R
rlg94086
Guest
That’s nice. Who is pushing this non-scientific theory? How does it pertain to Church teaching and proposed abortion restrictions. Is someone looking to restrict the destruction of sperm or ova?
Bishop orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
Which has nothing to do with Catholic theology which clearly deferentiates between the two.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
What about all the other issues? Gay “marriage” PB abortion? Funding of PP? Mexico City Policy?
S
seekerz
Guest
The CC is excluded from contraceptive coverage; it is Catholic institutions that are not. A negligible distinction perhaps, but an accurate one. Speaking of accuracy, no government anywhere, US included, gets to define the Sacrament of Matrimony - that is, and has always been, the prerogative of the Church. Sacraments are defined and administered only by the Church and civil marriage is not, to my knowledge, a sacrament.
But your comment on removing the word God from the Democratic platform is the most telling: do you seriously think that the word “god” used in a political context necessarily refers to the God we worship? Just recently, I heard Romney say that we are all children of the same God. Really? God as defined by which faith: his or mine?
T
TexCatholic4JMJ
Guest
You were not talking about sperm, you were talking about “fertilized egg”.
S
seekerz
Guest
I was simply commenting on the post, not taking a stance in the debate. I’m still examining what’s being said, exactly.
M
Mickey
Guest
Yes.
And Obama is supporting Homosexual “marriage” which is diametrically opposed to the Biblical definition of marriage as adhered to by the Catholic Church.
You are free to spin these isues however you like. We will all face the judgment seat of Christ.
P
pnewton
Guest
That is the position of the Democratic party toward the unborn, and the Nazis toward the Jews and the mentally ill, and many of the KKK toward blacks. They are not members of their society. Whether they are members of society only begs the question of who is a member of society.
Do you think the courts should have the right to violate men’s right to their body by forcing them to earn money and pay child support?
This is a real problem to which no good solution has yet been provided.
I do not know that I am not in somewhat agreement here. However, abortion also needs to be addressed. Why? *Because its most common use is that of birth control after the fact. * Women have not right to let this abhorrent practice continue to repeat over and over and over.
T
TexCatholic4JMJ
Guest
It has been the work of the Church through its institutions to do its social work without
The CC is excluded from contraceptive coverage; it is Catholic institutions that are not. A negligible distinction perhaps, but an accurate one. Speaking of accuracy, no government anywhere, US included, gets to define the Sacrament of Matrimony - that is, and has always been, the prerogative of the Church. Sacraments are defined and administered only by the Church and civil marriage is not, to my knowledge, a sacrament.
But your comment on removing the word God from the Democratic platform is the most telling: do you seriously think that the word “god” used in a political context necessarily refers to the God we worship? Just recently, I heard Romney say that we are all children of the same God. Really? I am not a citizen of Kolob, last I checked.
distinguishing its work for only catholics for 2000 years.
HHS mandate is an infringement of our religious liberty, period!
B
bellasbane
Guest
Listen carefully to the language you hear in Church even today about the role of Mary in the conception of Jesus and you will hear words that assume preformationism. It is ubiquitous. “Conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary” - What happened to Mary’s egg during conception - didn’t it have some role to play? The implications of modern science for Theotokos are fascinating given the fact that Mary is really, truly, 100% the mother of Jesus Christ - just like I am the mother of my two kids.
Nobody ever claimed that a baby growing inside a mother’s womb isn’t a person - but how we understand a fertilized egg today is no different than how people understood what a sperm was only a few hundreds years ago. You have to keep this in mind whenever you read anything about “conception” that was written before the 19th century, otherwise you’ll misunderstand what they mean.
I believe Human Life is sacred from the moment of conception and would like the whole world to believe that too. To me that is the “Good News” of Jesus Christ. That through the mystery of the Incarnation, God made the substance of our humanity sacred. Wow!
However, I do not believe that every method of spreading the Gospel is equally justified. I do not believe tyranny is an acceptable method. I believe we have better weapons in our arsenal.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
S
seekerz
Guest
A president can oppose gay marriage without legislating from the Bible (for example, Obama supported civil unions, before changing to support gay marriage). In all cultures (to my knowledge), throughout the ages, marriage has been between a man and a woman.
Yes, we will face judgment. That is why I am not in favor of generic ‘gods’ but rather the One, True, God.
E
estesbob
Guest
So just what exactly is this"fertilized egg"? i believe scientifically it is separate distinct human life. life that God has entrusted to 9 months to its mother. Being entrusted is not a license to kill
R
rlg94086
Guest
Scientifically, this is one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever heard. A “fertilized egg” is a new human being with distinct DNA. It is much different than a sperm. You may want to delve into the philosophical similarities, but those aren’t concerns for science.
From a scientific standpoint, what is existentially different between an implanted zygote and an zygote that has not yet implanted. They both have the same biological substance, do they not?
Now, when it comes to protecting these new human lives and viability, it is a very simple logic. If a zygote does not implant, it is miscarriage. The unborn human will not survive. If you use chemicals or other means to block implantation and therefore cause a miscarriage, you are purposely trying to prevent this new human life from surviving. That is an abortion.
R
RACJ
Guest
God bless Bishop Jenky! The letter could have added this punk talk warning from Obama’s chief counsel Valerie Jarrett. “After we win this election, it’s OUR turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us, and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded; the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over, and we have two judges ready to go.”
Do you suppose that most prominent on Obama’s enemies list is the Catholic Church? Are YOU as a Catholic STILL voting for this thug?
Rob
E
estesbob
Guest
Lot of bad science props up the politics of the left. You will hear the unborn compred to tumors, skin cells, parasites, etc. Every possible twist of words will be used to dehumanize the child and rationalize its killing.
E
epan
Guest
It seems that employment law trumps personal religious views in civil law. But, as I ponder this one, I wonder if this is because it is usually viewed from the side of the employee, who is free to either use a benefit or not. If an employer offers a contraceptive health care benefit, those employees which do not want to use it may choose not to.
It seems also, that with taxation, we all pay taxes for things which we do not personally support.
If Romney wins, who knows what will happen with the mandate. He changes his story by the moment. If Obama wins, then the HHS mandate is more likely to continue as is, unless tested in the courts.
Another issue with these bishops becoming more politically active, is the risk of their diocese losing tax exemption. I wonder how close they are to that. I doubt that the IRS would want to take them on, but a citizen’s group could push the issue.
S
seekerz
Guest
I’m having a hard time following this debate but so far this is what I’m getting: human life = a person. I’m not sure why the two are being equated. Human life is an objective, scientifically provable fact from the moment of conception. By constrast, like I was saying in another thread, human personhood is a social construct.
Does that distinction make the earliest forms of life less valuable? Most definitely: no! What it does do is recognize practical realities of what can and cannot be afforded a human life that is enclosed within another human.
I’m all about practical realities. If a zygote is afforded the same rights as a born person then each of the conceptions (50-70%, I’m told) which do not end in delivery of a term baby must be investigated as a criminal case? Really?
M
Mickey
Guest
Uh…yeah…he’s evolving.
Amen.
In that case, join me in helping to fire the man who champions the murder of God’s children in the womb.
- Status