D
Drawmack
Guest
As soon as you can prove to me that the actions I have highlighted do not demonstrate that the Church teaches this. Remember it’s not just scripture but scripture and tradition. It is a traditional teaching.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How to re-educate so that people will understand about abortion?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
Drawmack
Guest
Dude,No one has asked you to turn a blind eye to anything.
There is a simple fact here that I do not believe you are seeing.
The church has not done what you claim.
Third request here…retract your baseless accusation.
It’s ridiculously well documented that this did indeed happen. I will retract nothing. How about you stop lying to cover up for your baseless faith in a man made institution?
D
Drawmack
Guest
I spoke of demonstrable facts. Deny them all you like. Turn a blind eye all you like. These are not lies. These are, quite simply, a restatement of the actions taken. Maybe you’re right maybe I shouldn’t be teaching children anything; God forbid someone who actually thinks about things and doesn’t just follow a man made institution like a sheep should teach children.The Church is not a corrupt institution. A man made a free will choice to commit an evil and sick act against a child. He committed a mortal sin, he obviously was not in Communion with the Church when he made that decision, the Church does not condone mortally sinful acts.
As to the Catholic parents and Catholic Doctors
Thou shalt not kill.
They as Catholics, took part in a direct evil and even when they knew this, were warned by the Church, whose opinion they sought out, they still went ahead and did it.
No one, least of all me, or the Church is turning any blind eye to the father. No one thinks he is or was in communion with the Church when he did that. The only way he ever could be is first he would have to be Catholic, second, he would have to Repent and sin no more.
It has always been an automatic excommunication for one to procure an abortion, that is nothing new.
Everyone, even those who do procure abortions are entitled to our loving God’s mercy.
Everyone, if they are sincere, and only He can really read anyone’s soul.
Catholics who publicly defy the Church, whom they sought out for advice, who were given that advice and were told the consenquences to choosing evil over the world’s opinion and then still choose that evil need to be publicly chastised.
If only we’d do more of that here.
You Drawmack, serve no one by telling the baseless lies you are claiming here about the Church, you are not better than the Church and I seriously wonder if you ought to be teaching any children anything.
L
limerick
Guest
**If I had a dime for every youth that has specifically mentioned this argument as a deep insult to everyone, I would be a rich man.
Deep insult? Let’s see:
“Abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy, but it is an unrealistic and incomplete approach to educating young people about their sexuality.”**
How is this observation a “deep insult”? Whom do you contend is insulted by this? Have you made a dime yet?
Limerick
L
limerick
Guest
**If an having or facilitating or performing an abortion automatically excommunicates the participant(s), then why are so many posters on this forum so quick to point out the “healing power of confession, absolution and penance”?Drawmack,
Do you even understand the purpose of excommunication?
Do you have any idea why it is automatic when an abortion is sought out and done?
If excommunication is final, it’s Final.
If it is not** final, it has lost all power and legitimacy and has relegated itself to a game.
Limerick
A
allhers
Guest
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PQ.HTM
We can NEVER justify the deliberate murder of an innocent human being-no matter what!!
Pope Paul II covered this in Evangelium vitae–(Value and Inviolability of Human Life)
“Your eyes beheld my unformed substance” (Ps 139:16): the unspeakable crime of abortion
progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behaviour and
even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense,
which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their
proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of
self-deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward:
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for
darkness” (Is 5:20). Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of
ambiguous terminology, such as “interruption of pregnancy”, which tends to hide abortion’s true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.
The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that
we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements
involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more
absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenceless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defence consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby’s cries and tears. The unborn child is totally entrusted to the protection and care of the woman carrying him or her in the womb. And yet sometimes it is precisely the mother herself who makes the decision and asks for the child to be eliminated, and who then goes about having it done.
It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother,
insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely
selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important
values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the
family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that
it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others
like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an
innocent human being.
We can NEVER justify the deliberate murder of an innocent human being-no matter what!!
Pope Paul II covered this in Evangelium vitae–(Value and Inviolability of Human Life)
“Your eyes beheld my unformed substance” (Ps 139:16): the unspeakable crime of abortion
- Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has
characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council
defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an “unspeakable crime”.54
progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behaviour and
even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense,
which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their
proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of
self-deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward:
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for
darkness” (Is 5:20). Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of
ambiguous terminology, such as “interruption of pregnancy”, which tends to hide abortion’s true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.
The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that
we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements
involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more
absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenceless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defence consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby’s cries and tears. The unborn child is totally entrusted to the protection and care of the woman carrying him or her in the womb. And yet sometimes it is precisely the mother herself who makes the decision and asks for the child to be eliminated, and who then goes about having it done.
