Cruz Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t know why a Roman Catholic theology professor would claim that is not true?
Why did the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issue the following in their Declaration on Procured Abortion:

**“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. **There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent.”

It’s not my original teaching; it’s the Church’s. When the fetus receives a soul is the moment it become a “human being.” And Church teaching says no one knows exactly when that moment is.

No one doubts the soul is infused “immediately.” But “immediately” when? At conception? At implantation? At viability? At birth? Not one Church document has stated such. Write the National Catholic Bioethics Center. They will tell you exactly what I’m saying.
 
I don’t know why a Roman Catholic theology professor would claim that is not true?
I’m claiming what IS true. As I said, write the National Catholic Bioethics Center and ask them. They will tell you the Church has never, ever taught when the soul is infused. Never.
 
I’m claiming what IS true. As I said, write the National Catholic Bioethics Center and ask them. They will tell you the Church has never, ever taught when the soul is infused. Never.
You realize that is not acceptable. As Americans, we really don’t like mysteries. Everything has to be yes or no, black or white, no ambiguity qllowed.

This is where Catholicism and America (Protestantism) diverge. As a Catholic, I admit I don’t know how the host becomes Christ, I just know it does. I also don’t know when the soul is combined with the body, I only know that by the time a child is born the soul is there.

I also know that my first pregnancy ended at 12 weeks. The doctor said the fetus had died at 10 weeks. Did God infuse this combination of cells with a soul just for it to die (it didn’t even have an identifiable sex). And before any of you suggest I didn’t mourn, I did.

Yes, it had ears and eyes. And, according to the doctor, I did nothing wrong ( 1 in 5 pregnancies end in miscarriage).

So, did God infuse this fetus with a soul knowing that it wouldn’t make it to life?
 
I am sorry you suffered the loss of your baby. The forever truth about God is that He loves us and only He knows His plan for all of us. My prayer to comfort the sorrow known to a mother is to ask Our Blessed Mother to hold and love the babes so that one day they will be placed in the arms of their mother. Jesus said that the Father knows each of us before we were knit in our mother’s womb and when we think about it - all will be loved and comforted.
 
I am sorry you suffered the loss of your baby. The forever truth about God is that He loves us and only He knows His plan for all of us. My prayer to comfort the sorrow known to a mother is to ask Our Blessed Mother to hold and love the babes so that one day they will be placed in the arms of their mother. Jesus said that the Father knows each of us before we were knit in our mother’s womb and when we think about it - all will be loved and comforted.
Thank you.
 
Why did the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issue the following in their Declaration on Procured Abortion:

**“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. **There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent.”

It’s not my original teaching; it’s the Church’s. When the fetus receives a soul is the moment it become a “human being.” And Church teaching says no one knows exactly when that moment is.

No one doubts the soul is infused “immediately.” But “immediately” when? At conception? At implantation? At viability? At birth? Not one Church document has stated such. Write the National Catholic Bioethics Center. They will tell you exactly what I’m saying.
Maybe immediately upon the child’s first or second birthday?
Maybe immediately upon the child reaching the age of reason, around age eight?
Maybe immediately upon reaching functional consciousness, which mentally retarded people never attain?
Maybe immediately upon attaining functionality and a level of competence, which many people with genetic diseases, etc. never attain, and people with degenerative diseases eventually lose?

If the teaching is not clear upon what the immediacy refers to, then it is not clear. These are some of the possibilities that become open to us if the answer is that the Church just has not idea about these matters?

Science is clear enough though. There is no point immediately after the moment of conception that the unique individual does not exist. The chromosonal blueprint for that life that develops throughout the years is the same, and there is no point immediately after conception that marks an existence that is qualitatively or essentially different from what develops before, and what develops after.
From conception until death, even at a ripe old age, with all the degenerative aspects involved in that, the individual exists, one and the same with the individual that has always existed from the point of conception.
If the Church truly has no concept of what point in human development that “immediately” refers to, then that is that, as far as Church leadership goes.
But as for the latest scientific understanding of life, there can be no doubt The social construct of what it means to be a person with a soul may be arbitrary, but the existence of a human individual immediately upon conception is just a well-established scientific fact.
 
