Click the Porcupine Thank you, JoeProBono
Baby Dragon Makes a New Friend
Don't you be prickly!
Donate monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/11/2012 6:20:38 AM PST by C19fan
Today the Obama Administration announced that the President would be issuing a new regulation fully respecting the religious liberty of Catholic organizations while maintaining access to contraceptive services for all employees.
The new regulation will ensure that Catholic hospitals, universities and social service providers that are religiously opposed to contraception and sterilization do not have to provide or even refer for those services, while also requiring insurance companies provide contraceptive services free of charge to any enrollee who wishes to have the coverage. The objecting religious organizations would have no role in providing coverage or referring employees for services they would deem objectionable. The cost of the contraceptive coverage will be born by the insurance companies and will be offset by the long term cost savings associated with reduced need for maternity care. Using the standard of Catholic moral theology, this solution is acceptable because no Catholic or Catholic institution will be directly involved in what the church deems to be an immoral act.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholics-united.org ...
This is so typically MSM—cite the fringe groups as mainstream. It’s like what Edward R. Murrow used to do—cite Commonweal for Catholics’ distaste of McCarthy’s methods.
It’s been mentioned several times on these threads, but we can probably thank Vatican II for nurturing such groups. The USCCB went through a pretty bleak period before JPII started stacking the ranks with actual Catholic bishops.
That didn’t take long. How much are they getting in return?
Mmmm P.O.R.K.
They have been around for some time, always oposing some Catholic issue.
Today's announcement will also be a test for the Catholic bishops, who have indicated that they are opposed to compromise.
Never compromise with the devil.
Whichever diocese this bunch is in, their bishop needs to come out and denounce them right away.
Definitely funded by Soros. http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/07/23/soros-funded-catholics-united-to-spend-500k-promoting-pro-life-democrats/
Catholics United are like Catholics for abortion. Everybody realizes that you can not be catholic and hold those views. It is that simple. They are not Catholic.
Correction. I was mistaking a closely allied group, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, with Catholics United when I said it was riddled with ex-USCCB employees. According to pewsitter.com, Catholics in Alliance has at least four “leaders, advisors and partners” who are currently or were formerly associated with USCCB.
http://www.pewsitter.com/view_news_id_17572.php
The problem is that the Catholic Church has done a really crappy job of policing the word “Catholic” so that anybody and his brother can call themselves “Catholic.” This organization and a lot of others don’t really care whether buying abortion coverage is moral or not. They don’t give a crap about any of it. They use the name to get business and a veneer of respectability. Oh yes, they may have some liberal catholic sympathies after a fashion—family inheritance or something. But they really don’t give a damn about what the Church teaches.
BTW, many of our worst dissidents are employees of the Church or ex-employees of the Church. They tend to take their “status” with them and act like they own the place even after they’ve left, and this hasn’t been dealt with either. No other organization would put up with this crap.
It’s generally not clergy who are the nut-cases either. It’s lay people who have worked for the church for a long time, who are almost always cradle catholics.
It’s generally not clergy who are the nut-cases either. It’s lay people who have worked for the church for a long time, and they’re almost always cradle catholics.
>> Staff: Using the standard of Catholic moral theology, this solution is acceptable because no Catholic or Catholic institution will be directly involved in what the church deems to be an immoral act.
STFU, just S T F U, you foolish asswipes!
I checked your profile as you suggested, very impressive. The one thing that caught my eye was your post on “Salvation by works” Yes I read your whole post.
Works is something we do, something we need, you are right absolutely on that count, however...Works has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with salvation.
Anybody that suggested that we can eat drink and be merry, probably was never truly sincere enough when they first asked Christ into their life, God does have some ability to see in to the future...foreknowledge
But you totally miss Paul`s main point from his writings absolutely, when you say that works has anything at all to do with Salvation.
As you say you are fond of your opinion :) Save your strength by not wasting your time responding to try and convince me otherwise, mean that in a kind way, it`s settled with me.
Multiple scriptures to back this up, including Christ himself.
In fact when we realize that Christ Jesus loved us so much, when we realize salvation is a FREE GIFT, NOT OF WORKS LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST... We love him all the more, we do not say to ourselves...great I am saved for eternity, now I can eat drink and be merry, that would be the wrong attitude.
I checked your profile as you suggested, very impressive. The one thing that caught my eye was your post on “Salvation by works” Yes I read your whole post.
Works is something we do, something we need, you are right absolutely on that count, however...Works has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with salvation.
Anybody that suggested that we can eat drink and be merry, probably was never truly sincere enough when they first asked Christ into their life, God does have some ability to see in to the future...foreknowledge
But you totally miss Paul`s main point from his writings absolutely, when you say that works has anything at all to do with Salvation.
As you say you are fond of your opinion :) Save your strength by not wasting your time responding to try and convince me otherwise, mean that in a kind way, it`s settled with me.
Multiple scriptures to back this up, including Christ himself.
In fact when we realize that Christ Jesus loved us so much, when we realize salvation is a FREE GIFT, NOT OF WORKS LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST... We love him all the more, we do not say to ourselves...great I am saved for eternity, now I can eat drink and be merry, that would be the wrong attitude.
Works has NOTHING to do with Salvation, period, to argue that is not correct.
