So these religions are actively promoting the legalization of abortion as a fundamental teaching of their faith…? Or are they simply allowing something to remain exempt from their teachings -leaving it as none of their concern.Actually, it’s true: they both allow abortion in the case when a woman’s health is at risk. It’s false to deny it. I, of course, understand why one would not want to include that in the abortion debate, but actually, the health of the mother has always been a very big part of the debate.
The ability to live physically in a way contrary to their baptism does not mean that one has a right to reject their baptism. They simply do not.Well, I can understand that you don’t think they have the right to reject their Baptism. We’re Catholic and that’s what the Church teaches. But to someone who has rejected their Baptism, or even just the teachings while still identifying culturally as Catholic, what the Church teaches really doesn’t matter. Maybe someday it will, but until it does, they’ve rejected the teachings and choose to live their lives without those teachings.
None of us are better off when someone leaves the mystical body of Christ. Here there is healing. Out there . . .Rence
Many do.I wish sometimes that more would, because they are doing more damage to the Church from within than they could do to it from without.
.
You make me despair of writing. My whole post was that it is NOT a religous question. Knocking down your own straw man is no proof.That’s ignoring the teachings of the Muslims and the Jews who allow abortion in the case of a woman’s health being at risk. In fact, according to Jewish teaching, it would be a travesty to not protect the health of the woman if her health is at risk. So you’re saying that the Catholic religion is the only one that should be followed, and non-Catholics (such as Muslims and Jewish) don’t have the right to their beliefs. It’s really not reasonable to demand religious freedom for Catholics and not extend the same rights to non-Catholics.
Part of living in a multicultural society is representation for all, not just one.
I think the majority share your sentiments in these types of situations. Now, it’s one thing when someone consciously makes the decision, but it’s quite another when the choice is taken away from them. Healthcare decisions are better made by the patient with consent, rather than by an outside party.Some Catholics support legal abortion because in certain extreme cases it would seem to be the lesser evil.
.Code:One example - true story. A devoted couple had six children. They practiced 'Catholic birth control' but she became pregnant again. Her health was precarious and her doctors warned her that bearing another child could easily mean her death and that of the new baby. As a good Catholic, on the advice of her priest but against the wishes of her husband, also Catholic, she went forward. She and the baby died. The husband and the six children quickly left the Church to attend elsewhere (Episcopal). They blame the Church and even the priest. A grieving and bitter husband and six young motherless children, none over ten. In such an instance, many Christians of all persuasions would follow their consciences and go along with an abortion - the lesser evil. To begin with, the position of the Church hasn't been constant. As I recall, Augustine and some other Church fathers believed that an embryo was not an actual baby until after the first two months following conception. Then, too, many believe the baby's soul, if one is already present, would spend eternity in. heaven. One friend added to this all the God-approved murders in the Old Testament. God drowned all humanity, including children and babies yet in the womb, in the story of Noah. He commanded Joshua to slaughter all the inhabitants of Jericho, order Saul to go and murder every living Amalekite, etc. There are verses in Exodus that call for the execution of witches and all who don't worship the Lord (see Ex. 22:18, 20), etc. As I recall, that great Doctor of the Church, Aquinas, proposed the execution of heretics. A very complex issue. One might consider the 'judge not' words of Christ, who never addressed many such issues forthrightly. I am generally against abortion except in a few rare cases. But I also have some sympathy for those women who are faced with heart-wrenching decisions. May God bless them and the rest of us treat them with compassion, even when we take issue with their decisions. Let those without sin cast the first stones.
Right, that’s what I’m trying to say. People pay their taxes — or else they’ll get fined, have their wages garnished, and/or go to jail. But if someone doesn’t care about the rules of the Church, they’ll break them without any consquences that are meaningful to them.The Church can interdict, it can excommunicate, it can offer, or not offer the Sacraments.
It is true that the authority that people recognize only extends to the amount they care about such things.
But that is also true for the State. The actions of people are only controlled to the extent that they care about the punishments of the State. For a person who cares not about traffic fines, payment of taxes or even imprisonment or execution, in reality is not recognizing the authority of the State. The rights and punishments of the State will therefore not drive their actions. But that is different from claiming that the State has no authority.
The same holds true for the Church. Their might be some for whom the sanctions of the Church hold no meaning, but that is distinct from the Church having no authority.
Ok, I think I know what you’re saying now. Thanks for the explanation.I didn’t say anything about culture, i was talking about immoral worship practices… Please re-read the post and stick to the point I was making.
That limitation of Freedom renders it self-contradictory…Freedom is given to us to love. For life not death.
These religions allow abortion when the woman’s health is at risk. It’s as simple as that. Therefore, they are within the teachings of their religion when they make these choices.So these religions are actively promoting the legalization of abortion as a fundamental teaching of their faith…? Or are they simply allowing something to remain exempt from their teachings -leaving it as none of their concern.
I understand your feelings above. But understand that those who want nothing to do with the Church, or who don’t concede to the Church, feel the same way. Their rights are as important as yours and mine. They have the right, given to them by God when He gave us free will.The ability to live physically in a way contrary to their baptism does not mean that one has a right to reject their baptism. They simply do not.
No one has a right to evil. And no one has a right to reject Jesus.
They may “live that way” with greater or lesser degrees of culpability but such will never be a “right”.
Thank you for that. You explained it well.That limitation of Freedom renders it self-contradictory…
If you make specific requirements for usage then it isn’t a “gift” it is a “tool” and you are retaining the right to specify its employment.
My employer provides me access to a laptop computer, which I am even encouraged to take home, but I’m not allowed to put any software on it other than what they provide. Even thought I make some usage of it for personal reasons, it is clearly not a “gift”.
But it’s still their choice, which they are free to make for themselves.None of us are better off when someone leaves the mystical body of Christ. Here there is healing. Out there . . .
You’re having some more definitional problems. You are conflating a whole raft of different quasi-medical" terms into “coma” then using the least appropriate one (for th purposes of this discussion) to make your argument.BillP
**not by itself no, but some degree of self-awareness and sentience is required **
So if a person is in a coma he has lost his status as a human person?
Isn’t that essentially the condition of a fetus. It has little if any brain consciousness?
No actually it is not. Many things can be gifts and yet limited.That limitation of Freedom renders it self-contradictory…
Which type of freedom do you mean…? Free will or freedom as law…?That limitation of Freedom renders it self-contradictory…
If you make specific requirements for usage then it isn’t a “gift” it is a “tool” and you are retaining the right to specify its employment.
My employer provides me access to a laptop computer, which I am even encouraged to take home, but I’m not allowed to put any software on it other than what they provide. Even thought I make some usage of it for personal reasons, it is clearly not a “gift”.
My feelings where not the foundation of above (though they do coincide here). Feelings are not what is to determine such really.I understand your feelings above. But understand that those who want nothing to do with the Church, or who don’t concede to the Church, feel the same way. Their rights are as important as yours and mine. They have the right, given to them by God when He gave us free will.
Ironic isn’t it. The consequences of ignoring God’s laws are the most dire but considered the least.Right, that’s what I’m trying to say. People pay their taxes — or else they’ll get fined, have their wages garnished, and/or go to jail. But if someone doesn’t care about the rules of the Church, they’ll break them without any consquences that are meaningful to them.
Who said anything about force?The notion that God will force people to be Catholic is just as farfetched as God forcing people to be Jewish or Muslim. If people didn’t have the right to make such choices, they wouldn’t be able to. And that’s clearly not what’s happening – for various personal reasons.