To the Episcopalians

[HappyRevert]

Reference to Catholicism’s opposition to Roe vs. Wade and legalization of Gay Marriage.

Oh, I would quibble that our position isn’t religion but philosophy. The opposition to Roe vs. Wade is not only a Catholic concern. Those of us who believe that human life is intrinsically valuable support the protection of human life. It isn’t a uniquely Catholic position, but rather a position from all those people (atheists included as you can read on this board) who believe that since a unique human life is created at conception (science not opinion) that it must be protected from harm because another person has deemed it inconvenient or not desired for some reason. That is not religion, that is morality (what is a unique person’s value?) without religion coming into it.

The legalization of Gay marriage is also a philosophical issue and not one unique to Catholics. A marriage has always been between a man and a woman to protect and nurture the children that result from their union (history not opinion). If someone wants to enter into a civil contract to join assets, then there is no problem with that. However, when one starts calling something a “marriage” that has no basis in history or any European based language as far as I am aware, they are twisting its meaning and conducting a vast social experiment. They undermine the very basis of all societies on the planet (all societies, tribal included have the family as their basis) by undermining the family.

I would hate to think that you dismissed the Catholic faith because we believe our faith must be backed up with action. If we believe that murder is occurring whenever abortion happens, we must speak up. If we also believe that calling something a “marriage” that is not denigrates the entire basis of our society, we must also speak up. I would think this would be respected and not a reason to dismiss it out of hand. I would think that the underlying objections would be more of the issue than the fact that we speak our consciences.

If you don’t agree with the Catholic position on those issues, then fine, but don’t accuse us somehow of being unworthy because we’re trying to put religion in government. That really doesn’t hold up to any logical scrutiny.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Seriously. This one time, no joke, I decided that I would attend a Catholic Mass. I had never studied the religion or anything. I loved the mass and thought it was beautiful, like a small piece of heaven. Then, when I got to studying it, I realized that Catholics want to place religion in government and ban gays from marriage and rid a woman’s right to choose abortion. Sounded like a theocracy.

Boy, was I wrong about that religion. At least the mass was nice, though.

Hi AJ,

It doesn’t sound like you’re looking for a Church but rather a mirror to see what you already want to see. I fail to see where the Roman Catholic Church is trying to place religion in government? This seems like a bizarre statement. Secondly, the “banning gays” comment is also questionable. For the last 2,000 years and, heck, even before that, no religion has ever legitimized to sodomites from being in a “marriage.” The ancient Greeks and Romans, despite their love for the gay lifestyle, never elevated it to the rank of marriage. They would’ve laughed at this. Even these pagans knew there is a procreative element to marriage and that biologically men and women are meant to be in a union that is lasting and meaningful. Christianity and Judaism before it have always condemned homosexual behavior as sinful. Notice I say “behavior” and not the person themselves. Gay sex is a sin. Always has been. Always will be. You might find some progressive feel-good koombaya church that legitimizes it but the truth is immutable and fixed, period. Homosexuality is gravely disordered. Secondly, how you can consider abortion a “choice” shows you have a long road to go down before you discover Christ. Your heart is not open to the Holy Spirit and the love of God if you condone the destruction of a baby. Tragic to read those words…

As I stated, you liked the Mass because it sounded cool to you and maybe a touch medievel. But when you dug deeper and saw that this religion will require you to change, do some soul-searching, and open your heart to 2,000 years of tradition, scripture, and the magisterium, you bailed on the idea. Religion, true religion, is meant to mold us, shape us, change us, not amplify a status quo that is closed to the truth. As a Catholic I have had to make some changes and I’m not always comfortable with teachings. But in the end, my opinion doesn’t mean squat against the robust history of the Church, the papacy, the college of cardinals, the catechism, and the deposit of faith fed and nourished by the blood of the saints and martyrs and ultimately…Christ Himself.

