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

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

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.

R/R will do away with the HHS mandate.
I have heard no other “change” in this.

 

[He_Man]

Whether or not the HHS mandate violates the religious freedom clause of the US Constitution will be adjudicated in the United States Supreme Court. The Bishops would very much like to avoid this, because there is every possibility that if it gets that far, they will loose. They would much rather have the mandate overturned legislatively - which is why SOME bishops are having letters like this read to their congregations.

Fortunately, Cardinal Sean O’Malley has not resorted to such tactics. This may be because there are some election issues that are MORE IMPORTANT than the HHS mandate. In Massachusetts, we are battling a referendum on the ballot that would legalize physician assisted suicide and I am very glad that Cardinal O’Malley is putting all his political capital and gravitas behind efforts to get Catholics to vote against it.

Anyone who knows anything about the history of the Catholic Church will understand that this battle over the HHS mandate is a relatively minor chapter in the great battles between Church and State that have been fought over the last two millennium. We have heard calls for Crusades in the past and they have always been couched in the language of salvation. Whether this has always been justified is debatable. I for one do not believe the Albigensian Crusade was justified.

No matter what happens with regard to the HHS mandate, the Church will figure out a way to continue its mission. It always had and always will, because the Holy Spirit is with us.

One could argue the Church will survive physician assisted suicde and gay marriage laws passing too.

For that matter, we could pass a law that mandates a 90% on Whites. I’d survive, but that isn;t really the goal. And if the mandate stands, the lines of accepability has been moved.

The same with allowing Physician assisted suicde. I think as Catholics we need to take stands again both, not pick the one we see as worse.

 

[seekerz]

R/R will do away with the HHS mandate.
I have heard no other “change” in this.

How will he do that and keep coverage for pre-existing conditions? If healthy people are allowed to opt-out without penalty, how can we force insurance companies to accept the already sick? My bet is that if Romney wins, he will continue moving toward the center and will embrace his brain child (Romneycare).

 

[He_Man]

Faith first and that applies to politicians as well.Check out an examination of conscience on line or at your local parish.One of the issues that is listed is:Have I participated in or helped someone procure an abortion? Pelosiand Biden et all are complicit in an indirect way by supporting abortion.By the way I heard a Catholic dr speak out on this issue.His statement is the right to life is the most fundamental of our rights as humans.To take that right away through abortion,deprives that life of all other liberties.

By Bellas logic, who were we to say that Hitler wasn’t Catholic. technically, he was baptized.

 

[rlg94086]

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?

No one is looking at giving a zygote the “same rights as a born person.” And, no, every miscarriage will not need to be investigated as a criminal case. You are making outrageous claims to excuse your pro-choice party and politicians.

We are talking about a basic right to live. That is the only right that we are looking to protect at the zygote level. Banning substances and medical procedures that purposely prevent implantation or cause an abortion is all that is being asked.

 

[He_Man]

If the standard is “complicit in an indirect way” by failing to use the power of government in a tyrannical fashion to impose your will upon people who are not Catholics and do not share our beliefs about life - then Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are indeed complicit.

However, “complicit in an indirect way” also means you will have to add Paul Ryan to your list of politicians, since his economic policies would lead to more abortions.

So you don’t support tyrannical laws that help the poor then? Or just with regards to abortion? And do you also perceive my states of Maryland’s odd position of banning rape as tyrannical?

All laws are tyrannical, by your apparent definition. They all FORCE something on a person.

 

[He_Man]

Moral Law, properly understood, is never tyranny. There have always been those people marginalized, be the Jews, Blacks, women, etc. as less deserving of protection under the law. You and Obama are only different in the ones you choose to marginalize as less than people. People use to think it was a matter of choice if a slave owner choose to kill a slave. Now Democrats are willing to do the same thing based on age.

I disagree with you as to who the real tyrants are.

WHat you say isn’t true if you are a Democrat first, and Catholic second. (or Republican, either).

Natural law, Catholic teachings, and the individual’s soul get sacrificed for party lines.

