Splitting the Roman Catholic Church

[gurneyhalleck1]

The label “fundamentalist” is one I struggle with. At the heart of the issue, ANYONE with firm religious conviction is a “fundamentalist.” Those without firm religious convictions aren’t.

SpiritMeadow, you are quite clear in your posts that you believe that all men and women of sincere religious intention and conscience are equal in standing before God. What you don’t seem to see is that you are as rigid in this belief as any bible - thumping tent revival preacher! You pretty clearly have derision for those who are conviced that God has revealed to humanity that (for example) abortion or homosexual acts are utterly wrong and not to be permitted under any circumstance. How is that any different from those who deride the people who commit those acts?

What I see in your posts is a deep uncertainty whether humans can have much moral certainty in this life (at least in some issues). I hope you can come to see that this attitude is just as much a principle open to question as those you ask others to hold open and refrain from being dogmatic about.

It is a self - contradiction to state that no one may be dogmatic about anything. Such a statement is, itself, dogmatic. I’m with you that no mere human should be dogmatic about moral issues. That is the place of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, not individuals. That’s our stance, anyways. I’m not sure how the Episcopal Church decides hard questions (or decides not to…)

Superb post, Manualman. Nicely-stated. The philosophies that these ‘progressive’ denominations of Christianity have adopted is that a church that has norms, fixed morality, doctrine that is firm, and a traditional respect for Christ are all ignorant and behind in the times. Their Christ is clay, to be molded in their own image. The very definition of idolatry.

**“Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of education is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires. And under the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for each one, for it separates people from one another, locking each person into his or her own ‘ego’” – Pope Benedict XVI | June 6, 2005 **

People with this heavy an axe to grind create the very prison for themselves that Benedict mentions and then they want us to enter a similar cell. All of us living in our own little cages of belief isolated from Christ. Scary thinking…

 

[StrawberryJam]

Maybe the thread should be called splitting hairs amoungst believers?

Why is this topic being shifted to the OP personally, and not the Subject of the thread?

I’m trying to learn about the topic and all I see is Spirit Meadow’s positions on other topics are becoming the topic!

 

[jpaul1953]

It does not make them ignorant, and I’m fed up with those statements. I could just as easily say that Catholics who voted for McCain are ignorant. He wanted to continue the war, continue to give tax breaks to the wealthy, and continue to abuse the resources we have left. You think that he was going to stop abortion? Or get it outlawed? That’s incredibly ignorant. The neo-cons have been dangling that as a carrot in front of the religious conservative to get their vote. In the whole time that the republicans were in control (since Clinton) they did nothing significant to change it. And don’t tell me it’s because democrats blocked legislation. They most certainly were able to get other legislation through that’s helped to put us in our current condition.

Frankly, to vote for someone who would incite the racism the Republican ticket ignited in people would be against what I learned as a Catholic. I think many conservatives got blinded by Obama’s pro-CHOICE stance and couldn’t see the hope he was looking to instill and inspire in people (rather than hate, war, and continued crushing of the poor by McCain). Many people saw that. Just because someone voted for Obama doesn’t make them ignorant. An Obama voter can make the same claim for a McCain voter.

Dear DemCat,

A little touchy, are ya. Didn’t really mean all dems are ignorant… I was being explosive to allow the one intended to see the absurdity of her remarks.

I believe you stand for the best beliefs in your party as I do in the Republican party. Why we both stay on opposite sides of the spectrum is because we do see mostly the good in our individual party and the bad in the opposing party. And remember, I did say that abortion is the law of the land, not that I like it, but it’s the law. And Catholics have not been able to change that. So, be cool, brother.

With respect,

jpaul1953

 

[pete_29]

That’s because the terms have a very near universal (at least, here in the U.S.) association on the abortion issue. People know what you’re talking about when you say “pro-choice,” “pro-life,” etc.

I could just as easily say, “It wouldn’t be so bad if they at least said, ‘I’m against a woman’s choice in what to do with her body.’”

I’m not against a woman making a choice of what to do with her body. I do have reservations about her choice of what to do with her baby’s body.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Dear DemCat,

A little touchy, are ya. Didn’t really mean all dems are ignorant… I was being explosive to allow the one intended to see the absurdity of her remarks.

I believe you stand for the best beliefs in your party as I do in the Republican party. Why we both stay on opposite sides of the spectrum is because we do see mostly the good in our individual party and the bad in the opposing party. And remember, I did say that abortion is the law of the land, not that I like it, but it’s the law. And Catholics have not been able to change that. So, be cool, brother.

With respect,

jpaul1953

Why are you calling God is Gracious “DemCat”?

“With respect”?

Um…

 

[elgar]

Webster dictionary defines pro abortion as
So if you think that abortion should be legal by definition you are pro abortion. It is a good sign however when someone does not want to be associated with abortion. It means they have a conscience that is pricking them. That may not hold true however for a politician whose motives are “politically” motivated.

