The rules are pretty simple.

Not Catholic? No communion for you.

State of Mortal Sin? No communion for you.

Burke is an Archbishop, not a Cardinal. Hopefully, someday he will be a Cardinal.

Like I said yesterday, Nancy Pelosi makes me want to vomit.

Keep the under 18 boys out of that stadium!

PeachPit,
There are pedophiles in every other faith out there. My uncle is a Minister and has stated that it just doesn't get any press.

There are pedophiles in schools. Doesn't get much press.
Your statement was offensive and rude.

PeachPit,
There are pedophiles in every other faith out there. My uncle is a Minister and has stated that it just doesn't get any press.

There are pedophiles in schools. Doesn't get much press.
Your statement was offensive and rude.

'Bout time somebody highlight the scandal these politicians are calling upon themselves.

Wonder if any of those good folks ever heard of St. Thomas More, a politician who chose to die rather than renounce basic tenets of his faith for the sake of the British King.

It's cool that you're featuring this, Jill. You probably have a better grasp about our faith than some of the politicos.

It kills me how often we, the pro lifers, are called intolerant, and yet Catholic Bashing on this website has been running rampant!

I would NEVER even contemplate bashing someone elses faith...it's right up there with the crazy "degenrate guy" and whoever messed with Bethany's pictures.

What compels you people to do this? It's amazing to me...

Peachpit:

Keep boys and girls under the age of 18 out of public schools!

Archbishop Burke is sooo cool!

BTW, I don't think that picture of Kerry receiving communion is not from a CATHOLIC Church. When the wine is offered (its not at my parish, but it is at my sister's parish in another diocese) it is not distributed to the faithful in little cups. At least its not in my state.

Archbishop Raymond Burke would definitely not give communion to any Pro Abortion Catholic, and neither would my own Bishop, whom I think is also there. However, from Papal Masses I have watched on EWTN in the past, its usually all the priests distributing communion. I hope they make sure not to give communion to those CINO politicians.

Whoops, will change title to Archbishop.

Not only don't they give out the wine in little cups but Catholics aren't allowed to participate in communion services of other faiths...wow, he's just battin' a thousand!

"Peachpit: Keep boys and girls under the age of 18 out of public schools!
Posted by: Bethany at April 17, 2008 8:30 AM
------------------------------------

*LOL* ..now, If we could only open up our public education funds and allow people to CHOOSE whether they want their kids to go to Catholic/Religious schools or public schools...

If the Pope denies communion to pro-choice politicians, more American Catholics will leave the Church.

A large majority of American Catholics--something like 80%--support the use of birth control.

The Pope is out of touch.

Some Catholics don't understand the teaching on contraception. Many are poorly catechized. Denying Communion, which Catholics believe is the BODY and BLOOD of Christ, is something a Priest or Bishop has the right to do.

Of course, we **all** face Judgement Day, so maybe the Priests and Bishops might be trying to save souls?

Do a hemoglobin test if you think communion wine is blood.

"If the Pope denies communion to pro-choice politicians, more American Catholics will leave the Church."

so what.

"A large majority of American Catholics--something like 80%--support the use of birth control.

The Pope is out of touch."

Yes SoMG, don't you think the Pope should be pro-birth control and pro-choice? I mean, why not be screwed up like the rest of the culture? he should join in.

"Do a hemoglobin test if you think communion wine is blood."

The accidents remain but the substance changes.

"Do a hemoglobin test if you think communion wine is blood."
------------------------------------

We know and believe it is..

This test was done already (with one of the eucharistic miracles)..it was, I believe, Type A.

And the Host (from another eucharistic miracle) was identified to be made of cardiac tissue.

Miracle of Lanciano Italy, baby!

A large majority of American Catholics--something like 80%--support the use of birth control.

The Pope is out of touch.

No, SoMG, The numbers are not that high. It depends on which Catholics are polled. Cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose what they want to believe are not true Catholics. The Pope is not the one out of touch, unfortunately many American Catholics are.

PeachPit said: "Keep the under 18 boys out of that stadium!

PeachPit—What an accomplishment! Less than an hour after Jill posted this, you've managed to illustrate Anderson's Corollary to Godwin's Law (also known as the reductio ad pedophilium):

"It would go something like this: 'As a debate involving the Catholic Church (either a discussion about the Church specifically, or a discussion in which the Church is taking a position) grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the sex scandal approaches one.'

"And then there's its corollary: 'Once such reference to the Scandal is made, whoever mentioned the Scandal has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress...'"

Hey smoggy,

Do a brain scan if you think you have a brain.

Kidding, just kidding. Please no comments about judgement, charity etc.. It was a joke.

I read this week that somewhere around 60% of American Catholics disagree with the Church on abortion.

A large majority of American Catholics--something like 80%--support the use of birth control.
*
The Pope is out of touch.

Leave it to you to turn the whole thing into numbers. Catholics will leave? Let them and good riddance! The pope is out of touch? Couldn't be the dissenting Catholics that are out of touch with the church???? No...that would be crazy talk!

The church is not a democracy. The church is what she is and nobody is forced to belong. You don't like it...go. You want to stay? Welcome, now get on board.

Exactly what would the church have to offer if she became just another social club that was subject to the whims of every new "idea" that comes along.

Truth. I realize you are unfamiliar with the word, but it is what the church is all about. We aren't planned parenthood, willing to change 'truth" to suit our needs or please the masses!

Jill—

This is a minor quibble, but FWIW, the general consensus among Catholics is that "receive" is a better word than "take" to describe one's act of consuming the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Although I will admit that in the case of pro-abortion Catholic politicians, who know that they ought not be receiving Holy Communion, perhaps "take" is the appropriate word.

"Do a hemoglobin test if you think communion wine is blood."

Been there, done that. Type AB.

Janet, check this out:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/22678.php

Money quote: "More than 75% of U.S. Catholics believe the church should allow the use of contraception, according to a recent Gallup poll (Roylance, Baltimore Sun, 4/10). "

A large majority of American Catholics--something like 80%--support the use of birth control.

That means that 20% get it. This would be who the pope is speaking to.

I read this week that somewhere around 60% of American Catholics disagree with the Church on abortion.

That means 40% understand the truth. This would be who the pope is speaking to.

PeachPit,
There are pedophiles in every other faith out there. My uncle is a Minister and has stated that it just doesn't get any press.

There are pedophiles in schools. Doesn't get much press.
Your statement was offensive and rude.

Posted by: Sandy at April 17, 2008 8:00 AM
*************************
Schools and other churches dont cover up for them and protect them and try to intimidate and buy off the victims. Schools, other churches, boyscouts, etc dont move the pedophiles from one place to another giving them free reign to a whole new crop of victims time after time after time. What is offensive and rude is the way the Roman Catholic church ENABLED and PROTECTED and HID these pedophiles.

thanks for the correction on the blood type, MK...

