Can you be both Catholic and liberal?

[ManOnFire]

Thanks for clarifying, ManOnFire. I am now corrected! In my previous state of ignorance I had actually thought that lust, desire for drugs (Oxycontin, for example?), sin, materialism, and consumerism were flaws that had nothing to do with partisan politics, but affected many human beings regardless of their political affiliation. But now I see that it is the liberal media who is enabling our continuing materialism, not the advertising agencies hired by the manufacturers of the goods themselves. But of course, these advertising agencies and manufacturers must all be liberals as well, I see that now. It’s all part of a grand Satanic conspiracy, no doubt!

I’m sorry if I was a little over the top. I find it hypocriticial that some groups, especially the liberal media, who “claim” to want to help humanity are profitting from humanity’s reduction. They have the free will to choose a return to true love, romanticism, and the beauty of innocence, but they won’t.

 

[estesbob]

Cardinal Burke is not in schism from the Church, he has a dissenting opinion which is limited to the way a person may vote. The Magesterium does not teach us we may not vote for a pro choice candidate under any circumstances. .

So you would have us believe that the Pope recently elevated to the college of cardinals a Bishop who listened sent with the teachings of the Catholic Church? Iit appears you have a novel definition of dissent, that is any Church Official who disagrees with your political views is a disenter. . This somewhat ties in with your novel definition of socialism, that is that when the church roundly condemned socialism they were really talking about conservatism.! What we are seeing in your posts is the kind of mental gymnastics Archbishop Chaput talks about pro-choice Catholics having to go through to rationalize their rejection of church teaching.

. By the way you said that some of the people I quoted previously were in schism awith the church… Can you tell us which the people I quoted are in schism with the Church?

I do not believe the GOP are pro life at all, I believe they are pro love of money at the expense of human life and human dignity and that they falsely claim to be against abortion and are pro life in order to get the Catholic vote. This is self evident when GOP "pro life governor Jan Brewer sentance 99 Arizona residence to death when she cut off their funding for organ transplants. Three have already died. That’s euthenasia! Not one GOP president has ever saved 1 baby from abortion. Not one democrat candidate has ever forced a woman to have an abortion. However, GOP congressman Bob Barr forced his misstress to have an abortion in 1998. The GOP has allowd more then 45,000 people each year to die from the health care system we just overcame. My vote saved those lives. I made the prudential judgment that voting Democrat will save not only those 45,000 lives every year, but will dramtically reduce abortion because the new health care law forces all private health care comnpany’s participatingto drop their abortion coverage. My vote was completely motivated by supporting human life and human dignity.

Well now this is interesting as you seem to be saying that the church is in schism with itself! The church rejected the very same health care bill that you claim support of would give one proportionate reasons to vote for pro-abortion canidate!!!

The fact that some pro-life individual in the past may have greviously sinned in no way justifies you voting for pro-abortion candidates.By the way the 45,000, figure is bogus and it really hurts your credibility by quote a figure that has been so widely debunked. , even if it were it would in no way constitute a proportionate reason to vote for pro-abortion candidate, , especially, again, as a health care bill you claims gives one proportionate reason was opposed by the church.

washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/sep/17/junk-science-expert-sounds-alarm-insurance-study/

Women are not being forced by the government or pro choice candidates to have abortions, they freely choose to have them and the free market freely chooses to provide them. Only women can prevent abortions by choosing not to have them.

. So if the free market allowed women to kill their toddlers when times got tough you would support that? Is it your contention that anything that is legal must therefore be moral and a Catholic can in good conscience support any candidate that supports something that is legal whether it is condemned by the church are not?

The voting choices are to be made by individual Catholics who have a well informed conscience and make prudent choices. Bishops cannot tell us how to vote. If that were the case then there would have been no need to publich faithful citizenship which you clearly reject and IS the official position of the Catholic Church. They would have instead printed a leaflet that said, Catholics are prohibited from voting for pro choice candidates for any reason. And yes there are plenty of Catholic Bishops who would agree that my reasons were proportionate and valid or else I would have been barred from the sacraments long ago. Finally, neither Catholic Bishops, the Pope, or the Magesterium are condemning President Obama, instead they are working with him and praying for his leadership to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Something I am quite certain you are not doing.