I didn’t suggest you visit my profile so we could get into a theological argument. I wanted you to see that you are not the only one pointing out that Christians should not be voting for Democrats.
I will certainly be happy to have that theological discussion with you, if you want... but it sounds like you don’t want it (at least you don’t want me to reply to the arguments you’ve already provided).
May God bless you.
I understood what you meant, and I did not mean any unkindness. I said a Christian would not/could not vote Democrat...A vote for a Democrat is to spit on Christ. A vote for a Democrat means a person is OK with removal of God`s Word from Classroom/public square, means they support killing God`s unborn children, gay marriage etc, so yes we are in agreement.
Salvation by works???..Paul goes in to great detail about that in Galatians as well as in his other letters from Romans etc. Really it`s a open and shut case, has zero merit
We are saved by grace through Faith, Nothing I could add that was not already discussed in the thread you took part in.
I just finished a 4 month study in Romans, Galations,etc Reading Ephesians at the moment.We are Never finished reading the Gospel, something we read over and over all our lives
Paul rebuked Galations for such thinking, had heated arguments with Peter.
Salvation by works is just so NOT what the Gospel is about. Our Righteousness is as filthy rags to the Lord.
Jesus died on the cross because nobody was good enough to be saved by their own merit.
Salvation is a free gift of God, Not of works lest any man should boast.
Nobody is saying..great, I am saved now, now I can eat drink and be merry. If anybody is saying that, then perhaps you can be suspicious of them.
I am just speaking of salvation!
God Bless you :)
Salvation by works???..Paul goes in to great detail about that in Galatians as well as in his other letters from Romans etc. Really it`s a open and shut case, has zero merit
Except that I never preached a Gospel of Salvation by Works. I simply postulated that works have a role in our salvation... and this is truth.
When St Paul talks about "works of the law" in his epistles, he is referring very specifically to the dictates of the Law of Moses which were enjoined on the Jewish people. These were not meant to save but to discipline. Our salvation is in Christ crucified.
Here, I'm going to refer back to something I already wrote: "what is suffering? I would suggest to you on behalf of the Church that suffering is love in action. What is love without self-giving... what is self-giving without self-denial... what is self-denial without sacrifice? By this definition, we come to know God (Who is Love) by taking up our crosses to follow Jesus... as Jesus admonished us to do."
"Therefore, being followers of Christ who are called to lives of suffering, I would submit to you that here are the works called for by the Church. They are not "earning" salvation, they are growing in knowledge of God. Taking the opposite approach is selfishness and failing to grow... and only dead things fail to grow. We are the Body of Christ on Earth through our union with His Bride, the Church. In this, we carry on His earthly mission to call all peoples to Himself. There is much work to be done and a just God Who will reward our efforts. What is lacking in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross? Our own sacrifice (love) joined with His."
Paul rebuked Galations for such thinking, had heated arguments with Peter.
St Paul rebuked anyone who preached a Gospel which called for the gentiles to first place themselves under the old Law (circumcision). Again, the Law was not given for the salvation of man, but for the discipline of Israel. It is meaningless to say that all people must first join in Israel's chastisement before they can be reborn in Christ.
St Paul's argument with St Peter was over St Peter's behavior toward the gentiles. St Peter was all chummy with the gentiles when it was just him. When others of a Jewish background were present, he separated himself to stay among the Jews. This was scandalous to St Paul who saw the hypocrisy of St Peter's behavior. Nowhere does St Paul take St Peter to task for St Peter's doctrine and faith... only his behavior.
Our Righteousness is as filthy rags to the Lord.
You are quoting the Old Testament here (Isaiah 64:6). Of course, the righteousness of Israel was unable to please God. Their chastisements were about their discipline not about appeasing an angry God. However, what Christ did on the Cross was to bring us home to God's family. God didn't delight in our accomplishments perpetrated outside of His Grace anymore than I take pride in the accomplishments of the neighbor kid. As a son, though, God does delight in our work because we are the Body of Christ at work in the world. Christ merited for us the ability to merit from the Father because we have been brought home to God's Household.
Salvation is a free gift of God, Not of works lest any man should boast.
Yes... and yet we still sin. In sinning, we turn our backs on God's Grace. The works we do are not for our boasting because we accomplish them through the Grace of God at work in us. However, we must still cooperate with God as Mary humbly accepted God's Will in her maternity. Therefore, in cooperation with God, the works we accomplish as the Body of Christ carry on the work of Christ in the salvation of souls... including our own. Accomplishing our corporal works of mercy is suborning our wills to God's Holy Will. And, as Christ said, we are His brothers and sisters if we do God's Will.
It's not enough to "believe" if that word is a passive knowledge... the devils to as much. No, for the Christian, "believe" is an action word. We believe if we do God's Will. Notice in Galatians that St Paul points to the example of Abraham. Did Abraham spend all day on his knees passively believing in God? No. He followed where God led him and offered his only son as a sacrificial offering at God's command. THEN, his belief was shown... not just in his heart but in his actions. We follow Abraham's example when we DO all that God has commanded us.
Lastly, I would point out that the works we do are for the discipline of our sinful flesh. "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death" (James 1:13-15). Corporal works of mercy are God's midnight basketball for his children to avoid occasions of sin.
Can we reject our salvation? "Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been proved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him" (James 1:12). Clearly, the opposite is also true for those who do not endure.
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.