Abortion Vote Exposes Rift at a Catholic University

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arizona_Mike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This simply demonstrates that the leadership of LMU does NOT strongly believe that the unborn are fully human beings. Can you imagine this same administration taking this stance:

“As a compromise to resolve recent controversies, LMU will discontinue our practice of matching employee donations to the KKK execution squad. We will, however, continue to allow employees to choose to donate a portion of their own pay and will process that choice via our direct deposit program. We respect the diversity of opinion of our faculty and while such actions violate principles of catholic morality, academic freedom and diversity cannot be compromised in the name of catholic doctrine.”

Of course not. The only way you can defend such a policy is if, deep down, you don’t really believe unborn children (or black people in the above example) are human beings like the rest of us. It’s appalling how many people who ought to know better still demonstrate by their reasoning that they don’t recognize what abortion IS.
 
I feel at least like I am a somewhat liberal person. I feel the Holy Father is on the right track. For example, my stepbrother is gay. He has told me that he would have never made this choice given the chance. He spent most of his life being very unhappy fighting it until he just accepted the fact he was born that way. He is a very devoted Christian. He had no choice in his situation. As a segway, I must mention that he has had one partner for years and is monogamous. What matters here is he has chosen the Catholic way. His conduct in his daily life reflects Catholic virtues as set forth by the Holy Father of the Catholic Church. I think of him as being a whole person and accept him fully.

When a student chooses a Catholic or even a Baptist University his or her faith is not held against them. That is NOT carte blanche for things like promiscuity, on campus drag shows, abortions or pro-choice demonstrations. Just because you invite a non-family member into your house does not mean they are exempt from your example of what you expect.

I went to a Baptist college for one of my degrees. They took other faiths with no problem. But when it came to on campus conduct, there was no discussion at all. You chose the institution along with the rules and traditions that came with it. Why should a Catholic institution be any different.
 
Well, LMU made the choice to open its student body up to everyone (not just traditionalist Catholics). By signing up, students were under no expectation to follow the Catholic Church’s teachings on contraception. Thus, LMU has no right to force its students and faculty to adhere to these rules.
So following Catholic teaching has become an issue of contract for them and for you?

How sad. 😦

If you’re willing to support so many anti-Catholic teachings on these grave matters, it is high time for you to seriously **consider not receiving Communion. **

Furthermore, you need to dump this idea that Pope Francis is some kind of progressive as your posting title heading suggests and you need to stop hiding behind that to live contrary to Catholic teaching.

Catholics would do well not to label the Holy Father with American political philosophies.
 
As a segway, I must mention that he has had one partner for years and is monogamous. What matters here is he has chosen the Catholic way. His conduct in his daily life reflects Catholic virtues as set forth by the Holy Father of the Catholic Church. I think of him as being a whole person and accept him fully.
GLBTQ folks are called to chastity and need to bear their cross accordingly. They do not need to deny who they are.

Have one gay partner is not the norm for that particular sexual lifestyle, and homosexual acts are grave matters in Catholic teaching.
 
Why is this up for debate? My understanding was that LMU, as a large employer that receives federal funding (government student loans, etc), has to comply with the contraception mandate.

Only religious institutions like churches and seminaries are exempted
But my understanding is that certain insurance plans are exempted, like Medi-Share and such. I don’t know the exact legalities to comment further.
LMU does not self-insure and is not part of the RETA Trust. Also, just FYI, under California law, the Catholic Church does not meet the criteria definition of “church.”

The religious freedom issue that’s happening in our nation now has some connection to what has happened in California in a March 2004 California Supreme Court decision.
Q: What could this ruling mean for other Church organizations, especially Catholic hospitals?
Dolejsi: The Catholic Charities case is the first time anyone can find in legal research where a state has compelled a religious entity to actually fund something to which its has a moral objection. I think it is important to emphasize that there were and are ways for society to accomplish its goals without infringing on the religious freedom of others. Such a compromise was worked out prior to the passage of this law and could be revisited again.
To date, other religious organizations have already been affected by similar rulings. Beginning January 1, 2000, unless an institution met the very narrow definition of a religious organization, it could not purchase prescription drug coverage that did not contain contraceptives in its formulary.
**A “religious employer” is defined as an entity for which each of the following is true: The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity; the entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity; the entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity; and the entity is a nonprofit organization according to certain state and federal tax codes.
That means Catholic social services, Catholic health care and Catholic institutions of higher education were defined as “secular” and subject to the contraceptive mandate.
**
The bishops, realizing the enormity of this breach of religious freedom, supported Catholic Charities of Sacramento Incorporated as the plaintiff in the effort to get the Women’s Contraceptive Equity Act [WCEA] enjoined.
Since 2000, those impacted Catholic institutions have continued to offer their employees prescription-drug coverage.
In a few cases, the insurance company was willing to practice “civil disobedience” and provide a contraceptive-free drug plan. In most cases, the Catholic institutions, unwilling to drop all coverage for pharmaceuticals, have provided the mandated plan with the caveat that it was "under duress."
zenit.org/en/articles/when-a-catholic-institution-is-told-to-pay-for-contraception

