well know. Regarding the "will of the Father", the highest will of the Father is to have faith in His Son, don't you agree?

[old republic]

The first amendment was meant to protect rights of conscience for the individual; this ruling clearly violates the intent and letter of the first amendment. No law should compel someone to commit a grave offense against his conscience.