It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother,
insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely
selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important
values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the
family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that
it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others
like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an
innocent human being.
- As well as the mother, there are often other people too who decide upon the death of the child in the womb. In the first place, the father of the child may be to blame, not only
when he directly pressures the woman to have an abortion, but also when he indirectly
encourages such a decision on her part by leaving her alone to face the problems of
pregnancy: 55 in this way the family is thus mortally wounded and profaned in its nature as a community of love and in its vocation to be the “sanctuary of life”. Nor can one overlook the pressures which sometimes come from the wider family circle and from friends. Sometimes the woman is subjected to such strong pressure that she feels psychologically forced to have an abortion: certainly in this case moral responsibility lies particularly with those who have directly or indirectly obliged her to have an abortion. Doctors and nurses are also responsible, when they place at the service of death skills which were acquired for promoting life…
A
allhers
Guest
You obvioiusly don’t understand the purpose of excommunication, I am sure if you go to the home page of this site and type it in, many things will come up to help you see that what you think it is and what it actually is are probably two different things.**If an having or facilitating or performing an abortion automatically excommunicates the participant(s), then why are so many posters on this forum so quick to point out the “healing power of confession, absolution and penance”?
If excommunication is final, it’s Final.
If it is not** final, it has lost all power and legitimacy and has relegated itself to a game.
Limerick
A
allhers
Guest
This is from the EWTN website when someone asked about it.
This is the answer from Fr. Levis:
The fundamental issue is with regards to sanctifying grace. If a person dies in a state of
such grace, he is saved; if a person dies outside of a state of sanctifying grace, that
person is damned to that condition forever, in hell. **Excommunication is an act whereby a
person is cut off from the fullness of the Church, until such time that certain conditions
are met for restoration. If a person repented prior to death yet did not have the
opportunity for formal re-admittance to the Church, that person may be saved, as God judges. **However, I would hate to die in an excommunicated state and remain unrepentant of whatever
had occasioned my excommunication.
Among acts whereby a person may be excommunicated are the following:
A priest who breaks the seal of Confession
A person who bodily attacks the Pope
**A person who procures an abortion **
A person who desecrates the Holy Eucharist
A bishop who consecrates a bishop without papal mandate, and one who receives such
consecration
There are other offences, not included in this list…
(my bold above)
To see the full question and answer go here:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=312415&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=excommunication&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=34&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
This is the answer from Fr. Levis:
The fundamental issue is with regards to sanctifying grace. If a person dies in a state of
such grace, he is saved; if a person dies outside of a state of sanctifying grace, that
person is damned to that condition forever, in hell. **Excommunication is an act whereby a
person is cut off from the fullness of the Church, until such time that certain conditions
are met for restoration. If a person repented prior to death yet did not have the
opportunity for formal re-admittance to the Church, that person may be saved, as God judges. **However, I would hate to die in an excommunicated state and remain unrepentant of whatever
had occasioned my excommunication.
Among acts whereby a person may be excommunicated are the following:
A priest who breaks the seal of Confession
A person who bodily attacks the Pope
**A person who procures an abortion **
A person who desecrates the Holy Eucharist
A bishop who consecrates a bishop without papal mandate, and one who receives such
consecration
There are other offences, not included in this list…
(my bold above)
To see the full question and answer go here:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=312415&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2002&Author=&Keyword=excommunication&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=34&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
S
St_Francis
Guest
Could you please point me to the appropriate document which shows this?Members of the teaching magistrium have been doing that.
This is what the Church teaches: there is mortal sin, which severs a person’s relationship with God. These would include having an abortion and raping your 6-year-old stepdaughter.The Church also teaches that receiving an abortion severs one from communion with the Church but raping your 6 year old step daughter does not.
Excommunication is more of a disciplinary matter, and includes pertinacious teaching of heresy, striking the Pope, and procuring or performing an abortion. The reason the last is an excommunicatable offense is that so many do not see abortion as wrong or as serious.
Notice that the step-father will be prosecuted by the Brazilian government and that everyone condemns his action. There is no lack of clarity or debate about his actions. so there is no need for him to be excommunicated: he already has extinguished God’s grace in his soul by his action. Excommunicating him would be like tacking an additional 5 years onto 14 consecutive life sentences.
