Priests Urge Nancy Pelosi to Condemn Abortion or Leave the Catholic Church

reply to post by Jakes51


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the Catholic faith was about Jesus, baptism, the trinity, the sacrifice of Jesus for the sins of the world, his resurrection defeating death and the Eucharist. I don't think that faith and following religious doctrine are the same.

I think that one can "keep the faith" and still disagree with certain doctrine.

Originally posted by windword

Where does he teach the murder of innocents?

What makes you think that Jesus thought the unborn were innocent?

John 9
And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Wow, talk about taking something out of context! Not only does that have nothing to do with the unborn, but his answer, which you conveniently left off, was "neither."

What that doctor did was illegal. Late term abortions are only given in cases where the fetus is so unhealthy that it's survival is compromised and it's life would be more painful than it's death, or when the life of the mother is at risk. However, what happens to babies that survive late term abortions is awful. They are left to die. Euthanasia is something that needs more looking into.

Again, what is the "magic" that happens that makes killing a baby in the womb moral, and killing the exact same baby outside of the womb immoral? Just because you can see one and not the other, so one can pretend that it isn't really a baby?

I'm not asking from a legal standpoint, but from a moral one -- it is only legal by virtue of the court having redefined what "life" is -- a fetus that is desired is "a life", one that is not desired is not.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword

Where does he teach the murder of innocents?

What makes you think that Jesus thought the unborn were innocent?

John 9
And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Wow, talk about taking something out of context! Not only does that have nothing to do with the unborn, but his answer, which you conveniently left off, was "neither."

Right. Jesus said that man was born blind so that Jesus could be glorified by healing him. But Jesus doesn't/didn't heal everyone, did he? Plenty of people were born with congenital disorders. And, the disciples weren't corrected by Jesus in their thinking that the unborn are not always innocent.

What that doctor did was illegal. Late term abortions are only given in cases where the fetus is so unhealthy that it's survival is compromised and it's life would be more painful than it's death, or when the life of the mother is at risk. However, what happens to babies that survive late term abortions is awful. They are left to die. Euthanasia is something that needs more looking into.

Again, what is the "magic" that happens that makes killing a baby in the womb moral, and killing the exact same baby outside of the womb immoral? Just because you can see one and not the other, so one can pretend that it isn't really a baby?

I'm not asking from a legal standpoint, but from a moral one -- it is only legal by virtue of the court having redefined what "life" is -- a fetus that is desired is "a life", one that is not desired is not.

Late term abortions are only used to save the life of the mother or if the fetus is severely in trouble. Sometimes those babies survive and are left to die. That's when euthanasia should be considered. I don't think that these incidents are morally wrong. The Talmud gives instructions on how to perform late term abortions when the mother's life is in danger. This is old, old medicine.

reply to post by windword


I'm sorry, I have no idea what your point is in that response.

No, Jesus never taught that we were entitled to end the life of another person in order to make our lives "less inconvenienced." That notion, in fact, flies completely in the face of what he did teach, so you may be assured that he never would have promoted abortion rights.

In addition, you've completely missed the point, as regards "last term abortions." The point has nothing to do with the motivation of an abortion, but why it is moral to kill a fetus without explanation at some point in its existence, why it is moral, with explanation, at another stage (to save the life of the mother) and immoral at another (the Pennsylvania doctor who beheaded infants in his abortion practice.)

Since all are effectively the same thing, what is your rationalization of your moral judgements there? Why is it moral to kill a fetus at one point and not another? Why is it immoral to kill the fetus of a woman who wants the child, but moral to kill the fetus of a woman who doesn't want it? What "magic" takes place which results in your moral relativism?

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by windword

 

I'm sorry, I have no idea what your point is in that response.

My point is, Jesus never indicated that the unborn were innocent. The belief of the disciples was that they were not, and Jesus didn't correct them. Jesus never indicated he believed that abortion was murder. Jewish tradition had no such tenet, why would Jesus?

No, Jesus never taught that we were entitled to end the life of another person in order to make our lives "less inconvenienced." That notion, in fact, flies completely in the face of what he did teach, so you may be assured that he never would have promoted abortion rights.

