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

[Soutane]

Yes, Christ gave us a mission to convert, but not by coersion or by force. Those who are to be Catholic must be Catholic by choice and by their own free will. Forcing people to be Catholic and adhere to Catholic’s teachings is NOT what Christ said to do, and it is immoral to do so. People have the right to follow the religion of their choice, as well as the right to follow no religion at all. What we were given the mission to do, was to spread the word of God. If it is not received, we are to “shake the dust off your feet” and be on your merry way leaving those behind to do as they believe according to the words of Christ.

You misinterpret what I have said.The Truth like Christ is eternal.There is not a plethora of Truths.In the words of Pope John Paul the Great we propose not impose and I never said one word about coersion or "forcing"people to be Catholic and I resent your implication that I would subscribe to such an immoral act.We are however charged by Christ to spread the "good news"and if that entails telling people things they don’t want to hear,well that’s just too bad.I don’t want their damnation on my soul,because that will endanger my own personal salvation.You don’t let people walk off a cliff without trying to rescue them.

 

[Soutane]

I post rarely, but I need clarification. There seems to be a view that we, as Catholics, should not “force” revealed Truth on the state or non-Catholics.
In essence, that we should find “common ground.”
But is that really what we are called to do? Are we truly called to pacify those who do not hold revealed Truth in esteem?
Aren’t we to witness to the Truth in charity (not “force”) and bring all to Christ, who is the Truth?

If an institution or individual calls itself Catholic, its witness should always be to divinely revealed Truth.
Catholics should not obfuscate Truth to please those who have their own personal truth for fear of reprisal or hurt feelings.
How can one deny or compromise to get ahead in public opinion polls or elsewhere and still serve God? To deny one aspect of His Truth is to deny Him.

It is not necessary to thunder and roar to reveal Truth, nor is it necessary to compromise Truth to help others see it “our way” (which is the way it was stated in a previous post, but I prefer “His way”). God is heard in the quiet breeze.

*So, the clarification I seek in a longwinded nutshell is the following question: are we as Catholics to serve man or God first?
And if we say we serve God first, then how can we rationalize diminishing His Truth to serve man? *

Because I believe this is the real issue at the heart of what happened in this sorrowful event in Arizona…

rmd

Bless you for your wisdom and the Truth that you have spoken.If we are silent in this world,Christ will be silent when we ask His Mediation at our final judgement.I’d rather be martyred than suffer the eternal consequences of being “nice”.Christ wasn’t inoffensive nor “nice”-He stood for the Truth as He IS the Truth,and we should ALL be immitators of Christ…

 

[momor]

You misinterpret what I have said.The Truth like Christ is eternal.There is not a plethora of Truths.In the words of Pope John Paul the Great we propose not impose and I never said one word about coersion or "forcing"people to be Catholic and I resent your implication that I would subscribe to such an immoral act.We are however charged by Christ to spread the "good news"and if that entails telling people things they don’t want to hear,well that’s just too bad.I don’t want their damnation on my soul,because that will endanger my own personal salvation.You don’t let people walk off a cliff without trying to rescue them.

This is not necessarily directed at you personally but there are many on this forum who are unable to disagree or debate the merits of a position without bringing insults and condemnation into it. That never converted anyone.

There are also numerous people who speak their truth as if they are the magisterium and they are often wrong. When pushed to offer proof that what they say is more than just their opinion or if someone disagrees with their interpretation of something, out come the insults and condemnations instead of rational counter-debate. There is never the humility to acknowledge they are or might be wrong. If they can’t get away with put downs they just go silent. There are some I refuse to dialogue with anymore because I find it a waste of time to do so when they have shown over and over that they are intellectually dishonest.

My mom taught me 2 very good observations:
People who pepper their conversation with bad language usually do so because they don’t have the intelligence or the vocabulary to express themselves without it.

People who resort to insults and bullying to try and prove a point usually do so because they can’t support their argument rationally, and out of pride because they can never acknowledge being wrong ( sometimes even to the point of absurdity in the face of the opposing evidence presented).

