Kerry and abortion: Hypocrisy or rationality?
- Thread starter Don
- Start date
I don't care if it's there or not (in the pledge of allegiance). But what does bother me, it almost scares me in fact, is the zealousness of the people who insist on keeping it in. And i realize there's a certain zealousness on the part of some people trying to get rid of it. But i strongly suspect that the people trying to get rid of it are basing it more so on upholding the principle of separation of church and state more than anything. I think if the majority of Americans were Atheists, and the majority of Americans desired to have it say "one nation, under a Godless sky", those trying to get rid of it would still argue there should be no mention whatsoever.....but those currently trying to keep it in would do one big fat about face on whether a mention of God (or lack thereof) should be mentioned in a "government" pledge.Don said:It doesn't bother me and I'm not religious
"under a godless sky" would be something I would vote against but I'm not sure it would be unconstitutional....Ickabod said:I don't care if it's there or not (in the pledge of allegiance). But what does bother me, it almost scares me in fact, is the zealousness of the people who insist on keeping it in. And i realize there's a certain zealousness on the part of some people trying to get rid of it. But i strongly suspect that the people trying to get rid of it are basing it more so on upholding the principle of separation of church and state more than anything. I think if the majority of Americans were Atheists, and the majority of Americans desired to have it say "one nation, under a Godless sky", those trying to get rid of it would still argue there should be no mention whatsoever.....but those currently trying to keep it in would do one big fat about face on whether a mention of God (or lack thereof) should be mentioned in a "government" pledge.
Back to the original point. When viewing the catholic church while at the same time bringing up groups for Liberal Catholicism and other factions within the church, we are fogetting that the catholic church is not a democracy. It is, in a sense, a monarchy (or at least an imperialist state). The Vatican is a country unto itself with it's own policies and government structure along with it's own seat at the UN but it is not a democracy.
The chuch is ruled by a single man who, so the laws of the Vatican say, is incapable of making a mistake when he makes a decision regarding the church. This was reaffirmed in the Bull of Paple Infalability brought down by Boniface the VIII in his war of ego with Phillip of France. (Boniface the VIII was later assassinated by followers of Phillip but that's another story)
If I recall correctly, the church does not "change with the times". Although some adjustments were made in Vatican II, the basic definition of a Cardinal vs a Venial sin have remained the same throughout the ages. (notable exceptions to this are the ability to now eat meat on Fridays and the ability to enter non catholic churches).
I was born and raised a Catholic but do not consider myself one now. To do so would be hypocritical. I do not believe that premarital sex is wrong. I do not believe that the pope is infallible. I do not believe that women should not be allowed to be priests. I do not believe on the church's stand on birth control and I do not believe in the church's stand on abortion, divorce and a myraid of other things. Because of these things I cannot call myself a catholic. Giving even tacit opposition to the church's dogma on these issues makes me not a catholic.
In short, Kerry should stop claiming to be one or sign up for the faith that he claims to subscribe to and support the church's stance. There is no in between on this issue because, to my original point, the catholic church is not a democracy. As a catholic, selecting which rules you wish to follow is not an option. If you knowingly disobey them then the church has every right to give you the boot.
The chuch is ruled by a single man who, so the laws of the Vatican say, is incapable of making a mistake when he makes a decision regarding the church. This was reaffirmed in the Bull of Paple Infalability brought down by Boniface the VIII in his war of ego with Phillip of France. (Boniface the VIII was later assassinated by followers of Phillip but that's another story)
If I recall correctly, the church does not "change with the times". Although some adjustments were made in Vatican II, the basic definition of a Cardinal vs a Venial sin have remained the same throughout the ages. (notable exceptions to this are the ability to now eat meat on Fridays and the ability to enter non catholic churches).
I was born and raised a Catholic but do not consider myself one now. To do so would be hypocritical. I do not believe that premarital sex is wrong. I do not believe that the pope is infallible. I do not believe that women should not be allowed to be priests. I do not believe on the church's stand on birth control and I do not believe in the church's stand on abortion, divorce and a myraid of other things. Because of these things I cannot call myself a catholic. Giving even tacit opposition to the church's dogma on these issues makes me not a catholic.
In short, Kerry should stop claiming to be one or sign up for the faith that he claims to subscribe to and support the church's stance. There is no in between on this issue because, to my original point, the catholic church is not a democracy. As a catholic, selecting which rules you wish to follow is not an option. If you knowingly disobey them then the church has every right to give you the boot.
