Posted on 11/19/2008 9:11:02 AM PST by kellynla
How can Catholics, in good faith, support laws that do that?They can not do so any more than they can support laws granting subsidies for temples to Astarte.
google “text of freedom of choice act” (many sites blocked from here for me, so I don’t have good links for you)
Lifenews.com also has a lot of articles concerning this legislation.
Basically, it overrides any and all local and state laws that inhibit access to abortions, including parental consent, late term, etc.
It disallows “conscience” as a reason to not provide an abortion.
It requires funding (tax money) for any and all abortions.
It makes public funding of abortion alternative centers illegal.
Now, tell me it’s not evil to support such a law.
“The Church does not recognize divorce in any form, it being a civil procedure. Catholics who divorce remain married in the eyes of the Church. Catholics who divorce and remarry are committing adultery against their spouse. Only church sanctioned annulments are allowed.”
How is that different than what I said?
I’ve been great but my youngest broke her tailbone on Monday. She wanted a “Butt Cast” but didn’t get it!
Sorry about the Pinkeye!
That poster is a troll.
He was obviously trying to justify Catholics’ support for abortion,
and he (like most libs I know) wasn’t aware of, and doesn’t want to know about, the effects and intent of the FoCA.
The thing about blind anti-Catholic hatred is that it is a very competitive field.
This post does not compete. It’s not even good enough to call an also-ran.
You’re really claiming to be Catholic, eh?
Exactly!!!!
Ya think? :)
I think that’s what I inferred. My more important point is that pro “choice” people believe the burden of proof is on the pro life side when all we are doing is leting nature take its course. As the side that believes in the choice of ending another pregnancy,it is upon them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no human life exists in the womb.
I mean what I suggest: Become a member of a parish (which I highly doubt you are), seek the counsel of a priest, take RCIA classes. At the very least, spend $20 on a copy of the Catechism. Read it. Discuss is with a member of clergy. Get to know the faith to which you claim to adhere. Prayers go with you.
Your objection, as it stands, implies that government must not criminalize ANY act which a church finds objectionable, because that would involve using secular power to prohibit what the church calls a sin, be it murder, theft, or public drunkenness.
This cannot be the case. The churches, as institutions, can and should influence legislation the same way any other group influences legislation: by persuading the majority of voters, or legislators, that the proposed law does or does not contribute to "equal justice under law" and the other principles under which this nation was founded.
Persuasion, as such, is the quintessential democratic activity.
In this FOCA case, the co-sponsors being Jerry Nadler and Barbara Boxer (both Jewish), the Church has no power over them whatsoever. The Church has no power to make or unmake Congressmen, or to control their votes. The Church has no capability to impose any temporal penalty whatsoever.
The Church IS making a determination of who its members are, and what membership consists of.
Every Church has that reponsibility. Even the Quakers, as I remember, sent a delegation to Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War to tell him (for what it's worth) that he was no Quaker.
Any who votes in favor of FOCA, the most atrociously cruel, unjust, and coercive death-dealing legislation ever considered in the United States, is no Catholic.
Of course the Church can make such a determination about its own members by its own principles. What could be more obviously the Church's business?
Two things to consider here:
On the first point, there's no way to ascertain who a person voted for. It is a hidden act known only to the voter and nobody else. So there are no grounds for public excommunication: nobody knows who voted for whom.
On the second point, a person who is troubled in their conscience over their vote (and there ought to be tens of millions of Obama voters who are troubled in their conscience) ought, if they are Catholic, to go to Confession and try to clarify exactly what their intentions were. Did they intend to facilitate even more abortions? Were they indifferent to the slaying of infants? Were they ignorant? What were they thinking of?
Unfortunately, I doubt that many people are going to pursue this kind of examination of conscience. That is an abysmal shame. It is bringing us ruin on ever level: physical, social, moral, spiritual ruin.
I was informed of the “trollness” of dbz.
Obviously, the poster is trying to justify his own “pro-choice” stance against what his wiring tells him is obviously evil.
Rom 2:15
They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts. The way their minds judge them gives witness to that fact. Sometimes their thoughts find them guilty. At other times their thoughts find them not guilty.