I hope you’ll reconsider and think about what you’re truly looking for…
God Bless

 

[AJTheMan]

Hi AJ,

It doesn’t sound like you’re looking for a Church but rather a mirror to see what you already want to see. I fail to see where the Roman Catholic Church is trying to place religion in government? This seems like a bizarre statement. Secondly, the “banning gays” comment is also questionable. For the last 2,000 years and, heck, even before that, no religion has ever legitimized to sodomites from being in a “marriage.” The ancient Greeks and Romans, despite their love for the gay lifestyle, never elevated it to the rank of marriage. They would’ve laughed at this. Even these pagans knew there is a procreative element to marriage and that biologically men and women are meant to be in a union that is lasting and meaningful. Christianity and Judaism before it have always condemned homosexual behavior as sinful. Notice I say “behavior” and not the person themselves. Gay sex is a sin. Always has been. Always will be. You might find some progressive feel-good koombaya church that legitimizes it but the truth is immutable and fixed, period. Homosexuality is gravely disordered. Secondly, how you can consider abortion a “choice” shows you have a long road to go down before you discover Christ. Your heart is not open to the Holy Spirit and the love of God if you condone the destruction of a baby. Tragic to read those words…

As I stated, you liked the Mass because it sounded cool to you and maybe a touch medievel. But when you dug deeper and saw that this religion will require you to change, do some soul-searching, and open your heart to 2,000 years of tradition, scripture, and the magisterium, you bailed on the idea. Religion, true religion, is meant to mold us, shape us, change us, not amplify a status quo that is closed to the truth. As a Catholic I have had to make some changes and I’m not always comfortable with teachings. But in the end, my opinion doesn’t mean squat against the robust history of the Church, the papacy, the college of cardinals, the catechism, and the deposit of faith fed and nourished by the blood of the saints and martyrs and ultimately…Christ Himself.

I hope you’ll reconsider and think about what you’re truly looking for…
God Bless

Religion is a choice. Religion is an industry. Some people prefer the flashy pastors of mega churches. Some prefer the down-home chapels where only a few hundred attend. Some prefer liberal congregations, some prefer conservative ones.

You are correct in saying that I’m not willing to conform to something that I know is wrong. I’m not embarrassed to say that. Rather, I’d be more embarrassed to say that I’m fighting for a cruel cause because of my religion. Religion is a personal choice and we must only do what our conscience allows. My conscience would not allow me to let my religion tell me how to vote. Or which causes to support. A good religion recognizes American principles and that the government always supersedes religion. A good religion recognizes it’s role as a spiritual field but not a political field.

So you’re correct that I’m not willing to conform. I’m not willing to conform to doctrines that I know are wrong. Just like if I wanted to become Rastafarian, they would want me to smoke cannabis. I would have to tell them that I cannot do this because it goes against my conscience.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I disagree.

Government does not SUPERSEDE religion. What good government does is not favor one religion over another, what good government does is refrain from establishing a “state” religion and persecuting others.

 

[Justy90]

ok, I could have done without this visual.

Fr. Mark
REC-ACNA

A look at Bishop Schori almost gives one that visual in my opinion.

 

[elgar]

A look at Bishop Schori almost gives one that visual in my opinion.

As Austin Powers would say, “Oh behave,” but a Bishop Schori visual is enough to scare the pants off of your average person. Sorry if I’m being snarky here. So tempting.

 

[Contarini]

Fair enough. You feel compelled to push that cause just as we on the side of choice wish to push the cause of liberty. Of Freedom.

(I’m not antagonizing your position, just merely commenting that we both have the right to push our respective causes. Your cause being life, my cause being freedom and liberty to choose)

Do we have liberty to kill innocent human beings?

If we don’t, then aren’t you morally obligated to satisfy yourself that an unborn fetus is not a human being before you champion the liberty to kill a fetus?

Edwin

 

[elgar]

Do we have liberty to kill innocent human beings?

If we don’t, then aren’t you morally obligated to satisfy yourself that an unborn fetus is not a human being before you champion the liberty to kill a fetus?

Edwin

Since we’re on the subject, The Episcopal Church (TEC) is a proud and affirming member of RCRC (Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice). For those who think TEC and Roman Catholics are so close, this should be the clincher. It’s been discussed on this thread but will mention again, open lesbian priest and dean of The Episcopal Divinity School, Katherine Ragsdale, proudly serves on the board of NARAL, Pro-choice American and speaks out on behalf of RCRC. She is known for her infamous sermon “Abortion is a Blessing”.

