What are the *True Facts* Regarding the Abortion-Approving Nun?

[Elizabeth502]

There is no room here for Catholics to question the infallibility of this statement. Popes cannot teach moral error.

^For Catholics.

(1) Many non-Catholics do not even accept the premise of objective truth (not because they are moral relativists but because they believe that only the physical laws of the universe are ‘objectively’ true); such people may nevertheless be highly ethical people.
(2) Most non-Catholics do not accept the concept of papal infallibility: for example, Episcopalians distinguish themselves from Catholics especially by this. Certainly Jews and Muslims do not feel any requirement to adhere to papal infallibility.

If this is true, it must be true for everyone, not just Catholics.

We Catholics have not proven to the non-Catholic world that it is even “true,” let alone “true for everyone” (ie., objectively, universally true).

Therefore, it is equally binding on every one who knows this truth.

This does not follow, since the previous statements are not universally accepted. It is equally binding on everyone who belongs to the system of beliefs which states papal infallibility. It is not equally binding on everyone who has knowledge that we Catholics believe in papal infallibility.

What I’m trying to get at is that there’s an important distinction here between belief and action. We may hold that God’s universal law binds all human beings to behave in the most honorable and ethical way possible, but they are not necessarily required to believe in papal infallibility. That is a doctrine into which people are graced through baptism and the catechesis which precedes or follows.

 

[Rence]

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s,render unto God that which is God’s.

That’s what I’ve been trying to say, or in other words, the Catholic Church is responsible for governing or enforcing Catholic laws to Catholics. It can’t force non-catholics to accept their laws. Our government represents different people with different faiths, and can’t and won’t, based civil law on any one religion’s teachings.

 

[catharina]

That’s what I’ve been trying to say, or in other words, the Catholic Church is responsible for governing or enforcing Catholic laws to Catholics. It can’t force non-catholics to accept their laws. Our government represents different people with different faiths, and can’t and won’t, based civil law on any one religion’s teachings.

Rence, do you understand that the abortion laws are NEW.?
The nation’s been around 200+ yrs.
Abortion’s been legalized for 40+ yrs.
IOW, what was once formally forbidden is now easily allowed.

What most Catholics, like Brother JR, are saying is this:
The laws need to be changed again. It is our moral duty to make that happen.

Do you understand that?
I’m not being sarcastic.
I’m truly wondering if you understand that the laws need changing.

You seem to be so comfortable defending the legality of abortion.
It’s strange. It’s confusing. It’s unusual.

 

[momor]

First of all, allow me to express my respect for your courage on these issues.

Thank you.

Is the separation of Chruch and state as real as we think or is it just a lie that has been taught to us? Finally, why can’t a public official be guided by his or her faith? Who wants public officials who are guided by the turn of the tide? Would we rather have that or public officials who are gounded in moral principles that are not easily shaken by the popular opinion?

The reason I could not be a politician, a judge, a nurse in women’s healthcare, or a manager at my company, etc. is because I could not uphold certain laws that already exist. What I can do as an individual to rid the country of anti-life laws I cannot necessarily do in a position of power over another. For example, as a Catholic trial judge I could not close down an abortion clinic and find them guilty of assault or murder if they broke no laws. I could not legally grant a husband’s request to prevent his wife from having a legal abortion if she was not breaking any laws by doing so.

 

[kimmielittle]

Go for it.

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you

 

[Rence]

The reason I could not be a politician, a judge, a nurse in women’s healthcare, or a manager at my company, etc. is because I could not uphold certain laws that already exist. What I can do as an individual to rid the country of anti-life laws I cannot necessarily do in a position of power over another. For example, as a Catholic trial judge I could not close down an abortion clinic and find them guilty of assault or murder if they broke no laws. I could not legally grant a husband’s request to prevent his wife from having a legal abortion if she was not breaking any laws by doing so.

I appreciate when people acknoweledge that their religious views cannot dictate all of their actions in response to other peoples’ needs and wants, especially civilians or patients. Our country represents people from all over the globe, and people of all different religions, and even people without religion. It’s responsible and ethical to recognize that one cannot force their religion’s rules on those who don’t share that religion by simply making them civil law. I certainly would fight it tooth and nail if someone non-Catholic or non-Christian would attempt to modify, add or take away laws in this country in response to their own religion’s teachings. So I can relate to someone not Catholic resenting laws being forced upon them that originate from the Catholic Church. Even Catholics resent it IRL where I come from. If one cannot represent their voters (or patients), keeping all the varied people in mind, it’s better not to hold that office or work in such an environment that would either force you to violate another person’s rights, or compromise your own ethics.