I disagree. Jesus most certainly would promote a woman's choice. He would never teach that a woman must give birth to an unwanted child. Jesus placed very little emphasis on temporal "life". He taught about eternal life.

In addition, you've completely missed the point, as regards "last term abortions." The point has nothing to do with the motivation of an abortion, but why it is moral to kill a fetus without explanation at some point in its existence, why it is moral, with explanation, at another stage (to save the life of the mother) and immoral at another (the Pennsylvania doctor who beheaded infants in his abortion practice.)

Since all are effectively the same thing, what is your rationalization of your moral judgements there? Why is it moral to kill a fetus at one point and not another? Why is it immoral to kill the fetus of a woman who wants the child, but moral to kill the fetus of a woman who doesn't want it? What "magic" takes place which results in your moral relativism?

No, it's not effectively the same thing. A fertilized egg is not the same as an implanted embryo which is not effectively the same a full term fetus. My ethical guideline is viability. The majority of late term abortions concern a unviable fetus, or the life of the mother is at risk. In the case where there is risk to the life of the mother, doctors do all they can to save a wanted and viable fetus. (Except for those twins that died in the Catholic Hospital that was sued for negligence.)

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by windword

 

I'm sorry, I have no idea what your point is in that response.

My point is, Jesus never indicated that the unborn were innocent. The belief of the disciples was that they were not, and Jesus didn't correct them.

No, that is completely invalid -- the Apostles were talking about whether someone would eventually sin, and therefore be guilty (see Psalm 51, 139) and that has nothing to do with a fetus in the womb.

Jewish tradition had no such tenet, why would Jesus?

Because Jesus taught a universal tolerance and love, not a philosophy of convenience. To him, an infant/fetus was as important as anyone else.

In addition, you've completely missed the point, as regards "last term abortions." The point has nothing to do with the motivation of an abortion, but why it is moral to kill a fetus without explanation at some point in its existence, why it is moral, with explanation, at another stage (to save the life of the mother) and immoral at another (the Pennsylvania doctor who beheaded infants in his abortion practice.)

Since all are effectively the same thing, what is your rationalization of your moral judgements there? Why is it moral to kill a fetus at one point and not another? Why is it immoral to kill the fetus of a woman who wants the child, but moral to kill the fetus of a woman who doesn't want it? What "magic" takes place which results in your moral relativism?

No, it's not effectively the same thing. A fertilized egg is not the same as an implanted embryo which is not effectively the same a full term fetus. My ethical guideline is viability. The majority of late term abortions concern a unviable fetus, or the life of the mother is at risk. In the case where there is risk to the life of the mother, doctors do all they can to save a wanted and viable fetus.

Again, what is the "magic" that takes place which differentiates between a specific fetus that can be killed without compunction, and one which cannot?

As repugnant as it is, your position is more rational if you just say "any human who is still in the womb can be killed without moral concern." Beyond that, to say that it is moral to kill an infant in the second trimester, but immoral to kill one in the third trimester is simply arbitrary and, therefore, obviously wrong.

reply to post by adjensen

No, that is completely invalid -- the Apostles were talking about whether someone would eventually sin, and therefore be guilty (see Psalm 51, 139)

I'm not seeing your point.

Psalms 51
5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

and that has nothing to do with a fetus in the womb.

I disagree.

Because Jesus taught a universal tolerance and love, not a philosophy of convenience. To him, an infant/fetus was as important as anyone else

Where is the tolerance and love in forcing a woman to have a child that she doesn't want?

You don't know that Jesus thought an infant and a fetus were equal. Jesus never spoke of it. You're projecting your own values and putting words in the mouth of Jesus that he just didn't say.

Again, what is the "magic" that takes place which differentiates between a specific fetus that can be killed without compunction, and one which cannot? As repugnant as it is, your position is more rational if you just say "any human who is still in the womb can be killed without moral concern." Beyond that, to say that it is moral to kill an infant in the second trimester, but immoral to kill one in the third trimester is simply arbitrary and, therefore, obviously wrong.

I'll say it again, my ethical compass is aligned with viability. A fertilized egg is not the same an 8 month along fetus. If abortion was an acceptable solution to the God of the Old testament, I don't see why Jesus wouldn't feel the same way.