Money quote: "More than 75% of U.S. Catholics believe the church should allow the use of contraception, according to a recent Gallup poll (Roylance, Baltimore Sun, 4/10). "

I'll get a message to the pope immediately. I'm sure he'll want to change the entire Catholic Teaching based on a gallup poll...

oh..and guess what, the blood on the Shroud of Turin is also of type AB (discovered by Prof. Baima Bollone when he examined the Shroud)

"Money quote: "More than 75% of U.S. Catholics believe the church should allow the use of contraception, according to a recent Gallup poll (Roylance, Baltimore Sun, 4/10). ""

In fact, this illustrates what I was trying to tell Hieronymous about yesterday; how there is so much confusion about church teaching because of the scandal that dissenters cause. Those who cause others to fall into sin; may God have mercy on their souls.

NPR had a big piece about the papal visit and mentioned the souvenirs being sold - dont know why but the idea of a Pope t shirt tickles me - no insult intended, but it strikes me as funny

Here, I'll save everyone the trouble: the Shroud of Turin is fake, the so-called "Eucharistic miracles" are fake.

TR: Schools and other churches didn't cover-up abuse pre-1990's? Then why are certain segments of society legally required to report suspected child abuse? If schools were doing such a good job of reporting abuse, then why do we need the "mandated reporter" laws for school personnel? Many segments of society were guilty of looking the other way back then. I can tell you from personal experience that families,schools, and doctors looked the other way back in the 1970's.

Money quote: "More than 75% of U.S. Catholics believe the church should allow the use of contraception, according to a recent Gallup poll (Roylance, Baltimore Sun, 4/10). "

I'll get a message to the pope immediately. I'm sure he'll want to change the entire Catholic Teaching based on a gallup poll...

Posted by: mk at April 17, 2008 9:44 AM
***************************
The RCC has changed its position on a whole lot of issues over the centuries and those changes were influenced by the people who made up the church. That's fact, not opinion. Insisting it couldnt possibly change its position on contraceptives or any other issue is being willfully ignorant. Whether you want to admit it or not, the current position on abortion wasnt reached until 1869.

"If the Pope denies communion to pro-choice politicians, more American Catholics will leave the Church.

A large majority of American Catholics--something like 80%--support the use of birth control.

The Pope is out of touch."

It doesn't really matter how many people leave the Catholic church over BC or any other issue for that matter. Pope Benedict has already stated that he would rather have fewer Catholics but faithful ones, than wolves in sheep's clothing who PRETEND to be practicing Catholics.

Numbers are not important, it's whether a person really believes in his faith. The Catholic Church has always been counter-cultural.

For a brief change of topic:
My 13 year old won her Gr.8 violin sight reading class in the musical festival this morning beating out 6 other competitors. Yeah for Becca!!!!

SoMG:

Something you don't understand about Christianity is obvious in your posts and really shows how utterly ignorant you are with regards, matters of faith.

Christianity is a revelation from God. Our faith is not based on what we think it should be or based on a vote of hands.

No, what you're desribing is paganism.

Further, the Bible is very clear about the penealty of receiving Holy Communion unworthily. These pro-abort politicians make a mockery of Christ and are profaning His blood. They should read Hebrews chapter 10, especially the part where it describes God as being a consuming fire.

And the respect for the Catholic Church would skyrocket if they enforced their own teaching, i.e., refused communion to all such people who partake in the shedding of innocent blood.

Patricia,

Congrats to your Daughter!

The music for the Pope's mass has been beautiful so far, by the way.

TR: What I am trying to say is that even families Enabled and Protected and Hid pedophiles back in the day and some still do unfortunately.

TR: Schools and other churches didn't cover-up abuse pre-1990's? Then why are certain segments of society legally required to report suspected child abuse? If schools were doing such a good job of reporting abuse, then why do we need the "mandated reporter" laws for school personnel? Many segments of society were guilty of looking the other way back then. I can tell you from personal experience that families,schools, and doctors looked the other way back in the 1970's.

Posted by: Carrie at April 17, 2008 9:51 AM
*****************
What in the world does suspected child abuse in the home have to do with teachers or boy scout leaders or coaches who are molesting children? The RCC didnt cover up for abusive parents. It covered up for priests who were molesting and raping children. Trying to pretend one has anything to do with the other is ridiculous.

John J: Got it. Will change.

Thanks Janet. She's got a concerto class this afternoon and tomorrow is piano and violin!!

Liturgical music can be beautiful if done properly!!

Been there, done that. Type AB.

and....

This test was done already (with one of the eucharistic miracles)..it was, I believe, Type A.

And the Host (from another eucharistic miracle) was identified to be made of cardiac tissue.

From previous posts, I thought you guys told us it the "appearance", and that it doesn't physically change into Christ's real blood or body. Now these posts.

So, I guess I'll have to ask again....if someone were to make the bread with arsenic in it, and put some cyanide in the wine BEFORE the priest "changes" it....would you guys still eat the eucharist and drink the wine????

What in the world does suspected child abuse in the home have to do with teachers or boy scout leaders or coaches who are molesting children? The RCC didnt cover up for abusive parents. It covered up for priests who were molesting and raping children. Trying to pretend one has anything to do with the other is ridiculous.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 9:58 AM

Child abuse in ALL of its forms is a universal problem, TR. Be fair and admit that, instead of hounding the Catholic Church.

These are observable miracles that have happened throughout history, JLM. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle In general, they host can't be empirically tested.

No, we wouldn't drink it.

TR: RCC wasn't the only segment of society/institution that covered-up abuse back then. That was my point.

TR: What I am trying to say is that even families Enabled and Protected and Hid pedophiles back in the day and some still do unfortunately.

Posted by: Carrie at April 17, 2008 9:57 AM
**********************
And that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the RCC covering up for pedophile priests who were molesting and raping dozens and hundreds children in their parishes.

http://www.remnantofgod.org/nl011024.htm

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=21229

I dont like Wiki that much as a source but still -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

Child abuse in ALL of its forms is a universal problem, TR. Be fair and admit that, instead of hounding the Catholic Church.

Posted by: Janet at April 17, 2008 10:08 AM
**************
Systimatically covering up for pedophiles and defending them and protecting them is NOT a universal problem.

It is the only organization in the world where you can be a pedophile and keep your job...amen to that! We need more donations..lots of court cases coming down the pipe.

TR: That's true. I am not denying it. I just wanted to point-out that sexual abuse was often enabled and hidden by not just the Catholic Church. Families have learned how to do better and hopefully the Catholic Church has learned too. What do you want from the Catholic Church now? What do you think she should do now?

TR: RCC wasn't the only segment of society/institution that covered-up abuse back then. That was my point.

Posted by: Carrie at April 17, 2008 10:10 AM
********************
"Back then"? Do some research.
There is a huge difference in not telling the police that Great Uncle Albert showed his dingus to 14 year old Mary and having a priest rape and molest and abuse HUNDREDS of parish children and having the hierarchy of the church cover up for them, protect them, and move them from parish to parish to parish. Geogan had over 130 charges against him. I cant remember how many charges were made against Koss but it was in the hundreds and cost the Ft Worth diocese (sp?) millions. Then there was the scandall at St Vincents in canada. And I wont even go into the scandal in Ireland. The issue isnt that pedophiles became priests. Pedophiles gravitate towards jobs that put them in contact with children and give them a measure of 'power' over children. The issue is how these pedophiles were protected and deliberately hidden and covered up for by the upper echelon of the church.