Growing up, I never met Catholics in real life who wanted to infringe on the rights of those with other religions or those without religion, so this attitute is quite new to me. It wasn’t until recently that I realized there are Catholics out there who don’t respect others’ rights to their own religion or even to not have religion and it’s quite shocking to me. But I’m sure it’s just as much a shock for other folks to learn that I won’t infringe on others’ rights by trying to force them to adhere to Cathlic teachings. We’re all different and come from different backgrounds and environments. Personally, I was always taught to make others aware of the Church’s teachings, but beyond that, it’s up to the individual to make their choices in life.

I can’t even imagine a world where one must, have to, be required to, follow one particular religion’s rules over the person’s freedom of choice. I truly am thankful to God for the freedoms I enjoy. And I thank Him every day that I’m not in these other religious-ruled countries and regions. After all, God Himself gave us Free Will. So it’s beyond me to think that some religious think they can take that Free Will away from others by force. To me it’s like putting one’s self in the position of God, and to me, that’s not a smart place to be considering we are all sinners and have our own sins for which to answer to God.

It’s not like you can save someone from themselves by taking away their choices, because their intent is still there And besidest that, usually where there is a will, there’s a way. So I don’t believe it’s “for their own good” as some people put it. Being Catholic is a choice. Following Catholics teachings is a choice. There is no merit by being forced. And you can’t really force anyone anyway.

 

[catharina]

It’s not like you can save someone from themselves by taking away their choices, because their intent is still there And besidest that, usually where there is a will, there’s a way. So I don’t believe it’s “for their own good” as some people put it. Being Catholic is a choice. Following Catholics teachings is a choice. There is no merit by being forced. And you can’t really force anyone anyway.

Rence, I’m still hoping you will respond to Post # 217. Thank you.

 

[FlyCatcher]

Apparently, a defintion of democracy that allows individual freedom to do evil and destroy life isn ot what God had in mind.

Correct. Democracy is focused on what the people want, not what God wants. Theocracy is focused on what some men say God wants.

 

[JReducation]

I appreciate when people acknoweledge that their religious views cannot dictate all of their actions in response to other peoples’ needs and wants, especially civilians or patients. Our country represents people from all over the globe, and people of all different religions, and even people without religion. It’s responsible and ethical to recognize that one cannot force their religion’s rules on those who don’t share that religion by simply making them civil law. I certainly would fight it tooth and nail if someone non-Catholic or non-Christian would attempt to modify, add or take away laws in this country in response to their own religion’s teachings. So I can relate to someone not Catholic resenting laws being forced upon them that originate from the Catholic Church. Even Catholics resent it IRL where I come from. If one cannot represent their voters (or patients), keeping all the varied people in mind, it’s better not to hold that office or work in such an environment that would either force you to violate another person’s rights, or compromise your own ethics.

Growing up, I never met Catholics in real life who wanted to infringe on the rights of those with other religions or those without religion, so this attitute is quite new to me. It wasn’t until recently that I realized there are Catholics out there who don’t respect others’ rights to their own religion or even to not have religion and it’s quite shocking to me. But I’m sure it’s just as much a shock for other folks to learn that I won’t infringe on others’ rights by trying to force them to adhere to Cathlic teachings. We’re all different and come from different backgrounds and environments. Personally, I was always taught to make others aware of the Church’s teachings, but beyond that, it’s up to the individual to make their choices in life.

I can’t even imagine a world where one must, have to, be required to, follow one particular religion’s rules over the person’s freedom of choice. I truly am thankful to God for the freedoms I enjoy. And I thank Him every day that I’m not in these other religious-ruled countries and regions. After all, God Himself gave us Free Will. So it’s beyond me to think that some religious think they can take that Free Will away from others by force. To me it’s like putting one’s self in the position of God, and to me, that’s not a smart place to be considering we are all sinners and have our own sins for which to answer to God.

It’s not like you can save someone from themselves by taking away their choices, because their intent is still there And besidest that, usually where there is a will, there’s a way. So I don’t believe it’s “for their own good” as some people put it. Being Catholic is a choice. Following Catholics teachings is a choice. There is no merit by being forced. And you can’t really force anyone anyway.

This mistake that is being made here is the belief that abortion is a right. No one has the righ to do evil. This is not a Catholic teaching. This is the second mistake. We’re saying that this is a Catholic teaching, only because Catholics are the most vocal on this matter. But this law is built into natural law. Secondly, it has been revealed.