She said both should be pitied and ignored - and never to resort to the same tactics. I try to follow her advice as best I can but I admit I have failed a few times on this forum.

 

[catharina]

Another medical view re that “necessary” abortion …

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=466030

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for your reply. You have clarified what I suspected, in that we view the role of government much differently.

You essentially say that pluralism is good, as long as it coincides with Catholic teachings. However, by definition pluralism will not always coincide with Catholic teachings. Do you think people are more likely to embrace Catholicism if they are coerced into submission by the force of government, or if they are persuaded to embrace it voluntarily?

Many years ago the political ‘left’ attempted to influence religion by preaching the ‘social gospel’. They attempted to use the force of government to help those they considered less fortunate. Many other Christians rebelled against this. The political ‘right’ capitalized on this discontent by saying that the social gospel was wrong, and by saying that government should be used to make people more moral instead. What neither side understands is that it is not the choice of goals - it is the use of force - that leads to bad consequences.

When you give government the power to enforce your moral beliefs, you are also implicitly giving government the power to enforce the opposite of your beliefs as well. You say that government should make correct decisions as opposed to popular decisions. However, when you give government the power to make moral decisions, they will be made by whoever has the most political power - i.e. popularity.

The point is not that government should push Catholic beliefs. The point is that government has a moral duty to legislate according to truth. John Paul II made this very clear in Evangelium Vitae and very clearly condemned any form of government that did not legislate truth or that legislated against truth.

The Church is not asking the governments of the world to teach Catholic theology. She’s demanding that they pass laws that are consistent with revealed truth.

This is not shoving the Catholic faith down people’s throats. This being obedient to Revelation. A person who is searching for truth wants to find it, regardless of what medium is uses to make itself known. The State has no right to hide truth, distort truth, contradict truth or allow the violation of truth. This is not about being Catholic. This is about the rights and duties of the state. The state has duties to God first, then to its citizens. When we allow the state to turn around the order of fidelity, then we also sin. We sin by ommission. In a democratic society where men and women of faith can demand that the state govern according to revelation and fail to do so, these men and women are abdicating their obligations to God for the sake of pluriformity. Pluralism is not a God. It’s a social pheonomenon. Social phenomena come and go, but Divne Truth is constant.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[silentstar]

The point is not that government should push Catholic beliefs. The point is that government has a moral duty to legislate according to truth. John Paul II made this very clear in Evangelium Vitae and very clearly condemned any form of government that did not legislate truth or that legislated against truth.

The Church is not asking the governments of the world to teach Catholic theology. She’s demanding that they pass laws that are consistent with revealed truth.

This is not shoving the Catholic faith down people’s throats. This being obedient to Revelation. A person who is searching for truth wants to find it, regardless of what medium is uses to make itself known. The State has no right to hide truth, distort truth, contradict truth or allow the violation of truth. This is not about being Catholic. This is about the rights and duties of the state. The state has duties to God first, then to its citizens. When we allow the state to turn around the order of fidelity, then we also sin. We sin by ommission. In a democratic society where men and women of faith can demand that the state govern according to revelation and fail to do so, these men and women are abdicating their obligations to God for the sake of pluriformity. Pluralism is not a God. It’s a social pheonomenon. Social phenomena come and go, but Divne Truth is constant.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Can you explain what you mean by “pass laws that are consistent with revealed truth”? Does that mean contraception, abortion, and homosexuality would be illegal? What else would change? Because I’m not following what you mean by “the state govern according to revelation” if that means something different from enforcing Catholic beliefs and practices.

 

[Christopher68]

The point is not that government should push Catholic beliefs. The point is that government has a moral duty to legislate according to truth. John Paul II made this very clear in Evangelium Vitae and very clearly condemned any form of government that did not legislate truth or that legislated against truth.

This is a distinction without a difference. I’m assuming you correlate Catholic beliefs to be ‘truth’. Your second sentence could easily read ‘The point is that government has a moral duty to legislate according to Catholic beliefs’. Therefore your second sentence directly contradicts what you wrote in your first sentence.