 

[seekerz]

No one is looking at giving a zygote the “same rights as a born person.” And, no, every miscarriage will not need to be investigated as a criminal case. You are making outrageous claims to excuse your pro-choice party and politicians.

We are talking about a basic right to live. That is the only right that we are looking to protect at the zygote level. Banning substances and medical procedures that purposely prevent implantation or cause an abortion is all that is being asked.

Please refrain from the personal attacks. Looking at the solid substance of your posts, there is no need to stray from the subject matter.

Banning substances that prevent implantation is, at best, a theoretical goal as science has been unable to prove that contraceptives DO prevent implantation. The politics and passion surrounding that topic make it very unlikely that the ***scientific ***verdict on this possible mode of action will ever be accepted by both sides. IMO then, it should be left to women (and their consciences/beliefs) to use or not use contraceptives.

 

[He_Man]

Tyranny is an attribute that can only be applied to a person or institution that has power. A government can act as tyrant over many, a slave owner can act as tyrant over a few, and a pregnant women can act as tyrant over her unborn child.

So which form of tyranny is better or worse? Unlike every other marginalized group (Jews, Blacks, women, etc) - the unborn are NOT members of society. In order to protect them, the government must have the authority to violate the bodily integrity of every woman of childbearing years - otherwise, how can anyone know if there is a person inside?

This is a real problem to which no good solution has yet been provided. I do not endorse tyranny of any kind - but neither can I sit idly by and do nothing. That is why I support what I see as the lesser of two evils - a government that does not act as tyrant, but instead acts to mitigate the factors (social & economic) that compel individual women to kill their children. I believe this is the best strategy, because I believe God designed women for this task, which means it is against a woman’s nature to act as a tyrant over her unborn babies.

Well this is a complete load of hogwash. Enjoy Fantasia.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Well this is a complete load of hogwash. Enjoy Fantasia.

Can’t disagree.

 

[LisaA]

So you don’t support tyrannical laws that help the poor then? Or just with regards to abortion? And do you also perceive my states of Maryland’s odd position of banning rape as tyrannical?

All laws are tyrannical, by your apparent definition. They all FORCE something on a person.

Yes this is the only way the pro-aborts can justify their position. I was listening to Teresa Tomio last week and she was discussing the canard “I can’t inflict my viewpoint (life) on others!” So she posited the theory that a candidate has a platform that it’s OK to steal or assault others…would opposing him be “inflicting my viewpoint” on others?

Well of course EVERYONE agrees stealing and assault are wrong…but as Tomio said, it’s only because most of us can imagine this happening to US and therefore recoil in horror at the thought. Abortion couldn’t happen to us so we have (as a society) no real vested interest in protecting unborn life. After all we’ve made it through the birth canal.

The whole position is from a selfish and self centered basis. Abortion is truly the most selfish act of all, the complete antithesis of the self giving self sacrificing Love of Christ.

How anyone who KNOWS the truth can still support abortion is a mystery to me.

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

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.

How? By supporting a man who needs his campaign to remind him of the pro-life agenda?

I’d rather join you in actually saving the lives of the unborn - something no politician in recent times seems able to do. My interest then, is not in men who are useless in that regard, but in impacting the real decision-makers (the women) with the love and the Gospel of Christ.

 

[LisaA]

How? By supporting a man who needs his campaign to remind him of the pro-life agenda?

I’d rather join you in actually saving the lives of the unborn - something no politician in recent times seems able to do. My interest then, is not in men who are useless in that regard, but in impacting the real decision-makers (the women) with the love and the Gospel of Christ.

Fine you may not be able to depend on Romney to push through your agenda with respect for life. But you DO KNOW WHAT OBAMA WILL do and it is horrific.

I get heartily sick of the excuse that well if Candidate A isn’t perfect I might as well vote for Candidate B who is a known abortion supporter, supporter of gay marriage, who will nominate pro abortion judges, who is at war with the Church.

Makes perfect sense

Lisa

 

[rlg94086]

Please refrain from the personal attacks. Looking at the solid substance of your posts, there is no need to stray from the subject matter.

