Bishop orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tampa_Dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rlg94086 said:
Wow. Your parish priest told you voting for a pro-choice candidate is fine. I’m surprised…well, not really, there are a lot of priests who don’t follow the Church, unfortunately.

I am surprised that he told you that you are “in complete adherence to Church teaching.” I’ve never heard a priest say that to anyone. I’m guessing he will fast-track your cause for canonization after you die. 😛
Click to expand...
My priest told me that it anyone who condemns the determinations of my conscience (with regard to the candidates) is guilty of sin.
 
CrimsonFox said:
That’s horrible. It’s funny that someone talked about catholic teachings. How is voting for a Mormon promoting Catholic teaching?

Another thing is that they will now lose their IRS Exempt status, but if they are breaking that rule then it is welldeserved.
Click to expand...
You don’t have to be Catholic to promote moral, natural laws.

Our religious liberties come from God and are defined in the Bill of Rights. Obama has
circumvented those to shove the HHS Mandate down the throats of our Catholic institutions.

What will be well deserved is the long vacation Obama is going to have in Hawaii in January,
this time on his own nickle.🙂
 
seekerz said:
My priest told me that it anyone who condemns the determinations of my conscience (with regard to the candidates) is guilty of sin.
Click to expand...
I certainly haven’t. I’ve clearly stated that you are free to vote your ill-formed conscience. God gave you free will to vote for evil. 👍
 
seekerz said:
I’m asking a simple question. Disputing nothing until I see the stats. But I was thinking of the political strategy regarding abortion SINCE Roe v Wade, not the stats pre vs. post.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what information you want. My point was that making abortion cheap and easily accessible made it far more frequent. The statistics bear this out. Further your “coat hanger” theory is pure bunk. When abortion was illegal, the vast majority of abortions were performed by licensed doctors. So making abortion illegal, or at least restricting it substantially would not make women resort to self induced abortions.

I see no downside in promoting increasing restrictions on abortion while simultaneously focusing on education regarding fetal development, pain and human rights. With Obama this will not happen.

I thought your most recent strawman that I was blaming Obama for Roe was particularly hilarious.

As to your priest, wow is right. Since he knows your mind and knows you are in complete accordance with all Church teachings, he must be an extraordinary priest!
I’d put more faith in the Bishops and the CCC though.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
I have no idea what information you want. My point was that making abortion cheap and easily accessible made it far more frequent. The statistics bear this out. Further your “coat hanger” theory is pure bunk. When abortion was illegal, the vast majority of abortions were performed by licensed doctors. So making abortion illegal, or at least restricting it substantially would not make women resort to self induced abortions.

I see no downside in promoting increasing restrictions on abortion while simultaneously focusing on education regarding fetal development, pain and human rights. With Obama this will not happen.

I thought your most recent strawman that I was blaming Obama for Roe was particularly hilarious.

As to your priest, wow is right. Since he knows your mind and knows you are in complete accordance with all Church teachings, he must be an extraordinary priest!
I’d put more faith in the Bishops and the CCC though.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Which statistics Lisa, pre or post Roe v Wade?

I guess we just live in different universes: in this one, abortion as a legal, provider-related service is just a big issue because of the business it brings, but legal or not, it is accessible to most women because medical technology brings it within their reach. So I’m not sure what your point is about ‘coat hangers’ - we are light years past that stage. In case you didn’t catch that post, I already mentioned that even Third World women nowadays do ‘their thing’ at home and report to hospital pretending to be miscarrying. Open or hidden, abortion still takes lives so I don’t see the point of making that distinction.

In this day and age I’m not sure what unbreakable connection you see between abortion clinics doing business openly and women having abortions if they don’t want a child, but you’re welcome to your opinion. In the world where I live, the latter can be (and elsewhere is the world, often is) completely separated from the former.
 
rlg94086 said:
I certainly haven’t. I’ve clearly stated that you are free to vote your ill-formed conscience. God gave you free will to vote for evil. 👍
Click to expand...
I am not voting for evil, but I do find your insistence on repeatedly falsely accusing me as a tad…what shall I say? Disturbing?
 
seekerz said:
Which statistics Lisa, pre or post Roe v Wade?

I guess we just live in different universes: in this one, abortion as a legal, provider-related service is just a big issue because of the business it brings, but legal or not, it is accessible to most women because medical technology brings it within their reach. So I’m not sure what your point is about ‘coat hangers’ - we are light years past that stage. In case you didn’t catch that post, I already mentioned that even Third World women nowadays do ‘their thing’ at home and report to hospital pretending to be miscarrying. ***Open or hidden, abortion still takes lives so I don’t see the point of making that distinction.
In this day and age I’m not sure what unbreakable connection you see between abortion clinics doing business openly and women having abortions if they don’t want a child, but you’re welcome to your opinion. In the world where I live, the latter can be (and elsewhere is the world, often is) completely separated from the former.
Click to expand...
Yes abortion takes lives…millions of them. And I am not talking about the pregnant woman. You don’t see the point of making the distinction? You’re right we do live in different worlds. You seem to have this clinical view that the destruction of unborn life is not an issue, that it is more important women have access to “technology.”

Really what you want to see is complete freedom to act irresponsibly and have the baby suffer the consequences. If a woman doesn’t want a child, maybe she should not be having sexual relations…I mean what a concept! It amazes me that this theory is never even considered by the Democrats. It’s all about free birth control, abortions any time for any reason and preferably paid for by someone else. Abstinence is so old fashioned dontcha know!

Your priest has an interesting interpretation of the Church’s teachings if he confirms you are 100% in accordance.