You keep claiming that you have all these bishops that support your stance but yet you have not been able to quote a single one of them. I don’t reject Faithful Citizenship, I reject your twisting of what it said to try to support your support of pro-abortion candidates. . You simply cannot reconcile your novel interpretation of this document with the clear concise statements of numerous members of the Magestrium no

You are correct that the Church is nor condemning Obama-they are condeming his support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand and those who empowered him to persue this anit-life agenda

 

[Faithdancer]

I’m sorry if I was a little over the top. I find it hypocriticial that some groups, especially the liberal media, who “claim” to want to help humanity are profitting from humanity’s reduction. They have the free will to choose a rn to true love, romanticism, and the beauty of innocence, but they won’t.

No problema ManOnFire! I think the media in general is driven by ratings and profiteering. The station managers, network programmers, advertising directors, etc. have to sell us on watching, listening to, or reading their programming, or sell us goods and services. I don’t know the breakdown of the poltical party membership of these people, I just don’t think we can say that it’s only the “liberal media” which is driven by profit margin. Whatever their party membership, people in the news or entertainment media can’t let their consciences interfere too much with their work. If they refuse to work on advertising, a publication or program that they consider immoral, I think they will likely be replaced by someone who is either less principled or more willing to sacrifice their personal principles to earn a paycheck, which amounts to the same thing.

I know a dancer who told me that “there are a lot of Christians in Hollywood.” My feeling is that sooner or later, any devout Christian in Hollywood or any other media-driven job market is going to face the choice of either compromising their principles or going hungry. This is sad, but again I think it’s a moral issue, not a political party-affiliation issue.

 

[davidmlamb]

David, you’ve mentioned this in a few threads on here. I’m very curious about where it comes from. I have not read the entire “obamacare” bill (but then again, neither did any of our legislators before they voted on it), so I don’t know everything that is included in it. However, I’m highly skeptical that it would do anything which makes abortion more difficult or more expensive to obtain for the simple fact that if it did, there would have been all sort of groups- NOW, NARAL, the Democratic Party, etc would have been fighting against the legislation tooth and nail instead of supporting it.

Can you please elaborate on what exactly you believe new law does regarding abortion?

Pax

I will be happy to Dan, “Obamacare” is correctly known as “The Affordable Health Care Reform Act 2010.” Basically what the new law does is prevents anyone who purchases a government subsidized health care plan from receiving any elective abortions services that policy may have otherwise provided. HOWEVER, the person may elect to privately purchase a rider for abortion. This was the entire beef that took place during the Health Care debate with respect to the Bart Stupak Amendment. The Stupak Amendment would have made it even illegal to privately purchase an abortion rider.

The USCCB argues that this is not an adequate safeguard because a subsidized healthcare plan will make it affordable to purchase a rider policy and therefore this constitutes an indirect funding of abortion. I reject this argument because it’s just nonsense. We could equally argue that because a poor person gets a 5000 dollar tax credit they could use that money to purchase an abortion and therefore tax payers are indirectly funding abortions through tax credits. The arguments are the same. Can it happen? YES! But so can abortions happen even if it is against the law with the death penalty attached. The law REASONABLY makes safeguards against abortion and even more difficult to obtain. That should be good enough to support the common good.

Bart Stupak compromised with the Senate to include in the new health care law further federally mandated laws that restricts abortions. The bill then received enough votes to passinto law. This in turn outraged both sides of the fence. The right wing branch claimed that now abortions will become rampant as the government will take over health care and open up abortion mills and have death panels to kill off grandma! The left likewise cried foul saying that this was a direct attack on women’s right to choose and now women will be forced to back alley abortions. The whole thing was outrages rhetoric.

The USCCB however are AGAINST overturning the entire law. They are in favor of most of the law but they want amendments in the law to better safeguard abortions. The Bishops also have a concern which I believe is legitimate. The new law also makes it illegal for undocumented workers to purchase health care in the United States. This is outrageous because it denies the humanity of a certain class of people in such a way that it directly affects their safety and threatens their lives. The right wing argues back that tax payers should not have to pay for the health care of illegal immigrants.

But Catholics must always defend human life from natural conception to natural death regardless of ones immigration status and therefore tax payers have a duty to not only fund the subsidized health care of these people but also pay for their children’s education and even their secondary education if this is the only country they have ever known AND they lack the economic resources. These are all fundamental natural rights for all people.

