Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

Nov 26th 2012 new

Who is more poor and marginalized than an unborn child whom owns nothing, has no person-hood (in the eyes of the law), has no voice with which to speak out, has no vote with which to make a difference in the laws and has parent/s who are more intent on solving a "problem" than taking proper care of their child? Gosh.... It seems that the unborn are really on the bottom rung of the ladder when it comes to the need for some "social justice".


Allen, give me a break... If you support a candidate that provides absolutely no help to our unborn U.S. citizens (and those around the world, through the U.N) and in fact makes it easier to kill them, then please don't delude yourself and try to mislead everyone else by pretending to support "social justice". This is the most fundamental of all social justice issues. In my opinion, what you just wrote is complete, stupid, utter nonsense. No one can seriously think that they are supporting "social justice" while at the same time hastening the death of unborn human beings. Perhaps anyone with such cobwebs in their head (believing such nonsense) should rehearse the story/rationalization that they will give to St Peter at the "Pearly Gates" should they meet their Maker within the next day or so. I don't think the story/rationalization will hold much water. Do you?


Ed

Nov 26th 2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: Hi Katherine,Nice to meet you. Okay, that's enough small talk.It doesn...
(Quote) James-17080 said:



Hi Katherine,

Nice to meet you. Okay, that's enough small talk.

It doesn't matter any more. Romney lost, and that's it. Geesh, the election was over almost 3 weeks ago, and there's still the wailing and gnashing of teeth. I've been here since 2003, and I haven't seen anything like this.

James ☺

--hide--



Don't try and lead people astray, James. I've been around quite awhile myself. I remember years and years of President Bush haters. The scandalous name calling of a sitting President was absolutely appalling. In comparison, the conservatives are pretty respectful of Obama. I'm sure even you can understand the upset considering the intrinsically evil platform he ran on. It matters! Many of us won't get over it until he is out of office in four years.

Nov 26th 2012 new

(Quote) Laura-56149 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: Hi Katherine,Nice to meet you. Ok...
(Quote) Laura-56149 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:



Hi Katherine,

Nice to meet you. Okay, that's enough small talk.

It doesn't matter any more. Romney lost, and that's it. Geesh, the election was over almost 3 weeks ago, and there's still the wailing and gnashing of teeth. I've been here since 2003, and I haven't seen anything like this.

James ☺





Don't try and lead people astray, James. I've been around quite awhile myself. I remember years and years of President Bush haters. The scandalous name calling of a sitting President was absolutely appalling. In comparison, the conservatives are pretty respectful of Obama. I'm sure even you can understand the upset considering the intrinsically evil platform he ran on. It matters! Many of us won't get over it until he is out of office in four years.

--hide--



Hi Laura et alia,

I don't lead anybody astray. I've been around here a long time too, maybe longer than you. I started out as a Bush supporter (Lord have mercy!), and then watched as Bush did one stupid thing after another. A total screw-up.

Let me ask you this question: Do you think that I and others who voted for Bush (twice!) are guilty of a mortal sin?

James ☺

Nov 26th 2012 new

I personally believe he cares about everything that his children do...and then he cries. He does not want us to suffer and yet as humans we inflict pain on those we feel are wrong calling them murderers! Do you truly believe an 18 year old college freshman who is too afraid to tell her family wants to end her baby's life...Hell No! But she is alone, overwhelmed and scared...who amongst us will help her to save her baby and her soul.

Nov 26th 2012 new

Obama voters are democrats(for the most part). Obama's platform is no different then that of other democrats. They have always supported the poorest among us. They give voice to the millions who feel alienated from main society and they give hope that life will get better. We are no longer a socieity of white males, we are a diverse nation with different beliefs. I think alittle more tolerance and compromising would build a stronger nation. jan

Nov 26th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: I expect then, that you did not vote for Mr. Romney, since more babies would die if he ...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



I expect then, that you did not vote for Mr. Romney, since more babies would die if he were elected, too.

The fact is, there is no sin in material aid. Matters of material aid are matters of prudential judgment. Voting is not an intrinsically evil action, therefore, it cannot be treated as sin in and of itself. That being the case, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church deftly points out, one has to look to the intention and circumstances to judge the morality. If the action is committed with gravely evil intention, the action is rendered extrinsically evil and grave sin by intention. This is where formal aid comes in to the discussion, because by formal aid, the agent unites his intention and will to a grave evil.

Driving a car is not evil, the material is not evil.