Lisa
 
seekerz said:
I am not voting for evil, but I do find your insistence on repeatedly falsely accusing me as a tad…what shall I say? Disturbing?
Click to expand...
I’m sure you don’t find it nearly as disturbing, as I find your arguments to support voting for pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-euthanasia, pro-bloated bureaucracy candidates. 🤷
 
rlg94086 said:
I’m sure you don’t find it nearly as disturbing, as I find your arguments to support voting for pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-euthanasia, pro-bloated bureaucracy candidates. 🤷
Click to expand...
Then keep accusing me for exercising the right my Church upholds. I don’t need your approval for considering all the issues, the real effect of the candidate’s policies, and the extent of what my vote can realistically change. To each his own. I don’t find any amusement in playing judge of other people’s decisions of conscience…
 
LisaA said:
Yes abortion takes lives…millions of them. And I am not talking about the pregnant woman. You don’t see the point of making the distinction? You’re right we do live in different worlds. You seem to have this clinical view that the destruction of unborn life is not an issue, that it is more important women have access to “technology.”

Really what you want to see is complete freedom to act irresponsibly and have the baby suffer the consequences. If a woman doesn’t want a child, maybe she should not be having sexual relations…I mean what a concept! It amazes me that this theory is never even considered by the Democrats. It’s all about free birth control, abortions any time for any reason and preferably paid for by someone else. Abstinence is so old fashioned dontcha know!

Your priest has an interesting interpretation of the Church’s teachings if he confirms you are 100% in accordance.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Lisa, Lisa, what ARE you talking about? It’s not about what I want. It’s about the realities that exist beyond my protective little bubble.

We can go on about what women ‘should’ do and that won’t solve anything unless we take note of what they are doing and why, with a view to winning them over to the side of life. It always amuses me how people who champion life take the liberty of condemning others as supporting abortion simply because some see the issues differently.

You can search my forum posts: I unequivocally support the right to life from the moment of conception - I just DO NOT BELIEVE for a second that politicians have either the ability or the will to do much about it. Therefore, an candidate’s abortion stance is something I consider, but it does not decide my support. They should know that there is nothing much they can do about women choosing to abort but somehow that makes me wrong to call them on the obvious truth?

On the other hand, there is much that the Church as the Body of Christ can do…
 
bellasbane said:
You cannot attribute this to Barak Obama, who was 12 years old when Roe was decided. The worse you can say about him is that he is a product of a post “Roe” culture and society. Maybe that SHOULD frighten us, but not because Obama is who he is, but because we have failed to win over two generations of Americans.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney spent most of his political career supporting abortion rights and he is a lot older than Obama. His abortion legacy is much worse and I for one believe his 11th hour conversion is purely political. I would never put my faith in such a man.
Click to expand...
Romney is NOT going to change anything about the laws of abortion. And yes I agree with you that that man will say anything to get elected (and has) as he has changed his stanced on about everything thus far. So I guess maybe from that standpoint, nothing he says is a lie. 🙂

But for sure, he isn’t a pure prolife candidate. Granted I don’t know why people use abortion as the only issue there is to vote for.
 
pnewton said:
You do know Bush is not running, don’t you?
You just made a statement about rape and women! 😃 I think you miss the point. I am not in favor of choice for rape or abortion. How is that offensive?
Click to expand...
Sorry I wasn’t speaking to you specifically. My post merely came after yours. 🙂

As for Bush, I am referring to the policies of Bush that got us into this mess. He’s already said that he is going to do many things that Bush was famous for (which double our debt), especially the massive tax cuts to the rich.
 
seekerz said:
Then keep accusing me for exercising the right my Church upholds. I don’t need your approval for considering all the issues, the real effect of the candidate’s policies, and the extent of what my vote can realistically change. To each his own. I don’t find any amusement in playing judge of other people’s decisions of conscience…
Click to expand...
Absolutely. None of us should question or discuss anyone else’s thought processes and choices. Of course, it would be a pretty boring forum, if we did. :rolleyes: 😛

If you don’t like it, then don’t share your views. Practice what you preach…leave everyone to their own “conscience” and quit arguing. 🤷

I doubt you will… It’s easier to wag your finger at the rest of us, accuse us of judging you and let us know that your priest told you your views are in line with the Church and the rest of us are guilty of sin. I’m guessing you’ll continue to go that route…
 
seekerz said:
Comparing numbers is difficult because of the political nature of the issue and because exact statistics are hard to come by in the Third World, especially where women can be jailed for aborting.
Click to expand...
In other words, you are inventing justifications to support your jaded views.
seekerz said:
My personal experience is that women have them anyway:
Click to expand...
In other words, your subjective opinon somehow justifies your jaded views.
 
CrimsonFox said:
Romney is NOT going to change anything about the laws of abortion. And yes I agree with you that that man will say anything to get elected (and has) as he has changed his stanced on about everything thus far. So I guess maybe from that standpoint, nothing he says is a lie. 🙂

But for sure, he isn’t a pure prolife candidate. Granted I don’t know why people use abortion as the only issue there is to vote for.
Click to expand...
Because I don’t want to explain to God why I put my economic fortunes before the lives of children.
 
Mickey said:
I believe that you are.
Click to expand...
Wow that’s kind of rude there. Can you please not attack other people?
In any case you can take many statements and policies by Romney and Ryan and see evil there too. I think it all comes down to really educating ourselves about statements they make. 9And that doesn’t mean believing the sensationalistic decrees of Foxnews and such which is more a circus show).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top