Denver bishop to Biden: Abortion “foundational” issue
posted at 9:30 am on September 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Archbishop Charles Chaput has issued a more direct response to a Catholic politician than seen in many years. Chaput takes Joe Biden to task for his strange and contradictory statements on Catholicism and abortion, and indirectly addresses Nancy Pelosi at the same time. He destroys the argument that Catholics can support abortion and calls on Catholics to understand the difference between social-justice programs and abortion:
In 2008, although NBC probably didn’t intend it, Meet the Press has become a national window on the flawed moral reasoning of some Catholic public servants.On August 24, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, describing herself as an ardent, practicing Catholic, misrepresented the overwhelming body of Catholic teaching against abortion to the show’s nationwide audience, while defending her “pro-choice” abortion views. On September 7, Sen. Joseph Biden compounded the problem to the same Meet the Press audience.
Sen. Biden is a man of distinguished public service. That doesn’t excuse poor logic or bad facts.Asked when life begins, Sen. Biden said that, “it’s a personal and private issue.” But in reality, modern biology knows exactly when human life begins: at the moment of conception. Religion has nothing to do with it. People might argue when human “personhood” begins – though that leads public policy in very dangerous directions – but no one can any longer claim that the beginning of life is a matter of religious opinion. …
Abortion is a foundational issue; it is not an issue like housing policy or the price of foreign oil. It always involves the intentional killing of an innocent life, and it is always, grievously wrong. If, as Sen. Biden said, “I’m prepared as a matter of faith [emphasis added] to accept that life begins at the moment of conception,” then he is not merely wrong about the science of new life; he also fails to defend the innocent life he already knows is there.
I’ve written about the difference between social-justice policies and abortion in Catholic doctrine at least twice now, and it’s good to see the Church making the same distinction. They need to make this explicit, because Biden and Pelosi aren’t the only members of the flock who basically bargain socialist policy stands of poverty and health care in order to “buy” their support of abortion. Abortion and explicit cooperation in abortion carry an automatic excommunication from the Church, a burden not found often in the catechism. That is why Chaput calls it “foundational”; respect for human life springs from this belief that humans are at their conception sacred.
Chaput gives faint praise to Biden’s opposition to public funding for abortion, which he has trotted out this election cycle, but that doesn’t appear consistent, either, according to the pro-life site Life News:
As recently as February, Biden voted against an amendment that would permanently prevent abortion funding at Indian health care service facilities. The amendment from Sen. David Vitter would codify a longstanding policy against funding of abortions with federal Indian Health Service (IHS) funds. …
In April 2005, Biden voted against the Mexico City Policy, which President Bush instituted to prohibit taxpayer funding of groups that promote or perform abortions overseas. He also voted for international abortion funding in July 2003.
In a May 2003 vote, Biden also voted for a pro-abortion amendment to repeal the law that prohibits performance of abortions of military base hospitals, all of which are taxpayer-funded. …
Biden voted for taxpayer-funded abortions at military base medical centers in June 2002 as well along with votes in May 1999 and June 2000.
Biden represents himself as a Catholic and a moderate. He’s neither, at least not in terms of his stands on abortion. Instead, he presents a convenient Catholic for the pro-abortion lobby, one that can help bully Catholics into silence on the issue, or worse, mislead them into thinking abortion fits within Catholic doctrine. Chaput’s conclusion hits hard on this point:
American Catholics have allowed themselves to be bullied into accepting the destruction of more than a million developing unborn children a year. Other people have imposed their “pro-choice” beliefs on American society without any remorse for decades.If we claim to be Catholic, then American Catholics, including public officials who describe themselves as Catholic, need to act accordingly. We need to put an end to Roe and the industry of permissive abortion it enables. Otherwise all of us – from senators and members of Congress, to Catholic laypeople in the pews – fail not only as believers and disciples, but also as citizens.
Catholicism is a voluntary association. No one is forced to be Catholic. If Pelosi can’t accept the foundational teachings of the Church, then she should find a church that supports abortion and stop making ridiculous rationalizations about Catholicism. Biden needs something more if he believes human life begins at conception and fails to act to protect it. It’s time for Catholics to demand that politicians who run on their faith begin to act on it as well.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 7 Next »
My conclusion from reading your ongoing negations here is that no information will lift you from your gloom. NO word will ever suffice, no term will ever quite fit appropriately, you just “won’t get it” (and you’re sure you tried but God failed, so…).