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

I'm curious about a couple of small points. You put a lot of trust in that example from the Old Testament. Do you give the same respect and agreement to the rest of the Old and New Testament?

And if viability is your ethical compass, may I assume that you are in favor of a law banning abortions after 21 weeks? (Except for life, or serious physical damage to the mother.)

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by windword


I don't think that Jesus would support the Pope or the Vatican if he were here today.

You have a point.

I also think Jesus wouldn't support Nancy Pelosi either.


If the Catholic Church feels so strongly about her position,which she uses on her soapbox frequently, then maybe they should Ex-Communicate her outright ?

As they did with Nazi's, oh wait....................

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
When is the Catholic Church going to give the boot to the over half of Catholic women who not only believe in birth control but use it regularly? I'm actually pretty sick of the high-and-mighty attitude of the Catholic Church.

When are they going to do something about the pedophiles and those who cover them up in the church.... Surely that is a much more important question?

This is a very interesting story that is actually playing out across the planet.

Abortion has come to the fore again in many countries and is once again causing great division.

Church in several countries are threatening politicians with ex-communication.

Church has lost all credibility because of scandals that have destroyed it.

So now we can make way for abortion and public wont listen to the church anymore.

You know, if there was a devil it almost looks like he has played a master hand. Destroy the church and legalize abortion. But of course the whole devil is just a myth. Isn't it?

Originally posted by buster2010
These groups need to learn their religion does not say what is law in this nation.

The priests are telling a Catholic to either follow church teaching or get out.
That's what they are supposed to do. It's their job.
That doesn't effect the laws in this country. It effects Pelosi's personal situation in the church.

Originally posted by windword
Is the Catholic Church prepared to "discipline" all their members who have had abortions or who use birth control?

Technically, according to church rules, ANY CATHOLIC who publically supports abortion or has an abortion and doesn't repent is already excommunicated. They did it themselves.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm actually pretty sick of the high-and-mighty attitude of the Catholic Church.

It's kind of funny ... you are always ragg'n on the Catholic church but then when people complain about Islam, you rag on those complaining about Islam.

And this is ONE PRIEST speaking for a pro-life group... It's none of their business what Pelosi thinks about abortion.

Actually .. it IS the priests business. When a person belongs to the Catholic church, those people have put themselves in a position to have priests tell them what is moral and immoral. If those people don't like it, they can leave the church.

I think the church needs to be put in ITS place...

And who is going to give them a lesson on Catholic morals? You??

FACT - Pelosi calls herself Catholic. SHE has put herself in the position to have Catholic priests do their job and tell her how she should be living morally. SHE voluntarily puts herself in this position. If she doesn't buy what the church is selling .. then it's up to her to LEAVE.

Originally posted by windword
Ms. Pelosi isn't hired by the Catholic Church to represent their doctrine, she's hired by her constituents to represent their interests and to uphold the law as it applies to legislation.

Ms. Pelosi CHOOSE to be Catholic and therefore has put herself in the position to be guided by the Catholic Priests. If she doesn't like it, or if she decides she's going to ignore the priests, then she should leave the church. As it is, she isn't following church teaching so I have no idea why she's even pretending to be Catholic.

Originally posted by windword
Do all Catholics that disagree with certain doctrine of the church, for example, their position on condoms, risk ex-communication?

Technically ALL Catholics who use artificial birth control or who disagree with certain dogmas (Trinity, Resurrection, Eucharist, etc) are not in good standing and are 'excommunicated' - meaning that they can go to mass but can not receive communion.

The Catholic Church needs to embrace change.

The Catholic church is not a democracy. The beliefs and rules do not come from the bottom up but instead come from the top down. Either believe what they teach ... or get out. It's very simple.

Catholic (or any Christian) Church = Paganism in it's new guise
Idolatry, Hypocrisy, Apostasy!

2 Corinthians 11:13-15

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

Matthew 7:15 -20

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ...

2 Timothy 3:1-9

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. ...

I could post quotes all day about this.

If any of you bothered to read the Bible you would know that ALL CHURCHES are the synagogue of Satan. That power structures among men = tyranny and facilitate great evil.