The Church is not asking the governments of the world to teach Catholic theology. She’s demanding that they pass laws that are consistent with revealed truth.

Just like your first paragraph, what you have written in your second sentence directly contradicts what you wrote in your first sentence.

This is not shoving the Catholic faith down people’s throats. This being obedient to Revelation. A person who is searching for truth wants to find it, regardless of what medium is uses to make itself known. The State has no right to hide truth, distort truth, contradict truth or allow the violation of truth. This is not about being Catholic. This is about the rights and duties of the state. The state has duties to God first, then to its citizens. When we allow the state to turn around the order of fidelity, then we also sin. We sin by ommission. In a democratic society where men and women of faith can demand that the state govern according to revelation and fail to do so, these men and women are abdicating their obligations to God for the sake of pluriformity. Pluralism is not a God. It’s a social pheonomenon. Social phenomena come and go, but Divne Truth is constant.

As mentioned, we view government in a vastly different manner. My prior post detailed why giving government this power is very dangerous and may actually achieve the exact opposite of what you have intended.

 

[Julianna]

This is a distinction without a difference. I’m assuming you correlate Catholic beliefs to be ‘truth’. Your second sentence could easily read ‘The point is that government has a moral duty to legislate according to Catholic beliefs’. Therefore your second sentence directly contradicts what you wrote in your first sentence.

Just like your first paragraph, what you have written in your second sentence directly contradicts what you wrote in your first sentence.

As mentioned, we view government in a vastly different manner. My prior post detailed why giving government this power is very dangerous and may actually achieve the exact opposite of what you have intended.

Same here. Who’s truth? What is the truth to a Catholic, may be different than a Baptist, etc. etc. The US gives us freedom of religion…and some are asking freedom from religion. I agree that giving government this power is dangerous.

 

[catharina]

Welo0cme to American History and just laws …

credited to Andy Rooney (of all people)


DID YOU KNOW? 

As  you walk up the steps to the 
building which  houses the U.S Supreme Court 
you can see  near the top of the building a row 
of the  world's law givers and each one is 
facing  one in the middle who is facing forward 
with  a full frontal view ... it is Moses and he  
is holding the Ten Commandments!  



                .  

DID YOU KNOW? 

As you enter  the Supreme Court courtroom, the 
Two huge oak  doors have the Ten Commandments 
Engraved on  each lower portion of each door.  



DID YOU KNOW?

As you sit  inside the courtroom, you can see 
The wall,  right above where the Supreme Court 
judges  sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!  





DID YOU KNOW?

There are  Bible verses etched in stone all 
over the  Federal Buildings and Monuments in  
Washington , D.C.




DID YOU KNOW?

James Madison, the fourth president, known as 
'The Father of Our Constitution' made the 
following  statement:


' We have staked the whole of all our political 
institutions upon the capacity of mankind for 
self-government, upon the capacity of each and 
all of us to  govern ourselves, to control 
ourselves, to  sustain ourselves according to 
the Ten Commandments of God.'



DID YOU KNOW?

Every session of  Congress begins with a prayer 
by a paid  preacher, whose salary has been paid 
by the taxpayer since 1777.



DID YOU KNOW?

Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the 
Constitution were  members of the established 
orthodox churches in the colonies.  



DID  YOU KNOW? 

Thomas  Jefferson worried that the Courts would  
overstep their authority and instead of  
interpreting the law would begin making law  
an oligarchy the rule of few over the many.

This nation was created to uphold God’s law.
Those who deride God’s law lessen the worth of the nation.

 

[Soutane]

This is not necessarily directed at you personally but there are many on this forum who are unable to disagree or debate the merits of a position without bringing insults and condemnation into it. That never converted anyone.

There are also numerous people who speak their truth as if they are the magisterium and they are often wrong. When pushed to offer proof that what they say is more than just their opinion or if someone disagrees with their interpretation of something, out come the insults and condemnations instead of rational counter-debate. There is never the humility to acknowledge they are or might be wrong. If they can’t get away with put downs they just go silent. There are some I refuse to dialogue with anymore because I find it a waste of time to do so when they have shown over and over that they are intellectually dishonest.