In your case, I’ll pray for you and I mean that in the best possible sense. Remember the story of Paul and his conversion.
S on September 9, 2008 at 10:38 AM
>>I can’t wait until we get enough Muslim lawmakers in office that they discuss whether or not a law is Islamic or not. It’ll be interesting to see how the Catholics like the debate among politicians in our government concerning whether or not a FATWA should be issued on a Muslim politician taking a stance on a law ‘against their faith’.
I think Catholics would be as alarmed as I am concerning this particular debate. But of course, I’m just a bigot.
ThackerAgency on September 9, 2008 at 9:35 AM>>>>
Child rape is against my faith. Would it be dangerous for me to advocate laws against child rape? Why or why not?
Every issue is a matter of faith in something.
Pro-lifers believe that all persons deserve equal protection under the law. Rather than accepting some myth of what makes a human being a “person” we stand on biology. Period.
Defining personhood on the basis of self-sufficiency, developmental level, cognitive awareness, “ensoulment”, or popularity is dabbling in myths. Why is that mythology preferable over sheer biology, in a state that is forbidden to establish any myth as official policy?
If we can’t use myth to define personhood, what is left besides sheer biology? What other criteria would be free from human discrimination and bigotry?
justincase on September 9, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of death.
uh yeah…
right4life on September 9, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Then perhaps another visit is warranted, as you appear to not understand the Catholic teaching on the Virgin Mary.
ManlyRash on September 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM
yeah I remember it…there was nothing about mary there…amazing isn’t it?
right4life on September 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM
my gloom? ah a case of projection.
right4life on September 9, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Okay, bottom line–from Catholics: Will your Church cracking down on politicians who support abortion have a effect on how other Catholics vote? I think many have rationalized themselves into Pelosi’s way of thinking. But will this public rebuke make a difference?
petunia on September 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM
The only religion the left buys into is Obama-ism. Obama is right, Obama is good, render unto Obama that which is Obama’s, Obama saves…
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on September 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM
This might be the first time I’ve ever agreed with you on a religious topic, but you nailed it.
Such as your inability to make an argument, hence the descent into snide insults.
Do you have the mental capacity to actually address any single argument that Thacker raised? I doubt it. Like many Catholics, the slightest criticism of your precious Institution reduces you to blithering ad hominem.
peski on September 9, 2008 at 10:42 AM
This is based on the gospels – when Elizabeth was visited by Mary
Also based on the gospels
If one who lived at the time of Jesus asked his mother to pray for them, she would – as we pray for one another. Would she be any less inclined to pray on his behalf when she is in Heaven? And if she is in Heaven, does it not make sense for him to petition her to pray for him as if she were on earth?
Does asking someone to pray for me indicate I am worshipping them? We never ask Jesus to pray for us because He is God. We ask His mercy. No Catholic ever asks that of Mary – only that she pray for us.
ManlyRash on September 9, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Catholicism is a voluntary association. No one is forced to be Catholic. If Pelosi can’t accept the foundational teachings of the Church, then she should find a church that supports abortion and stop making ridiculous rationalizations about Catholicism. Biden needs something more if he believes human life begins at conception and fails to act to protect it. It’s time for Catholics to demand that politicians who run on their faith begin to act on it as well.
Amen. And perfectly put.
Rightwingsparkle on September 9, 2008 at 10:44 AM
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on September 9, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Catholics have a preternatural ability to ferret out bigots…such as yourself. It is a waste of keystrokes to argue with bigots.
ManlyRash on September 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM
I’m sure that many non-Catholics here have more than once made mention or spoken directly at a deceased relative (parents, grandparents, siblings, etc.). You seek their guidance and wisdom.
The Hail Mary concludes, “pray for us sinners now and at the time of our death amen.” We’re asking her to pray for us.
Catholics pray to seek guidance and intercession. For instance, if you have a sick child, you may ask St. Jude for guidance on how to suffer and give comfort. Or St. Steven when you are under attack.
