W
wynnejj
Guest
No offense was taken, so of course all’s well.Sorry. I mistakenly thought my post was removed because of the topic which I didn’t mention. Still agree with point 1. I retract points 2 and 3. Please forgice me for 2.
- Status
F
Faithdancer
Guest
I don’t understand how anyone can misinterpret Cardinal Arinze’s meaning, or think that his words apply only to the politicians who vote for abortion legislation. It amazes me that those who vote for these pro-abortion politicians- knowing that these same politicians will continue to support and enable abortion when in office- think that because they “only voted for” the abortionist politicians, they have no responsibility for the outcome, i.e. more abortions.
Apparently, via this “logic,” only the abortion doctors themselves should bear any responsibility- not the organization which employs them (e.g. Planned Parenthood), not the elected officials who enable financial support for the organization which employs the abortion doctors- and certainly not the voter who votes for the known pro-abortion politician who enables financial support for the known abortion-promoting organization which employs the abortion doctors.
And perhaps it’s not even the abortion doctor’s fault- after all he’s just trying to make a living. It must be the woman’s fault- she shouldn’t have been so careless! Everyone else is just accidentally involved and not part of a chain of enabling and causation at all!
Apparently, via this “logic,” only the abortion doctors themselves should bear any responsibility- not the organization which employs them (e.g. Planned Parenthood), not the elected officials who enable financial support for the organization which employs the abortion doctors- and certainly not the voter who votes for the known pro-abortion politician who enables financial support for the known abortion-promoting organization which employs the abortion doctors.
And perhaps it’s not even the abortion doctor’s fault- after all he’s just trying to make a living. It must be the woman’s fault- she shouldn’t have been so careless! Everyone else is just accidentally involved and not part of a chain of enabling and causation at all!
N
NeedsMercy
Guest
That’s what we used to call a “cop out”. If you can’t answer the questions, just say so.
Quote:
Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven Matthew 7:21
Quote:
And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee. 48 But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? 49 And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren. 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother. Matthew 12:48
So, I am the one saying “Lord, Lord” and you are who? “He that doth the will of My Father” by virtue of your vote? Interesting. But since we are quoting Bible now, let’s stay in Matthew 12:
36 'I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."
And let’s do a reprise of these two:
John 8:2-11
Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.”
and
Matthew 7:1-5
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
“So it is written. So it shall be done.” (From the 1956 movie “The Ten Commandments”)
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
If you think that Obama is a decent person, I don’t think that you should be commenting on what is propaganda.
P
Pitcharan
Guest
Obama is indeed a very decent person and it is rather indecent to tell another not to comment about propaganda.
P
Pitcharan
Guest
I stand corrected and take back my above words. VERY SORRY!
N
NeedsMercy
Guest
This is getting so tedious. You are wrong, of course. Do you need me to point out all my posts wherein I stated my stance?
Whoa! Let’s extrapolate. You voted for Romney, who believes in abortion in the cases of rape, incest and health of mother. Therefore, YOU are in agreement with him and it doesn’t matter what YOUR personal beliefs are, is that correct? Feel free to retract your statement.
That I did.
Oh, I blush! I have more power than I thought!
I see we’re using more prognostications to distract folks from the real issue that I have been positing which is “Just-because-I-voted-for-Obama-doesn’t-mean-that-I-am-‘pro-abortion’”. But I’ll bite. You voted for your members of Congress, did you not? If you voted “correctly”—in your mind’s eye—then you have nothing to worry about since justices must be approved by—you guessed it—Congress! Ditto for the HHS mandate.
Now does ANYBODY want to take up my original question: “How do you know that I am, personally, in my heart, ‘pro-abortion’?” q.v. post 695
I’ll settle for an answer to: “Why don’t you believe what I am telling you i.e. that I am definitely not pro-abortion, pro-death or pro-whatever” q.v. post #692
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YUkbuhXzbvI
Try to listen to his choice of words. This is him without a well-crafted speech and presentation.
Try to listen to his choice of words. This is him without a well-crafted speech and presentation.
L
Lucky7
Guest
Great…glad to hear you are not pro-choice. I actually had a feeling you were not anyway.