Another voterless victory for Cruz. When there is no voting, cruz wins 100%. Doesn’t he wish all other states worked the same way! He would have won 100% of the primary.
I don’t think Trump supporters would be complaining if Trump had won the majority of delegates.

The convention process for choosing a candidates delegates is how it’s worked in previous election cycles, isn’t it? This isn’t something new. The Trump campaign must of known how these conventions worked in regards to the delegate proces. Sarah Palin’s speaking arrangement at the convention was cancelled. Donald Trump didn’t appear himself. Ted Cruz attended and spoke. I’m not 100% sure how the convention works, but Trump didn’t have a full slate of delegates to fill the 14 spaces:

twitter.com/daveweigel/status/721348884249718784

Why didn’t Trump have 14 delegate names? I don’t understand. But the Cruz campaign had organisation and Trump probably had less.
 
Another voterless victory for Cruz. When there is no voting, cruz wins 100%. Doesn’t he wish all other states worked the same way! He would have won 100% of the primary.
👍

I cannot vote for a Protestant that believes in any of the Apocalyptic theories. Especially one who was baptized a Catholic and will not accept what the Church teaches.
 
But the convention process for choosing a candidates delegates is how it’s worked in previous election cycles, isn’t it? This isn’t something new. Sarah Palin’s speaking arrangement at the convention was cancelled. Donald Trump didn’t appear himself. Ted Cruz attended and spoke. I’m not 100% sure how the convention works, but Trump didn’t have a full slate of delegates to fill the 14 spaces, Cruz did:

twitter.com/daveweigel/status/721348884249718784

Why didn’t Trump have 14 delegate names? I don’t understand. But the Cruz campaign had organisation and Trump probably had less.
Here is trump’s explanation:

breitbart.com/video/2016/04/16/trump-people-in-co-and-wy-are-paid-ive-understood-this-for-a-long-time-ive-never-said-anything/

He responded, “Because I don’t want to waste millions of dollars going out to Colorado, knowing the system is rigged. I don’t want to waste millions of dollars going out to Wyoming, many months before, to wine and dine, and to essentially pay off all these people, because a lot of it’s a payoff, you understand that. They treat them. They take them to dinner. They get them hotels. I mean, the whole thing’s a big payoff. It has nothing to do with democracy. I’ve understood this for a long time, I’ve never said anything, because frankly, I wasn’t involved in politics other than on the other side. I used to be establishment.”

Colorado system is a new one. **In fact on June 28th Coloradans are going to have a real election voting for their senators. **Why couldn’t they have done the same for presidential candidates? It’s very easy to do: just add another page to the ballot.

It’s a very simple question: what has the possibility to lead to greater corruption, a primary election or a convention determined by a handful of party elites? The results from Colorado and Wyoming confirm people’s natural suspicions: Cruz wins 100% when voters are not voting. It’s much easier for him to win if it’s behind the scene deal-making with the establishment.
 
I’m claiming what IS true. As I said, write the National Catholic Bioethics Center and ask them. They will tell you the Church has never, ever taught when the soul is infused. Never.
Why does it matter? Here’s what the Church teaches:

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.

Do you accept or reject this teaching?
 
You realize that is not acceptable. As Americans, we really don’t like mysteries. Everything has to be yes or no, black or white, no ambiguity qllowed.

This is where Catholicism and America (Protestantism) diverge. As a Catholic, I admit I don’t know how the host becomes Christ, I just know it does. I also don’t know when the soul is combined with the body, I only know that by the time a child is born the soul is there.

I also know that my first pregnancy ended at 12 weeks. The doctor said the fetus had died at 10 weeks. Did God infuse this combination of cells with a soul just for it to die (it didn’t even have an identifiable sex). And before any of you suggest I didn’t mourn, I did.