 

[AJTheMan]

Do we have liberty to kill innocent human beings?

No. That would be considered murder.

Contarini:

If we don’t, then aren’t you morally obligated to satisfy yourself that an unborn fetus is not a human being before you champion the liberty to kill a fetus?

Edwin

It’s not my place…or the government’s place to decide what a woman can and cannot do with her body. You seem to infer that the government encourages abortions or something. All the government has said is that it recognizes that it is a divisive issue and that each woman should have the liberty to decide whether or not an abortion goes against her conscience. A woman can still say no to abortion if she finds it morally reprehensible. And vice versa with a woman who finds it morally justified.

All the gov’t has done is recognize that it is a personal moral issue and not a governmental issue. They’ve shifted the POV from Abortion as being a criminal problem to being a moral problem instead.

 

[MelanieAnne]

No. That would be considered murder.

It’s not my place…or the government’s place to decide what a woman can and cannot do with her body. You seem to infer that the government encourages abortions or something. All the government has said is that it recognizes that it is a divisive issue and that each woman should have the liberty to decide whether or not an abortion goes against her conscience. A woman can still say no to abortion if she finds it morally reprehensible. And vice versa with a woman who finds it morally justified.

All the gov’t has done is recognize that it is a personal moral issue and not a governmental issue. They’ve shifted the POV from Abortion as being a criminal problem to being a moral problem instead.

As long as the government funds abortions, which it does, it is participating in the act. Woman have the choice** not to make** a baby. Generally a person “rights” end when they start to interfere with another person’s “rights”, unless you’re a baby. When does the BABY’S right to live matter? Why doesn’t the BABY have rights? Everyone better hope that their life isn’t someday ruled “inconvenient” and therefore terminated.

And just to be clear, “the government” did not “recognize that it is a divisive issue and that each woman should have the liberty to decide”, it was simply the Supreme Court that imposed its own rule. The people have never been allowed to vote on this question and probably never will. This decision was imposed by the Supreme Court, based on what most legal scholars, even those who support abortion rights, consider a totally invented “right” that does not appear in the Constitution, it has never been put to a vote. And we have had a civil war in this country ever since. So that rule has been so helpful, hasn’t it? Dividing the nation for more than a quarter century.

 

[AJTheMan]

As long as the government funds abortions, which it does, it is participating in the act. Woman have the choice** not to make** a baby. Generally a person “rights” end when they start to interfere with another person’s “rights”, unless you’re a baby. When does the BABY’S right to live matter? Why doesn’t the BABY have rights?

Because the rights of something that has already been born and is recognized as living supersedes those of something that has yet to

And just to be clear, “the government” did not “recognize that it is a divisive issue and that each woman should have the liberty to decide”, it was simply the Supreme Court that imposed its own rule. The people have never been allowed to vote on this question and probably never will. This decision was imposed by the Supreme Court, based on what most legal scholars, even those who support abortion rights, consider a totally invented “right” that does not appear in the Constitution, it has never been put to a vote. And we have had a civil war in this country ever since. So that rule has been so helpful, hasn’t it? Dividing the nation for more than a quarter century.

If we put everything to a vote, the rights of the minority will never be protected. Our founding fathers actually invented the phrase “tyranny of the majority” because of this. The Supreme Courts were established to make sure that both the majority and the minority were protected and that their civil rights were heard.

Can a fetus sign up to vote? I mean, that’s a right that all people under 18 are denied. Can a fetus be taxed? Along with the baby’s rights come the responsibility to pay taxes.

And to make one final point here, the government can go through hell and high water to prohibit abortion all it wants…but it will never eradicate abortion. Abortion, whether legal or not, will happen.

Because I recognize that I will not change your pov, I’m going to save both you and I some time and spare the conversation until some other time.

 

[MelanieAnne]

If we put everything to a vote, the rights of the minority will never be protected. Our founding fathers actually invented the phrase “tyranny of the majority” because of this. The Supreme Courts were established to make sure that both the majority and the minority were protected and that their civil rights were heard.