There is no respect in allowing government to legalize evil. That is what is happening here. Some are saying that the government has to legalize this evil, because not everyone believes that it is evil. Regardless of what everyone believe, evil remains evil. Evil does not become good because some believe this is so. This evil is of divine revelation. You’re proposing that God yield and be flexible on matters of evil. You’re asking God to act contrary to his nature. God cannot be flexible on matters of evil. God can forgive those who have done evil and he wants to forgive them, if they ask for forgiveness. But God will not bend the moral law to accommodate for those who believe a falsehood, in this case, that abortion is a good or sometimes a good. God is not a God of falsehoods.

Let me ask you a fundamental moral question. Can somenoe say that they have faith in a God who is flexible enough to allow evil in some cases and look the other way?

Do you believe that prohibiting the killing of the child outside of the womb should be done away with, because some people believe that infanticide is acceptable since according to them, the child does not become a person until he reaches the age of reason?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I appreciate when people acknoweledge that their religious views cannot dictate all of their actions in response to other peoples’ needs and wants, especially civilians or patients.

Are you saying that you appreciate it when people acknowledge that Jesus was mistaken, when he insisted that every action, every thought, every judgment and everything we do toward self and others be guided by his law and he imposed this commandment on the whole world?

Or are you saying that you’re glad that people realize that St. Paul was wrong when he states in the letter to the Galatians that their laws must submit to the laws of Christ, because there is only one truth and it is not to be found in the Greek laws, but only in the laws that Paul and the Apostles had handed down to the Galations?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rence]

Let me ask you a fundamental moral question. Can somenoe say that they have faith in a God who is flexible enough to allow evil in some cases and look the other way?

I can’t answer for someone who says that they have faith in a God who is flexible enough to allow evil in some cases and look the other way. And I cannot when I consider that an example of “evil” for one person, would not be evil for another. For example, I believe it is evil for a man to rape a woman. However, some cultures believe its their right to rape their wife. Or for example, some people believe that all war is evil, and others can make excuses for it and rationalize why it’s a “good war”. Still another example, one might find it evil to steal, but others may find it not evil or “less evil” to steal food for one’s children. And another example is lying. Some Catholic folks on this board said it was evil to lie to the Nazi’s about the whearabouts of the Jews, and other Catholics argued that it was not evil to lie in such a case – and these were Cathlics who worship the same God in the context of the same religion’s teachings yet they could not come to an agreement about whether or not a lie can be “good” sometimes or always evil not matter what.

Do you believe that prohibiting the killing of the child outside of the womb should be done away with, because some people believe that infanticide is acceptable since according to them, the child does not become a person until he reaches the age of reason?

No, I don’t. I am not one of those people who believe that infanticide is acceptable.

 

[Rence]

Are you saying that you appreciate it when people acknowledge that Jesus was mistaken, when he insisted that every action, every thought, every judgment and everything we do toward self and others be guided by his law and he imposed this commandment on the whole world?

Or are you saying that you’re glad that people realize that St. Paul was wrong when he states in the letter to the Galatians that their laws must submit to the laws of Christ, because there is only one truth and it is not to be found in the Greek laws, but only in the laws that Paul and the Apostles had handed down to the Galations?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I am saying: I appreciate when people acknoweledge that their religious views cannot dictate all of their actions in response to other peoples’ needs and wants, especially civilians or patients. In other words, if one holds a position in government, and admits they should not keep that position because in being Catholic requires them to impose their religious views on the state-driven needs of citizens who don’t share that religion.

For example, a Jewish politician knows it would be inappropriate for him to try and change the civil laws in response to Jewish religious teachings - for example, outlawing eating of pork, which is a serious offense to the Jews, cannot be imposed on the rest of society who does not hold that belief.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I can’t answer for someone who says that they have faith in a God who is flexible enough to allow evil in some cases and look the other way. And I cannot when I consider that an example of “evil” for one person, would not be evil for another. For example, I believe it is evil for a man to rape a woman. However, some cultures believe its their right to rape their wife. Or for example, some people believe that all war is evil, and others can make excuses for it and rationalize why it’s a “good war”. Still another example, one might find it evil to steal, but others may find it not evil or “less evil” to steal food for one’s children. And another example is lying. Some Catholic folks on this board said it was evil to lie to the Nazi’s about the whearabouts of the Jews, and other Catholics argued that it was not evil to lie in such a case – and these were Cathlics who worship the same God in the context of the same religion’s teachings yet they could not come to an agreement about whether or not a lie can be “good” sometimes or always evil not matter what.