There is only one God. Catholics view the Saints as advisors on specific topics.
natesnake on September 9, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Okay okay. But will this make a difference in American politics? Catholics often split. But if they all become pro-life in light of the recent crack down that could make a difference. Am I right?
petunia on September 9, 2008 at 10:47 AM
You need to ask the NCC or the Vatican. I’m just a sinner trying to get to Heaven.
ManlyRash on September 9, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Garden of Gesthemene, moments before Judas betrayed Christ:
ManlyRash, remember when Christ chastised one of his disciples with criticising him when he wanted to prevent Judas from doing his evil deed?
I mean by that that Judas did serve the Greater Good, despite the evil involved, and I believe that’s what Christ was saying when he called his beloved disciple, “you satan.” Meaning, “get out of the way of this Greater Good and let me do God’s work.”
Christ used the evil done by Judas to accomplish the Greater Good. Thus, not everything Judas did/said was wrong.
S on September 9, 2008 at 10:16 AM
S on September 9, 2008 at 10:48 AM
mary has no more grace than anyone else has, since grace is a gift.
luke 1:
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
if she was sinless, as catholics say, she wouldn’t need a savior.
communicating with the dead is forbidden. read the story of saul and samuel…when saul tried to speak to him after he was dead.
hail
n 1: precipitation of ice pellets when there are strong rising
air currents
2: enthusiastic greeting
v 1: praise vociferously [syn: acclaim, herald]
you give praise to mary, which should only go to Jesus.
right4life on September 9, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Not really…she didn’t accompany Paul.
ManlyRash on September 9, 2008 at 10:50 AM
The crackdown will just be a great opportunity for the mainline Protestant churches to attract members:
Slogan of the ELCU: “Come join us if you’re a former Catholic. We don’t believe child molesting is a sacrament”.
jim m on September 9, 2008 at 10:50 AM
As you wish. This argument serves no purpose other than division and I shall pursue it no further. If you are a praying person and if you pray for others than kindly pray for me.
ManlyRash on September 9, 2008 at 10:51 AM
and she wasn’t needed for his conversion. or his ministry, or his writing of most of the NT. or anything that he did. amazing isn’t it?
right4life on September 9, 2008 at 10:52 AM
The REASON that pro-choicers DON’T urge an acceptance of life based upon “sheer biology” is that they’d lose if they did.
BIOLOGICALLY, LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.
One is alive the moment one is conceived, as a new life. Before that, there is still life but in two separate “parts” or biological elements (sperm, ovum).
Once conception occurs, there is a distinct life and if anyone has ever watched the rapid and immediate cell division that occurs following conception, it is impossible to deny that life is present.
If not “alive,” at conception, what is? The whole argument based upon biology proves that life exists at conception, the very process of conception and then cell division afterward indicates and utterly defines “life” beginning and continuing throughout development.
S on September 9, 2008 at 10:52 AM
“I was for the fetus, before I was against….., oh, nevermind.”
bloggless on September 9, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Oh. I see. You are one of those. Mainline as opposed to all who disagree with you. This kind of thing is certainly uncalled for. I am not a Catholic, but I find your line of conversation very offensive.
petunia on September 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Asking someone who is alive and can respond to you, no. But asking someone who is dead and presumably in heaven, and assuming they have some influence over God Himself, is by definition prayer.
fossten on September 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Keep to the topic, fellas. The important thing here is that people realize that with each induced abortion there is at least one death.
bloggless on September 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Excuse me, “uh yeah”? What does “uh yeah” mean?
“Move your cheese,” what?
We ask Mary to intercede for us before God. If you believe that some souls are in Heaven before God — pure, with God everlasting — then you believe that they, being goodly as can be, might participate with you in appealing to God on your behalf.
I’m just wondering why that should bother you.
S on September 9, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Bigot is as bigot does.
Thacker and right4life are just upset that their specific religion doesn’t hold the honor of having carried the Christian faith for the past 2000 years.