The US Senate is also there to protect the rights of minorities, in this case, minority states. But using your own statement, if the Supreme court was established to make sure both the majority and the minority were protected and their civil rights were heard, then why aren’t they protecting the babies?

Sorry you want to duck the issue, but women DO have the right to choose, they can CHOOSE not to make a baby. Once the baby is made, the baby should have rights too. This is just logical, not to mention perfectly in keeping with common law. What ISN’T in keeping with common law is the right to murder someone when their very existence is inconvenient to your way of life. This is why they indulge in all sorts of verbal manipulation to avoid calling the baby what it is ~ a BABY~ and to avoid calling what the procedure is exactly what it is ~ murder.

 

[AJTheMan]

Not that I wish to duck the issue but I just see that you wouldn’t be willing to honestly consider my points. Nothing against you though. I’m sure that you’re a nice enough person.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Not that I wish to duck the issue but I just see that you wouldn’t be willing to honestly consider my points. Nothing against you though. I’m sure that you’re a nice enough person.

I’m always willing to consider valid points. Where someone makes a point that is supposed to be a fact, and it is not a fact, then the record needs to be corrected. Any productive dialog can only be based on truth.

 

[VARC]

A good religion recognizes American principles and that the government always supersedes religion.

I don’t know if I would word it like that. Such an idea suggests that the government dicates right and wrong. Both Liberals and conservatives would disagree with this. Conservatives view the government’s acceptance (and often promotion) of elective abortion as evil. Liberals view the government’s acceptance of health care discrimination against the sick as evil. I

A good religion recognizes it’s role as a spiritual field but not a political field.

That’s better. A more contemporary way of saying render unto Caesar those things which are Caesar’s and to God those things which are God’s.

 

[PattyPryor]

No offense but this thread is WAY off topic. I’m gonna ask the MODS to close it.

 

[VARC]

I hate the labels of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. I like to think of myself as both. Sometimes life can be complicated and difficult choices must be made to promote the greater good (I completely reject Aquinas’ double effect principle. It was one of the main reasons that I left Catholicism.)

I also believe that those choices should be made by families (the father should have some say in it) and their doctors not pandering politicians many of whom probably don’t care about unborn fetus’ at all. I found it ironic that the same politicians who are pro-life were against the Children’s Health Insurance Program. It seems that many of those politicians care about fetuses until they are born and they are on their own. In this sence, I am pro-choice.

At the same time, I acknowledge that most abortions are clearly the killing of human beings. Abortion is oftentimes for dubious reasons. Killing the innocent without a good reason is murder and the government has a divine mandate to protect the innocent from un-necessary violence. In this sense, I am pro-Life.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If we put everything to a vote, the rights of the minority will never be protected. Our founding fathers actually invented the phrase “tyranny of the majority” because of this. The Supreme Courts were established to make sure that both the majority and the minority were protected and that their civil rights were heard.

Can a fetus sign up to vote? I mean, that’s a right that all people under 18 are denied. Can a fetus be taxed? Along with the baby’s rights come the responsibility to pay taxes.

And to make one final point here, the government can go through hell and high water to prohibit abortion all it wants…but it will never eradicate abortion. Abortion, whether legal or not, will happen.

Because I recognize that I will not change your pov, I’m going to save both you and I some time and spare the conversation until some other time.

Whether or not abortion will happen doesn’t mean the government and the populace should sanction it. Murder will happen too, and rape, and incest, and child abuse and grand theft auto but I sure don’t plan on legitimizing it! That tired, old argument that we know a girl is going to terminate her baby anyway so let’s help her do it in a nice, comfy clinic has a sick logic that escapes me…

Regarding the courts, the Fathers also had the expectations that our judges would stay part of the judicial branch NOT the legislative branch! We have judges who are activists with a quasi-legislative agenda…that should disturb anyone who respects the constitution and its intent

 

[Justy90]