Driving a car to kill a person is evil, the form (i.e., intention) is evil.

Another fact is that no one yet has had the chutzpah enough actually to run a campaign upon the premise that no longer will the policies of the US government favor baby murder, that one will reverse Roe v. Wade, and that one will criminalize the act of abortion.

Until that happens, by your reasoning, a self-professed Catholic cannot vote in a popular presidential election, since more babies will die even if a candidate who is merely apathetic in regard to abortion ascends to the office of President.

--hide--

I like the way you write.. if more people could formulate thoughts the way you do, they would realize if they have a cogent argument or not. biggrin thumbsup thumbsup

Nov 26th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: I expect then, that you did not vote for Mr. Romney, since more babies would die if he ...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



I expect then, that you did not vote for Mr. Romney, since more babies would die if he were elected, too.

The fact is, there is no sin in material aid. Matters of material aid are matters of prudential judgment. Voting is not an intrinsically evil action, therefore, it cannot be treated as sin in and of itself. That being the case, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church deftly points out, one has to look to the intention and circumstances to judge the morality. If the action is committed with gravely evil intention, the action is rendered extrinsically evil and grave sin by intention. This is where formal aid comes in to the discussion, because by formal aid, the agent unites his intention and will to a grave evil.

Driving a car is not evil, the material is not evil.

Driving a car to kill a person is evil, the form (i.e., intention) is evil.

Another fact is that no one yet has had the chutzpah enough actually to run a campaign upon the premise that no longer will the policies of the US government favor baby murder, that one will reverse Roe v. Wade, and that one will criminalize the act of abortion.

Until that happens, by your reasoning, a self-professed Catholic cannot vote in a popular presidential election, since more babies will die even if a candidate who is merely apathetic in regard to abortion ascends to the office of President.

--hide--


Your logic is a bit flawed, Chelsea. I stand by my opinion. I posted my findings below in another thread, but I think it might support my opinion here.

" Though I am not holding out Wikipedia as the premier source for issues of the Church, it was the easiest to find. Wikipedia has the following listed as those excommunicated in association with abortion: The Archbishop of Olinda and Recife in Brazil, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, announced the automatic excommunication of the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion after being raped and impregnated by her stepfather.[28][29] Margaret McBride, a nun, for allowing an abortion.[30] McBride later reconciled with the church and is no longer living in a state of excommunication. All the Catholics and legislators who promoted the abortion law in Uruguay.[31][32][33]

If the Church is consistent, then we should see excommunications of those who promoted the abortion law in the U.S. and politicians who promote abortion. I am not a betting person, but if I were I would bet the greater portion of our Church leaders do not have the backbone to stand by Church law on the issue of excommunication anymore than they did on instructing the faithful on where the Church stood during this election."


You are welcome to your opinion, Chelsea, as are all of us. Mine just differs from yours.


- Elizabeth

Nov 26th 2012 new

(Quote) Elizabeth-462557 said: Your logic is a bit flawed, Chelsea. I stand by my opinion. I posted my findings belo...
(Quote) Elizabeth-462557 said:



Your logic is a bit flawed, Chelsea. I stand by my opinion. I posted my findings below in another thread, but I think it might support my opinion here.

" Though I am not holding out Wikipedia as the premier source for issues of the Church, it was the easiest to find. Wikipedia has the following listed as those excommunicated in association with abortion: The Archbishop of Olinda and Recife in Brazil, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, announced the automatic excommunication of the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion after being raped and impregnated by her stepfather.[28][29] Margaret McBride, a nun, for allowing an abortion.[30] McBride later reconciled with the church and is no longer living in a state of excommunication. All the Catholics and legislators who promoted the abortion law in Uruguay.[31][32][33]

If the Church is consistent, then we should see excommunications of those who promoted the abortion law in the U.S. and politicians who promote abortion. I am not a betting person, but if I were I would bet the greater portion of our Church leaders do not have the backbone to stand by Church law on the issue of excommunication anymore than they did on instructing the faithful on where the Church stood during this election."


You are welcome to your opinion, Chelsea, as are all of us. Mine just differs from yours.


- Elizabeth

--hide--


I'm willing to address the flaw if you're willing to point it out, Elizabeth.

It doesn't seem to me that the excommunication of people who profess to be Catholic has anything to do with what we were discussing, though. Mr. Mitt Romney is not even baptized if he's mormon, so excommunication wouldn't apply to him. Also, as far as I know, Mr. Barrack Obama is not baptized either...so what does the information lend to the discussion?