My mom taught me 2 very good observations:
People who pepper their conversation with bad language usually do so because they don’t have the intelligence or the vocabulary to express themselves without it.

People who resort to insults and bullying to try and prove a point usually do so because they can’t support their argument rationally, and out of pride because they can never acknowledge being wrong ( sometimes even to the point of absurdity in the face of the opposing evidence presented).

She said both should be pitied and ignored - and never to resort to the same tactics. I try to follow her advice as best I can but I admit I have failed a few times on this forum.

I certainly hope that it is not directed at me but there are a few others on this thread who have resorted to personal insult and criticism and I have sought the intervention of the moderator.I think some people forget that this is a Catholic forum and that a certain deportment is expected.Challenge my ideas but don’t refer to me as having any particular issue or vendetta,
" You need to cease and desist your misplaced and unwise persecution of me. I’m not one of your convenient labels. You are showing enormous disrespect in this and in many of your posts.“or” Why do you persist in attacking people who do not provide any rational basis for such attacks, but who are merely contributing to intellectual discussion? You don’t seem to actually read posts for content, but merely to react to everything that you imagine is somehow not in line with what you wanted to hear at that very moment."
I contend that this is a personal attack upon me,is unwarranted and most uncharitable.I don’t wish to fight with this perspn but enough is enough.

 

[Rence]

The point is not that government should push Catholic beliefs. The point is that government has a moral duty to legislate according to truth. John Paul II made this very clear in Evangelium Vitae and very clearly condemned any form of government that did not legislate truth or that legislated against truth.

The government has a moral duty to legislate according to whose truth? The muslims believe they have the truth, the jews believe they have the truth, the baptists believe they have the truth. Who gave the truth to which you refer? and to whom did the truth be given? Because if you say God revealed it to Church, then you are again referring to a truth that Catholics are required to follow, and a truth that non-Catholics may not recognize and do not have to accept, or follow and should not be forced to follow. The government cannot force someone to be a certain religion by changing the laws to conform to that certain religion, even if that religion is Catholic. You cannot force someone to be Catholic by changing the laws to reflect Catholic teaching. Being Catholic is something people do by choice. Not by coersion.

The Church is not asking the governments of the world to teach Catholic theology. She’s demanding that they pass laws that are consistent with revealed truth.

So, you’re saying the Church is demanding that governments pass laws that are consistent with truth revealed by God to the Catholic Church. How is that not theocratic? How is that any different than Muslims lobbying for the government to mandate veiling women? or from the Jews lobbying for pork to be outlawed? Yes, we can argue that we’re not talking about veils or pork, but again, the stringent teaching of the Catholic Church regarding abortion is just that, a Catholic teaching, revealed by God to the Catholic Church.

The state has duties to God first, then to its citizens.

Sorry but my country is not theocratic. It has the responsibility of supporting it citizens’ right to choose their religion, or even to choose not to follow a religion at all. The government does not have a duty to govern according to the “truths” taught by the Catholic Church because it would take away the individual’s right to practice their own religion. However, the government does support the individual who is Catholic to practice the Catholic faith – just like any other individual of any other faith.

In a democratic society where men and women of faith can demand that the state govern according to revelation and fail to do so, these men and women are abdicating their obligations to God for the sake of pluriformity. Pluralism is not a God. It’s a social pheonomenon. Social phenomena come and go, but Divne Truth is constant.

A muslim person’s Divine Truth comes from the Muslim religion. A Jewish person’s Divine Truth comes from Judaisim. A Catholic person’s Divine Truth comes from Catholicism. And so on…The government has the duty and obligation not to side with any one religion, and to not base its laws on the teachings of any one religion. If a politician or law maker can’t attend to all the citizens, regardless of creed, he or she should give up their position to someone who can.