Ickabod said:I don't care if it's there or not (in the pledge of allegiance). But what does bother me, it almost scares me in fact, is the zealousness of the people who insist on keeping it in. And i realize there's a certain zealousness on the part of some people trying to get rid of it. But i strongly suspect that the people trying to get rid of it are basing it more so on upholding the principle of separation of church and state more than anything. I think if the majority of Americans were Atheists, and the majority of Americans desired to have it say "one nation, under a Godless sky", those trying to get rid of it would still argue there should be no mention whatsoever.....but those currently trying to keep it in would do one big fat about face on whether a mention of God (or lack thereof) should be mentioned in a "government" pledge.
I um don't recall any Zelots in America starting a Cursade...............I belive you refer to EUROPE and isn't that what I said KERRY is in align with????
bbking said:Catholics must adhere to teachings of the Pope on matters of faith. The last matter of faith was the Immaculate Conception. Abortion, the use of condoms and general sexuality are matters of moral choice thus opening up the concept of Catholic quilt, while we are free to follow those teachings, we are also free not to follow. This includes all matters of life, it is up to the Catholic individual to determine what is a sin before God - again that individual God relationship thing. While I have great admiration for this Pope, he has been the most repressive and conservative Pope since Pius 1X - alot of Catholic moral teaching could change overnight with the next Pope.
So back to your original point - Kerry has every right and duty to follow what he believes thru his Catholic faith - I personally see no conflict or hyprocasy.
BB
you are what is considered a NEW AMERICAN CATHOLIC or as I refer to caferteria Catholic. The Pope has afirmed the Churches standing on murder (abortion) and condoms every year he has been in office. With that said. When a man Becomes a Priest he swears allenence to Rome and te Pope, not to his parish.
Now there are plenty of "religions" not deeply rooted in Faith and tradition you can follow, just as Kerry can. I am not saying it impunes you as a man. But it is not in tune with the teachings of the Church. You begin by telling me how Christ was tempted in the Garden, but how does this relate?? Easy we as humans are tempted by the easy and fast answers. We are told not to consider the consequences. If you are corret why has Norma McCorvey (jane roe) recanted and come out aginst abortion?????
bbking said:Catholic quilt,
I'm not a Catholic because I don't have one of these. Is there such thing as a Catholic bed spread or Catholic duvet?
As you know the Catholic Faith is based deep in tradition, thus making change a slow process. The View of the Church is Abortion is killing or the taking of an innocent life, muder.
Murder is a Mortal Sin. Not a subjective decision to be mde based on convience. Kerry and his ilk are not in line with the teaCHINGS OF THE cHURCH. Ya just can't dress that with words to cloud the issue. The unborn are considered alive by the Church and as such it is the taking of an innocent life to snuff it out.
Murder is a Mortal Sin. Not a subjective decision to be mde based on convience. Kerry and his ilk are not in line with the teaCHINGS OF THE cHURCH. Ya just can't dress that with words to cloud the issue. The unborn are considered alive by the Church and as such it is the taking of an innocent life to snuff it out.
While the "freedom of Christ" concept may be popular with certain theologians you won't find it in any Catholic document...bbking said:I doubt very much your a Catholic. In the Catholic church there is a thing called the Freedom of Christ - and it refers to Christ wrestling with his fate in the Garden, and the devil's offer of giving the entire world to Christ. This is essential to Christian faith because the sacrifice that Christ made had to be of his own will for us to believe that he had died for our sins. Papa the main drive of Christianity is the relationship between God and the individual - the Church is two things, the Community of Christ and moral teacher and we Catholics believe that the Church is man made and quided by the Holy Spirit. In the Catholic church, that moral teaching is a roadmap, one that Catholic's are free to choose or reject, however we have one conterversial issue is that all Catholics must adhere to teachings of the Pope on matters of faith. The last matter of faith was the Immaculate Conception. Abortion, the use of condoms and general sexuality are matters of moral choice thus opening up the concept of Catholic guilt, while we are free to follow those teachings, we are also free not to follow. This includes all matters of life, it is up to the Catholic individual to determine what is a sin before God - again that individual God relationship thing. While I have great admiration for this Pope, he has been the most repressive and conservative Pope since Pius 1X - alot of Catholic moral teaching could change overnight with the next Pope.
So back to your original point - Kerry has every right and duty to follow what he believes thru his Catholic faith - I personally see no conflict or hyprocasy.
If you think it will be the Church that will change in this issue, think again. The time steadily approaches where rights will be defined by your genetic code, which will then guarantee the rights of the unborn at the moment of conception (due to it being the moment a new DNA sequence is formed).papasmerf said:As you know the Catholic Faith is based deep in tradition, thus making change a slow process.