Or perhaps it makes their skin crawl to know that their ancestors were Catholic? It’s either that or pagan.
natesnake on September 9, 2008 at 10:55 AM
As a conservative protestant, I obviously don’t agree with all Catholic beliefs, but I have tremendous respect for the Catholic church. I shudder to think of where we would be as a nation without the positive moral influence of so many Catholics on our country. Imagine life in American today without the positive influence of the William F. Buckley’s, Bill Bennett’s, Pope John Paul II’s, etc.
flyfisher on September 9, 2008 at 10:58 AM
fossten,
Have you ever talked to a grave? If so, why?
natesnake on September 9, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Thackeragency sez:
AMDG Responds:
A bigot maybe, obtuse definitely.
There is a difference between a fatwa and a public declaration that someone has excommunicated themselves and that for their sake they shouild be denied the Blessed Sacrement.
AMDG on September 9, 2008 at 10:59 AM
I’m sure there are some people in our world who pray to statues (in fact, very sure there are) and the Caribbean and Central and South America and Asia seem to have a lot of them. BUT that isn’t what the Catholic Church instructs, any more than some sects here and there who pray to stones or whatnot is what their denominations “teach” or espouse or encourage.
There are people who drift around and are drawn into sects all the time in this world and sectarian if not oftentimes occultist “drifts” are not at all advised nor advisable from a perspective of the Catholic Church.
I’ve met Christians who were afraid to even “worship” in any one building for fear of “spirits” and I didn’t say, “uh yeah” to any of them. I may not agree with their perceptions but I am not going to ridicule what they believe.
The Church, however, functions as an organization to try to keep such sectarian “differences” from violating the faith, the principles of faith, the theology. I appreciate that about the Church, I don’t ridicule or revile it.
I’ve seen just about every kind of Christian worship and attended many churches for years in nearly all Regions of this nation of ours and in in other countries, too. I can’t say that any of them did not know Christ, however, despite a number of variations of themes and nomenclatures shared.
S on September 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM
And I’ll pray that Mary does pray for you, right4life. I hope that doesn’t bother you.
S on September 9, 2008 at 11:01 AM
No, never.
Was Mary a sinner?
fossten on September 9, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Thanks, flyfisher — same goes for most if not all the Southern Baptipts I’ve known (and I’ve known many well).
I’d include Pope Benedict, however, in that list of wondrous helpers, teachers and inspirers of the faith.
S on September 9, 2008 at 11:03 AM
We are.
True.
Connie on September 9, 2008 at 11:03 AM
As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I whole hardly agree. And even now Protestants, Catholics and Mormons are trying to find a way to save traditional marriage in America. It is not at all helpful to argue over doctrines or authority. No one is converted by contension and arguement. It seems to be a game that some play with no good purpose.
petunia on September 9, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Whenever I see an anti-Catholic rant I think of the yellow bus that was always around North San Diego County (Oceanside area).
It was painted with all kinds of statements about the evil Pope, anti-Catholic statements, all hand painted around the entire bus. The owner would sit on a corner next to the bus with a hand painted sign. So much information on the sign you could never read it, but it had the theme of the Pope is satan, 666, and other garbage. It was a hoot, and pathetic at the same time. REPENT, Destroy the Catholic Church, the Church of Satan, destroy the Pope, Satan’s Brother. Always wondered what drives a person to such hate…
I am not Catholic, but they still are a Christian brother.
right2bright on September 9, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Hardily? Hardly doesn’t mean what I meant.
petunia on September 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Heartily! That’s the word sorry…:) It’s still early here.
petunia on September 9, 2008 at 11:09 AM
And why did you print what you just did? So you could?
S on September 9, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Yes, just the same as the rest of us. Original Sin much?
natesnake on September 9, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Petunia, Mainline is the way the Methodists/Lutherans/Epsicopals (sic)/Presbyterians/etc. have been described for the last 20+ years in surveys and elsewhere.
As to my crack about the child molesting, sorry if you can’t handle what the Catholic church did, including the coverups.
And your statement about “It is not at all helpful to argue over doctrines or authority” is just plain wrong. Wasn’t the whole original point of this story that the Catholic Church is asserting its authority over someone who disagrees (or doesn’t follow) its doctrines?
jim m on September 9, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Thank you. That’s all most of us Catholics are asking for. Not that you take our faith as your own, just that you respect us the same as we respect you.
natesnake on September 9, 2008 at 11:12 AM
I simply don’t know enough about Pope Benedict, yet. I read Peggy Noonan’s book on John Paul II and found it fascinating. Pope Benedict seems to be cut from the same cloth.