 

[Soutane]

Thank God Heaven will be a Theocracy.

 

[JReducation]

The government has a moral duty to legislate according to whose truth? The muslims believe they have the truth, the jews believe they have the truth, the baptists believe they have the truth. Who gave the truth to which you refer? and to whom did the truth be given? Because if you say God revealed it to Church, then you are again referring to a truth that Catholics are required to follow, and a truth that non-Catholics may not recognize and do not have to accept, or follow and should not be forced to follow. The government cannot force someone to be a certain religion by changing the laws to conform to that certain religion, even if that religion is Catholic. You cannot force someone to be Catholic by changing the laws to reflect Catholic teaching. Being Catholic is something people do by choice. Not by coersion.

So, you’re saying the Church is demanding that governments pass laws that are consistent with truth revealed by God to the Catholic Church. How is that not theocratic? How is that any different than Muslims lobbying for the government to mandate veiling women? or from the Jews lobbying for pork to be outlawed? Yes, we can argue that we’re not talking about veils or pork, but again, the stringent teaching of the Catholic Church regarding abortion is just that, a Catholic teaching, revealed by God to the Catholic Church.

Sorry but my country is not theocratic. It has the responsibility of supporting it citizens’ right to choose their religion, or even to choose not to follow a religion at all. The government does not have a duty to govern according to the “truths” taught by the Catholic Church because it would take away the individual’s right to practice their own religion. However, the government does support the individual who is Catholic to practice the Catholic faith – just like any other individual of any other faith.

A muslim person’s Divine Truth comes from the Muslim religion. A Jewish person’s Divine Truth comes from Judaisim. A Catholic person’s Divine Truth comes from Catholicism. And so on…The government has the duty and obligation not to side with any one religion, and to not base its laws on the teachings of any one religion. If a politician or law maker can’t attend to all the citizens, regardless of creed, he or she should give up their position to someone who can.

There are not multiple truths. There is only one divine truth, Jesus Christ. All the rest are shadows of the truth. Regardless of what they say. You as a Catholic know this or you would not be a Catholic.

Revelation is not the property of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the teacher and protector of Revealed truth, not the creator of truth. Therefore, for governments to govern according to revealed truth is not to govern according to Catholcism. It is to govern according to God’s will. There is only one will revealed by God, not multiple wills, regardless of what anyone says.

What you want to do is to give equal footing to everyone who claims to have the truth. You cannot do that and be a Catholic. That is heresy. Christ does not allow this. Since the foundation of the Church by Jesus himself, it was very clear that the state could only allow what God allows and forbid what God forbids. The state cannot forbid men to choose not to have faith. God does not allow the state to do so. That would be a violation of religious freedom.

But the state has no authority to allow what God has forbidden. That would be a violation of the first Commandment. The state would be making itself equal to God. The Commandment is very clear. “I AM the Lord they God. Thou shall have no other gods but me.” The state cannot act as if it were God deciding which of God’s laws it will enforce and which it will ignore.

If the state allows abortion, contraception, homosexual marriages, which are all against the law of God, why not allow stealing, murder, child abuse,? Where does the state’s right to disregard God’s revealed truth stop or is unstopable? Can a Catholic truly believe this and remain a Catholic in full communion with the Church? Absolutely not.

The state does not have a right to demand that people believe in Jesus Christ, the sacraments, the bible and so forth. In addition, it does not have the right to allow people to violate revealed truth. Let’s not call it Catholic truth, because it’s not. It’s God’s truth which has been revealed for all humanity. The fact that the Catholic Church posesses full knowledge of this truth, does not make it a Catholic truth. It just makes us more fortunate than most people, but also more morally responsible for the moral state of our nation. The more we have been given, the more will be demanded of us.

As Pope John Paul said to American Catholics, “Your judgment shall be harder than that of most people, because you have received more than most people.” This was his opening line when he spoke to the American Catholics gatherered in Camden Yards in Baltimore when he visited there. I was there and heard him say it. He repeats similar words in Evangelium Vitae. We need to read it to understand what we have to demand from our government and what the limits of our government should be.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rence]

What you want to do is to give equal footing to everyone who claims to have the truth. You cannot do that and be a Catholic. That is heresy. Christ does not allow this.