Pax Vobis,

David

 

[estesbob]

But Catholics must always defend human life from natural conception to natural death regardless of ones immigration status and therefore tax payers have a duty to not only fund the subsidized health care of these people but also pay for their children’s education and even their secondary education if this is the only country they have ever known AND they lack the economic resources. These are all fundamental natural rights for all people.

Pax Vobis,

David

You are advancing the bogus seamless garment philosophy which is not the teaching of the church. no issue or a combination of issues trumps abortion. And regardless of how you try to twist the teachings of the church to align with your political philosophy the church did not support Obamacare and strongly protested his recent ruling forcing businesses to cover contraception and the morning-after pill for their employees

 

[davidmlamb]

David, the problem with the application of your “sympathies” is that it deconstructs your Church’s unified, coherent, and integrated view of sexuality. You don’t have the option of pulling it apart this way. The Bishops (not one or two, but speaking together, as a conference) have been united and explicit on the disapproval Catholics must share even in civil unions for same-sex couples, given its promotion of a lifestyle which you agree belongs as a formally approved sexual privilege to a man and a woman in a genuine (not pretend, not artificial, not socially constructed) marriage…

I disagree with your assesment that the totality of my position is neccassarily at odds with the Church. I would characterize my position more as “conflicted.” There is a battle going on in my heart, my sympathetic concience and the recent USCCB expansion that further prohibits how we should think and feel. Prior to the gay marriage issue we were to oppose the act of homoexuality. Prior to the rising of gays coming out of the closet we were NOT TO PRACTICE homosexuality. So the Church has crossed the line from our personal chastity to opposing the free will choices of others. I have a hard time with this. I don’t neccassarily reject it, I am simply conflicted. That is why I made it very clear that sex outide of marriage is a serious sin and a violation against chastity.

But it remains that people do form family units outside of marriage and some even have children together. The Church needs to work with these people the way they work with divorced and remarried couples coming back into the Church. Regardless of the sins of any group of people they are still endowed with natural rights which includes health care and agape love (not to be confused with sexuality). The woman caught in the very act of adultery was by virtue of the Law of Moses REQUIRED to be stoned to death. There was no loophole in the Law, it was rigid and the Pharisees and Scribes were then the ecclesiastical “Bishops” in charge of God’s sheep. They were the successor’s of Moses and had a duty to uphold the Law of God. But God himself came down from heaven and showed sympathy and mercy to the woman. God violated his own law! So what is the message here? The Laws of God are governed by love and mercy and from love and mercy comes justice and peace.

Pax Vobis,
David

 

[davidmlamb]

You are advancing the bogus seamless garment philosophy which is not the teaching of the church. no issue or a combination of issues trumps abortion. And regardless of how you try to twist the teachings of the church to align with your political philosophy the church did not support Obamacare and strongly protested his recent ruling forcing businesses to cover contraception and the morning-after pill for their employees

Well we can banter this back and forth until the second advent but that would be unfruitful. I believe that I have presented the overwheming evidence to support my case. But we can let our readers take a look at our arguments as well as the evidence presented and make up their own minds who is presenting the truth here and who is using one intrinsic evil as a means to ignore, promote, or show indifference to other intrinsic evils that violate human life and human dignity.

In the Service of Christ and His Church,
David

 

[Elizabeth502]

I disagree with your assesment that the totality of my position is neccassarily at odds with the Church. I would characterize my position more as “conflicted.”

In which case, it’s at odds , because Church teaching requires a comprehensive understanding and application of sexuality, reproduction, marriage, and family. If your view is conflicted, your view is misaligned, by definition. Sorry about that.

There is a battle going on in my heart, my sympathetic concience and the recent USCCB expansion that further prohibits how we should think and feel.

It doesn’t say anything about we should feel. It does say, as does Catholic moral theology for all time say, that our thinking should be done with our intellect and will. In fact our hearts are directed, by that very Cathechism, to be sympathetic and compassionate. But compassion does not translate into legal support.

Prior to the gay marriage issue we were to oppose the act of homoexuality. Prior to the rising of gays coming out of the closet we were NOT TO PRACTICE homosexuality. So the Church has crossed the line from our personal chastity to opposing the free will choices of others.