I am still a Southern Baptist, but it’s likely I will be a member of another denomination soon. I feel a little like Ronald Reagan just before he left the Democratic Party. I didn’t leave the Southern Baptists so much as they left me.
flyfisher on September 9, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Typical. Blame the victim mentality. Are Rome’s victims of molestation, coverup and reshuffling of priests, bishops, etc part of your “somewhat wounded” category? Many of these unhealed personal wounds were afflicted by Roman Catholic Church clergy. It’s interesting that it only admits to them when it goes public. Then and only then it puts on a pretense of humbleness in admitting it’s mistakes and (if the victim is fortunate enough) actually punishes its leaders but it usually just shuffles them around. A bandaid for a gangrene wound. This is a good sign of a false church.
Jim M. Watch out. You’re about to be labeled an anti-Catholic and a bigot because you are pointing out facts.
shick on September 9, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Then why do Catholics call her holy?
fossten on September 9, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Petunia Asks:
AMDG Responds:
I suspect only marginally. Only 36% of Catholics attend Mass on a regular basis. That group is already heavily Republican. I would not be surprised if the church I attend is going to go 85% for McCain.
It should be noting that the “cracking down” on Pelosi is primarily for her own sake. Public acknolwedgement of excommunication is not a punishment buit instead a message born out of concern for the immortal sould of the person in question.
AMDG on September 9, 2008 at 11:22 AM
This being the same false church your faith descended from? The same church that guarded the Christian faith for 2000 years? 1600 hundred years by itself?
I’m not saying the Catholic church occasionally made horrific decisions over the past 2000 years. Is there any church without blemish?
I’m not willing to allow a few bad apples to spoil the barrel.
natesnake on September 9, 2008 at 11:25 AM
She was conceived without sin. The “Immaculate Conception” refers to Mary’s conception, not that of Jesus.
dedalus on September 9, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Yes and Mainline is quite the sophisticated insult whether in surveys written by Protestants or whereever. It is sophistry.
A protestant argueing that they know more what a Catholic believes than the Catholic is stupid and not helpful. And mocking another’s belief is shallow. And shows the lack of ones own belief in the importance of treating others as you would be treated.
The Priest scandal did much damage to the Catholic church and I’m sure that it stings when it is brought up. It is not the fault of individual Catholics and is something for the Civil authorities to handle legally. And for indiviual Catholics to decide how their personal faith is affected by it. Mocking them is simply not Christlike.
The Pelosi/Biden story is a story inside the Catholic Church. It only concerns me or you because of how it may affect the outcome of the election and support by Catholics of our shared interest in promoting a culture of life.
petunia on September 9, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Excuse me, did you just say Mary was conceived without sin?
Please show me the Scripture that says that.
fossten on September 9, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Catholics are quite willing to vote for conservatives who are non-Catholic. But, if enough conservatives keep mocking the Catholic faith, that might change.
What’s the goal of expressing contempt for Catholicism here?
Is that how one gains conversions? Or, wins votes? Or, is it simply a way to promote one’s own need to feel superior?
Loxodonta on September 9, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Link for above.
Loxodonta on September 9, 2008 at 11:27 AM
You guys need to get on the same page.
fossten on September 9, 2008 at 11:29 AM
When Mormons are excomunicated it is often seen as a step in the individual’s repentence. (If someone has left the church completely they seldom get excomunicated)
After time, and life changes are made, they are very often re-baptized. I have been witness to this and it is a very joyous thing for all.
Do Catholics get re-baptized?
petunia on September 9, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Sorry dedalus, but that’s incorrect. The Immaculate Conception was that of Jesus, not Mary. Mary had an earthly mother and father.
holy – dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or religion: a holy man.
natesnake on September 9, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Ah, the superficial definition, not actually holy per se. So when you refer to Mary as holy, you’re referring to her service to the Catholic Church, not her spiritual state, correct?
fossten on September 9, 2008 at 11:34 AM
The church would point to Luke 1:28, but it is one of the few areas where the Pope has spoke infallibly so Catholics can take it on faith.
To link this back to the topic, a Pope hasn’t spoken in as authoratative a manner on abortion.
dedalus on September 9, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Ah yes, the hypocrisy of vanity certainly must NOT be ex communicable. Especially when you are boasting about your religion.