More info: youtube.com/watch?v=t0cf_-72xp0
 
Well, LMU made the choice to open its student body up to everyone (not just traditionalist Catholics). By signing up, students were under no expectation to follow the Catholic Church’s teachings on contraception. Thus, LMU has no right to force its students and faculty to adhere to these rules.
*** Maybe it’s just me, but you sure do appear to have an unusual bias against traditionalists!..a sampling…***
LiberalPrincess said:
This article touches at what I have found to be EXTREMELY disrespectful behavior by (some) traditionalist Catholics with regards to Francis’ recent remarks.
If I recall from this past summer, traditionalists tried very hard to hold back equal rights under the State for gays and lesbians, citing religious beliefs. If this isn’t theocratic behavior, what is?
I LOATHE the terms ***traditionalists ***use to label others like “Cafeteria Catholic” and “Catholic in Name Only (CINO)”

It is uncharitable and It reeks of judgmentalism, holier-than-thou-ism, and everything else.
40.png
LiberalPrincess:
***Traditionalists ***need to stop this hostile “enemies of the church” language. I find it uncharitable. Just because one disagrees or has questions about a certain aspect of Church teaching does NOT make you an “enemy” to be looked upon with suspicion or disgust.

You do not see Pope Francis using this type of tone or language to describe others, whether they disagree with him or not.
And then there are those traditionalist Catholics who believe the USA should be turned into a theocracy. Separation of Church and State anyone??
I think it is incredibly disrespectful when (some) ***traditionalists ***try to spin Pope Francis’ interviews and words, saying “this is what he REALLY meant” to say. I think his words are crystal clear, and we should heed his wisdom.
Peace, Mark
 
*** Maybe it’s just me, but you sure do appear to have an unusual bias against traditionalists!..a sampling…***

Peace, Mark
And I’m sure you don’t have any unusual bias against progressives!:rolleyes:
 
Providing the plan is indirect participation even though no university money pays for it.

I agree with the spokes person’s analogy of, “I can’t give you a ride to the abortion clinic, but let me call my brother to bring you so my hands will be clean.” This is a farce.
Dr. Kaczor’s analogy is great. As an LMU graduate student, even though ethics is really not my main area, I am definitely hoping I get to take a class with him, or Dr. Hannick, who sort of set this whole thing off and has several very outspoken pro-life bumper stickers on the outside of his office door. The analogy that immediately sprung to my mind was with Pontius Pilate. The University is essentially (and almost literally, if you really understand what they’re doing) saying “We are innocent of these children’s blood; see to it yourselves.” It really is the worst possible outcome, because they are affirming that abortion is wrong, yet not wrong enough for them to actually do anything substantial about it. The only charitable thing I can really say about this is that the university administration was kind of taken by surprise with the whole situation, which is understandable because it was confusing how everything started out. My understanding is that the university had asked the insurance company to stop abortion coverage before(at least in the 90s), and had been told that there were no legal options. Then, when one of the philosophy professors asked them to look into it again this year, they found out that the insurance company had already dropped the coverage. I don’t know exactly why, but I guess the legal situation changed and they followed university’s earlier requests and just stopped the coverage without asking again. At this point, I think administration was just going to leave things as they were then. I heard from someone sort of involved (an assistant to someone fairly high up in the administration) that the university president really did not expect all the controversy, figuring that Catholicism is against abortion, so why would people have a problem with a Catholic university ending abortion coverage? Of course, however, there was a backlash from faculty, some of whom really did care about abortion specifically, while others I think were just annoyed that the university had just suddenly changed their health insurance without consulting or in some cases even telling them about it. So they were taken by surprise, and rather than make a stand for the truth, they would rather compromise and allow evil to continue as long as they can view themselves as technically not culpable for it.
And what is even worse about this is that the university is trying to spin this as a pro-life decision. This is clear in the coverage of the issue in the school paper. When the decision was made, the headline about it only said that abortion coverage was ended. This ignores the compromise part, where the university is setting up a third-party coverage option so that elective abortion will still be covered but just not with university money (though the university is still directly cooperating in setting up this coverage and choosing a plan), and thus for people who only glance at the headline, they get the false impression that this is a pro-life decision. I also find it interesting that, given it is clear that both pro-abortion and pro-life people are angry about the decision, they only ran two opinion pieces on the issue, one against the decision for pro-abortion reasons, and one supportive of the decision for pro-life reasons, but nothing expressing the pro-life objections. And really, it is hard to find anything truly pro-life about the decision, especially when one remembers that it is only elective abortions at issue. The university will still pay for “therapeutic abortions”(a phrase I find particularly unsettling), not to mention contraception.