No, The Church has actually registered increased compassion, not decreased compassion, over time, especially recently. It has said nothing about the free will of secular homosexuals, and has vigorously opposed hateful activity among those who so identify, and against unjust discrimination (the explicit wording of which is right there in the catechism). It has said that Catholics are not, respective to the Catholic view of marriage and sexuality, to support legal arrangements which deconstruct traditional marriage, or encourage such deconstruction --by expansion, by redefintion, by claiming that a “parallel marriage” is occurring, by claiming that sexual fidelity between homosexuals (“monogamy”) sanctifies an intrinsically evil act, and by claiming that repeating that act over and over (“commitment”) sanctifies it. Maintaining the singular acceptance of traditional marriage as a social good is not an unjust form of discrimination, but a valid societal distinction which supports the rights of children to parents of both genders and which encourages the balanced, heterosexual family unit as the essential building block of a civilized society.

I have a hard time with this. I don’t neccassarily reject it, I am simply conflicted. That is why I made it very clear that sex outide of marriage is a serious sin and a violation against chastity.

That’s good.

The Church needs to work with these people the way they work with divorced and remarried couples coming back into the Church.

They are working with them. That’s why there are things called gay ministries in various parishes, to assist those who seek to live a chaste life despite their attractions. That’s why there’s the organization Courage. That’s why there are posters on this forum who have lived through that lifesytle, and been able, with the help of much grace, to liberate themselves from it and are now in a better place spiritually and psychologically. (By their accounts.)

Regardless of the sins of any group of people they are still endowed with natural rights which includes health care and agape love (not to be confused with sexuality). The woman caught in the very act of adultery was by virtue of the Law of Moses REQUIRED to be stoned to death. There was no loophole in the Law, it was rigid and the Pharisees and Scribes were then the ecclesiastical “Bishops” in charge of God’s sheep. They were the successor’s of Moses and had a duty to uphold the Law of God. But God himself came down from heaven and showed sympathy and mercy to the woman. God violated his own law! So what is the message here? The Laws of God are governed by love and mercy and from love and mercy comes justice and peace.

The Church also loves with agape love, which is to desire the highest good for individuals, for the sake of their salvation. Love is not condemnation, but neither is it permission. The Church is not condemning; she is not permitting or enabling. (Different things.)

 

[estesbob]

Well we can banter this back and forth until the second advent but that would be unfruitful. I believe that I have presented the overwheming evidence to support my case. But we can let our readers take a look at our arguments as well as the evidence presented and make up their own minds who is presenting the truth here and who is using one intrinsic evil as a means to ignore, promote, or show indifference to other intrinsic evils that violate human life and human dignity.

In the Service of Christ and His Church,
David

We’re not bantering. I am posting direct quotes from members of the magisterium and from church documents and you are posting your opinion as to what the teachings are/should be. You have chosen to let your Faith be formed by your political views and this has caused you to reject core moral Church teachings on abortion and homosexuality. . I know I’m not going convince you as being you already admitted voting for Obama last time around and are not going to admit you did so in direct opposition to Church teaching. But for of those lurkers please go back and review this thread and review the voluminous documentation posted by those of us affirming church teachings have provided as opposed to your personal interpretation of with the teaching should be

If you do prayerfully examine your position start with questioning whether dislike of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity , et al can in anyway be construed as a proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. You might want to consider that when the Church condemned socialism and communism those are not codewords for conservatism and the Republican Party. . You might want to consider whether a health care law that forces Catholic business owners to go against the teachings of the church on contraception can in anyway be construed as a pro-life position by those doing the forcing. You might want to ask yourself how increased social spending and universal health care benefits those who are denied the right to life. . To be blunt, your position is untenable for a Catholic.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You are advancing the bogus seamless garment philosophy which is not the teaching of the church.

It is not anti- the teaching of the Church either. If it were, Cardinal Bernadin’s cause for canonization wouldn’t have gotten even this far; he would have been rejected out of hand as advancing a “bogus” theology. Here, folks, is the crux of Seamless Garment:

All life is sacred, beginning with conception, but not ending there. All life must be protected. At no point along this continuum must we abandon life. We cannot say, “I am for this phase of life, but not for that phase of life.” Cardinal Bernadin did not present points after conception as superior to conception, but rather acknowledged that both Catholic teaching in its entirety, and the gospel from which that teaching emerged, supports all life. There is nothing opposed, in that explanation, to Catholic moral theology.