Banning substances that prevent implantation is, at best, a theoretical goal as science has been unable to prove that contraceptives DO prevent implantation. The politics and passion surrounding that topic make it very unlikely that the ***scientific ***verdict on this possible mode of action will ever be accepted by both sides. IMO then, it should be left to women (and their consciences/beliefs) to use or not use contraceptives.

Okay…I’m willing to compromise. I will accept a complete ban on all confirmed abortions and abortificants at all stages of life. Done. Now, we can all move on.

So…let’s see, which party and politicians are closer to Church teaching on abortion? …that’s a roughy…

 

[seekerz]

Fine you may not be able to depend on Romney to push through your agenda with respect for life. But you DO KNOW WHAT OBAMA WILL do and it is horrific.

I get heartily sick of the excuse that well if Candidate A isn’t perfect I might as well vote for Candidate B who is a known abortion supporter, supporter of gay marriage, who will nominate pro abortion judges, who is at war with the Church.

Makes perfect sense

Lisa

What difference does either candidate’s abortion stance make to the women who choose abortion? IMO, the direct effect is exactly zip.

Indirectly, based on the REASON women choose to abort, one set of policies may or may not have a greater impact than the other.

 

[seekerz]

Okay…I’m willing to compromise. I will accept a complete ban on all confirmed abortions and abortificants at all stages of life. Done. Now, we can all move on.

So…let’s see, which party and politicians are closer to Church teaching on abortion? …that’s a roughy…

Closer to the teachings? Are you familiar with the parable of the two brothers, the one who said “yes, Dad” and proceeded to disobey and the one who rebelled but eventually obeyed? It is not those who say “Lord, Lord”. Actually doing good is all that matters, not whose theology is sparkling clean.

 

[bellasbane]

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.

That’s not unlike the question of “Who is my neighbor?”. I guess it depends on where you set the boundaries of your society. The Church sets no boundaries - the Communion of Saints extends across time to include both the past, present and future Church. However, the Church Militant recognizes political boundaries as valid and the powers of temporal authority as real but limited. That’s the way it has always been.

I get your point and it’s a good one. However, there is a difference between a generally applicable distinction (every human is either born or unborn) and an arbitrary social or cultural distinction such as religion or skin color, when deciding who falls under the temporal jurisdiction of a political entity. For example, an American citizen who travels abroad must rely on the local government for protection and is subject to their laws for as long as they are “inside” that country (unless they are diplomats with immunity).

There is also the degree of invasiveness that is required in order for a government to exert its authority. This is really what the debate over reproductive rights (which includes but is not limited to abortion rights) is all about for most people. Nobody likes the idea of abortion so we should be building upon that common ground in order to find solutions and it should be Christians who take the lead. The tactic of labeling people “pro-abortion” is divisive and uncharitable - which must please Satan very much since it means we waste a lot of time arguing semantics instead of coming up with solutions.

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?

I said the integrity of the body, not the body itself. How would the government “force” a man to work? Would dead-beat dads be put into chain gangs? That would be interesting.

Taking away privileges like a driver license is not really forcing anyone to do anything. As for garnishing wages, well the government is responsible for ensuring the universal destination of goods, which takes precedence over personal property - so no, I have no problem with that.

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.

We certainly need to do something about it! We need to create a better society.

 

[Mar044]

Closer to the teachings? Are you familiar with the parable of the two brothers, the one who said “yes, Dad” and proceeded to disobey and the one who rebelled but eventually obeyed? It is not those who say “Lord, Lord”. Actually doing good is all that matters, not whose theology is sparkling clear.

umm what parable was that…i know most of them, reference?

 

[seekerz]

umm what parable was that…i know most of them, reference?

Matthew 21:28-32

 

[Mickey]

I’d rather join you in actually saving the lives of the unborn - something no politician in recent times seems able to do.

The next president may appoint as many as three supreme court justices. If Obama gets re-elected, legalized abortion will be the law of the land for many more decades. We can start saving lives by making it illegal for women to kill their babies…then they will truly have a choice…a choice as to whether or not they want to break the law to kill their baby.

Please join me in firing the the extreme pro–death Obama.

It is you who will have to live with your conscience and face the fearsome judgment seat of Christ.