No. There are NO instances where abortion is allowed. The willful taking of innocent life is always a grave sin.
Hi Guanophore!
Yes, the operation involving mitigation of an ectopic pregnancy and other such instances that are likely to end the lives of both parties are allowed. The intent is not the ending of a life. However, this particular guiding factor can be misused because one could come up with the argument that no one intends to take a “life”, even in a “convenience” abortion. They do not see the life as one of value; their “seeing” is very limited. It also understandably raises a few eyebrows when we claim that ending an ectopic pregancy is not an abortion. Until we can save such a pregnancy in the operating room, abortion is the end result. While words are used to judge people, it is Christian to understand, forgive, and educate. What I am saying is that we can go a lot further educating people about the value of an unborn life than judging. Can we leave it at that? This is not a thread about abortion.
If by plurality of teaching you mean heterodox views, then this is a problem for everone, not just dissenters.
It would be an error to think that the modern Popes have departed from the fundamental standard that communion is based on unity of doctrine.
When using “plurality” I am thinking of examples that fall in line with Pope Benedict’s words of “legitimate differences”. Guanophore, could you please provide a doctrine that backs up “communion based on unity of doctrine”? I have never seen anything other than that we have a unity based on commitment to Christ, and I have never seen anything that equates commitment to Christ as a commitment to doctrinal words. The creed, yes, but words have a tendency to follow the interpretation of all those belly-button carriers you refer to.
Yes, there are those who receive communion and have a more narrow sense of who they include in “Church” when they receive. Every time I receive Eucharist now, I think of who and what I am including, and I am using “including” in the sense of who/what I love. And love is a commitment, is it not? When I receive Eucharist now, I affirm my love and inclusion of all Christians, all Jews, all Muslims, all those of every religion, all of the animals, all nature, all creation. Would you say that my choice is contrary to Catholicism?
Unity is not based upon “interpretation of beliefs” but by adherance to the Truth.
And Truth is found by the eyes of those belly-button carriers. I am saying that there is a lot to be said for understanding people from “where they are at”.
Not on CAF, I don’t think. I seem to find my self writing not infrequently that someone has lost their Catholicity.
Yes, I am also subject to my own natural compulsion to judge and be protective. Through the gift of understanding, I have learned not label people as less Catholic in some way if they are truly inclined to be in communion. I start with questions such as “Why does he/she think that?”, and go from there. There are always very understandable reasons, always with good intent, behind beliefs and stances. Pumpkin Cookie definitely has understandable reasons and good intent behind his beliefs, and so do you. Now, which of you is more inclined to “inclusion” in the broadest sense of the word? Inclusion is a wholeness, holiness. From whom we have an aversion, we are not likely to include.
Is there a perfect argument, a perfect theology, one that accounts for all the mysteries? No there is not, so in the mean time we can humbly respect a lot of different approaches…?
Approaches to theology and to understanding mysteries? Sure. Different “approaches” to doctrine, not so much. There is One Faith.
I agree with this, which is why I disagree with Pumpkin’s assertion that hate is a reaction to the faith somehow. I think it is an expression of imperfect love no matter what one’s religious beliefs.
We would probably have to investigate those “different approaches” (defining, and then going deep into each approach) in order to be able to come together on a broad statement. Yes, there is one Faith, and we the baptized share a communion. And you must have noticed that our great RCC honors the baptisms done by other denominations, right? People joining the RCC do not get rebaptized.
Hmmm. Hate as an expression of imperfect love. I can see it, yes.
Now, try this for a moment: Why would our benevolent loving Father give us the capacity to hate? I answer this question by looking at other wonderful species in our world.
Great points, Guanophore. Please keep in mind that if you find yourself questioning my faith, Pumpkin Cookie has a demonstrated example. Now, if you are questioning my faith (which I am not assuming one way or the other), I would not ascribe to simple denial of such questioning in order that PC not win. Instead, in taking the Pope’s words to heart, could you find a deeper harmony in the legitimate differences? Oh yes, just to cover all the bases, before finding anything people say as “illegitimate”, it behooves us to understand completely from where the person is coming, the experiences behind his or her words. Agreed?
God Bless your day.
I have neither the ability nor the desire to judge people as “more or less Catholic.” If someone says they’re a Catholic, I take them at their word. Yes, I agree we can respect many different kinds of approaches and listen to many different opinions.