I’ve posted the citation for his positions before; I’m too lazy to do it again. Just know (David), that there is nothing in Bernardin’s theology that reduces the importance of abortion “just because” the sequence of life is also important. That is not what Seamless Garment refers to. It refers to (as the phrase suggests) a whole, a comprehensive support of life and life issues.

Now, when it comes to voting decisions, I am not getting into that fray because frankly there is very little to applaud, i.m.o., in the viable candidates to date. The vast majority of the electable ones are anti-life on at least one point along that spectrum, if not many points.

 

[estesbob]

It is not anti- the teaching of the Church either. If it were, Cardinal Bernadin’s cause for canonization wouldn’t have gotten even this far; he would have been rejected out of hand as advancing a “bogus” theology. Here, folks, is the crux of Seamless Garment:

.

the seamless garment theory as expressed by those trying to justify their support of pro-abortion candidates is indeed a bastardization of the teachings of the church.

 

[AHapka]

But it remains that people do form family units outside of marriage and some even have children together. The Church needs to work with these people the way they work with divorced and remarried couples coming back into the Church. Regardless of the sins of any group of people they are still endowed with natural rights which includes health care and agape love (not to be confused with sexuality). The woman caught in the very act of adultery was by virtue of the Law of Moses REQUIRED to be stoned to death. There was no loophole in the Law, it was rigid and the Pharisees and Scribes were then the ecclesiastical “Bishops” in charge of God’s sheep. They were the successor’s of Moses and had a duty to uphold the Law of God. But God himself came down from heaven and showed sympathy and mercy to the woman. God violated his own law!

The Church does not “need” to do anything except what Christ orders her to do. Not me, not you, not any human power on Earth can tell her what to do.

God did not violate His own law, and by saying that He did you are accusing Christ of sin. This is a very serious accusation. Christ did not sin. He DID NOT reject the law. He asked that whoever was without sin should cast the first stone. Note that if Mary was present, she could very well have done so. Those who could have stoned her did not, and walked away of their own free will.

Christ came to FULFILL the law, not ABOLISH it. And, in any event, He can do what He wants, we cannot.

Also, please substantiate that “the Pharisees and Scribes were then the ecclesiastical “Bishops” in charge of God’s sheep.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

the seamless garment theory as expressed by those trying to justify their support of pro-abortion candidates is indeed a bastardization of the teachings of the church.

Actually, it’s the bastardization of Bernardin’s approach that is the problem, not the theological auhenticity of the Seamless Garment concept itself. There’s nothing unCatholic about Bernardin’s approach as he expressed it. Too many people on CAF have also bastardized it, by the way, and then condemned what he never said.

 

[davidmlamb]

I know I’m not going convince you as being you already admitted voting for Obama last time around and are not going to admit you did so in direct opposition to Church teaching…

It is disengenuous of you to say that Catholic Bishops told Catholics not to vote for Barack Obama. They cannot do that. Instead, they published Faithful Citizenship which anyone can download and read. When those who want to get to the truth of the matter do download it, than they will know it supports what I have been saying all along, and that is; we are called to the art of the possible which requires prudence and then we are to make a prudential judgement based on a well informed conscience. It further tells us they we are forbidden to use a candidates opposition to an intrinsic evil in order to promote, ignore, or show indifference to other matters of human life and human dignity which are being violated.

That is what estabob is doing and he even admitted it when he said nothing trumps abortion, which implies not even euthenasia. The Church does not teach that abortion is a greater evil then euthenasia. I believe that everytime someone who takes the rigid stance like estabob does and votes for a GOP candidate I believe such a person cooperate with the intrinsic evil of euthenasia. I believe this because euthenasia is something that can be immediately stopped and abortion is not. I believe it is clear from Church teaching that in order to restore justice from euthenasia and abortion there must be a gradual restoration of justice by the prudence of Catholic voters. We have stopped euthenasia with the new health care law, and now we work to improve the new health care law to end abortion. None of this would have been achieved had the GOP won the 2008 election. But thanks to the prudential judgment of 53% of the Catholic vote we have stopped euthenasia dead in its tracks.

