Poll: U.S. Catholics want a younger, more liberal pope

[LisaA]

If you’re going the lesser of two evils, please explain how the policy of allowing abortions in the case of rape and incest and saving the life of the mother increased the number of performed abortions during the Reagan years and the policy of making abortions rare reduced the number during the Clinton years. Don’t the net effects count in determining which of two evils is lesser?

There were no policies. There were political statements. I think these statistics have been debunked with respect to any actual impact on the number of abortions. Clinton may have CLAIMED to want abortion rare but that he vetoed the the ban on the hideous practice of partial birth abortion demonstrates his real agenda.

Let’s quite being so theoretical and use plain old common sense. If abortion were limited by law to only those abortions that are done in cases of incest, rape or LIFE of the mother, don’t you truly believe abortions will decrease?

These are among the rarest of reasons to abort. The majority of abortions are for the convenience of the mother. Not life, health or due to rape.

While I would not be satisfied with a law that allowed abortion in such rare instances I would vastly prefer this step to the basically unrestricted access we have now. At the DNC the plan to push taxpayer funded abortions indicates where they plan to go in the future.

Perfection is the enemy of the good ProVobis. I would rather have good than evil wouldn’t you?

Lisa

 

[Mark121359]

Like this developed overnight? People were screaming in the 60’s that the Church was in trouble. In fact, they started voting with their feet.

No. The Church is not the one that’s troubled. It’s the flock who have bought into the secular-progressive lifestyle as Fr. Wade points out that’s troubled!

Peace, Mark

 

[JamesCaruso]

True, there is no “special baptism” for Catholics; rather there is One Baptism, which is why those converting from Christian denominations do not get “re-baptized” at the Easter Vigil.

The part that I was objecting to was that if a person (your post seemed to imply; correct me if I am wrong) was a poorly catechized Catholic, or inadequately catechized, would make him ‘un-Catholic.’ (my word) Because in that case, wow do we have a torrent of un-Catholics in the Catholic Church today!

Most of these barely Catholic Catholics have in fact been confirmed, so even by your deifnition, they are indeed fully Catholic.

Correct. If you profess that you are Catholic, then later recant that profession, you are generally considered a fallen away Catholic. But most of these Catholics have some ax to grind with the Church or some sin to protect. Their renouncement of the Church is unfounded, and deep down they know it.

But then there can be those who either never had the faith, i.e., it was lip service, they only did it because everyone was doing it! They were never Catholic in the first place. It does require a sincere profession of faith.

And lastly, there can be those who actually come to make a reassessment, not based on sin in their life or a personal grievance, just bad information, bad thinking, who decide to renounce the Catholic Faith. These are no longer Catholic. Martin Luther comes to mind. He did, however, confess he was wrong to some extent on his deathbed, as I recall.

Protestants are not fallen away Catholics except in the broadest sense, and as you already know, the Church calls them separated brethren, but still addresses them individually as Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, etc. The best instance of a fallen away Catholic who was also a Protestant might be King Henry. His falling away was to protect sin in his life. But I would not call his sincere followers Catholics. Many of the first followers, however, might be called fallen away Catholics, with fear as their motivation.

Have to go get ready for Mass! Ciao!

 

[LisaA]

No. The Church is not the one that’s troubled. It’s the flock who have bought into the secular-progressive lifestyle as Fr. Wade points out that’s troubled!

Peace, Mark

But can we mention the poor catechesis? The rarity of homilies that speak to these issues? I’m a convert and got only a smattering of the views on life, marriage, proper understanding of sexuality in RCIA although I sat in “class” for two hours every week from September through May. I am a good student, I absorb lessons well. Honestly this was virtually never dealt with other than an overview…we are a pro life church blah blah blah.

Most of what I’ve learned below the surface teaching at Mass and RCIA was in my own reading and research, listening to Catholic radio, watching EWTN and quite honestly from CAF! Looking at the average Cradle Catholic who to my experience knows LESS than I do, it is no wonder so many have such mistaken views regarding the Church’s teaching.

Lisa

 

[ProVobis]

Please read the entire document not just part.

BTW, I don’t read past the first paragraph if the assumptions appear flawed. Just saying.

 

[Mark121359]

There were no policies. There were political statements. I think these statistics have been debunked with respect to any actual impact on the number of abortions. Clinton may have CLAIMED to want abortion rare but that he vetoed the the ban on the hideous practice of partial birth abortion demonstrates his real agenda.
Lisa

Here is a nurse who has first-hand experience with this procedure;

Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse from Dayton, Ohio, assisted Dr. Haskell in a Partial Birth Abortion on a 26-1/2 week (over 6 months) pre-born baby boy. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee (on 11/17/95) about what she witnessed.

According to nurse Shafer, the baby was alive and moving as the abortionist “delivered the baby’s body and arms - everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby’s head just inside the uterus. The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp.”

With forceps, the doctor turns the baby around in the womb to be positioned feet first. The baby’s legs are pulled out into the birth canal. The baby is alive at this point.

The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head, which remains inside the birth canal. The baby’s hands and feet move.

The abortionist stabs the scissors into the base of the baby’s skull. The scissors are spread to enlarge the opening. The suction catheter is then inserted and the brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The head slides out easily.

Are the babies alive during the abortion?

Yes! On July 11, 1995, American Medical News (AMA’s official journal) submitted the transcript of a tape-recorded interview with abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell to the House Judiciary Committee in which he admitted:
…the majority of fetuses aborted this way (partial birth abortion) are alive until the end of the procedure.

How anybody who proclaims themselves Catholic or anyone period for that matter who can support the procedure just described above by a nurse who has seen it performed first-hand is in serious need of much prayer!

Peace, Mark

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Catholic” then must be

No need to assume what I think.

I apply it to the Chair of St. Peter in the Latin rite and in history and reality. Sorry I confused you with my application, I’m familiar with the history of the word. Which Rite of the Church do you follow?

 

[Mark121359]

But can we mention the poor catechesis? The rarity of homilies that speak to these issues? I’m a convert and got only a smattering of the views on life, marriage, proper understanding of sexuality in RCIA although I sat in “class” for two hours every week from September through May. I am a good student, I absorb lessons well. Honestly this was virtually never dealt with other than an overview…we are a pro life church blah blah blah.

Most of what I’ve learned below the surface teaching at Mass and RCIA was in my own reading and research, listening to Catholic radio, watching EWTN and quite honestly from CAF! Looking at the average Cradle Catholic who to my experience knows LESS than I do, it is no wonder so many have such mistaken views regarding the Church’s teaching.

Lisa

I completely agree with all of the above. And you mentioned poor catechesis. Several posters mentioned it early on and correct me if I’m wrong were criticised for pointing this out. I don’t know why. Mother Angelica used to talk about this regularly, and she didn’t speak glowingly about it either. IMHO, the catechesis of today is abysmal compared to the past…Abysmal period!

 

[Lapey]

BTW, I don’t read past the first paragraph if the assumptions appear flawed. Just saying.

So the faithful Citisenship document is an assumption? Wow, I’ll be sure to let the USCCB know how you feel…

 

[Lapey]

Give me a cite please. Lapey’s cite did not support his statement [CCC 1272]. Maybe there is some other authoritative source.

I think you can get into some semantics here. Baptism incorporates us into the Body of Christ, makes us members of the Church in that sense, but I don’t think it makes you a Catholic, except to the extent that your parents decide for you until you are of an age to decide for yourself. Aren’t Protestants baptized into the Body of Christ? There is no special baptism for Catholics, a different formula, than for Methodists or Baptists.

At baptism.

Can. 96 By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.

Thanks for doing the leg work for me Annabelle. This is from the Code of Canon Law, remember code #1, it only pertains to the Latin Rite Church. Therefore this canon is only talking to and about the Roman Catholic Church, i.e. Latin Rite.

By baptism a person is incorporated into to Catholic Church, Catholic baptism that is. In that baptism certain rights and privileges that come with this. To be outside of communion does in no way break that incorporation, however it may impede the rights and privileges that baptism confers.

Simply put, a fallen away Catholic who claims to be and is truly committed to another denomination, whether that be Baptist, Methodist, atheist, Muslim, etc., is part of that denomination. However, by nature of their Catholic baptism they are very much still incorporated in the one Church, Catholic.

In other words, when they decide to come home they will no need to be baptized, as they were never “un-Catholic-ed”. They would go through a process, RCIA or through the sacrament of Reconciliation. Either way when a person returns to full communion then they are said to be just that, a Catholic in full communion, or a practicing faithful Catholic.

Anyone who is excommunicated either by their own action or a canonical action by the Church, they are still incorporated in the one true Church, the Latin rite Church. The difference is they are now excommunicated and under sanction until they repent and make amends and re-unite fully to Her.

There are absolutely no documents which tell us how to “un-baptize” a person, its not something that exists.

 

[Steve_Jay]

No need to assume what I think.

I apply it to the Chair of St. Peter in the Latin rite and in history and reality. Sorry I confused you with my application, I’m familiar with the history of the word. Which Rite of the Church do you follow?

Hello Gary.
You didn’t confuse me. Maybe I didn’t put it very well myself. You posted on the lines that I had thought after I had posted my initial reply.
I have a book here that I am currently reading. The Oxford dictionary of Popes. It mixes the Anti-popes in there as well. It doesn’t give a clear picture.
This web site is far better.
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

It has been reasoned that Jesus was talking about himself when he said “Upon this rock I will build my Church.” Jesus is certainly the cornerstone that the builders rejected. He is the Christ. So given how some interpret what Jesus said, I prefer to put that to one side.
St. Peter got the idea of what Jesus had said.

1 Peter 2:4
5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house

A spiritual house. Singular. Only one house. You mentioned the sacraments. Baptism is one of them. The church has always practised that. So there is a form of human contact with instruction that goes back through a priesthood to St. Peter and to Christ.

A house that is divided will fall down. The Roman Catholic Church has been with us for 2000 years. It is the Bride of Christ. Each person is a part of the Bride of Christ.
How can a person who gets a divorce from the Bride of Christ remain a part of the Bride?

St. Peter saw it important that Judas was replaced. So it would be far more important for St.Peter to be replaced.

If we look at the sacraments that the church teaches and practices, then it really can’t be wrong. while it has love and respect for Christ then it can’t go astray. It’s those who leave that go astray.

 

[Spudbynight]

Thanks for doing the leg work for me Annabelle. This is from the Code of Canon Law, remember code #1, it only pertains to the Latin Rite Church. Therefore this canon is only talking to and about the Roman Catholic Church, i.e. Latin Rite.

There isn’t a Roman Catholic Church. There is only the Catholic Church. The Latin Rite and the Eastern Rite are part of the same Catholic Church.

In the creed we say “one holy catholic and apostolic Church”

When talking to non Catholics it is common to refer to the Catholic Church as the “Roman Catholic Church” but that still includes all the Eastern Churches in full communion with the Holy See.

 

[Lapey]

There isn’t a Roman Catholic Church. There is only the Catholic Church. The Latin Rite and the Eastern Rite are part of the same Catholic Church.

In the creed we say “one holy catholic and apostolic Church”

When talking to non Catholics it is common to refer to the Catholic Church as the “Roman Catholic Church” but that still includes all the Eastern Churches in full communion with the Holy See.

In current day terminology, post reformation, the Latin Rite Catholic Church has been and still is referred to as the Roman Catholic Church. If you see me write Catholic, big C, then yes I am referring as the entire Catholic Church; all Rites included. On the other hand if you see me refer to the Roman Catholic Church I am in fact referring to the Church that is Latin Rite.

I do at times refer to the “One, Holy catholic and Apostolic Church” as you do here because it is proper. There are many Rites in communion with Rome, and you are 100% correct to say that all are not RC, but the Church of Rome where the bishop sits in the Chair of St. Peter is in fact the Holy Roman Church.

The term RCC came after the reformation actually as a derogatory term aimed at the Catholic Church as a whole by protestants. But as usual, it has become part of the life of this Church, the Latin, RC, Church. Jesus always used bad to do good.

If I said anything contrary to this I do sincerely apologize. I made a lot of posts in a hurry to many posts; it is possible I mixed up the terms. Thanks!

 

[ProVobis]

No. The Church is not the one that’s troubled. It’s the flock who have bought into the secular-progressive lifestyle as Fr. Wade points out that’s troubled!

Thanks I think for the correction.

 

[ProVobis]

The real sin in voting for the person who believes in abortion in the case of rape or incest is if you do it with the intention in your heart of supporting that position.

Does the same go for any other position that doesn’t completely ban abortions?

BTW and FWIW, the argument of the lesser of two evils might have applied before 1969. (Humphrey won the 68 nomination without winning any primaries.) But since then primaries have had a prominant impact in the election process so I would think the least-of-all-evils principle applies there (as well).

 

[ProVobis]

How anybody who proclaims themselves Catholic or anyone period for that matter who can support the procedure just described above by a nurse who has seen it performed first-hand is in serious need of much prayer!

Agreed. But the party that allows abortions in the case of rape and incest would allow it in those cases, no? If not, could they put that in writing?

 

[Mark121359]

Agreed. But the party that allows abortions in the case of rape and incest would allow it in those cases, no? If not, could they put that in writing?

I think I was crystal clear in stating anyone!

 

[LisaA]

Agreed. But the party that allows abortions in the case of rape and incest would allow it in those cases, no? If not, could they put that in writing?

Partial birth is done on VERY late stage pregnancies. If a woman is raped, chances are she doesn’t wait until week 22 in her pregnancy to seek an abortion. Ditto with incest which frankly is such a tiny tiny fraction of abortions it’s hardly worth mentioning.

You do make a point that all late term abortions, regardless of reason should be banned. I think 99.9% of America would agree with this. It is barbaric…

Lisa

 

[Mark121359]

Agreed. But the party that allows abortions in the case of rape and incest would allow it in those cases, no? If not, could they put that in writing?

I think I was crystal clear in stating anyone who supports this procedure, period!

 

[ProVobis]

I think I was crystal clear in stating anyone who supports this procedure, period!

Yes you did. Thanks.