Thanks. I’m actually glad that FR attracts trolls. They need the truth: otherwise, we’re just talking to each other.
As the side that believes in the choice of ending another pregnancy,it is upon them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no human life exists in the womb.The only way that can happen is if the fetus died in the womb. (Such a thing has happened before.)
If you don't believe in Church teachings, then, for all practical purposes, you are no longer a Catholic. Of course, you would always be welcome to return.
In fact, if your lack of belief has come about through no fault of your own, then your act of material separation from the Church would not even be considered sinful. That's between you and God.
If you have any interest in the Church at all, it would be worth your investigating Catholic Answers. Most people leave the Church without fully understanding the reasons for the Church's teachings. Let's face it. A lot of us were very poorly catechized.
[[Your objection, as it stands, implies that government must not criminalize ANY act which a church finds objectionable, because that would involve using secular power to prohibit what the church calls a sin, be it murder, theft, or public drunkenness.]]
This is an excellent point, and something I tried uneloquently to put to words (You did a much better job of making hte point than I)
The fact is that God’s word contains a number of moral ethics that protect ALL people, and should and ARE used by our government to enact laws that protect the greatest number of people. For people to claim the government must seperate itself wholly from Religion is a rediculous argument that has no basis in reality, and htose wishing to remove God and His word from government are infact trying to force our society to abide by their preferrede religion- Secularism! Secularism is a SUBJECTIVE morality code of ‘ethics’ open to widely varying interpretations- one man’s subjective values are NOT another man’s subjective values, and quite frankly, eithewr anythign goes, OR someone MUST force their own subjective values on everyone in a secular society.
The bible is based on UNIVERSAL moral ethics that hte great majority of people agree upon- not just here in htis coutnry but worldwide- Those that don’t agree, are simply people who have learned to ignore their consciences, and who feel that their own ‘moral ethics’ are superior, which has been demonstrated to be false as it ALWAYS alienates a number of groups. Those arguing that government must remove itself from religion simply wish to impose their own set of ‘moral ethics’ (or lack thereof) erroniously beliving their views are superior to the universal moral ethics that govern EVERYONE’s hearts (at least until they decide they wish to violate these universal moral ethics)
The claim that our founding fathers wished to have government without any universal moral ethics, or a government without any religious influences to govern it’s decisions is a rediculous and assinine claim that simply has no basis in reality. As you correctly pointed out- the constitution merely wanted to prevent the church from RUNNING government like it had corruptly done in England, and htey wanted to prevent the government from FORCING people to convert to any one religion by penalty of the law if people resisted- that is ALL that htis supposed ‘seperation of church and state’ meant- not that government should wholly abstain from religious influence OR even from the right to freely express religious beliefs in public.
[[In this FOCA case, the co-sponsors being Jerry Nadler and Barbara Boxer (both Jewish), the Church has no power over them whatsoever. The Church has no power to make or unmake Congressmen, or to control their votes. The Church has no capability to impose any temporal penalty whatsoever.]]
Bingo! Government DOES however have every constitutional right to adopt what they perceive to be the best moral code of ethics from the universal moral codes as set down by God and His word IF those codes are the best possible codes that protect hte greatest diversities of people
[[Any who votes in favor of FOCA, the most atrociously cruel, unjust, and coercive death-dealing legislation ever considered in the United States, is no Catholic.]]
I’ll have to dissagree here- NOT that I’m sticking up for the belief in abortion- I’m not- I simply believe people CAN be misled after they have become saved- We are al lsinners, and all prone to erronious beliefs, and all prone to incidents of blindness on certain issues, and Satan can and does exploits htose weaknesses even in Christians.
I’m not Catholic, and I DO beleive the church’s of ALL fundamental branches does NEED to start getting tougher on sin, but I know from my studies, that a person doesn’t lose their salvation. However, having said that, a person can and probably should be excomunicated from and branch of fundamentalism but only AFTER all attempts to lovingly correct hte situation have failed. A person who is saved can and should be cast from the church, but should also be accepted back if or when the Holy Spirit convinces the person of their error as these folks mature in the Spirit. It is very possible even that a born again person could go the rest of their lives believing in abortion, but htey don’t lose their salvation but DO lose a closer relationship with Christ in htis life.