Dude, that’s NOT all you ask. Any discussion that centers around where the Catholic Church is WRONG is met with hissing and wailing about bigotry. I guess this is a step up from the burning at the stake that they used to do to ‘heretics’.
I guarantee you that were the Catholic Church making doctrine at the time of Jesus, Jesus would have been executed by the Catholic Church as a heretic. That’s what caused him problems with the Jewish leaders. He was forgiving people on the Sabbath. How dare He, and who does He think He is? The rabbi’s couldn’t stand someone taking their positions of authorities, so they had the Roman government take care of Him by telling them He said He was God and not Caesar.
Again, I’m not a bigot. I just disagree with Catholic doctrine and will tell you so. When I disagree, they call me a bigot because they are taught that Catholics are infallible. I have no animosity toward Catholics themselves, they are just wrong. . . and generally arrogant.
ThackerAgency on September 9, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Not Catholic… but really? Because I thought I read something and it was pretty darn clear to me. But I could be wrong.
petunia on September 9, 2008 at 11:36 AM
fossten,
That scripture you linked reinforces my point. It doesn’t diminish it.
natesnake on September 9, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Catholics should follow the Church’s teachings or get out of the church. They should not be used or have themselves used to acquire some preceived, political advantage.
Vince on September 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I don’t see “holy” there.
I think I’ll take God’s Word for it, thanks.
fossten on September 9, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Um, this is a common misconception, (pun not intended).
Immaculate conception
shick on September 9, 2008 at 11:38 AM
That’s the usual assumption. “Immaculate Conception” in the Catholic Church refers specifically to the conception of Mary. There is a feast day on December 8 and Catholic churches named after the event. Specifically, it means that Mary was conceived without original sin.
You can check Catholic.com or Wikipedia and send me a link if I’m wrong.
dedalus on September 9, 2008 at 11:40 AM
You call them bretheren but do you worship the same God as the Catholic? Do you believe that God is to be found in a wafer? Do you believe that Christ’s death on the cross was to be repeated over and over again in the mass? Do you believe that God saves men apart from knowing Christ?
337 and 847 Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church
If you don’t believe those things about God, are you worshiping the same God as they?
shick on September 9, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Is your point that Mary is a sinner? If so, then why pray to a sinner? Why not just go directly to God?
fossten on September 9, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Right. Throw your stones and then take the moral high ground. “I was just making a point. I wasn’t trashing your religion.”
It’s like restling a pig.
natesnake on September 9, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Catholics beleive that when the Pope speaks infallibly it is God’s direct divine guidance. They would take God’s word for it from the Pope, just as you would draw your interpretation based on your reading of the Bible.
dedalus on September 9, 2008 at 11:43 AM
So you believe that Mary was not a sinner in need of salvation?
fossten on September 9, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Is anyone here a theologian? If not, why are you all acting like one?
Vince on September 9, 2008 at 11:47 AM
LOL – define theologian.
fossten on September 9, 2008 at 11:48 AM
The highlighted part of your statement is evidence of your own bigotry and ignorance about what Catholics are taught.
Loxodonta on September 9, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Theology is the study of the existence, nature and laws of God. A theologian is one versed in theology!
Vince on September 9, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Of course different Churches have a different concept of who God is. If they did not there would only be one Church.
We do not have to have exact same doctrine to be “brothers” We simply are. All mankind are children of God. To allow other’s the right to their own conscience is simply the right thing to do. Even if I believe you are wrong and that my way offers more light and knowlege than yours, does not negate my obligaion to see you as a neighbor and a brother. Remember Christ and the Samaritans? Did they have to convert for him to be kind? And even claim the good Samaritan a better example? And He pled for forgiveness to the very Romans who crucified him. That is because he understood the worth of souls–in agreement or disagreement with him.
And of course there is one right answers to all these questions. But God condemns for being wicked not for being wrong.
petunia on September 9, 2008 at 11:51 AM
No, my point is that we are all sinners (including Mary) with exception to the Holy Trinity. Though, without the virgin birth, there would not have been a Christ. We ask for Mary’s intercession because her understanding of earthly pain.