The RCC has changed its position on a whole lot of issues over the centuries and those changes were influenced by the people who made up the church. That's fact, not opinion. Insisting it couldnt possibly change its position on contraceptives or any other issue is being willfully ignorant. Whether you want to admit it or not, the current position on abortion wasnt reached until 1869.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 9:54 AM

The Church has NEVER changed her position on matters pertaining to doctrine - the RCC has ALWAYS been against the practice of abortion, BC, divorce and homosexuality. In fact, at the Second Vatican Council when it was apparent that the working committee was willing to recommend a change in the Church's teaching on contraception, Pope Paul VI issued Humane Vitae which not only reaffirmed the Catholic teaching on BC but also was prophetic in the consequences of widespread use of BC - ALL of which have come to pass.

Texas Red:

Sin is a universal problem.

That's why Christ died.

We all need him.

Systimatically covering up for pedophiles and defending them and protecting them is NOT a universal problem.

Public schools are guilty of this very thing. Disgraceful...and this is one reason we homeschool our kids.

"The report, Secret Shame Of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse Of Students Runs Rampant, by Douglas Montero, is the result of an analysis of 117 cases of sexual abuse between January 1999 and June 2001. Sixty percent of those accused of sexual abuse were transferred to desk jobs inside the school district. Forty percent of those transferred suspects were repeat sex offenders."

Patricia,

See, for example, the didache from, what, the first century, where it says

"you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

HisMan, Paganism was also based on revelation, not on "majority-rules".

TR: I will do some research, but it has been said that most pedophiles will have hundreds of victims before they are stopped. That includes pedophiles that molest members of their own families. Great Uncle Albert wasn't just showing his "dingus" to 14 year old Mary. (By the way, I am from MA, so I am very familiar with Geoghan.)

TR: That's true. I am not denying it. I just wanted to point-out that sexual abuse was often enabled and hidden by not just the Catholic Church. Families have learned how to do better and hopefully the Catholic Church has learned too. What do you want from the Catholic Church now? What do you think she should do now?

Posted by: Carrie at April 17, 2008 10:20 AM
*************************
'She' can close the barn doors but the horses are long gone. Abuse in a family has absolutely nothing to do with a priest abusing the children in family after family after family and having their superiors cover up for them. I honestly dont believe this is an issue from which the RCC will quickly recover if it recovers at all. It doesnt seem to matter much to people who are Catholics - they keep making excuses and rationalizing. But to the non catholic world it was far far more than a 'black eye'. Having the pope say 'we cant accept it' NOW doesnt alter the fact that the hierarchy did NOTHING to PROTECT these chilren for decade after decade after decade. The RCC has tried to present itself as some kind of 'moral beacon' and in a position to lecture the rest of the world. Its lost one whole heck of a lot of ground.

Homeschool is also a good way to shield children from the dangers of social interaction, varsity athletics and organized activities.

Homeschool is also a good way to shield children from the dangers of social interaction, varsity athletics and organized activities.

Actually, most homeschooled children are very social, very much involved in athletics, and organized activities.

TR: I will do some research, but it has been said that most pedophiles will have hundreds of victims before they are stopped. That includes pedophiles that molest members of their own families. Great Uncle Albert wasn't just showing his "dingus" to 14 year old Mary. (By the way, I am from MA, so I am very familiar with Geoghan.)

Posted by: Carrie at April 17, 2008 10:27 AM
***************************
For the majority of society when a pedophile is discovered he is STOPPED. He may have hundreds of victims BEFORE he's caught but WHEN he is caught he's turned in, arrested, he goes to jail and when he gets out hes a registered sex offender. The RCC didnt do that - they defended the pedophile, covered up for him, 'rescued' him, bought off or intimidated the victims, and moved the priest to a different parish. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

The Church has NEVER changed her position on matters pertaining to doctrine - the RCC has ALWAYS been against the practice of abortion, BC, divorce and homosexuality. In fact, at the Second Vatican Council when it was apparent that the working committee was willing to recommend a change in the Church's teaching on contraception, Pope Paul VI issued Humane Vitae which not only reaffirmed the Catholic teaching on BC but also was prophetic in the consequences of widespread use of BC - ALL of which have come to pass.

Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 10:21 AM
********************
yeah, right

as long as you believe that.....how do you get your homeschooled children to interact with individuals of different races and faiths?

TR: Can't deny that. See your point.

Patricia,

See, for example, the didache from, what, the first century, where it says

"you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 17, 2008 10:23 AM
****************************
And that doesnt change the fact that the Bible never even remotely comes close to condemning abortion, nor does it change the fact that 'the didach' is meaningless to anyone who isnt Catholic. But the fact of the matter is the CURRENT position on abortion wasnt reached until 1869.

And TR, Janet is correct that there is a much more significant abuse problem in the PUBLIC schools in the USA than there ever was in the RCC. And those teachers DO keep their jobs until they are caught and they ARE enabled to continue the abuse too.
However, what is interesting is that the MSM will not really touch the problem. Instead they have gone after the Catholic church like a bunch of hyenas that they are. The abuse scandal is pretty much over and it has been dealt with. The Church never condoned this at higher levels.
This is WAY off topic as we are supposed to be discussing proabort Catholic politicians receiving communion - NOT the sex abuse scandal in the CC.

TR is right--nothing in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament--explicitly condemns or forbids induced abortion.

as long as you believe that.....how do you get your homeschooled children to interact with individuals of different races and faiths?
Posted by: PeachPIt at April 17, 2008 10:33 AM

All homeschoolers are not Christian, Peachpit. Did you really think they were?

There are many various races within the organizations of homeschoolers, as well as many different types of homeschoolers, and many different types of faiths.

You are trying desperately hard to trash them, but you're failing because you are completely ignorant about what homeschooling really is, as opposed to what you've been told it is. '

Besides, you're simply trying to avoid the issue I brought up which was pedophilia in the schools. You said that we should keep children out of the CAtholic church. Well, shouldn't we keep children out of public schools, since they're doing the same thing that you see in the RCC?

yeah, right

Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 10:32 AM

A typical TR rebuttal. Go do some more research TR before you come back to the discussion board on this one.

the RCC has ALWAYS been against the practice of abortion,

******************

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, by returning to the Aristotelian Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote 7 that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church's canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed "fetus animatus" (animated fetus) was punished as murder.

St. Jerome (circa 340 - 420) wrote in a letter to Aglasia:

"The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs"

Starting in the 7th century CE, a series of penitentials were written in the West. These listed an array of sins, with the penance that a person must observe as punishment for the sin. Certain "sins" which prevented conception had particularly heavy penalties. These included:

practicing a particularly ineffective form of birth control, coitus interruptus (withdrawal of the penis prior to ejaculation)
engaging in oral sex or anal sex
becoming sterile by artificial means, such as by consuming sterilizing poisons.

Abortion, on the other hand, required a less serious penance. Theodore, who organized the English church, assembled a penitential about 700 CE. Oral intercourse required from 7 years to a lifetime of penance; an abortion required only 120 days.

Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216):

He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."
Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V (1471-1484) issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.

Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591) revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

17th TO 19th Century CE (Abortion becomes murder again):
In the 17th century, the concept of "simultaneous animation" gained acceptance within the medical and church communities in Western Europe. 9 This is the belief that an embryo acquires a soul at conception, not at 40, 80. or 116 days into gestation as the church was teaching.

Hieronymus Florentinius, a Franciscan monk, asserted In 1658 that all embryos or fetuses, regardless of their gestational age, which were in danger of death must be baptized. However, his opinion did not change the status of abortion as seen by the church.

Pope Pius IX (1792-1878) reversed the stance of the Roman Catholic church once more. He dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

As I pointed out, the current position on abortion wasnt formed until 1869

And TR, Janet is correct that there is a much more significant abuse problem in the PUBLIC schools in the USA than there ever was in the RCC. And those teachers DO keep their jobs until they are caught and they ARE enabled to continue the abuse too.
However, what is interesting is that the MSM will not really touch the problem. Instead they have gone after the Catholic church like a bunch of hyenas that they are. The abuse scandal is pretty much over and it has been dealt with. The Church never condoned this at higher levels.
This is WAY off topic as we are supposed to be discussing proabort Catholic politicians receiving communion - NOT the sex abuse scandal in the CC.

Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 10:37 AM
******************|
Oh please. Whimpering that people are just 'picking' on the RCC is laughable. Please give us examples of any school system that has covered up for pedophile teachers and has any teacher on par with Geoghan or Koss or any of the other pedophile priests who have cost the RCC millions and millions of dollars. And your shuck and jive over the 'morality' of the RCC and how its not 'right' for 'certain people' to receive communion because they arent 'moral enough' is a huge part of the whole discussion.

From Catholic.com for you esp. TR:

The Catholic Church has always condemned abortion as a grave evil. Christian writers from the first-century author of the Didache to Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae ("The Gospel of Life") have maintained that the Bible forbids abortion, just as it forbids murder. This tract will provide some examples of this consistent witness from the writings of the Fathers of the Church.

As the early Christian writer Tertullian pointed out, the law of Moses ordered strict penalties for causing an abortion. We read, "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Hebrew: "so that her child comes out"], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Ex. 21:22–24).

This applies the lex talionis or "law of retribution" to abortion. The lex talionis establishes the just punishment for an injury (eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, compared to the much greater retributions that had been common before, such as life for eye, life for tooth, lives of the offender’s family for one life).

The lex talionis would already have been applied to a woman who was injured in a fight. The distinguishing point in this passage is that a pregnant woman is hurt "so that her child comes out"; the child is the focus of the lex talionis in this passage. Aborted babies must have justice, too.

This is because they, like older children, have souls, even though marred by original sin. David tells us, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5, NIV). Since sinfulness is a spiritual rather than a physical condition, David must have had a spiritual nature from the time of conception.

The same is shown in James 2:26, which tells us that "the body without the spirit is dead": The soul is the life-principle of the human body. Since from the time of conception the child’s body is alive (as shown by the fact it is growing), the child’s body must already have its spirit.

Thus, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62).

The early Church Fathers agreed. Fortunately, abortion, like all sins, is forgivable; and forgiveness is as close as the nearest confessional.

The Didache

"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).

The Apocalypse of Peter

"And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).

Athenagoras

"What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).

Tertullian

"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).

"Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.

"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive. . . .

"[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive" (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).

"Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (ibid., 27).

"The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]" (ibid., 37).

Minucius Felix

"There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).

Hippolytus

"Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).

Council of Ancyra

"Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).

Basil the Great

"Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).

"He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" (ibid., canon 8).

John Chrysostom

"Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

Jerome

"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

The Apostolic Constitutions

"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

We used grape juice for communion, not wine, and we were told that it was symbolic - and we had broken bits of saltine crackers instead of some kind of special 'wafer'. What is in the hearts of the people taking part in communion is what should matter. And insisting that 'you' are in a position to decide if someone is 'worthy' of communion, or to sit in judgment of their relationship with god is incredibly egocentric and arrogant. I think its difficult for Catholics to understand the perception of non catholic denominations when it comes to 'the last supper' and the pope overall. To non catholics he is the head of a religious group but he is no more 'special' than Billy Graham or the Dali Llama.

"What is in the hearts of the people taking part in communion is what should matter. And insisting that 'you' are in a position to decide if someone is 'worthy' of communion, or to sit in judgment of their relationship with god is incredibly egocentric and arrogant."

Stop imposing your beliefs on Catholics.

By the way there is a huge difference in a Catholic polititians position on abortion as a catholic and recognizing as a polititian or public servant the fact that non catholics couldnt care less what position the pope has on anything and have a right to their own beliefs and their own position. Theoretically the church has decided for everyone how catholics should personally feel about abortion but the RCC has no say over non catholics and its not the business of a polititian to tell the rest of the world that they have an obligation to follow the polititians personal religious beliefs.

As you can see, the Church's position has NEVER changed regarding abortion, but has been strengthened with the advances in science and embryology.
Although the proabort politicians such as Pelosi and Kennedy may wish it so, they will never change this. Their refusal to study the Church's position and form their consciences correctly is to their eternal detriment. They have failed to see the face of Christ in the unborn.

TexasRed at April 17, 2008 10:55 AM

AMEN, TR!!!!!

As you can see, the Church's position has NEVER changed regarding abortion, but has been strengthened with the advances in science and embryology.
Although the proabort politicians such as Pelosi and Kennedy may wish it so, they will never change this. Their refusal to study the Church's position and form their consciences correctly is to their eternal detriment. They have failed to see the face of Christ in the unborn.

Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 10:59 AM
************************
It most certainly has and I proved it with quote after quote and factual information. That you refuse to face those facts doesnt do you any service.

"By the way there is a huge difference in a Catholic polititians position on abortion as a catholic and recognizing as a polititian or public servant the fact that non catholics couldnt care less what position the pope has on anything and have a right to their own beliefs and their own position. Theoretically the church has decided for everyone how catholics should personally feel about abortion but the RCC has no say over non catholics and its not the business of a polititian to tell the rest of the world that they have an obligation to follow the polititians personal religious beliefs.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 10:59 AM"

Nevertheless, a practicing and believing Catholic cannot support or in any way aid in abortion, nor can they participate in a political process that would set up these so called "rights" for others regardless of whether the people they represent are Muslim, Protestant's athesist etc. This would not be the loving thing to do because abortion is NEVER a loving compassionate response to a woman with a distressing pregnancy.

The RCC has changed its position on a whole lot of issues over the centuries and those changes were influenced by the people who made up the church. That's fact, not opinion. Insisting it couldnt possibly change its position on contraceptives or any other issue is being willfully ignorant. Whether you want to admit it or not, the current position on abortion wasnt reached until 1869.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 9:54 AM

TR, you crazy nut! (J/K) ;) Not having an "official" position is NOT the same as changing positions. The Church didn't have an opinion of the pill until (I believe) the 1960's. It doesn't mean they said they accepted it before then. When the do take a position it's carefully thought out.

Name ONE position that's been changed in the Church.

TR is right--nothing in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament--explicitly condemns or forbids induced abortion.