But those who performed the abortion will not be facing a harsh punishment, and will not be facing any social condemnation either. That stepfather will be. We know that he should be avoided and that he is scum, but all too many of us accept those who killed the unborn children, and sad to say, there are even Catholics who support their action.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Excommunication is not final, and never has been. Why do you think that unless it is final that it has “lost all power and legitimacy” and “relegated itself to a game?” I don’t see how that follows.**If an having or facilitating or performing an abortion automatically excommunicates the participant(s), then why are so many posters on this forum so quick to point out the “healing power of confession, absolution and penance”?
If excommunication is final, it’s Final.
If it is not** final, it has lost all power and legitimacy and has relegated itself to a game.
Limerick
Excommunication is a medicinal remedy for a person who refuses to repent. It’s like when I tell my child to go to his room until he’s ready to say he’s sorry. As soon as he comes and says he’s sorry, then he’s out of his room, and as soon as the excommunicate fulfills the terms of the excommunication (which may be confession to someone other than the local priest, and possibly public renunciation of heretical views, that sort of thing), then he is back in good standing with the Church.
And if a person is excommunicated and repents, but is unable to fulfill those conditions before death, the excommunication has never barred him from entering into Heaven, just as an unjust excommunication would not.
L
limerick
Guest
**You obvioiusly don’t understand the purpose of excommunication, I am sure if you go to the home page of this site and type it in, many things will come up to help you see that what you think it is and what it actually is are probably two different things.
What I found was this: “Excommunication: Medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society.” And this: “The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction.”
What I think excommunication is and what it actually is are hundreds** of different things.
So what do you consider “suitable satisfaction”, and what does the Church consider “suitable satisfaction”?
Limerick
source: The Catholic Encyclopedia
L
limerick
Guest
St Francis:
“Excommunication is a medicinal remedy for a person who refuses to repent. It’s like when I tell my child to go to his room until he’s ready to say he’s sorry. As soon as he comes and says he’s sorry, then he’s out of his room, and as soon as the excommunicate fulfills the terms of the excommunication (which may be confession to someone other than the local priest, and possibly public renunciation of heretical views, that sort of thing), then he is back in good standing with the Church.”
**
And if the child is not genuinely sorry? He gets out of his room because he learned to play the game. But the sinner, who may be wholly contrite, who takes the steps one at a time to atone for his or her sin - may not be able to enjoy reintegration into the “society”, as they call it, of the Church?
Too many rules.
Limerick**
“Excommunication is a medicinal remedy for a person who refuses to repent. It’s like when I tell my child to go to his room until he’s ready to say he’s sorry. As soon as he comes and says he’s sorry, then he’s out of his room, and as soon as the excommunicate fulfills the terms of the excommunication (which may be confession to someone other than the local priest, and possibly public renunciation of heretical views, that sort of thing), then he is back in good standing with the Church.”
**
And if the child is not genuinely sorry? He gets out of his room because he learned to play the game. But the sinner, who may be wholly contrite, who takes the steps one at a time to atone for his or her sin - may not be able to enjoy reintegration into the “society”, as they call it, of the Church?
Too many rules.
Limerick**
A
allhers
Guest
Actually, why would you think that a sinner, who may be wholly contrite, who takes the steps one at a time to atone for their sin may not be able to enjoy reintegration with the Church if that is what they so desire and do?:
I]
**
And if the child is not genuinely sorry? He gets out of his room because he learned to play the game. But the sinner, who may be wholly contrite, who takes the steps one at a time to atone for his or her sin - may not be able to enjoy reintegration into the “society”, as they call it, of the Church?
Too many rules.
Limerick**
If one presents themselves to the Church in Sacramental confession and admits their sin and is sorry for their sin, what makes you think they wouldn’t be admitted back to the Church under such conditions? It isn’t too many rules, its just that some people don’t want to follow any rules.
A
allhers
Guest
It is a deep insult to one such as I who did indeed pratice abstinence and was taught all that it entailed and followed the path.**
Deep insult? Let’s see:
“Abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy, but it is an unrealistic and incomplete approach to educating young people about their sexuality.”**
How is this observation a “deep insult”? Whom do you contend is insulted by this? Have you made a dime yet?
Limerick
By saying it is unrealistic and incomplete you are saying that it failed one such as I, and it most certainly did not.
[SIGN]Abstinence worked for me!![/SIGN]
A
allhers
Guest
As for this, if someone presented themselves to the Priest for Sacramental Confession and PRETENDED to be sorry, but acted as though they were, they might fool a man but they would never fool God. He will not be mocked! He would know if they were sorry or not and it is HIM they would stand before on judgement day and have to answer to.