But let’s get something straight…I did not label you in a derogatory manner and I wasn’t commenting on your heart, name calling, etc. so you can stop with the gotcha questions. I was stating very clearly that what you wrote sounded awfully familiar…and Church teaching is clear about supporting laws for abortion (ie. pro-choice). So, being pro-choice is agianst Church teaching. Or am I not allowed to point that out either? The reality is s that by voting for Obama you have voted for a pro-choice candidate. You can rationalize that all you want but, “let’s get down to reality”.
L
Lucky7
Guest
Let me guess…because you are referring to the sex abuse scandal? And if you’re going to comment on something, don’t “cop out” and then say you can’t engage any further.
M
Mickey
Guest
This true information was available for all to see…and the ignorant chose to ignore it.
M
Mickey
Guest
Now you are getting it.
He is talking about those who vote for a pro-abortion candidate but attempt to justify it by claiming that they are not “personally” pro-abortion.
That was a wonderful analogy…and I hope it makes the Obama-Catholics take notice.
M
Mickey
Guest
Many will regret their vote. Many will weep. The enemy of the child in the womb has been re-elected. :crying:
J
JMJSHJ
Guest
Thank you for clearing that up. Going by what you are saying it would be clear that Cardinal Arinze is consistently talking about politicians who support abortion and who vote to keep abortion legal or expand it. Given that what they are doing is wrong, isn’t it also wrong to vote in such persons?
M
Mickey
Guest
It is a method of spin doctoring to protect one’s conscience after having voted for a man who champions abortion-on-demand and Planned Parenthood.
M
Mickey
Guest
M
Mickey
Guest
sick and evil!
W
wynnejj
Guest
Have you asked a first grade first communion class whether or not a practicing Catholic who habitually votes for a pro-choice candidate should present themselves for Holy Communion?Did the other 6,999,999,998 people answer you yet?
Ah, Cardinal Arinze! (I guess we’re putting aside the Papal Nuncio for now.) Now, let’s see The Cardinal was asked about **politicians ** who **publicly ** profess to be pro-choice. (I’m not a politician. I do not publicly profess to be pro-choice because I am not.) He answered the question, despite the questioner egging him to say how the Holy See should have the American bishops stamp the aforementioned politicians “heretics” and to then “excommunicate” them. The Cardinal was wise enough to ignore those terms. Arinze correctly said that those who “vote abortion” not only are against Catholic law, but also Divine law. When he talked about people who “vote abortion” I believe that he was speaking about voters who are indeed “pro-choice”, which I am not. The rest of the video was rather silly; the whole “shoot Congress” analogy being reductio ad absurdum. My feeling, however, is that he knew exactly what he was saying, especially in light of the “Swiss Guard” joke. But, if you know, not think, that he meant something else, please enlighten me with a cite.
He’s basically saying to go ask a child your childish question about whether it is OK to vote for a one who sanctions the murder of children.
(I’m shaking in my boots to go ask them that question given the forces of indoctrination that may be at work in our school systems. Who knows what 1st graders might say if they’ve been worked on.)
He was serious about the “shoot Congress” analogy saying the the worth of their everyone’s life is exactly equal to the worth of the child in the womb. The “Swiss Guard” joke is simply saying that he is not in the enforcement business.
Let us not reduce his presentation style to distort the substance of his teaching to a joking matter. The analogies that he presented were apt and designed to show how ridiculous are the claims of not interfering with the conscience of citizens on a matter of a policy of murder-on-demand.
W
wynnejj
Guest
So what do we have …
A Papal Nuncio who says one should walk away from a certain “major political party”.
And, Cardinal Arinze who’s leaving the question of Holy Communion for Pro-Choice voters in the hands of first grade first communion students having apprised them of the fact that it involves saying OK to those who would kill a child in the womb. He’s betting his cardinal’s hat on the verdict of unspoiled children.
A Papal Nuncio who says one should walk away from a certain “major political party”.
And, Cardinal Arinze who’s leaving the question of Holy Communion for Pro-Choice voters in the hands of first grade first communion students having apprised them of the fact that it involves saying OK to those who would kill a child in the womb. He’s betting his cardinal’s hat on the verdict of unspoiled children.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
The Pope, then Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
“[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]”
- Status