We pray for President Obama to understand the gravity of abortion and that he will change his heart. I believe his hearft is already changing. FOCA has not even been an issue anymore and President Obama agrees that we need to work to reduce abortion. This is a great start. The key here folks is prudence.

The art of the possible and prudential judgment should inform our conscience that it is possible to immediately end euthenasia thus partially restoring justice. And then we can continue to fight to end abortion. We do not ignore, or show indifference to euthenasia in order to end abortion when it is within our immediate grasp to end euthenasia but not within our immediate grasp to end abortion.

I am wondering estabob if you are in union with the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church or the SSPX?

But for of those lurkers please go back and review this thread and review the voluminous documentation posted by those of us affirming church teachings have provided as opposed to your personal interpretation of with the teaching should be.

YES lurkers please take a look at all 2 of those “voluminous” documents estabob cited with no Nihil Obstat-Imprematur stamped on them and then take a look at the citations from Faithful Citizenship, which was written by the United States Catholic Bishops collectively and received an “Nihil Obstat-(name removed by moderator)rimatur” from the Vatican and then download the document and read the entire book (which takes about 40 minutes).

Pax Vobis,
David

 

[davidmlamb]

In which case, it’s at odds , because Church teaching requires a comprehensive understanding and application of sexuality, reproduction, marriage, and family. If your view is conflicted, your view is misaligned, by definition. Sorry about that.

It doesn’t say anything about we should feel. It does say, as does Catholic moral theology for all time say, that our thinking should be done with our intellect and will. In fact our hearts are directed, by that very Cathechism, to be sympathetic and compassionate. But compassion does not translate into legal support.

No, The Church has actually registered increased compassion, not decreased compassion, over time, especially recently. It has said nothing about the free will of secular homosexuals, and has vigorously opposed hateful activity among those who so identify, and against unjust discrimination (the explicit wording of which is right there in the catechism). It has said that Catholics are not, respective to the Catholic view of marriage and sexuality, to support legal arrangements which deconstruct traditional marriage, or encourage such deconstruction --by expansion, by redefintion, by claiming that a “parallel marriage” is occurring, by claiming that sexual fidelity between homosexuals (“monogamy”) sanctifies an intrinsically evil act, and by claiming that repeating that act over and over (“commitment”) sanctifies it. Maintaining the singular acceptance of traditional marriage as a social good is not an unjust form of discrimination, but a valid societal distinction which supports the rights of children to parents of both genders and which encourages the balanced, heterosexual family unit as the essential building block of a civilized society.

That’s good.

They are working with them. That’s why there are things called gay ministries in various parishes, to assist those who seek to live a chaste life despite their attractions. That’s why there’s the organization Courage. That’s why there are posters on this forum who have lived through that lifesytle, and been able, with the help of much grace, to liberate themselves from it and are now in a better place spiritually and psychologically. (By their accounts.)

The Church also loves with agape love, which is to desire the highest good for individuals, for the sake of their salvation. Love is not condemnation, but neither is it permission. The Church is not condemning; she is not permitting or enabling. (Different things.)

You’ve made some very good points here Elizabeth and I appreciate them. I don’t dissagree with anything you are saying. I should also mention that I am aware that the Church has ministries for the gay community and that the Church has increased its compassion. I see it in practice everyday. I suppose it is more the rhetoric that disturbs me. I understand that I am not wiser then the Church when it comes to matters of faith and morals. I trust their judgment even when I struggle with them for lack of understanding or acceptance. it is simply a matter of being human. But in the end I am so happy to be united with the Church and have the benefit of their divine guidence.

Pax Vobis,
David

 

[Elizabeth502]

Post 822:
David, if it’s any consolation, I do think that a lot of other Catholics make similar prudential voting judgments, often weighing the possible and realistic vs. the extremely unlikely scenario. We are not required to “throw away” our vote.

 

[davidmlamb]

The Church does not “need” to do anything except what Christ orders her to do. Not me, not you, not any human power on Earth can tell her what to do.