Posted by: SoMG at April 17, 2008 10:41 AM
**************************
In fact, Exodus (chapter 21 I think) states that the punishment for causing a woman to miscarry is paying a fine, which is not the punishment for causing the death of a person or a child. Only if harm comes to the woman pregnant is the punishment more severe. And this is a presumably wanted pregnancy. In Numbers - cant think of the chapter and verse - the punishment for a woman suspected of being unfaithful can be interpreted as forcing her to drink an abortifacent. This is a typical 'trial by fire' punishment which is common among primitive peoples. Of course WHAT the priest gives her to drink will determine the outcome if she is pregnant, not her guilt or innocence.

yeah, right

Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 10:32 AM

A typical TR rebuttal. Go do some more research TR before you come back to the discussion board on this one.

Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 10:42 AM
***********************
I already did it and I proved my point. That you refuse to face the facts I provided doesnt make you look very good at all.

From Catholic.com for you esp. TR:

***************
Patricia none of that negates the facts I presented - it just shows other people are as unwilling to face facts as you are.

Stop imposing your beliefs on Catholics.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 17, 2008 10:58 AM
*************
you first, bambino, starting with the rcc position abortion and then on gay marriage - just for starters - stop trying to impose YOUR beliefs on the rest of the USA

If a teacher is a pedophile does he keep his job?

It most certainly has and I proved it with quote after quote and factual information. That you refuse to face those facts doesnt do you any service.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 11:06 AM

The website you listed has the "opinions" of several authors from different religions, and the person who represents Christianity is NOT Catholic and therefore, does not know his ass from his elbow re: the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Find a reputable source and show me - otherwise you've not proven your position.

You are quite correct Kristen that the RC didn't have an opinion on the BC pill because it wasn't developed until 1961 - around the time of Vatican II.
The same situation has developed over the use of RU-486 and the Church has now completed research on this drug and has issued statements regarding its use.
I might add this is an ongoing process in many areas, including brain death criteria where there is some debate within the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

Patricia none of that negates the facts I presented - it just shows other people are as unwilling to face facts as you are.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 11:15 AM

I'm sorry TR but if you can't even bother to read about the Catholic position FROM a CATHOLIC author, then there is NO point debating you.
Do what I suggested yesterday - go play with bananas.

TR: Some people don't base their anti-abortion position on what the Bible says. Even if the Bible specifically supported abortion, I would still be against it.

Kristin - the position on abortion and on the fetus HAS changed over the centuries

Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216):

He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."
Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.

Pope Sixtus V (1471-1484) issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.

Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591) revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).

BTW, dear Pope Benedict has a rather repulsed but fascinated look on his face when Pelosi is kissing his ring!!

TR: Some people don't base their anti-abortion position on what the Bible says. Even if the Bible specifically supported abortion, I would still be against it.

Posted by: Carrie at April 17, 2008 11:22 AM
********************************
Fine. Those are your beliefs. The problem comes when you want to insist that no one else has a right to THEIR beliefs and you have the right to force people to live their lives by YOUR beliefs. I dont have any problem with your beliefs about your pregnancy. The problem comes when you dont extend that same courtesy to others.

Patricia, TR provided quotes from Popes changing the Catholic Church's position on abortion from "It's wrong if the fetus has quickened (mother feels movement)" to "It's wrong anytime" and back again.

The web site he quoted from may not be Catholic, but its quotations from Papal documents are accurate.

TR has successfully documented that the Catholic Church HAS changed its position on abortion several times. It's just a fact, and no amount of shutting your eyes and yelling "no no no", which is effectively what you're doing will change it.

If a teacher is a pedophile does he keep his job?

It appears so, Peachpit:

The report, “Secret Shame Of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse Of Students Runs Rampant,” by Douglas Montero, is the result of an analysis of 117 cases of sexual abuse between January 1999 and June 2001. Sixty percent of those accused of sexual abuse were transferred to desk jobs inside the school district. Forty percent of those transferred suspects were repeat sex offenders.

Kristin,
All of TR's statements in the 11:22am post are taken out of context and are misunderstood therefore.

TR: you are such a wealth of knowledge!!!

Carrie, you wrote: "Even if the Bible specifically supported abortion, I would still be against it. "

You mean you don't believe the Bible is the infallable word of God?

SOMG, I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and yet, if the Bible specifically supported abortion, I would have to assume it contradicted itself, and I would therefore not assume it was the Word of God after all.

Patricia, you wrote: "All of TR's statements in the 11:22am post are taken out of context and are misunderstood therefore."

His direct quotations from Papal documents explicitly changing the Church's position on ensoulment (and therefore on abortion) are "misunderstood"?

You are shutting your eyes to the documented facts and shouting "no no no". Not very impressive.

TR: Does this satisfy your need for proof of other "mass cover-ups" of pedophilia by large groups?

Oregon Public Schools Cut Deals with Pedophiles

Teachers in the Oregon public school system accused of molesting students are offered financial incentives, confidentiality agreements, and even letters of recommendation to terminate their employment.
The deals are used to rid the school of the teacher while avoiding potentially costly legal battles with teacher union lawyers. But teachers who receive these deals simply move to other schools, their histories unknown to their new employers. Oregonian school officials call the practice "passing the trash," as the teachers suspected of sexual misconduct are simply passed from one school to the next.

"To get Kenneth John Cushing, then 44, away from Claggett Creek Middle School students immediately, administrators cut him a deal: If Cushing resigned, they would conceal his alleged conduct — clutching students’ waists, touching their buttocks and massaging their shoulders — from the public. Cushing signed the pact...and officials promised not to reveal the teacher’s behavior if potential employers called looking for a reference. They would attribute his departure to 'personal reasons,'" wrote Oregonian reporters.
Cushing's deal was one of 47 similar deals confirmed by the newspaper. Over the past five years, about half of Oregon teachers disciplined for sexual misconduct with a child left their schools after signing contracts that included incentives for leaving quietly such as cash settlements, health insurance, and letters of recommendation.
Aside from firing the teacher and paying for the court battle, school board may place the teacher on paid leave while the allegations are investigated. Since investigations average nearly 16 months in Oregon, the process is very expensive. The economics require more prudent measures, leading school boards to simply find creative ways to rid themselves of these teachers.
So what is the solution? For one, Oregon should invest some money into improving the efficiency of sexual misconduct investigations. It shouldn't take 16 months to do a background check and speak to the students alleging misconduct. Instead of relying on the state to send an investigator, perhaps each school could keep an investigator on staff. If that proves too expensive, neighboring school district could share the cost of an investigator.
State legislators also need to take action and enact a law which places the health and welfare of school children above the legal authority of any confidentiality agreement. Legislators should require schools to report sexual misconduct allegations to a centralized state database that collects the information even if they do not pass the information along to the next employer. If the teacher faces similar allegations at the next job, the allegations would once again be sent to the centralized database triggering alarm bells and action by the state, which can then begin an investigation that leads to revoking his/her teacher's license. Only this time, the teacher should be suspended without pay.
There is also the option of making the accused teachers or teacher unions responsible for paying legal fees of the plaintiff if the dependents lose the case in a court battle. The policy would discourage union lawyers from defending clients they know are guilty or at the least, will be proven guilty in court. This type of pressure should relieve the taxpayer of the burden of court fees to prosecute criminals that would otherwise be passed off to other schools.