If the Church has been slow to change, it will be that it should have embraced the facts of science into their argument long before now. There is already talk of that changing ahead of other world governments.
PAL
That is not exactly how it is worded. The correct stand by the Catholic Church is that the sexual act cannot be interfered with and those performing in such a union must "accept the blessings of God" from such an act. Sex is not just for creation of life as couples who are unable to have children are not prohibited from continuing to have sex in the Catholic faith. The Catholic Church also approves of he rhythm method (which when used properly can allow sex without fertilization).bbking said:do you argue that sex is only for the creation of life - which is the Catholic Church position.
To say the Church's position is that sex is *only* for procreation is misleading. Perhaps they promote it as a primary function, but certainly not an exclusive one.
PAL
Actually the "rhythm method" is not really used any more. There's a whole series of signs used to test fertitility called Natural Family Planning and if done correctly it is actually as effective as the pill...bbking said:I am glad you used the "can" word because I wonder how often children are born to parents using the rhythm method. I think that number is high enough to make the practice not very sound.
Your right the word "only" is perhaps strong but I think the Churches intent is for sex to be for procreation. Know that we got that out of the way, my main arguement is how do you draw the line on abortion or better still when do these cells develope a soul? And what does this arguement have to do with Kerry seeking the rather secular job of President of the US.
Issues like abortion are not considered open to question or personal conscience. And the Pope also claims the ability to speak infallibly on matters of morality...bbking said:Yes you will.
Liberal theologians try to strech what can be gotten away with but officially the Church does not recognize a Catholic's right to disregard an official teaching on morality...
This has always been a tough argument (when can a fetus be considered a separate living being) with no real answer.bbking said:better still when do these cells develope a soul?
But imagine a pregnant woman gets assaulted... hit in the stomach... how many of them do you think would say "OMG, my baby! Did I lose the baby?" vs "OMG my pregnancy might be compromised!"? At what stage do they think the former?
Most pregnant women think of their "baby" once they find out they are pregnant, not a collection of cells. On the flip side of course these women want to have their baby so they are going to feel more attached to it than a woman who doesn't want her collection of cells.
I seem to remember some guy named martin luther (and others) decided that they can still be christians while not following the pope.papasmerf said:I believe it is the intent to enforce the will of the people
so if the majority in a district are Christian, the represenitive should vote to up hold Christian values.
From what I understand as well, the founding of the states was by protestants/puritans with catholics (such as the irish) looked down upon.
In truth you will find that Martin Luther left the Church because of dispensations being sold by heritic clergy.strange1 said:I seem to remember some guy named martin luther (and others) decided that they can still be christians while not following the pope.
From what I understand as well, the founding of the states was by protestants/puritans with catholics (such as the irish) looked down upon.
As for the PURITIANS they were fleeing the religious persecution of England.
The Founding Fathers made it illegal for the Government to establish an official religion.
It's funny you bring that up because the Catholic and Lutheran churches have signed a treatise that essentially resolves that Luther and the Church of the time were misunderstanding each other and that they actually believed in the exact same fundamental things. This will pave the way towards reunification in the years to come instead of standing as the example for which you are trying to hold it up.strange1 said:I seem to remember some guy named martin luther (and others) decided that they can still be christians while not following the pope.
PAL
Pallydin said:It's funny you bring that up because the Catholic and Lutheran churches have signed a treatise that essentially resolves that Luther and the Church of the time were misunderstanding each other and that they actually believed in the exact same fundamental things. This will pave the way towards reunification in the years to come instead of standing as the example for which you are trying to hold it up.
PAL
One thing I discovered years back, the Lutherins use the same readings each week as the Catholics. The seperation Martin Luther made was fron the HIGHARCHEY not the faith.
So in effect those trying to use him as an example of disillusionment and change need to do some research.
Since ABORTION is in no danger of being repealed, why the protests. UNLESS IT IS FOR MEDIA ATTENTION......Hmmmmmmmmm could they be trying to hide the issues??? Is this anything like the GAY MARRIAGE question?? No real value but occupies the media.
Actually, its a little remembered fact that the US Constitution actually only forbids Congress from establishing an official religion. The individual states are actually free to do so according to a literal reading of the Bill of Rights. Of course, most state constitutions forbid it but technically if they wanted to they could...papasmerf said:The Founding Fathers made it illegal for the Government to establish an official religion.