You speak about this as though that’s all Catholics do. Mary only constitutes approximately 5-10% of our faith.
natesnake on September 9, 2008 at 11:53 AM
petunia @11:51 AM
AMEN!
Vince on September 9, 2008 at 11:54 AM
lol! This one’s a keeper. You don’t mind if I save it, do you?
Connie on September 9, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Catholics are infallible? Hahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!
I’m Catholic but anyone who knows me, knows that I’m not infallible.
Vince on September 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM
That is the teaching of the Catholic Church. She was conceived without sin and was assumed into heaven, without death. Both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are ex Cathedra teachings of the Church.
dedalus on September 9, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Even more than to abortion itself, the New Left is dedicated to the destruction of sacred itself. They want to destroy tradition and morality and replace it with their vision…chaos.
PattyJ on September 9, 2008 at 12:01 PM
The point is, Paul was converted not by his own understanding but by divine intervention.
And there would be no conversion for any had not Mary been ‘there’ at the human beginning of our Lord in this World among us.
S on September 9, 2008 at 12:04 PM
The Scripture I quoted just demonstrated that we are to go directly to Jesus Christ, not only because of His understanding of earthly pain, but because of His sinlessness.
No, if you take into context, I speak about this because someone else was claiming that praying to Mary wasn’t worship, and I’m debunking that.
Note Revelation 22:8-9
fossten on September 9, 2008 at 12:04 PM
The teachings are contrary to Scripture then.
Romans 3:23
Romans 3:10
Romans 6:23
Isaiah 64:6
Hebrews 9:27
fossten on September 9, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Yes, your gloom and no, not my projection nor anyone else’s here, but yours. Your gloom. You are given a fish and you complain it’s smelly. You are given a miracle and you complain it doesn’t have enough colors. You are given a prayer and you complain it’s too wordy. You are told of miracles and you complain they aren’t big enough.
You can’t see, you’re doomy and gloomy and everything, regardless of how fine, is just not swell enough. Thus, your gloom. You see issues as gloomy, dim, negated, diminished, you withhold respect for the respectable…
Thus, your gloom. People who persist in seeing the glass half empty, are half empty.
S on September 9, 2008 at 12:07 PM
I understand that God’s hand works through even fallible people, like each one of us. Someone noted that He accomplished His purposes through Judas, even though Judas was dead wrong in what he did. And even Scripture was written by the fingers of human beings who struggled with their own sin.
Paul always distinguished when he was writing what had been specifically given to him by God, versus just what he thought as a godly person. And there’s a lot God doesn’t tell us directly in the Bible. How Jesus could be fully man and not have original sin is a perplexing mystery. I can understand why the church would feel a need to explain it beyond the Bible’s mere proclamation that it is so.
But whenever we are asked to believe someone just because they say they are God’s representative, it leaves us vulnerable. How would we recognize if someone was off base – a false prophet? The standard in the Old Testament is whether the prophet’s prophecy comes true.
I look at the OT prophecies and how they were fulfilled in Christ, as well as the scientific and historic evidence that the Gospel writers were truly either eyewitnesses or had access to the eyewitnesses of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. There is good reason to believe that they give us the true account of Jesus without adding their own fluff to it.
But what happens if the Pope gives an “infallible” decree that is later shown to be wrong – such as the sentence against Galileo? Some things we only know in retrospect. Is there a way for Catholics to be protected from Papal rulings that might be wrong?
This is one reason that people who are skeptical of human motives or errors should be the first people to say that personhood should rest on science rather than faith in human philosphical or judicial reasoning, which can so easily be manipulated.
It’s hard for me to understand why so many who disparage the Bible because it was written by fallile human beings still trust Justice Blackmun to define which humans qualify as “persons”. Skepticism can be a good thing, but why apply it so selectively? If science is so trustworthy, why not trust it to define personhood?
justincase on September 9, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Actually, this work by these Bishops/the Archbishop in Pelosi’s case are encouraging for those who are pro-life. There are enough “Cafeteria Catholics” among us (most are almost always Democrats, in my experience, thus, they’re Liberals first and then they sometimes get around to “the Catholic things” so to speak — they tweak or customize the faith to suit their political views and their political views are paramount to how they accept or what they reject as to what Catholicism involves).