As far as SpiritMeadow’s statement “that nobody is pro-abortion,” how can this be compared to the slavery issue? It could be said nobody was really pro-slavery. There just happened to be a need for it and some people’s livelihood depended on it just like abortion. I often thought of having a bumper sticker made with the following: against slavery, then don’t own slaves.

As far as going off topic, I am equally guilty, and I do believe abortion is the central most important topic that has the potential of splitting the Catholic Church especially in the US. And quite frankly, the Church is already split.

 

[Peter_J]

As far as SpiritMeadow’s statement “that nobody is pro-abortion,” how can this be compared to the slavery issue?

Indeed. There are people today who are in favor of the legalization of abortion just as years ago there were people who were in favor of the legalization of slavery. (Or perhaps the word “legality” would be better than “legalization”. But let’s not split hairs.)

Of course, now I’m disagreeing with SpiritMeadow, which means that I’m not “fine” at the moment (according to SpiritMeadow ).

 

[GodIsGracious]

I’m not against a woman making a choice of what to do with her body. I do have reservations about her choice of what to do with her baby’s body.

You won’t agree with this, but while she is pregnant, until that baby can be placed into someone else’s body, it’s pretty much hers too.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Dear DemCat,

A little touchy, are ya. Didn’t really mean all dems are ignorant… I was being explosive to allow the one intended to see the absurdity of her remarks.

Yeah, I can be a little touchy, especially on statements like people who voted for Obama were ignorant - because I know quite a few liberals who feel the same about McCain voters.

I believe you stand for the best beliefs in your party as I do in the Republican party. Why we both stay on opposite sides of the spectrum is because we do see mostly the good in our individual party and the bad in the opposing party. And remember, I did say that abortion is the law of the land, not that I like it, but it’s the law. And Catholics have not been able to change that. So, be cool, brother.

With respect,

jpaul1953

I completely agree that we see the good of our respective parties. And THAT is what each of us are voting for.

BTW, I’m a “sister.”

And peace to you too.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Webster dictionary defines pro abortion as
So if you think that abortion should be legal by definition you are pro abortion. It is a good sign however when someone does not want to be associated with abortion. It means they have a conscience that is pricking them. That may not hold true however for a politician whose motives are “politically” motivated.

It seems rather silly to debate the obvious. Go explain to Mike Huckabee who just the other evening said, “Nobody is “for abortion”. We all know that they are for a woman’s right to choose.”

You have zero basis for concluding that anybody’s conscience is pricked. If you do, by all means bring it forth.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That’s twisting words, I think. There’re people who believe abortion should be legal. That position is termed “pro-abortion”. The term “pro-choice” is a rather asinine euphemism, which doesn’t really describe the position held. Pro-choice about what? Ice cream flavours? kinds of healthcare? What? It’s a term people use to sanitize a morally reprehensible practice, a violation of human rights.

It is you who wish to use the term pro-abortion because it conjures up the image of people going around urging others to abort fetuses. That is not the case however. The Anti-Roe people chose to change their moniker to Pro-life, since who isn’t pro life? Yet this is not especially descriptive either since plenty of the “pro-lifers” are also pro death penalty and pro war. Your side merely wants to santize your position.

As Peter so eloquently keeps admitting, while he claims the words pro-choice are not discriptive, in the next breath he admits that every knows it means abortion. I rest my case.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

And in similar manner, it should be a crime for a doctor to commit an abortion. The only differences between a Tiller and a Roeder is the perversity of the law and the methodology. Otherwise, there is no difference at all between them.

No it’s not “in a similar manner”—one is a crime the other is not. You personally can judge anyone a criminal but the law controls here. And so your example is simply not appropriate. Basic logic prevails.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Maybe the thread should be called splitting hairs amoungst believers?

Why is this topic being shifted to the OP personally, and not the Subject of the thread?

I’m trying to learn about the topic and all I see is Spirit Meadow’s positions on other topics are becoming the topic!

Unfortunately we have gone far afield. Partly that is my fault for continuing to answer, which leads to more and not less. I should have messaged for a forum moderator to exert some control.

Most people here have been respectful and generous with their ideas. One or two come here only to start trouble. One at least has a personal issue with Episcopalians that is so deep and hurtful that he/she lashes out. I will attempt on my part to do better to steer the conversation back to where it was, if there is anything left to say on the topic.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Indeed. There are people today who are in favor of the legalization of abortion just as years ago there were people who were in favor of the legalization of slavery. (Or perhaps the word “legality” would be better than “legalization”. But let’s not split hairs.)

Of course, now I’m disagreeing with SpiritMeadow, which means that I’m not “fine” at the moment (according to SpiritMeadow ).

You have a fine way of twisting things. I don’t care if you disagree with me at all, what I objected to was clearly pointed out: At the end of post #106, you added this bit of snottiness:

Boy, I thought you were better than this (thought perhaps I shouldn’t have).

That was and is the sole reason I indicated you turn nasty when I don’t agree with you. Enough of this!