There are no conditions set when accepting Christ as Savior- and htere’s nothign we do to ‘keep our salvation’- Christ is the keeper, and His blood IS sufficeint to completely cover the cost of sin, and He conquered death once and for all (the great scene where He descended into hell- Christ went ther3e to confirm to Satan that He HAS conquered death- Satan’s whole deal was to prevent Christ from doing htis (Remember Satan had tried several times to cut hte line of Christ before Christ was born (There’s a VERY itneresting issue about the fallen angels trying to pervert the human bloodline so that Christ could not be born- but God cleansed the bloodline once again with hte flood)
This toipic is lengthy and involved- I’ll just leave it at that for now umless someone has questions
[[In Baptism we are forgiven our past sins. It does not forgive our future sins. That’s what repentance is all about. In the Catholic church that would be confession and absolution...]]
Gene- We are saved by ‘giving up sins’- We are saved by beleiving Christ forgives sin- This is a VERY important distinction, because if it was the former- WE would be responsible for our own salvation, but the bible makes it VERY clear that it is ALL Christ’s doing that saves us, and NOT our own- we don’t ‘work for our own salvation’ We DO however, work OUT our own salvation, meaning that we come more and more into the understanding as we mature in Christ that it is Christ Himself that transforms us, and we work this out by dying to ourselves, and more and more allowing Christ to transform us in our walk with Him-
People will be in ALL different stages of this ‘working out’ process, and it’s NOT up to us to judge them because they haven’t worked out complete perfection yet. It IS however the Church’s responsiblity to judge those that stubbornly hold to positions that are contrary to God’s word, and it’s their responsibility to excomunicate those persons, BUT that does NOT mean the person’s Salvation is lost or that they were ‘never a real Christian’ IF that person hasn’t been matured in CHrist to a point where WE think they should be.
also please note Christ’s blood covered ALL sins- even the sins of those who had passed way BEFORE Christ had been born! This is also a VERY important point concerning htis issue
“God’s Word teaches that the issue of forgiveness of sins of an individual of any age is always settled at the point of trusting alone in Christ alone for eternal life. Since God has reconciled all men to himself by providing a way through Jesus Christ to eternal life - “not counting men’s sins against them” - then the penalty for sins is not the issue, but receiving forgiveness and the gift of God’s absolute righteousness, on the other hand is:
A) [2 Cor 5:18-19]:
(v. 18) “All this is from God, Who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;
(v. 19) that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And He has committed to us the message of reconciliation.”
B) [Compare 1 Jn 2:2]:
“He [Christ] is the atoning sacrifice for our [believers’ sins, (v. 2:1)] and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
C) [Compare Col 2:13-14]:
(v. 13) “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
(v. 14) having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.”
These verses confirm that God’s ministry of reconciliation encompasses the whole world such that as a result of what Jesus Christ did on the cross the sins of men of all ages of history would not be counted against them - all men, elect, non-elect, believer and unbeliever.”
Oswald Chambers has an excellent study on this topic stating that it’s NOT our business to judge how far along someone should be in Christ- here’s an excerpt:
“One of the hardest lessons to learn comes from our stubborn refusal to refrain from interfering in other people’s lives. It takes a long time to realize the danger of being an amateur providence, that is, interfering with God’s plan for others. You see someone suffering and say, “He will not suffer, and I will make sure that he doesn’t.” You put your hand right in front of God’s permissive will to stop it, and then God says, “What is that to you?” Is there stagnation in your spiritual life? Don’t allow it to continue, but get into God’s presence and find out the reason for it. You will possibly find it is because you have been interfering in the life of another— proposing things you had no right to propose, or advising when you had no right to advise. When you do have to give advice to another person, God will advise through you with the direct understanding of His Spirit. Your part is to maintain the right relationship with God so that His discernment can come through you continually for the purpose of blessing someone else.”
http://www.rbc.org/devotionals/my-utmost-for-his-highest/11/15/devotion.aspx
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.