A Catholic cannot, nor is he/she required, to force another to be catholic or conform to catholic teachings. Christ said to his disciples that if the message is not received, to shake the dust from that house/town off their feet and go on to the next house/town. Notice he did not direct them to insist, pester, coerce, drag, hold down, force or otherwise forcibly make converts. One cannot be Catholic and hurt others. That is heresy as well. Other people have the right to practice their own faith, even if that faith is not Catholic. Catholics are not bullys. Or are they?

The state cannot forbid men to choose not to have faith. God does not allow the state to do so. That would be a violation of religious freedom.

The state does not forbid men to choose not to have faith. We have freedom of religion and freedom from religion. We have the right to follow the religion of our choice, and reject other religions as we believe.

But the state has no authority to allow what God has forbidden. That would be a violation of the first Commandment. The state would be making itself equal to God. The Commandment is very clear. “I AM the Lord they God. Thou shall have no other gods but me.” The state cannot act as if it were God deciding which of God’s laws it will enforce and which it will ignore.

The state does not act as if it were God, deciding which of God’s laws it will enforce and which it will ignore. On the contrary, the state represents those of all faiths, not just the Catholic faith, and affords all citizens with the opportunity to practice their own faith, and to reject others that they do not wish to practice.

The state does not have a right to demand that people believe in Jesus Christ, the sacraments, the bible and so forth. In addition, it does not have the right to allow people to violate revealed truth. Let’s not call it Catholic truth, because it’s not. It’s God’s truth which has been revealed for all humanity. The fact that the Catholic Church posesses full knowledge of this truth, does not make it a Catholic truth. It just makes us more fortunate than most people, but also more morally responsible for the moral state of our nation. The more we have been given, the more will be demanded of us.

I’m sorry to disagree with you, but to a non-catholic, it is “Catholic truth” because of the fact that the Catholic Church claims to them that the Church possesses full knowledge of this truth. If it were a universal truth, all religions and creeds would recognize it as truth. The fact htat the Catholic Church tells a non-catholic that it possesses full knowledge of this truth, it certainly is a Catholic Truth to a non-catholic, and they are not obligated to recognize it. They have their own faith to follow.

As Pope John Paul said to American Catholics, “Your judgment shall be harder than that of most people, because you have received more than most people.” This was his opening line when he spoke to the American Catholics gatherered in Camden Yards in Baltimore when he visited there. I was there and heard him say it. He repeats similar words in Evangelium Vitae. We need to read it to understand what we have to demand from our government and what the limits of our government should be.

This he said to the Catholics as it applies to Catholics. If one is not Catholic one does not care what the Pope says. If one is not Catholic, one has their own religion and spiritual leader. Yes, the governement is limited: it represents all peoples of all faiths, not just the Catholics.

 

[Rence]

What you want to do is to give equal footing to everyone who claims to have the truth. You cannot do that and be a Catholic. That is heresy. Christ does not allow this.

I’m sorry, but that is not true. My priest told me that we are not allowed to force people to be catholic and to try to force people to accept catholic teachings. He said we have an obligation to tell people the Truth, and if they choose to accept it, we rejoice, and if they choose not to accept it, we mourn for them. But we cannot force or coerce them to follow the Catholic faith. They have the right to follow their own faith, or none at all. This does not make one ‘not catholic’, this makes one mindful of another’s free will and freedom to choose religion.

 

[catharina]

I’m sorry, but that is not true. My priest told me that we are not allowed to force people to be catholic and to try to force people to accept catholic teachings. He said we have an obligation to tell people the Truth, and if they choose to accept it, we rejoice, and if they choose not to accept it, we mourn for them. But we cannot force or coerce them to follow the Catholic faith. They have the right to follow their own faith, or none at all. This does not make one ‘not catholic’, this makes one mindful of another’s free will and freedom to choose religion.

rence, you seem to be ignoring the big picture.