What the decision really comes down to, and the essentially problematic nature of it is made clear in the editorial written in support of it. The editorial first states that:
“The message from President David W. Burcham and Board of Trustees Chair Kathleen Aikenhead highlighted that “the right to life and dignity for every human being is a fundamental part of Catholic beliefs.” I was glad that this message underlying the decision put LMU in solidarity with Jesuits across the United States. It reminds us that the Church’s stance on abortion is not merely an arbitrary decision to control people’s choices. It is a social justice issue that stems from its duty to uphold the right to life, a right that begins at conception. Therefore, the Board’s decision is a logical step from this—it ensures that LMU does not claim to stand for one thing but practice something else”
Which is of course a good goal. To claim to stand for Catholic teaching on life and then go out of your way specifically to help people oppose these teachings would be rather hypocritical. However, later in the article, it is stated that:
“The option of the Third Party Administrator-managed plan, which will cover elective abortions at a slightly higher premium, indicates that the University does not seek to limit people’s choices.”
And here we come to what the whole decision amounts to. Behind all the pro-life rhetoric the university put forth in justifying this decision, all they really did was make certain abortions slightly more expensive than they were before. I am dissapointed, yet unfortunately not shocked, that this decision to make abortion slightly more expensive is what university president David Burcham means when he talks about his desire to “reaffirm LMU’s commitment to its Jesuit/Marymount and Catholic heritage and faithfulness to the Catholic Church’s core teaching on the dignity of every human being at all stages of life.” It is a farce indeed.
 
For reference, here is the full statement issued by LMU on the issue. It sounds great as long as you don’t read past the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. And in case you were wondering, yes, they do drag Pope Francis in to try and support themselves.
Message from the President
October 7, 2013
Dear Members of the LMU Community:

The Board of Trustees of Loyola Marymount University met on campus this afternoon for its Fall 2013 meeting. During the meeting, we discussed the healthcare coverage issue that emerged late in the summer.

First, we want to thank the many members of the community who wrote to us individually, signed joint letters, and engaged in the various processes for discussing this issue that took place on campus. Although the initial process unfolded in a way beyond our control and was not perfect, we received over one hundred comments representing many different points of view. All trustees received copies of everything that was submitted. These comments were very helpful to our discussion and deliberations. We want to assure you that we took these comments seriously.

When we learned that LMU had, for the first time, been given the option to exclude elective abortions from its principal health insurance plans, we decided that the governing board of LMU should address this difficult issue. We did so because we take very seriously our fiduciary role as guardians of LMU and, particularly, upholding its Jesuit/Marymount and Catholic identity, mission, history and tradition. We acknowledge that the issue of abortion is extremely complicated and encompasses varied and competing values that often leave no one happy. Nonetheless, we believe that the right to life and dignity for every human being is a fundamental part of Catholic beliefs (all other rights flow from this primary right to life and dignity), and that this vision needs to be evidenced in LMU’s policies and procedures.

Thus, the Board decided that LMU’s principal insurance plans in 2014 will not provide coverage for elective abortions. All other aspects of reproductive health coverage will remain the same. We will continue to cover therapeutic abortions, contraception and other forms of reproductive care mandated by the State of California. The rates for the principal LMU plans will be set based solely on the benefits provided under those plans.

Further, a Third Party Administrator (TPA)-managed plan will be available. The TPA will be selected very shortly in order to facilitate an alternative. The TPA-managed plan will cover elective abortions, for which an employee will pay a slightly higher premium. The employee will be responsible for the entirety of the cost associated with this additional coverage and, thus, no LMU dollars will be used in paying for this additional coverage.

Human Resources will be in touch with all faculty and staff within the next 10 days with details of the principal LMU plans and information about how one can select the alternative TPA-managed plan. Employees will be able to choose their desired coverage during the open enrollment period that begins October 28, 2013. As is always the case, the selection of health coverage is confidential and the disclosure of such information to anyone is prohibited by law.