God did not violate His own law, and by saying that He did you are accusing Christ of sin. This is a very serious accusation. Christ did not sin. He DID NOT reject the law. He asked that whoever was without sin should cast the first stone. Note that if Mary was present, she could very well have done so. Those who could have stoned her did not, and walked away of their own free will…

Christ came to FULFILL the law, not ABOLISH it. And, in any event, He can do what He wants, we cannot…"

I dissagree with your conclusion that I am saying Christ sinned. But it is true however that the Law of Moses (the Bible of Jesus time) required the adulteress to be put to death (Leviticus 20:10). There was no provision in the law that allowed the adulteress to be set free if others in the community were NOT without sin. So God did in a sense violate the law of Moses. However the “violation” of the law of Moses was in truth a fulfillment of it. When scripture tells us that Christ came to fulfill the law and not abolish it, He means he came to establish and mediate a new covenant which sets aside the Old Covenant (Hebrews 8). So Jesus did not so much “violate” the law but instead he set the law aside for a new and better covenant rooted in love and mercy. The wrath and justice of God for sins was met in Jesus death on the cross at Calvary which brings us divine mercy. Jesus showed the adulteress divine mercy which trumps the law.

Also, please substantiate that “the Pharisees and Scribes were then the ecclesiastical “Bishops” in charge of God’s sheep.”

They were!

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. Matt 23:1-3

The Pharisees and the Scribes were the leaders of the Sanhedrin and they were the successors of Moses. Jesus however took the keys away from Israel and gave it to Saint Peter and the Church. The Bishops are the successors of the Apostles who were proceeded by the successors of Moses.

Peace,
David

 

[davidmlamb]

Actually, it’s the bastardization of Bernardin’s approach that is the problem, not the theological auhenticity of the Seamless Garment concept itself. There’s nothing unCatholic about Bernardin’s approach as he expressed it. Too many people on CAF have also bastardized it, by the way, and then condemned what he never said.

Which means that estobob is the one who has been twisting the teachings of the Church by using Bernardin writings out of context to make them appear to be saying that abortion was a more serious sin then euthenasia or any other intrinsic evil. Shame on you estabob! But I forgive you for all the slanderous accusations you made against me.

David

 

[AHapka]

They were!

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. Matt 23:1-3

The Pharisees and the Scribes were the leaders of the Sanhedrin and they were the successors of Moses. Jesus however took the keys away from Israel and gave it to Saint Peter and the Church. The Bishops are the successors of the Apostles who were proceeded by the successors of Moses.

Peace,
David

That I never noticed/realized. Thank you.

 

[starshiptrooper]

…The woman caught in the very act of adultery was by virtue of the Law of Moses REQUIRED to be stoned to death. There was no loophole in the Law, it was rigid and the Pharisees and Scribes were then the ecclesiastical “Bishops” in charge of God’s sheep. They were the successor’s of Moses and had a duty to uphold the Law of God. But God himself came down from heaven and showed sympathy and mercy to the woman. God violated his own law! So what is the message here? The Laws of God are governed by love and mercy and from love and mercy comes justice and peace.

Honesty compells me to be very blunt. Your interpretation of this section of the Bible is ridiculous and irreverent. God does not and will not contradict His Own rules. Jesus Himself said that He did not come to destroy the Law or the prophets.

When the Pharisees dragged the woman to Jesus, they were not concerned about upholding the Law, they simply wanted to trap Jesus. John acknowledges this in his Gospel. If Jesus said, “Stone her,” the Pharisees would be claim that Jesus was usurping the authority of the Roman authorities, who were the only people with the power to execute offenders. However, if Jesus said, “Don’t stone her,” the Pharisees would claim He was not God’s messanger, for God would not encourage disobedience to His Own Laws.

Therefore Jesus, turns the trap around with His brilliant answer the equivalent of a one-two punch. First, He acknowledges that the woman deserves to die, and if any of the Pharisees wants to start the execution, he is more than welcome to. Now, the Pharisees are stuck with the problem they tried to stump Jesus with.

Second, when John wrote down Jesus’ answer, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” he used the Greek word ‘Αναμαρτητος’ for sin. ‘Αναμαρτητος’ means, “the same kind of sin,” so in reality, Jesus said that any Pharisee free from the the sin of adultery could proceed with the execution. (bible.cc/john/8-7.htm) Thus, Jesus pointed out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in a very public and embarassing way. They had no authority to condemn this woman, they were guilty of the same crime themselves.

Soundly beaten, the Pharisees left the scene.

To sum it up, Jesus was not making an exception to His rules, He was only escaping the trap set for Him by His foes.