I’ve even read a few of these Cafeteria Catholics (Pelosi and Biden are those — John Kerry I’d say was just plain heretical, while I can’t say about Ted Kennedy, not his confessor) who claim (as Biden does, as Kerry has done, etc.) that they’re “devout Catholics” and yet they reject many basic tenets of the faith (thus, they’re not devout).
So, I think these actions by the Church represent an encouraging and fresh assertion by the Church and rather than resent it or be troubled by it, I find it very encouraging. The Church has had it’s TROUBLES and not speaking out in support of what it advises is one of the saddest failings prior to Pope Benedict. Now that Benedict is Pope, I do believe we will see more of this forthrightness by the Church as to what the Church upholds and represents.
Cafeteria Catholics and the like mislead and lead others astray. They do far more damage than “just” to their own souls, they actually do lead people astray, particularly when they have a national forum and House Majority Whip position to use as microphone.
S on September 9, 2008 at 12:14 PM
fallile = fallible
justincase on September 9, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Of course? Christ’s church believe in who God says he is and nothing more. If Bill worships an invisible bunny and Joe worships a 300 ft sequoia, they are not worshiping the same god. This should be obvious.
They don’t have to have identical doctrines but the important stuff should be identical. Like the ones I mentioned to right2bright.
Where do you get this idea? It’s not from the Bible. Go ahead, look it up. You’ll see that when the Bible speaks of God’s children it is in reference to believers.
I allow anyone to believe any silly thing they want. But I will point out to them when they are wrong.
That’s not what seperates believers from unbelievers.
I suggest you reread Christ’s parable of the good Samaritan.
Christ was pleading for mankind and not specifically the Romans.
You’ve got this seriously wrong. Jesus didn’t die because mankinds was worth it. Just the opposite. He died because mankind wasn’t worth it. He took the place on the cross because we deserve to suffer God’s holy wrath.
If by wrong you mean something like mistakes. Yes. But I have horrible news for you. We are all wicked and deserve His wrath.
What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” “Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.” “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. – Romans 3:9-20
Read the rest to see the solution.
shick on September 9, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Actually all Mormons are admonished to be what you call a theologian. We have no professional clergy. We are to “teach one another the doctrines of the kingdom.” And to teach we have to study. But we do not study the doctrines of other churches and I don’t always understand the terminology. So only so far as Mormon theology is concerned am I a theologian.
petunia on September 9, 2008 at 12:17 PM
praying to the dead doesn’t bother me, but it does bother the God of the bible. perhaps you should read it sometimes.
right4life on September 9, 2008 at 12:19 PM
My point was, again, that although Judas acted as evil, he fascilitated God’s finest work, and Christ cast aside the Apostle who attempted to prevent Judas from fulfilling that bad intent (Christ, knowing what was before Him and what was to be accomplished, the Greatest Good).
Judas had a human intent and mind and was misled (to state the obvious), while Christ actually protected that misleadment inorder to allow the Crucifixion to occur — had Judas been stopped by the Apostle’s, the ultimate Good would have been interrupted, so to speak.
God used the ultimate betrayal to accomplish the ultimate Good. Judas suffered human corruption while Christ followed God’s uncorrupt, incorrupt plan. God, Christ and God’s Holy Spirit won. Thus, Judas served a purpose of ultimate Good, despite his corruption.
S on September 9, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Instances of papal infallibility
Does not include the condemnation of Galileo.
Loxodonta on September 9, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Why do you assume I don’t read the Bible? You’re just acting on and for evil, here, right4life. You’re speaking evil and for evil intents and purposes.
Thus, I will pray, again, for you.
Have a nice day, I pray for your well being.
S on September 9, 2008 at 12:22 PM
oh yes any questioning of the catholic church is bigotry guess thats why the catholic laity was so unresponsive to the pedophile priest scandal.
I thought the Holy Spirit did that. how presumptuous of you.
I have mixture of native american, african american, and european. you?
right4life on September 9, 2008 at 12:23 PM
I haven’t agreed much of what you have posted here. But this post was dead on.
shick on September 9, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Some might view the Pope himself as contrary to scripture. The Catholics don’t and accept the dogma of the Church, which views its teaching as consistent with scripture.
dedalus on September 9, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 7 Next »