Moving forward, the Board has asked that this decision be discussed by the University Comprehensive Benefits Committee and that their consultation be reported to the Board as LMU looks ahead to the benefits that will be available for 2015 and beyond.

In this decision, we join the Jesuits in the United States and their many works (as evidenced in their 2003 statement Standing for the Unborn) and reaffirm LMU’s commitment to its Jesuit/Marymount and Catholic heritage and faithfulness to the Catholic Church’s core teaching on the dignity of every human being at all stages of life. In doing so, however, we also want to reaffirm clearly that we are a university in which diversity, academic freedom, free discourse, unencumbered pursuit of truth and engaged debate on important contemporary issues are part of our very nature and key to our success.

As many of you know, last month in an interview in America magazine, Pope Francis, when asked about the Ignatian ideal of thinking as it relates to the Church said, “The Church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people. We must not reduce the bosom of the universal church to a nest protecting our mediocrity.” This is true even more for us because we are a university. And we have long ago committed to this vision. There is no litmus test for membership in the LMU community. We are a rich and thriving Jesuit/Marymount and Catholic university because we are committed to forming a community of scholars, educators, personnel, and talented students from every faith and background who can join us in carrying out our mission of academic excellence, educating whole persons, serving faith and promoting justice.

Finally, we are deeply grateful to each of you for all of your hard work in enhancing LMU. We look forward to a rich and rewarding academic year 2013-2014.
 
*** Maybe it’s just me, but you sure do appear to have an unusual bias against traditionalists!..a sampling…***

No…it’s not you. The so-called "liberals’, “progressives”, or whatever they choose to label themselves seem to forget a few things.

The Church is none of the above…it’s Catholic!!! One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic.
 
The so-called "liberals’, “progressives”, or whatever they choose to label themselves seem to forget a few things.

The Church is none of the above…it’s Catholic!!! One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic. And Furthermore, the Church is not part of the worldwide Anglican communion or the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States.

Many people, in the Church, seem to lose sight, of the fact, that there must be a balance between the “dogmatic” & the “social” Gospel.

And lastly…there is no compromise with TRUTH. This revealed TRUTH, which Jesus Christ, gave to St. Peter & the Universal Church is NOT negotiable. There is no compromise with TRUTH. This revealed TRUTH from Jesus Christ is what seperates the Catholic Church from other Christian Churches. The Church is not a democracy where you vote on what is TRUTH & what isn’t. There’s NO compromise with this TRUTH because it may not be politically correct. TRUTH does not change with time or changes according to what’s may or may not be popular, at the time.

The bottom line is…you’re either Catholic or you’re not!!! 1+1=2, in the days of Christ, and 1+1=2 today. If you reject any of the church’s dogmas or doctrines, you cease to be Catholic.

Thank You
 
And I’m sure you don’t have any unusual bias against progressives!:rolleyes:
And Pope Francis never said he was a “left winger” either.Are you saying that the Church is impotent in progress. Perhaps you should do some reading about Pope Francis. He fought abortion and same sex marriage intensely, while Archbishop of Buenos aires. You should also know that Pope Francis is not an advocate of “liberation theology”.

And I’m sure you know that he just ‘excommunicated’ an Austrialian priest for disobediance. His act was quite unusual, as this type of excommunication is usually reserved to the local Ordinary. So please, don’t put Pope Francis in the “left winger” camp until you know a little more about him.

Popes have surprised us all the time, throughout history.

PS: Pope Francis has always had a unique relationship with the Orthodox Catholic Church of the East. We, of course, could be called ‘conservative’ because we have, like our Latin brethren ‘conserved’ this TRUTH throughout the centuries.
 
Well, LMU made the choice to open its student body up to everyone (not just traditionalist Catholics). By signing up, students were under no expectation to follow the Catholic Church’s teachings on contraception. Thus, LMU has no right to force its students and faculty to adhere to these rules.
Just because they opened their doors to everybody, doesn’t mean they gave up their Catholic identity.

I’m sure they’re not trying to enforce anybody to accept Catholic teaching. They’re just not promoting sin.
 
What an amazing excerpt this is (my emphases for irony and tributes to stupidity below):
But the*** potential*** end of abortion coverage has sent a collective shiver
through much of the faculty,
*who fear *that it could also signal the
end of an era in which non-Catholics have been wholeheartedly welcomed by the university and professors
have enjoyed the academic freedom to teach theories that do not necessarily accord with Catholic doctrine.
Both sides, however, have come to view Monday’s vote as symbolic of a battle for the university’s soul.
“Loyola Marymount has always represented
tolerance,
diversity
and a welcoming atmosphere
where we can exchange ideas openly,”
said Laurie Levenson, a professor at the law school. “If this represents a shift in what it means for Loyola to be a Catholic university,
and being a Catholic university now means exclusion,
I think Loyola would lose something very special.
It could dramatically change
who’s attracted to the university and
what faculty want to be involved.”
PANIC in West Los Angeles Academia! What would we DO without someone else funding all the future abortions the present faculty must be (by deduction) already planning to have?