Whether or not abortion will happen doesn’t mean the government and the populace should sanction it. Murder will happen too, and rape, and incest, and child abuse and grand theft auto but I sure don’t plan on legitimizing it! That tired, old argument that we know a girl is going to terminate her baby anyway so let’s help her do it in a nice, comfy clinic has a sick logic that escapes me…

Regarding the courts, the Fathers also had the expectations that our judges would stay part of the judicial branch NOT the legislative branch! We have judges who are activists with a quasi-legislative agenda…that should disturb anyone who respects the constitution and its intent

Very well stated. Sometimes the things that are seemingly put into place to help a certain people end up hurting them and the saddest part about it is that they don’t even realize it. The feminist movement comes to mind here.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Religion is a choice. Religion is an industry. Some people prefer the flashy pastors of mega churches. Some prefer the down-home chapels where only a few hundred attend. Some prefer liberal congregations, some prefer conservative ones.

You are correct in saying that I’m not willing to conform to something that I know is wrong. I’m not embarrassed to say that. Rather, I’d be more embarrassed to say that I’m fighting for a cruel cause because of my religion. Religion is a personal choice and we must only do what our conscience allows. My conscience would not allow me to let my religion tell me how to vote. Or which causes to support. A good religion recognizes American principles and that the government always supersedes religion. A good religion recognizes it’s role as a spiritual field but not a political field.

So you’re correct that I’m not willing to conform. I’m not willing to conform to doctrines that I know are wrong. Just like if I wanted to become Rastafarian, they would want me to smoke cannabis. I would have to tell them that I cannot do this because it goes against my conscience.

You state that you “know” that creating a pro-life-only agenda is “wrong” as well as forbidding gay marriage is also “wrong.” Then you state that your conscience tells you so. With that being said, you have completely shut yourself off to all religion, period. You have also defined for yourself what religion is: a weak and wobbly, do-it-yourself morally-relative assembly of people that may never stick up for what they believe in politically. So I guess Martin Luther King, a religious Baptist minister, had no right to POLITICALLY protest segregation. I guess Desmond Tutu (someone with whom I usually disagree) had no right to POLITICALLY protest segregation and appartheid in South Africa. Also I suppose John Paul II had no right to call for an end to communism because he had no right to politically sound-off.

You speak of conscience a great deal. A Catholic believes greatly in a well-formed conscience. But your conscience is formed on a left-wing agenda and a secular humanist, internalized set of morals, not Judeo-Christian morality or a religious one at all really. Even Muslims, who are often very antagonistic to Christians and vice versa, are pro-life, opposed to gay marriage, etc. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, orthodox Buddhism of the Therevada tradition, mainline Protestantism and evangelicals by and large, are pro-life and opposed to joining sodomites in “matrimony.”

Would your conscience condone beastiality? Who’s to say a man can’t “love” and want to join in a meaningful relationship with his sheep or cows?

Would your conscience condone plural marriage, polygamy? Some might claim that they love three women equally? Would your conscience then be troubled?

Where does it end?

I once thought as you as a teen. I thought murdering a baby in the womb was a “choice” and that being gay was cool and hip and fine and, heck, who was I to question their “love?” But as I explored the Christian faith, the Bible, sacred tradition, all a common thread across all major religions led me to the OBVIOUS fact that I was in error. Religion shaped ME, not the reverse trend. I didn’t “shop” for a religion. Religion found me. The Holy Spirit held out His mighty hand and embraced me, not the other way around. Sometimes we need to bend to God’s will and stop telling Him how things should be.

Religion may be an industry to some, but not to me and to many other Catholics in this forum as well as many Protestants here. Some may capitalize on religion and profit from it, some might even have ulterior motives, but generally speaking the Catholic Church is the Church Christ built and it is in the “business” of saving souls. You can shop around for a group that comforts your conscience, but without a true understanding of Biblical principles, knowledge of sacred tradition, common sense in seeing that all major religions are opposed to gay marriage and the slaughter of the unborn, deep and heartfelt prayer, and the insight to know that religion calls us OUT of that prison of secular moral relativism, you will be trapped in a mirror cult of self-worship and idolatry. Truth is fixed, static, and eternal, not clay that is molded on the whims and fancies of the individual.