"
**
…And if the child is not genuinely sorry? He gets out of his room because he learned to play the game…
Limerick**
The man who abused that child may at some point, may have already, for all we know have already sincerly repented through the Sacrament of Confession, (I don’t know if he was Catholic or not.)
But, I do know that the parents of the child were, and that the Doctors and Nurses were and if they don’t repent, that horrendous sinner who did that to that child could make it into the Kingdom of heaven, and they may not.
Read in the Bible Luke:7:36-50
for why people tell you of Jesus’ great mercy.
online Catholic Bible
usccb.org/nab/bible/
L
limerick
Guest
**So I am absolved of the sin of abortion when I confess, receive and perform penance and declare I will not repeat the act. OK. But then I find many other problems in my relationship with the Church and decide to leave. I am ex-communicated again.Actually, why would you think that a sinner, who may be wholly contrite, who takes the steps one at a time to atone for their sin may not be able to enjoy reintegration with the Church if that is what they so desire and do?
If one presents themselves to the Church in Sacramental confession and admits their sin and is sorry for their sin, what makes you think they wouldn’t be admitted back to the Church under such conditions? It isn’t too many rules, its just that some people don’t want to follow any rules.
It’s like Heidi Klum says: “One day you’re in … the next day you’re out**.”
Too many rules. Catholicism is not a user-friendly religion.
Limerick
S
St_Francis
Guest
Christ made the sacrament of Confession so that we would not need to have perfect contrition in order for our sins to be absolved. My son might not be genuinely sorry, but he is sorry enough to start behaving well enough to be allowed to be with us again.St Francis:
“Excommunication is a medicinal remedy for a person who refuses to repent. It’s like when I tell my child to go to his room until he’s ready to say he’s sorry. As soon as he comes and says he’s sorry, then he’s out of his room, and as soon as the excommunicate fulfills the terms of the excommunication (which may be confession to someone other than the local priest, and possibly public renunciation of heretical views, that sort of thing), then he is back in good standing with the Church.”
**
And if the child is not genuinely sorry? He gets out of his room because he learned to play the game. But the sinner, who may be wholly contrite, who takes the steps one at a time to atone for his or her sin - may not be able to enjoy reintegration into the “society”, as they call it, of the Church?
Too many rules.
Limerick**
You seem to have set a much higher standard for people than either the Church or God has. The reality is that for a person who exercises every day, no matter how he feels about it, something in his body changes. In the same way, if a person behaves a certain way, that too will affect him. “Fake it til you make it”–right? Sure, maybe the person who sinned isn’t *perfectly *sorry, maybe he will even go out and sin again, but Christ said to forgive 70 x 70 times, and the Church follows that.
So a person who was excommunicated for heresy has to confess to the appropriate person, possibly abjure his previous position, and refrain from teaching heresy. And if he is sorry enough to do all that for the fear of Hell, then his Confession is good. If he is lying through his teeth, we might not know it but God will know that he is guilty of *yet another *mortal sin, and the first mortal sin(s) are left as well.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Hmmm, you are upset because the Church excommunicates people who leave? What’s up with that?**So I am absolved of the sin of abortion when I confess, receive and perform penance and declare I will not repeat the act. OK. But then I find many other problems in my relationship with the Church and decide to leave. I am ex-communicated again.
It’s like Heidi Klum says: “One day you’re in … the next day you’re out**.”
Too many rules. Catholicism is not a user-friendly religion.
Limerick
I mean, if I left a group of people, I wouldn’t be mad if they then said I was no longer a member.
L
limerick
Guest
**Yay for you. And it worked for me until I became sexually active. That’s my point here:It is a deep insult to one such as I who did indeed pratice abstinence and was taught all that it entailed and followed the path.
By saying it is unrealistic and incomplete you are saying that it failed one such as I, and it most certainly did not.
Code:[SIGN]Abstinence worked for me!![/SIGN]
*“Abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy, but it is an unrealistic and incomplete approach to educating young people about their sexuality. If we could get them all to stand twelve feet apart until they are at the altar, you would be sainting and I would be doing the dishes right now - neither of us would be discussing abortion on this forum today.” ***
I did not disagree with you. Aside from death, abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy. My challenge to you is this: how would you propose to convince today’s youth that abstinence is in their best interest?
Please share your vision.
Limerick
L
limerick
Guest
**But what about your dues and fees? Would you get them back? The time, the effort, the money, the people-pleasing exercises with the nuns - where’s the return, St. Francis?Hmmm, you are upset because the Church excommunicates people who leave? What’s up with that?
I mean, if I left a group of people, I wouldn’t be mad if they then said I was no longer a member.
L**
- Status
- Not open for further replies.