Published Feb 20 2008, 09:44 AM by Andrew B. Einhorn
http://ohmygov.com/blogs/state_and_local/archive/2008/02/20/oregon-public-schools-cut-deals-with-pedophiles.aspx

Nevertheless, a practicing and believing Catholic cannot support or in any way aid in abortion, nor can they participate in a political process that would set up these so called "rights" for others regardless of whether the people they represent are Muslim, Protestant's athesist etc. This would not be the loving thing to do because abortion is NEVER a loving compassionate response to a woman with a distressing pregnancy.

Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 11:08 AM
*************************
Like your loving compassionate insistance that the 12 year old victim of rape has some kind of obligation to continue a pregnancy because you care more about a collection of oblivious tissue and cell structure than you care about a brutalized suffering 12 year old? You really want to pretend your attitude is 'loving and compassionate' towards the victim of incest and rape? How laughable! There is nothing 'loving or compassionate' about your self absorbed fantasy that YOU 'know what is best' and the opinion of the woman pregnant is meaningless. Get over your egocentric delusion that you decide how someone else 'should' believe or how they 'should' represent their beliefs.

BTW, dear Pope Benedict has a rather repulsed but fascinated look on his face when Pelosi is kissing his ring!!

Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 11:24 AM
***********
he probably isnt used to anyone sucking on his finger in the process ....

Somg: Bingo, but I don't want to hurt the feelings of those who do so I am going to leave it at that.

".. stop trying to impose YOUR beliefs on the rest of the USA"
--------------------------------------------

The founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian when they signed the Declaration of Independence.

Bethany, you wrote: "If the Bible specifically supported abortion, I would have to assume it contradicted itself"

Contradicted itself where? There is no explicit condemnation or prohibition against induced abortion anywhere in the Bible (Old AND New Testament). Even the often-quoted passage about two men fighting and causing an accidental miscarriage only requires payment to the woman's husband for loss of the pregnancy.

And so a Texasredneck, does it's redneck thing, and post about her knowledge of the Catholic religion from her KKK/Know nothing, Catholic history book. State approved, Catholic history by rednecks, for rednecks, such as Texasred. Remember those state approved, "Texas history comic books" written by your family members where Mexicans and Catholics were presented as lazy, cattle thieving , tequila drinking citizens of Tejas, Texasredneck? You should get a new history book Texasredneck, it shows how you still vomit all the stereo types that your KKK family wrote about Catholics.

What a pendejo, Texasred is.

Texasred, why can't we love them both?

The website you listed has the "opinions" of several authors from different religions, and the person who represents Christianity is NOT Catholic and therefore, does not know his ass from his elbow re: the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Find a reputable source and show me - otherwise you've not proven your position.

You are quite correct Kristen that the RC didn't have an opinion on the BC pill because it wasn't developed until 1961 - around the time of Vatican II.
The same situation has developed over the use of RU-486 and the Church has now completed research on this drug and has issued statements regarding its use.
I might add this is an ongoing process in many areas, including brain death criteria where there is some debate within the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 11:17 AM
********************
I provided quotes from several different saints and two different popes. Refusing to face those facts just makes you look foolish.

Patricia none of that negates the facts I presented - it just shows other people are as unwilling to face facts as you are.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 11:15 AM

I'm sorry TR but if you can't even bother to read about the Catholic position FROM a CATHOLIC author, then there is NO point debating you.
Do what I suggested yesterday - go play with bananas.

Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 11:21 AM
******************
What different saints have said and what two different popes - Innocent III and Gregory XIV isnt catholic enough for you? You are too much of a coward to face facts. You prove my point. You dont have what it takes to cope with reality or face the truth.

Keep vomiting yllwass - its all youre good for

Contradicted itself where? There is no explicit condemnation or prohibition against induced abortion anywhere in the Bible (Old AND New Testament). Even the often-quoted passage about two men fighting and causing an accidental miscarriage only requires payment to the woman's husband for loss of the pregnancy.

The Bible, as a whole, is life affirming, expressing how human beings are ordained and planned of God, even from the womb. This contradicts the notion that children in the womb are less significant than children out of the womb. The Bible says that children are a blessing. Would God then contradict Himself by saying sometimes they are not truly blessings, depending on the situation? No, children are always a blessing.

Yes, I've heard the exodus chapter a million times, and I will never read it the same way as you do.

RSD, you wrote: "The founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian when they signed the Declaration of Independence."

But they were not right-to-lifers.

Patricia: It's time for you to admit you are wrong and accept the fact that the Catholic Church has changed its position on abortion several times.

You'll feel better afterwards.

If a teacher is a pedophile does he keep his job?

It appears so, Peachpit:

The report, “Secret Shame Of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse Of Students Runs Rampant,” by Douglas Montero, is the result of an analysis of 117 cases of sexual abuse between January 1999 and June 2001. Sixty percent of those accused of sexual abuse were transferred to desk jobs inside the school district. Forty percent of those transferred suspects were repeat sex offenders.

Posted by: Bethany at April 17, 2008 11:27 AM
**********************
And a link to that would be where?
There is also no differentiation between someone being accused and the accusations proven and unproven accusations.
Youve got 117 cases from how many schools?
70 of those accused were transferred to desk jobs but there is no information on what kind of accusations were made, what they were accused of, how much evidence they had, etc.

Bethany, you wrote: "The Bible, as a whole, is life affirming, expressing how human beings are ordained and planned of God, even from the womb. This contradicts the notion that children in the womb are less significant than children out of the womb. "

That may be so, but it doesn't prohibit or condemn induced abortion.

Kristin,
All of TR's statements in the 11:22am post are taken out of context and are misunderstood therefore.

TR: you are such a wealth of knowledge!!!

Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 11:27 AM
*************
Its not my fault that you cant face the truth.

TR: Does this satisfy your need for proof of other "mass cover-ups" of pedophilia by large groups?

**************************
No, Janet, it doesnt. It doesnt even come close. There is a huge difference between a teacher being 'accused' of 'massanging the shoulders' of a student and priest after priest raping one boy after another over decades.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you". This says He knew you BEFORE YOU WERE CONCEIVED. Not WHEN YOU WERE IN THE WOMB but BEFORE then.

Abortion does not affect people BEFORE they are formed in the womb; only afterwards.

That may be so, but it doesn't prohibit or condemn induced abortion.

God doesn't contradict Himself. If He considers children in the womb to be blessings, and human beings, He also by default is against abortion, since He has said that we are not to murder.

A child in the womb is not capable of committing an act worthy of being killed, and therefore is innocent and killing it is indeed murder.

God doesn't specifically say anything about pedophilia being wrong, but we know it's wrong according to the Bible because the principles of the Bible automatically contradict the idea that pedophilia could be acceptable.

".. stop trying to impose YOUR beliefs on the rest of the USA"
--------------------------------------------

The founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian when they signed the Declaration of Independence.