No, I don’t. I am not one of those people who believe that infanticide is acceptable.

Rence, if a man from a culture who believes spousal rape is okey dokey came to live in the US and rapes his wife, the DA’s office does not say, “Oh well, no big deal, that’s his culture…we won’t prosecute.” It would still be a crime.

Some religions are fine with polygamy…polygamy is prohibited in the US. If a man from another country that allows polygamy wants to emigrate to the US, only the first wife is considered legal and only she can come.

Do you think I am anti-abortion because the Church teaches abortion is wrong?

Or is abortion wrong, and the Church teaches it because that is the truth?

 

[momor]

I am saying: I appreciate when people acknoweledge that their religious views cannot dictate all of their actions in response to other peoples’ needs and wants, especially civilians or patients. In other words, if one holds a position in government, and admits they should not keep that position because in being Catholic requires them to impose their religious views on the state-driven needs of citizens who don’t share that religion.

For example, a Jewish politician knows it would be inappropriate for him to try and change the civil laws in response to Jewish religious teachings - for example, outlawing eating of pork, which is a serious offense to the Jews, cannot be imposed on the rest of society who does not hold that belief.

Do you acknowledge the individual right of any Jew, as a citizen, to try and enact a law forbidding the eating of pork because s/he believes it is right?

 

[catharina]

Rence, do you understand that the abortion laws are NEW.?
The nation’s been around 200+ yrs.
Abortion’s been legalized for 40+ yrs.
IOW, what was once formally forbidden is now easily allowed.

What most Catholics, like Brother JR, are saying is this:
The laws need to be changed again. It is our moral duty to make that happen.

Do you understand that?
I’m not being sarcastic.
I’m truly wondering if you understand that the laws need changing.

You seem to be so comfortable defending the legality of abortion.
It’s strange. It’s confusing. It’s unusual.

**Again rence, for you.

This post (217) was first printed responding to you statement in Post 216:**

rence: *That’s what I’ve been trying to say, or in other words, the Catholic Church is responsible for governing or enforcing Catholic laws to Catholics. It can’t force non-catholics to accept their laws. Our government represents different people with different faiths, and can’t and won’t, based civil law on any one religion’s teachings. *

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Also, if by chance the ancient Mayan culture were to be reitntroduced as a current religion, with actual members who believed in the ancient mayan gods and worshipped them.

Say they decided to reitntroduce human sacrifice to one of their gods. Would that be ok due to freedom of religion? Their truth might not fit with ours, how can we judge?

 

[Rence]

Do you acknowledge the individual right of any Jew, as a citizen, to try and enact a law forbidding the eating of pork because s/he believes it is right?

Yes. I think everyone has the right to try to bring an issue to their representative. What their representative does with it, is up to their own discretion. I can’t see how Jewish people have not tried to bring that issue, as well as others that are important to them, to their representative at one time or another.

 

[Rence]

Rence, if a man from a culture who believes spousal rape is okey dokey came to live in the US and rapes his wife, the DA’s office does not say, “Oh well, no big deal, that’s his culture…we won’t prosecute.” It would still be a crime.

yes, that’s right.

Some religions are fine with polygamy…polygamy is prohibited in the US. If a man from another country that allows polygamy wants to emigrate to the US, only the first wife is considered legal and only she can come.

yes, that’s true too.

Do you think I am anti-abortion because the Church teaches abortion is wrong?

Or is abortion wrong, and the Church teaches it because that is the truth?

I don’t understand why you’re asking me to guess why you believe something to be wrong or true. You should be the one answering that. It’s not for me to say why you believe something or don’t believe something.

 

[Rence]

Also, if by chance the ancient Mayan culture were to be reitntroduced as a current religion, with actual members who believed in the ancient mayan gods and worshipped them.

Say they decided to reitntroduce human sacrifice to one of their gods. Would that be ok due to freedom of religion? Their truth might not fit with ours, how can we judge?

Human sacrifice is against the law here in the States. I doubt they would get that right introduced into legislation.

 

[catharina]

Yes. I think everyone has the right to try to bring an issue to their representative. What their representative does with it, is up to their own discretion. I can’t see how Jewish people have not tried to bring that issue, as well as others that are important to them, to their representative at one time or another.

Really? You can’t understand that?
Jewish people are a tiny minority and they are
accustomed to living among a Gentile majority.

You can’t understand that?