 

[GodIsGracious]

Webster dictionary defines pro abortion as

favoring the legalization of abortion

Webster’s dictionary also defines anti-choice as anti-abortion, which in turn defines anti-abortion as:

opposed to abortion and especially to the legalization of abortion <antiabortion lobbyists>

BTW, according to Webster’s dictionary, the definition of pro-life (and pro-lifer as well) has nothing to do with being for the criminalization of abortion. So if you are opposed to the legalization of abortion, you are, by definition, anti-choice.

 

[elgar]

Unfortunately we have gone far afield. Partly that is my fault for continuing to answer, which leads to more and not less. I should have messaged for a forum moderator to exert some control.

Most people here have been respectful and generous with their ideas. One or two come here only to start trouble. One at least has a personal issue with Episcopalians that is so deep and hurtful that he/she lashes out. I will attempt on my part to do better to steer the conversation back to where it was, if there is anything left to say on the topic.

I believe I am one of the two who have been critical of the Episcopal Church. I am a he who is middle aged and lives in your state. I’ve been critical of The Episcopal Church just as I’ve been critical of the Roman Catholic Church and other mainstream churches. I know I am not on topic to discuss this here but want to set the record straight. Being a dues paying former Episcopalian for 28 years gives me the right to criticize to call the church on bad behavior and heretical thinking. I try not to attack the person. If I have attacked you, I apologize. The institution is another matter, and we as laity have an obligation to do so when it errs.

I was also baptized as a Roman Catholic along with scads of others who no longer practice the faith but I am open minded enough to know with God’s Grace and the Holy Spirit anything is possible in our lifetime.

This is a Catholic site and I feel privileged to post here. We all have strong opinions and sometimes we are lacking in humility when we post. Maybe the moderators need to step in more often than they do. We can also continue this discussion under “non-Catholic religions”.

 

[HappyRevert]

You won’t agree with this, but while she is pregnant, until that baby can be placed into someone else’s body, it’s pretty much hers too.

I couldn’t let that pass. Right now the legislation is supporting abortion of babies who are perfectly capable of living outside their mother’s body, but they still kill it before it gets delivered (partial birth abortion). How do you support that? It meets all of your criteria so that it can live without it’s mother’s body but you are still saying they can kill it with the current abortion laws.

With current technology any fetus over 22 weeks can theoretically survive outside it’s mother’s body. Logically that means that all abortions after 21 weeks are murder because it is not the woman’s body any more that is in question, but the baby’s.

Do you agree with that?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I believe I am one of the two who have been critical of the Episcopal Church. I am a he who is middle aged and lives in your state. I’ve been critical of The Episcopal Church just as I’ve been critical of the Roman Catholic Church and other mainstream churches. I know I am not on topic to discuss this here but want to set the record straight. Being a dues paying former Episcopalian for 28 years gives me the right to criticize to call the church on bad behavior and heretical thinking. I try not to attack the person. If I have attacked you, I apologize. The institution is another matter, and we as laity have an obligation to do so when it errs.

I was also baptized as a Roman Catholic along with scads of others who no longer practice the faith but I am open minded enough to know with God’s Grace and the Holy Spirit anything is possible in our lifetime.

This is a Catholic site and I feel privileged to post here. We all have strong opinions and sometimes we are lacking in humility when we post. Maybe the moderators need to step in more often than they do. We can also continue this discussion under “non-Catholic religions”.

I can assure you most clearly that I was not referring to you. It is fine to criticize another faith tradition on the basis of specific practices one deems personally wrong from one’s own theological prospective. This other incidence goes beyond that to a considerable extent and is exactly a personal attack based on the “theology” I represent.

I agree whole heartedly that it is proper to criticize a church when we believe it in error. The point is that we also respect that others believe the church not in error. You I find have always done that.

If you would like to start a new thread on a topic wherein we can discuss our differences re: TEC, I’d be happy to participate!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I couldn’t let that pass. Right now the legislation is supporting abortion of babies who are perfectly capable of living outside their mother’s body, but they still kill it before it gets delivered (partial birth abortion). How do you support that? It meets all of your criteria so that it can live without it’s mother’s body but you are still saying they can kill it with the current abortion laws.

With current technology any fetus over 22 weeks can theoretically survive outside it’s mother’s body. Logically that means that all abortions after 21 weeks are murder because it is not the woman’s body any more that is in question, but the baby’s.

Do you agree with that?

Happy Revert, may i interject. While you question is important, I do think this thread is not where it belongs. I respect that some feel that abortion is the reason the RCC has difficulties, but it is one of others at best, and I’ve tried to keep this discussion to the point. Partly I admit this is my fault for falling into the trap of discussing symantics.

I’m sure many people will be happy to discuss the various issues of abortion per se if you wish to start such a thread.

Can we please return to discussing the issue of division within the RCC and where it might lead and what other faith traditions and their troubles have say add or not to the discussion?

 

[pete_29]

You won’t agree with this, but while she is pregnant, until that baby can be placed into someone else’s body, it’s pretty much hers too.

You’re right I don’t agree. Unless you think it’s a blob of tissue, the baby is a separate entity. I choose to take the safe approach and believe it’s a baby, that way I’m absolutly sure I won’t be a party to the death of another human being, at least as far as abortion is concerned.