Posted by: RSD at April 17, 2008 11:36 AM
***************************
You need to read some of the anti religious quotes by those founding fathers. But they werent overwhelmingly catholic, and at the time the BOR and Constitution were written there were no laws prohibiting abortion in 'the colonies' and the framers of the BOR and Constitution made no effort to write laws against the practice.

Texasred, why can't we love them both?

Posted by: Bethany at April 17, 2008 11:37 AM
***************
Love both of whom?
Why cant you 'love' the woman enough to respect her judgment and respect her right to self determination and bodily autonomy and her right to do what she knows is best under her circumstances? But you dont love her at all. You merely obsess over her fetus and hate and resent her if she doesnt see it the way you think she 'should'.

Patricia, you wrote: "I'm sorry TR but if you can't even bother to read about the Catholic position FROM a CATHOLIC author, then there is NO point debating you."

So you think only Catholics can document the history of the Church and read the writings of Popes and Saints?

The reason you say there is "NO point" in debating TR is that you have lost the debate and you can't bear to admit it. Everyone can see that! You're just embarrassing yourself.

SOMG,

...The Founding Fathers were NOT right-to-Lifers?

hmm....does the following ring a bell?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

If it doesn't, try taking the US Citizenship exam...

That may be so, but it doesn't prohibit or condemn induced abortion.

God doesn't contradict Himself. If He considers children in the womb to be blessings, and human beings, He also by default is against abortion, since He has said that we are not to murder.

A child in the womb is not capable of committing an act worthy of being killed, and therefore is innocent and killing it is indeed murder.

God doesn't specifically say anything about pedophilia being wrong, but we know it's wrong according to the Bible because the principles of the Bible automatically contradict the idea that pedophilia could be acceptable.

Posted by: Bethany at April 17, 2008 11:52 AM
***************************
The bible doesnt support your inventions and fabrications.
Nothing anywhere in the bible gives the most remote suggestion that god or the men who wrote the bible thought abortion WAS murder or was even killing. In fact the bible specifically states in Exodus 21 that the punishment for causing the death of a fetus was merely paying a fine determined by the womans husband. That is not the punishment for murder. Only if harm came to the woman was the punishment greater. Killing CHILDREN was acceptable and excused all through the old testament. Or do you want to pretend a child can be 'guilty' while a fetus cannot be? As for pedophilia, homosexuality was condemned in the OT and so was sex with a female you werent married to so that would cover pedophilia too. But I dont believe the bible addresses the age at which a girl could be married, does it?

TR: Does this satisfy your need for proof of other "mass cover-ups" of pedophilia by large groups?

**************************
No, Janet, it doesnt. It doesnt even come close. There is a huge difference between a teacher being 'accused' of 'massanging the shoulders' of a student and priest after priest raping one boy after another over decades.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 11:49 AM

There were 47 deals made with molesters, the details of which were not given in each case, and for that matter, you don't know the details of each and every priest case either. So quit your crabbin' already.

Yes, I've heard the exodus chapter a million times, and I will never read it the same way as you do.

Posted by: Bethany at April 17, 2008 11:41 AM
***************
If men are fighting and cause a woman to miscarry then they pay a fine determined by the womans husband. If harm comes to the woman then the punishment is greater. And this is presumably a wanted pregnant. Refusing to face those facts wont change them either, Bethany.

Bethany, you wrote: "God doesn't specifically say anything about pedophilia being wrong, but we know it's wrong according to the Bible because the principles of the Bible automatically contradict the idea that pedophilia could be acceptable. "

So the Bible has a penumbra? General unwritten principles which apply because you, Bethany, are personally sure of them even though they are nowhere to be found in the Bible? I thought right-to-lifers were supposed to reject penumbras and go by the text.

You're just reading into the Bible whatever it suits you to believe. "I'm against pedophelia, therefore pedophelia is un-Biblical, even though there's nothing in it against pedophelia." Similarly, "I'm a right-to-lifer, therefore the Bible is right-to-life, even though it says nothing whatsoever about abortion" seems to be your syllogism.

You go Texasredneck, your becoming a ikon of the Klan rednecks, with every post about Catholics and their evil religion. Yee Haw, we got us a real redneck from Texas posting with the pride of of Tejasredneck, with deep roots in bigotry and prejudicial history about Catholics. You go Red, your a amazing source of bigotry about Catholics learned from those edumacated Klan rednecks, in those redneck universities, founded and funded by Texasrednecks.
Are you a klegal or just a klegal in training Texasredneck? Why you might even be a old time redneck from that big old South Tejas ranch built upon killing, stealing,taxing, and taking the land of Catholics to establish a dag burned ranching empire. You know, that King Ranch built upon Catholic blood being spilt, so you can get a edumacation at a redneck university, so rednecks like you Texasred, can continue to vomit redneck history lessons about Catholics. You write like a old time redneck who wrote the state history books to assure Catholics were thought about, just like you think about Catholics Texasred.
To bad Texasredneck, but your not going to get a scholarship for just repeating previous KKK post about Catholics. Tell us something new Texasredneck, and stop vomiting that shop worn KKK history of Catholics.

Gee...I never thought TR would be a bible expert, too?

The Bible, as a whole, is life affirming, expressing how human beings are ordained and planned of God, even from the womb. This contradicts the notion that children in the womb are less significant than children out of the womb. The Bible says that children are a blessing. Would God then contradict Himself by saying sometimes they are not truly blessings, depending on the situation? No, children are always a blessing.

************************
If that were so then the bible would specifically condemn the practice of abortion and list punishments for those who performed abortion and those who had abortions. Why doesnt it? Abortion has been around for thousands of years. But the men who wrote the bible didnt even think it was important enough to mention. You have a culture where women could be killed in a particularly gruesome manner for getting pregnant outside of marriage and the victims of rape could be forced to marry their rapist. But you want to pretend the women of the Children of Israel didnt know anything at all about abortion? And no, an unwanted pregnancy is not a blessing even if you are not capable of facing that fact.

RSD, your interpretation of the words "created", "men", and "life" did not apply in the time of the Founding Fathers.

Like the Bible, the Founding Documents say nothing about abortion. Nor were any of the Founding Fathers anti-abortion activists.

SOMG,

...The Founding Fathers were NOT right-to-Lifers?

hmm....does the following ring a bell?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

If it doesn't, try taking the US Citizenship exam...

Posted by: RSD at April 17, 2008 11:56 AM
*************************
And nothing suggests they viewed the fetus as having any rights at all. WOMEN had precious few rights and neither did MEN who werent caucasian. But women COULD legally obtain abortions and the framers of the BOR and Constitution never made any effort to make abortion illegal. Youre looking foolish again.

There were 47 deals made with molesters, the details of which were not given in each case, and for that matter, you don't know the details of each and every priest case either. So quit your crabbin' already.

Posted by: Janet at April 17, 2008 12:03 PM
**********************
Exactly. The details werent even addressed. They DID detail ONE individual and the only accusations against him were 'touching' that could have been done innocently without sexual intent. But the RCC covered up rape after rape after rape. Trying to compare the two is foolish.

Gee...I never thought TR would be a bible expert, too?

