He “induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord,” District Attorney Seth Williams said.
[…]
“A doctor who with scissors cuts into the necks, severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies who would survive with proper medical attention commits murder under the law,” he said. “Regardless of one’s feelings about abortion, whatever one’s beliefs, that is the law.”
Anonymous: As we are required to follow just laws, and as it is sufficient to receive under only one species for Communion, would it be a mortal sin for someone who is underage to receive the Precious Blood in states that do not offer religious exemption to the drinking age law? (And who does not have a health condition that would prevent them from receiving the Host?) Or would drinking laws not apply because it only has the appearance of wine?
Anon,
Consuming a tiny sip of Precious Blood probably puts as much alcohol into your system as drinking an entire glass of fruit juice.
Besides, a law that does not allow religious exemption for (reasonable consumption of) alcohol, according to the First Amendment, seems to me unjust. It’s not that we should necessarily break such a law, but I feel we can break the letter of this law (no underage drinking without exceptions) because it does not properly represent the spirit of the law (to protect young people from getting smashed and hurting themselves or others).
Interesting video, and I appreciate the politeness through out it. However I do wish to clarify a few things about Catholicism.
If a person is truly living the Life Christ calls us to live then the person is not being a good person out of fear but out of love; Love for God and love for his neighbor. Love is desiring the good for the other person which means that the true believer would do good things, not to get to Heaven, but because he knows it is what is right. If the believer only does good things to get to Heaven then who is he really loving?
The Church has her reasons as to why certain things are sins. I would say that most of the reasons are self evident to the non-believer whether they wish to acknowledge it or not. But there are other reasons that tend to be more Theological, which is where the non-believer will disagree, and this leads me to my last point.
Relativism.
Your opening words about religion being something to be selected when you are older seems to indicate that as long as a person is happy with his religion and keeps it to himself then he is free to practice. Throughout the video you say “for me….”, insinuating you have your set of beliefs and truths that others may or may not agree with.
But Religion cannot be something you “subscribe to”. It is something that is True, or is not. You cannot say “Christianity works for Person A, and Hinduism works for Person B, thus they are both true.” The two religions contradict.
But what is Truth? How does something become True? Is Truth Universal? Barack Obama is President. Is that True? Of course it is, and this Truth is also Universal. It is not an opinion, it is fact. Science proves things to be True. Why does it rain? