I don’t disagree with you at all.
You are right, it would be best to have this kind of provider, and they are not as common as we would like. If I could not find one that shared my values, I would sure as heck be happy to have one that would advocate for me when they didn’t.
I think there are a number of providers (I met them through Planned Parenthood) who feel it is their duty to forward the abortive agenda.
To be sure no one is disagreeing about the degree of passion of either side.Actually it’s the position of someone who understands that you feel as strongly about your beliefs as she does about hers
Yes. She makes the decisions. Just not about anyone else’s body.
No, she does not have that right.
No my position would never be that it was Christ who left nor that He fails.
And yet, you don’t seem to believe that we CAN really go through Him - at least “until He comes again”.
Doesnt’ seem like you really believe He would do what He said He would do. What kind of “believeth” is that?
“Oh, I believe in Him, but I don’t believe He really left us authoritative guidance”.
Baptism, CMatt, is being incorporated into Him, and His One Body, the Church. Now you may have been young and uncatechized since you were confirmed, and agreed to take the fulfillment of your baptism on yourself, but since you have been at CAF, it has become clear to you that what the writer of this passage meant by baptism is not what you understand it to mean. For the Apostles, baptism means to follow all of His commandments, and to be in unity with the Apostolic authority.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but it sounds like you are claiming that the denial that there is One Truth does not equate to moral relativism. I agree. There might be many reasons to deny the One Truth, such as heresy, apostasy, impenitence, and more.
No, that is not the reason. All faithful Catholics would also agree. It would be more properly said that we walk by grace, through faith. What makes you a relativist are two things that a faithful Catholic does not claim. You claim that Truth has not been revealed to us, and that we have not been provided with everything we need in this life to gain heaven by His revelation. This is an anti-Catholic position. The other is that you decide for yourself what you think is moral apart from the authority appointed by Christ in the Church. This position is also anti-Catholic.
Hope springs eternal.
We know what you wrote, and that is what you said.
You stated you are guided by civil law, over and above divine law. You are right, in a pluralistic society, civial law rules that society. However, in the Kingdom of God, divine law rules in the Body of Christ. Those who refuse to be ruled by it put themselves out into the utter darkness, where there will be weeping, and gnashing of teeth.
But all Catholics everywhere are under the Law of Love, which forbids the taking of innocent life.
Yes, your Protestant friends are correct. God could have used any method. He chose to found a Church, to make promises to that Church, and to use that Church to manifest HImself to the world.
News flash, CMatt, He has already broken down the walls. Any walls that now exist were put there by us, and need to be removed by us. He will do this in and through us, as a work of His grace, but it is incumbent upon us to be willing. Holding off from unity “until He comes again” won’t cut it.
No, CMatt, we don’t. Catholics don’t need the civil government to define Truth for them, because we have already received it through His Church.
No, the difficulty I am having with your model is that we can know Truth by 0% certainty.
Not really, CMatt. Alll of my discussions with you begin and end with your denial that we can know the Truth, that the Truth resides in the Church, and that w are responsible to follow the Truth.
No, I don’t think there is a need to separate them (at least not yet). At this point, we are able to live and practice our faith within that democratic society. However, this is coming more and more into compromise, and we may one day be called upon to give up our freedoms, and even our lives for our faith. Living in a plural society does not mean that we have to compromise or abandon the truth of our faith.
You are not reading carefully again, Mike. PR is in agreement with you on all these points, as am I. What we are telling you is that it is possible to have all these without judging people, namecalling, and ruining the effectiveness of the defense because it is lacking in charity.
You have not convinced anyone here that you appreciate this suffering, or that you have any sensitivity. And you are correct. Having that empathy does not need to water down the message.
We all agree that a Catholic cannot support abortion. What we disagree with is your judging the souls of others.
Yes, I agree. I have never seen you use this term incorrectly.
Nope. The word drives me not. Your use of it, however, has been inappropriate. Your conviction that you are able to discern the state of other’s hearts drives me to distraction.
What we are trying to tell you, Mike, and has been presented to you repeatedly by many members on this thread, is that you don’t need to “call them” anything. You can focus on issues, and make a defense for your faith without calling people names. You can accurately describe behaviors without making judgements about people’s souls.
But Tigg was referring to present temporal authority, both in the Church, and in secular society.
No, CMatt. What will happen at that time is that you will be called to account for your refusal to form your conscience according to the Truth that He has revealed to you through the Church.
God’s mercy and love do not “cancel out” his Justice. He has revealed Truth to us, and called us to obey Him. Refusal to do so will have eternal consequences. But then again, that concept is just part of that revealed Truth that you don’t believe has been revealed, and therefore will not apply to yourself. It is easier to pretend that these painful and uncomfortable truths “cannot be known with 100% certainty”.
Oh really? I noticed that whenever someone asks you “what about the rights of the unborn baby?” you responded “the legal rights belong to the woman”. Another asked: “who speaks for the life within, who cannot speak for itself?” to which you answered: “Legally, the one with consent does. Legal consent lies with the woman.”I’m sorry I have no way to answer those questions…do you have any questions related to the topic of this thread?
(my bold italics)
There is an essential distinction here, Rence. Abortion is the removal of a baby from the mother’s womb for the purpose of terminating the pregnancy. This is different than the loss of a pregnancy as a consequence of needed medical treatment.
She was just making the point that Jesus does not separate His person from His Holy Bride, the Church. To be in communion with Him is to be in communion with His One Body.
No, Rence. Legality is not 'all that matters". Eternal truth matters a lot more than what is “legal”.
Sure you have a way to answer them! You are clearly an intelligent, erudite individual. The problem with answering them is that those questions bring out issues related to the “right to life” and the “legality” of violations to it. It requires that one examine their position on abortion from the point of view of what we have learned from history about disregard for the rights of human beings to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.I’m sorry I have no way to answer those questions…do you have any questions related to the topic of this thread?
Yes, we can say that for sure. Regardless of her medical condition, she can choose to have no treatment. She can choose to risk her own life, or she may choose to risk her own and the life of her child by not accepting an abortion.
But this is never a morally acceptable choice. If a procedure takes place to correct a medical problem that results in unintended loss of the pregnancy, it is not an abortion.
It is always and everywhere wrong to take the life of an innocent person to save one’s own life.
Yes, but medical treatment is not an abortion. An abortion is the forceable removal of the fetus from the womb for the sole purpose of terminating the pregnancy. A woman seeking medical treatment does not have that sole purpose.
This is not a 'different perspective". This is Catholic.
No. The vast majority of women who must lose their babies in the course of treating the complications of pregnancy are devastated by the loss.The LAST thing they want is to lose their baby. You see, intention makes all the difference.
It is curious that Jesus founded a Church and gave them authority in heaven and on earth to cope with the complicated matters of faith, since that is not what He wanted.
Abortion does not protect anyone’s health or life. It is alltogether damaging.
No, CMatt, you did not. I went back and looked through all the posts. It is understandible that you don’t feel like answering that question, because deep in your heart, you know there is nothing in divine law, or civil law, that allows a woman to take the life and limb of an innocent and defenseless baby.
You say this, but that would have to be the case if your scenario were accurate. Either He kept His promises, and the Church has been led into “all Truth”, or He did not. Since you believe He did not, then what other options are there? If he did not leave, or fail?
What do you mean by calling ‘them’ anything. Isn’t ‘them’ a plural pronoun??? The only prejorative I used was to describe Fr. Drinan as a heretic…which he is by the CCC and classical definition. Sorry you don’t like it. Secondly is that the royal ‘we’ you are using?You are not reading carefully again, Mike. PR is in agreement with you on all these points, as am I. What we are telling you is that it is possible to have all these without judging people, namecalling, and ruining the effectiveness of the defense because it is lacking in charity.
And you are misunderstanding once again. Look from what I’ve seen PR can speak ably for himself.
We all judge people just like you are judging me. People are judged by their actions in this world all the time. There is nothing wrong with doing so. As I have repeatedly told you and others on this forum (you apparently are not reading carefully again) there is a complete difference in judging someone by their actions and judging their soul. Only God can judge a persons soul and only God will determine if at the end of it all we enter into Heaven or into Hell. If you disagree with I just wrote, then stop judging me and others on this forum. If that’s not clear enough for you then I give up.
You play defense if you want…I’m gonna play offense.
You have not convinced anyone here that you appreciate this suffering, or that you have any sensitivity. And you are correct. Having that empathy does not need to water down the message.
Since when do you speak everyone? I don’t have any sensitivity…there you go again judging me and using a prejorative in the process (insensitive)…tsk tsk?
We all agree that a Catholic cannot support abortion. What we disagree with is your judging the souls of others.
Once again you seem unable to distinguish between judging actions and trying to step in front of God to judge a person’s soul. Apparently you’d have no problem hanging out with pornographers, murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc. People who do these things are evil and, of course, I doubt you would ever associate with them because you would judge them as evil just like I do. Ted Bundy, by the grace of God, may be playing cards with Moses in heaven right now, but on earth he was a serial killer of women.
Also I’m getting weary of repeating myself…I am judging actions not souls.
Yes, I agree. I have never seen you use this term incorrectly.
Thanks for that…
Nope. The word drives me not. Your use of it, however, has been inappropriate. Your conviction that you are able to discern the state of other’s hearts drives me to distraction.
There you go again judging, I think you have a bad habit there…O did I just judge you?. My use of the words heresey and heretic are completly consistent with their meanings and common English usage. Please give me a context on how you would use this word or why the word even exists?
Perhaps you might describe LeRoy Carhart, the Nebraska late term abortionist, is a scoundral. You might call him Dr. Carhart. You might describe him as a dispicable abortionist. I like to describe him as a killer of near born babies via partial birth abortion. You know where the abortionist delivers the baby exept for the head. Then the abortionist jams a pair of scissors into the back of the babies skull. Then he opens the scissors in order to enlarge the hole so a catheter can be inserted into the skull to suck the babies brains out thereby collapsing the head. By his actions I judge him to be a heartless killer of babies. When he meets Jesus face to face…Jesus will decide his eternal fate…all we can do is pray for his conversion. Want to see a representation of one click on the link below:
nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
What we are trying to tell you, Mike, and has been presented to you repeatedly by many members on this thread, is that you don’t need to “call them” anything. You can focus on issues, and make a defense for your faith without calling people names. You can accurately describe behaviors without making judgements about people’s souls.
.Indeed, PR does express herself quite well, which is exactly why it is so clear that you are either not reading, or not understanding the posts.
No, Mike. There is a world of difference between making discriminations about behavior, and making assumptions about the state of a person’s heart.
Yes, but we are not to be conformed to the world, but to Christ.
Yes, there is, MIke. It is wrong for you to judge the hearts of others, and condemn them because of what they have done.
I am observing that your actions are problematic. I cannot make an assessment about the condition of your heart. I can speculate, since I know that the mouth speaks that which fills the heart. I can speculate that, since I know who the “accuser of the brethren” is, that your heart is contaminated with the fruit of the bad tree, so you engage in this fruitless behavior. But I can’t know for sure. And it does not help any for me to call you names.
Uncharitably attacking others does not accomplish the will of God.
All we can do is go by your posts, which are lacking in sensitivity, and large on judgements toward others.
Really?
Well, Mike, it appears you have a lot to learn about evangelism. In fact, these are the people that I hang withm all day, every day. The fact that they have done many evil things does not mean God does not love them.
When you affix labels to people, it comes across as judging souls.
I am giving you some feedback, Mike. You will become a much more effective apologist if you can listen, and sometimes use some feedback. I am making tthe observation that you have improperly labelled people on this thread. Your motives, or the state of your soul when you did this I cannot know.
I agree. Your application of them to certain people is improper.
It would not matter which word it was, namecalling is unproductive.
Descriptions of such kind can easily lapse over into an act of condemnation. It is critical in these cases to separate the sin from the sinner. “Scoundrel” does not describe a behavior, but an attribute of character - one that seems disparaging.
That is just my point. You are drawing conclusions about the state of his heart (or lack of heart). 'This is a step too far.
You asked what I would “call them” (the people you believe are despicable) and I replied that it is best not to call them names at all.
It is unnecessary and unproductive to make pejorative and disparaging remarks about others.
At least three people on this thread have tried to reach you on this point, apparently you are not reading the posts, or don’t care?
Judging actions is necessary. We need to be able to identify and avoid evil. Judgning the inner state of the person acting badly is not appropriate. We recognize that a person has embraced a heresy, we can make sure we avoid doing the same thing, we can pray for them, but we cannot label them a heretic.
Not canadianguy. We cannot determine the state of another’s heart and mind by using any writing whatsoever, including Holy Scripture.
There is no way that we can know the inner motives of another person. We can’t even know if the individual in question on this thread was even motivated by temporal profit or pride.
Yes, canadian, it is condemning them. It is accusing them of a mortal sin, which leads to death. Besides, the fact that we can see someone has embraced a heresy does NOT necessarily make that hapless person a heretic. The Catechism specifically states this.
Wrongdoing is never excellent, Mike.