That 'father, mother, and son trinity' found in virtually all pagan religions.
All those "revered" paintings and statues. It is straight up Idolatry in every way possible.

The fact many deny this after being shown and tipped off, reveals they care more about 'fitting in' with a crowd or lying to themselves about their own faults than they do about seeking the harsh facts of reality. The truth hurts but denying it hurts worse in the long run.

By their fruits you will know them?
What kind of fruit comes off this tree (Church hierarchies)?
It's rotten to the core.

Originally posted by windword

Where is the tolerance and love in forcing a woman to have a child that she doesn't want?

Well technically she doesn't tolerate rational logical thought.

Sex = making babies. Fact.

Having sex then thinking "Oh no I don't want a baby!" = Self - defeatism

That's like me going to Vegas and blowing all my $$$ and then saying "Oh how unfair I got robbed!". It's not unfair, it's what I asked for by showing up and putting my coins in the slot.

If by chance you luck out and win, good for you. But if you lose, don't complain as if you got screwed. You screwed yourself technically.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

The Catholic church is not a democracy. The beliefs and rules do not come from the bottom up but instead come from the top down. Either believe what they teach ... or get out. It's very simple.

Exactly, that is why it is indeed the synagogue of Satan.

God grants free will.
Satan attempts to control man and turn him away from God's free will precepts.

Freedom = Good
Hierarchy and Control Paradigms = Bad

Yes, it is very simple indeed.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

No, that is completely invalid -- the Apostles were talking about whether someone would eventually sin, and therefore be guilty (see Psalm 51, 139)

I'm not seeing your point.

Psalms 51
5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

That refers to original sin, that we are all separated from God, but it certainly doesn't mean that everyone should be aborted as a result. How could a fetus sin in the womb?

As I've told you before, when you've attempted to use that passage from John to claim that it was about reincarnation, the passage is in reference to God's omniscience:

For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.

Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be. (Psalm 139:13-16 NIV)

Where is the tolerance and love in forcing a woman to have a child that she doesn't want?

Who forced her to have sex? And you seem to be agreeing with the court that the definition of "life" relies on whether a child is desired or not, meaning that it has no objective meaning at all. Is a mother justified in killing her six month old infant because she's decided that she "doesn't want" it any longer?

You don't know that Jesus thought an infant and a fetus were equal. Jesus never spoke of it.

He also didn't speak of the evil of child rape, drug abuse or the Romans killing people for entertainment -- are you saying that he wouldn't be against any of that, as well?

One doesn't need a specific teaching against killing the unborn to know that it would be unacceptable within the broader scope of what Jesus taught.

reply to post by muzzleflash

If any of you bothered to read the Bible you would know that ALL CHURCHES are the synagogue of Satan.

Yes, the theology of "me and my Bible". Which ignores the fact that the Bible was written by members of a church, was selected by the church, and has been translated and maintained for 2,000 years by a church. If the church was as evil as you portray it, hasn't it occurred to you that they would have changed scripture in their favour long before there was no going back?

You're welcome to your approach to Christ, but the likelihood that your interpretation of scripture is any more valid than anyone else's, including the church, is pretty much zero, given that you're two millennia removed from what the book actually refers to.

Originally posted by adjensen

Yes, the theology of "me and my Bible". Which ignores the fact that the Bible was written by members of a church, was selected by the church, and has been translated and maintained for 2,000 years by a church.

Which Church?

If by Catholic which is the subject of the thread, than I must say you are entirely wrong.
Catholicism did not exist until after these texts were written. Constantine and the Councils decided how to butcher these texts and which ones to remove or include, and how to rewrite them.

The religion of Constantine was actually an attempt to placate the anarchist slant of the "early christians", who were all over the place because anarchist philosophy appears within empires as a result of tyranny.

By pretending that the "state" became "Christian" (which is essentially anti-statism), was the key to calming the restless masses and convincing them that the "government changed into a good guy govt".

The authors of the books of the Bible predate these events. The "Church" formed at the very same time these texts were compiled and butchered to fit an agenda of controlling the populace mentally and spiritually.