Yes, it had ears and eyes. And, according to the doctor, I did nothing wrong ( 1 in 5 pregnancies end in miscarriage).

So, did God infuse this fetus with a soul knowing that it wouldn’t make it to life?
Oh Sally, I am so sorry for your loss. And I can’t answer your last question. As analytical as I tend to be, I know that there are questions that can’t be answered at this time. God bless you.
 
Another voterless victory for Cruz. When there is no voting, cruz wins 100%. Doesn’t he wish all other states worked the same way! He would have won 100% of the primary.
They voted, trump lost because he put no effort into winning there (same in Colorado). States have the constitutional right to decide how their delegates are chosen. The rules have not been changed, trump had the same opportunities as Cruz.
Fair or not they all have the same playing field. Maybe Cruz should also cry foul against states that are “winner take all”. tRump wins by 35% and gets 100% of the delegates? must be some kind of “establishment” conspiracy… :rolleyes:
 
They voted, trump lost because he put no effort into winning there (same in Colorado). States have the constitutional right to decide how their delegates are chosen. The rules have not been changed, trump had the same opportunities as Cruz.
Fair or not they all have the same playing field. Maybe Cruz should also cry foul against states that are “winner take all”. tRump wins by 35% and gets 100% of the delegates? must be some kind of “establishment” conspiracy… :rolleyes:
Rules for sure have changed for Colorado. They are actually going to have a real vote for their senators on June 28th, but the presidential election apparently was too trivial to have a real vote.

This is not crying foul. This is to say to the American people, maybe we ought to have a different system. It’s what trump has been doing the entire campaign: he has defined each and every issue. He has championed for a strong border, fair trade, fighting for US interests even with our allies and letting no one take advantage of us. Now he’s asking American’s to consider changing our political election system.

Whether people will echo him is up to them. You might notice that Cruz polling numbers have dropped big league after his voterless victory in Colorado.
 
Rules for sure have changed for Colorado. They are actually going to have a real vote for their senators on June 28th, but the presidential election apparently was too trivial to have a real vote.

This is not crying foul. This is to say to the American people, maybe we ought to have a different system. It’s what trump has been doing the entire campaign: he has defined each and every issue. He has championed for a strong border, fair trade, fighting for US interests even with our allies and letting no one take advantage of us. Now he’s asking American’s to consider changing our political election system.

Whether people will echo him is up to them. You might notice that Cruz polling numbers have dropped big league after his voterless victory in Colorado.
Didn’t Trump only complain about the way the delegate system works after Cruz won in Colorado?

The delegates were elected by people’s votes. People may not have known who they would support in the next presidential election, just as they wouldn’t have in previous election cycles, but they were elected. If you or others want to change the system in states, then you may have to take that up with Colorado Republican Party or the Wyoming Republican Party… Isn’t it those parties at the state level? But this is the way it works now.

The Trump campaign could have have made more of an effort in both states and if they had, Trump may have got more delegates.
 
Oh Sally, I am so sorry for your loss. And I can’t answer your last question. As analytical as I tend to be, I know that there are questions that can’t be answered at this time. God bless you.
Thank you. I know that I grieved. But I don’t know if I grieved for a soul or the possibility of a soul.
 
Didn’t Trump only complain about the way the delegate system works after Cruz won in Colorado?

The delegates were elected by people’s votes. People may not have known who they would support in the next presidential election, just as they wouldn’t have in previous election cycles, but they were elected. If you or others want to change the system in states, then you may have to take that up with Colorado Republican Party or the Wyoming Republican Party… Isn’t it those state parties which have come up with this system? But this is the way the system works now.
Yes he only complained after the results, which is a good strategy because people now know what has happened.

Trump is not saying that he wants the results nullified; he’s saying that voters should have a say. It won’t be surprising at all if colorado republican party swears from now on they will never have a convention ever again. This year many people who used to not care about politics are becoming aware and more active in the process; and they agree with trump and want to vote.

So you are right it’s the way the system works, but trump wants it changed. The party will most likely change it after this year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top