The big picture demands that we, who have faith, who know truth must WORK for reform.
It’s never enough to say “that’s the way it is … .”
That type of response is inadequate to the demand that we support TRUTH,
not make excuses as to why others choose to ignore truth or degrade truth.

To look at the nation and say: “pluralistic society” as if that matters
is only a way to lie to ourselves. We are called to work - and share the truth of Christ.

IOW, whatever your priest is saying,
no doubt he knows that spreading the truth is our endless resposibility.

 

[Rence]

rence, you seem to be ignoring the big picture.

The big picture demands that we, who have faith, who know truth must WORK for reform.
It’s never enough to say “that’s the way it is … .”
That type of response is inadequate to the demand that we support TRUTH,
not make excuses as to why others choose to ignore truth or degrade truth.

To look at the nation and say: “pluralistic society” as if that matters
is only a way to lie to ourselves. We are called to work - and share the truth of Christ.

IOW, whatever your priest is saying,
no doubt he knows that spreading the truth is our endless resposibility.

Unless, of course, it was someone of a different faith trying to work for reform. Such as, a JW lobbying for a ban on blood transfusions citing bible quotes. Or such as Jews lobbying for a ban on pork citing bible quotes. Or Muslims lobbying for total-body and hair covering of women citing their koran quotes. Then it would be okay to say, “well that’s the way it is…” and we have the right to not be forced to practice your faith.

It works both ways. If one wants to be able to practice their faith in peace, one should allow another individual the same courtesy, which is their right. We can share the truth of Christ without violating another individual’s right to choice and freedom.

 

[catharina]

Unless, of course, it was someone of a different faith trying to work for reform. Such as, a JW lobbying for a ban on blood transfusions citing bible quotes. Or such as Jews lobbying for a ban on pork citing bible quotes. Or Muslims lobbying for total-body and hair covering of women citing their koran quotes. Then it would be okay to say, “well that’s the way it is…” and we have the right to not be forced to practice your faith.

It works both ways. If one wants to be able to practice their faith in peace, one should allow another individual the same courtesy, which is their right. We can share the truth of Christ without violating another individual’s right to choice and freedom.

Rence, you don’t seem to realize that the laws allowing abortion are brand-new.
The nation rejected such laws - as did all of the western world - until very recently.

Moslems have always rejected abortion.
The notion that God-fearing people cannot come together for BETTER laws is absurd.
Your “eaxample” are far-fetched and beyond all reason.

You are echoing, word-for-word, the half-truths that brought legal abortion to the nation.
Don’t you realize that? Basically, you are pushing for “new Law” unrelated to God!
This nation rests on the upholding of the Ten Commandments. All else is a lie.

 

[Soutane]

Rence, you don’t seem to realize that the laws allowing abortion are brand-new.
The nation rejected such laws - as did all of the western world - until very recently.

Moslems have always rejected abortion.
The notion that God-fearing people cannot come together for BETTER laws is absurd.
Your “eaxample” are far-fetched and beyond all reason.

You are echoing, word-for-word, the half-truths that brought legal abortion to the nation.
Don’t you realize that? Basically, you are pushing for “new Law” unrelated to God!
This nation rests on the upholding of the Ten Commandments. All else is a lie.

100% spot on catharina-it reminds me of a quote by St Thomas Aquinas-“apart from Jesus all else is straw”.

 

[Soutane]

There are not a multitude of truths there is but one.The One who was standing before Poncious Pilate,when he asked ,“What is Truth”?. All else is Relativism which means… .there is no Truth at all.One might look in one’s bathroom mirror for the Truth and I guarantee you won’t find it
.Christ said,"I am the way,the Truth,and the Life."Not Mohammed,not John Smith,not Henry VIII,not Calvin,nor Martin Luther,and certainly not Jimmy Swaggert,nor Buddha …Christ-Truth Himself.Represented by the Body of Christ on earth the Holy Catholic Church and His Vicar-the Pope.