Also, Can. 1398 in Canon Law does not need a subsequent authoritative statement to come into effect. So whether the Bishops pronounce an excommunication or not, if one who is baptized and professing to be Catholic procures a completed abortion, one is excommunicated latae sententiae. That means that the Legislator (i.e., the Pope) has already tried the crime and pronounced sentence on those who commit the crime. The censure occurs "ipso facto," that is, by the fact of commission of the crime. You have eyes to see. Use them; don't jump all over the Bishops for matters of prudential judgment.

None of this has anything to do with opinion, but rather objective fact. Who cares what my opinion is? It lends no credence to what I am saying, and therefore, I've not brought up my opinion.

Nov 26th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: I'm willing to address the flaw if you're willing to point it out, Elizabeth.
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



I'm willing to address the flaw if you're willing to point it out, Elizabeth.

It doesn't seem to me that the excommunication of people who profess to be Catholic has anything to do with what we were discussing, though. Mr. Mitt Romney is not even baptized if he's mormon, so excommunication wouldn't apply to him. Also, as far as I know, Mr. Barrack Obama is not baptized either...so what does the information lend to the discussion?

Also, Can. 1398 in Canon Law does not need a subsequent authoritative statement to come into effect. So whether the Bishops pronounce an excommunication or not, if one who is baptized and professing to be Catholic procures a completed abortion, one is excommunicated latae sententiae. That means that the Legislator (i.e., the Pope) has already tried the crime and pronounced sentence on those who commit the crime. The censure occurs "ipso facto," that is, by the fact of commission of the crime. You have eyes to see. Use them; don't jump all over the Bishops for matters of prudential judgment.

None of this has anything to do with opinion, but rather objective fact. Who cares what my opinion is? It lends no credence to what I am saying, and therefore, I've not brought up my opinion.

--hide--


I thought Obama had been baptized by Rev. Wright, but I just did some googling, and it turns out you are right. Obama was NEVER baptized. He made a profession of faith, but there was no Baptism. And, according to the article I read, one did not have to be baptized to become a member of Rev. Wright's church. Here is a link to the article:

www.aim.org

Nov 26th 2012 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: I'm willing to address the flaw if you're willing to point it out, Elizabeth.
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



I'm willing to address the flaw if you're willing to point it out, Elizabeth.

It doesn't seem to me that the excommunication of people who profess to be Catholic has anything to do with what we were discussing, though. Mr. Mitt Romney is not even baptized if he's mormon, so excommunication wouldn't apply to him. Also, as far as I know, Mr. Barrack Obama is not baptized either...so what does the information lend to the discussion?

Also, Can. 1398 in Canon Law does not need a subsequent authoritative statement to come into effect. So whether the Bishops pronounce an excommunication or not, if one who is baptized and professing to be Catholic procures a completed abortion, one is excommunicated latae sententiae. That means that the Legislator (i.e., the Pope) has already tried the crime and pronounced sentence on those who commit the crime. The censure occurs "ipso facto," that is, by the fact of commission of the crime. You have eyes to see. Use them; don't jump all over the Bishops for matters of prudential judgment.

None of this has anything to do with opinion, but rather objective fact. Who cares what my opinion is? It lends no credence to what I am saying, and therefore, I've not brought up my opinion.

--hide--

Under certain circumstances and specified acts, excommunication is automatic. If one were willing to spend the time, they could sit here and list all the "catholic" politicians who have incurred automatic excommunication. Most Catholics don't understand that and the usual cast of characters either do not know or they don't care.

The critical point is that they have performed their acts publicly while still claiming to be properly and full practising Catholics. They thereby lead too many of their fellow Catholics as well as all the non-Catholics to believe that the Church is not serious about these matters.

Their sin is so public and so much in your face Church and Bishop defiance. We know Pelosi's Bishop has spoken to her privately (even the Pope did so and after her Private Audience she lied about what was said) and I presume that so has Biden's and Sibelius's. But they continue their public and vocal defiance. At this point, a public excommunication by their Bishop should be made and every other US Bishop should sign on and let it be known that they will denied the Sacraments in their Sees and that any Priest who defies the formal excommunication will be summarily dismissed, unitil such time as the culprits properly reconcile with the Church.

The Church and the Bishops have suffered a serious blow to their credibility and moral authority as a result of the Priestly scandals. One of the ways they regain that lost ground is to take firm, public action. Not doing so continues to undermine themselves.

Posts 81 - 90 of 186