Posted by: RSD at April 17, 2008 12:06 PM
************************
Why shouldnt I be?

yllowass you remind me why its so good to be pro choice

And RSD, being Christian does not mean being a right-to-lifer. The majority of American Christians are pro-choice.

And yllas, it's slander to associate TexasRed with the KKK. You have no evidence that (s)he's associated with the KKK in any way.

Patricia, you wrote: "I'm sorry TR but if you can't even bother to read about the Catholic position FROM a CATHOLIC author, then there is NO point debating you."

So you think only Catholics can document the history of the Church and read the writings of Popes and Saints?

The reason you say there is "NO point" in debating TR is that you have lost the debate and you can't bear to admit it. Everyone can see that! You're just embarrassing yourself.

Posted by: SoMG at April 17, 2008 11:55 AM
*****************************
I provided quotes from several saints and from two Popes - Innocent III and Gregory XIV - they arent 'catholic' according to patricia?

This s fun, watching a Texasredneck pontificate on Catholics to the Constitution. A real lesson in understanding how a redneck from Texas understands the world in such detail is unusual to see.

You ride um redneck, round up, rope um up, and brand those Catholics for all to see.

ONce again, turning into a "bash the Catholics on Jills blog".
I'm not participating in this, because YOU and TR won't read the posts which explain the history and teaching of the Catholic church. It's not in your interest to determine the truth - you want to show the RCC is inconsistent but as always many position statements of the RC are taken out of context. If you can't go to the source of Catholic teaching you won't get the truth. Some guy posting on a website is not an authority on Catholic teaching. Sorry, SoMG and TR, believe what you want, I'm not the loser in this one (especially in the next life). Have a nice day - I have to go watch another music competition class.
See ya on another post that doesn't bash Catholics.

What's fun is seeing how poorly you right-to-lifers understand the Bible and how ignorant you are of the history of the Catholic Church.

Patricia believes that only Catholics can read history. Bethany claims the Bible says whatever she thinks it OUGHT to say.

And these people want to decide for you when and whether to give birth.

Yes mommy Somg, rednecks did not hang Catholics and invent history of Catholics to steal their land in Texas. I know a redneck, when I see a redneck from Texas posting about Catholics, and Texasredneck is a redneck from her typical KKK history lessons about Catholics.
Now Somg. go back to keeping the planet beautful by panting some hippies for meat. Or murdering human beings for your elite view of the world being overcrowded by Catholics or other religious faiths.

The bible doesnt support your inventions and fabrications.
Nothing anywhere in the bible gives the most remote suggestion that god or the men who wrote the bible thought abortion WAS murder or was even killing. In fact the bible specifically states in Exodus 21 that the punishment for causing the death of a fetus was merely paying a fine determined by the womans husband. That is not the punishment for murder. Only if harm came to the woman was the punishment greater. Killing CHILDREN was acceptable and excused all through the old testament. Or do you want to pretend a child can be 'guilty' while a fetus cannot be? As for pedophilia, homosexuality was condemned in the OT and so was sex with a female you werent married to so that would cover pedophilia too. But I dont believe the bible addresses the age at which a girl could be married, does it?

Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 12:00 PM

TR: I will try to find out what I can about why the Church's official teaching was vague on abortion. It may take some time.

Speculation on my part on why the teaching on abortion in the early church may be vague:

1. The difference between menstruation and spontaneous abortion may not have been well-understood by men who made the civil laws. Bleeding was not necessarily a sign of abortion. Perhaps they didn't want to condemn a woman needlessly for murder?

2. Women married and had babies younger than they do now, and as you know the menstrual period is not as regular in young girls when they first start their periods. So the absence of a period was not necessarily assumed to be a pregnancy.

3. With a better understanding of the female productive system, the Church may have found it necessary to write the official teaching to avoid confusion.

Common sense or fabrication TR? You can decide.

And yllas, it's slander to associate TexasRed with the KKK. You have no evidence that (s)he's associated with the KKK in any way.

Posted by: SoMG at April 17, 2008 12:17 PM
************************
The truth means nothing to a yellow ast little piggie

Yes mommy Somg, rednecks did not hang Catholics and invent history of Catholics to steal their land in Texas. I know a redneck, when I see a redneck from Texas posting about Catholics, and Texasredneck is a redneck from her typical KKK history lessons about Catholics.
Now Somg. go back to keeping the planet beautful by planting some hippies for "smoked meat". Or murdering human beings for your elite view of the world being overcrowded by Catholics or other some other reason you can think up. Are you related to Dogmatic Doug, and have to defend a redneck Catholic historian named Texasred, as Dogmatic Doug defended that raving anti-Catholic named Sally?

Bethany, you wrote: "If you can't go to the source of Catholic teaching you won't get the truth. "

So the Popes and Saints TR quoted are not "the source of Catholic teaching"? What is the source then? The Bible? But the Bible says nothing whatsoever about abortion.

TR,
Systimatically covering up for pedophiles and defending them and protecting them is NOT a universal problem.
Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 10:16 AM

Realllllly? Tell that to the 400 mormon children in custody right now. You know, the 14,15 and 16 year olds that have been raped and impregnated by 40 year old men for the last 40 years...didn't hear them talkin' about it. Til they got caught. Oh that's right, they're STILL not talkin'!

Is it permissible to make a comment that actually relates to the post?

Common sense or fabrication TR? You can decide.

Posted by: Janet at April 17, 2008 12:27 PM
*******************
Look at the quotes I provided.
I provided quotes from a number of saints and provided the position of two different popes - Innocent III and Gregory XIV.
The position of the church on abortion has changed over the centuries.
The current position that a fertilized egg 'is' a person and that any abortion is 'murder' is NOT the position the church has always held.
It doesnt matter whether you admit it or not. Its a fact.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the current position on abortion wasnt reached until 1869.

Ahhhh TR, I needed that laugh!

Janet, your post lists reasons why it might have been difficult to DETECT abortion, but not reasons why the Bible does not condemn or forbid it.

Adultery is difficult to detect too (if the adulterers are careful), but the Bible has no problem condemning it and prescribing punishments.

See ya on another post that doesn't bash Catholics.

Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 12:23 PM
*********************
Its not my fault that you cant face the facts about the history of the RCC. Pretending that anyone who doesnt subscribe to the 'the church never makes a mistake and the church never changes its position on anything' is 'bashing' catholics is laughable.

"..And RSD, being Christian does not mean being a right-to-lifer."
-------------------------------

It does...being Christian means you are a follwer of Christ and His teachings.

TR,
Systimatically covering up for pedophiles and defending them and protecting them is NOT a universal problem.
Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 10:16 AM

Realllllly? Tell that to the 400 mormon children in custody right now. You know, the 14,15 and 16 year olds that have been raped and impregnated by 40 year old men for the last 40 years...didn't hear them talkin' about it. Til they got caught. Oh that's right, they're STILL not talkin'!

Posted by: mk at April 17, 2008 12:31 PM
*************************
What in the WORLD do you fantasize that cult has to do with this discussion? If anything that cult is on par WITH the Catholic church when it comes to covering up sexual abuse of children.

So...TR and Somg....when YOU were created in your mother's womb, you didn't ha