What a SHAM would higher education be if SUCH people were excluded (from their highly paid and perhaps protected via tenure jobs). Funded by students at the Catholic University often indebting themselves for years.

:rolleyes:
 
And I’m sure you don’t have any unusual bias against progressives!:rolleyes:
Not in the way that you might think. I must admit…to me at least, it would be a pretty frightening thing to be a progressive Catholic. Who for the most part, have huge disagreements with the Church and her teachings. That every time I’d open the CCC, I would read things such as this;
The Priesthood***

VI. WHO CAN RECEIVE THIS SACRAMENT?
1577*** “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.”***66 The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.68
Homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, ***which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”***142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
***Abortion ***
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
It would be to me a source of great sadness to receive Holy Communion, (if I should even be receiving at all under these circumstances) and know in my heart of hearts, that I’m ***not ***in communion with The Church. To my way of thinking, a great change would have to be in order…and that great change would unquestionably have to be…**me! **

Peace, Mark
 
Well, LMU made the choice to open its student body up to everyone (not just traditionalist Catholics). By signing up, students were under no expectation to follow the Catholic Church’s teachings on contraception. Thus, LMU has no right to force its students and faculty to adhere to these rules.
The school is not trying to say that students or faculty cannot use contraceptives or have abortions. (although as a supposedly Catholic university, it should) It is just saying (if this change passes) that they aren’t going to use money that comes largely from parents naively thinking they are paying for a Catholic education, to fund such choices.

There is no forcing of anyone to adhere to Catholic teaching. It’s just a matter of what choices are going to be subsidized.
 
And I’m sure you don’t have any unusual bias against progressives!:rolleyes:
The point is, you were the one who decried the use of name calling.
*
Originally Posted by LiberalPrincess View Post
I LOATHE the terms traditionalists use to label others like “Cafeteria Catholic” and “Catholic in Name Only (CINO)”

It is uncharitable and It reeks of judgmentalism, holier-than-thou-ism, and everything else.*

And yet you do it in attack mode in nearly every post. So does it bother you or not?
 
LIBERAL CATHOLICISM:

Psalm 31:19
How abundant are the good things that you have stored up for those who fear you, that you bestow in the sight of all, on those who take refuge in you.

Isaiah 33:15-17
He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly, who despises the gain of oppressions, who shakes his hands, lest they hold a bribe, who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed and shuts his eyes from looking on evil, he will dwell on the heights; his place of defense will be the fortresses of rocks; ***his bread will be given him; his water will be sure. Your eyes will behold the king in his beauty; they will see a land that stretches afar. ***

2 Corinthians 9:10
He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and ***increase the harvest of your righteousness. ***

Psalm 24:3-5
Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false and does not swear deceitfully. He will receive blessing from the Lord and righteousness from the God of his salvation.

John 14:21-24
Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him. Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and ***we will come to him and make our home with him. ***Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.

Matthew 6:33
But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

James 1:17
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

John 8:32
And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Psalm 1:1-3
Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that ***yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. ***

Philippians 4:19
And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

Psalm 37:9
For the evildoers shall be cut off, but those who wait for the Lord ***shall inherit the land. ***

John 10:
Truly, truly,I say to you, He that enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs in up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber…And when he puts forth his own sheep, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice…Truly truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.The thief comes only to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I have come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
 
PROGRESSIVE CATHOLICISM
Job 17:9
The righteous keep moving forward, and those with clean hands become stronger and stronger

Romans 5:3-4
We can rejoice, too, when we run into problems and trials, for we know that they help us develop endurance. And endurance develops strength of character, and character strengthens our confident hope of salvation.

Romans 8:28
And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them.

Galatians 6:9
So let’s not get tired of doing what is good. At just the right time we will reap a harvest of blessing if we don’t give up.

2 Thessalonians 3:13
As for the rest of you, dear brothers and sisters, never get tired of doing good.

James 1:12
God blesses those who patiently endure testing and temptation. Afterward they will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love Him.

Philippians 3:12-14
Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Hebrews 12
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

Romans 12:2
Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.”

2 Corinthians 5:1-21
For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top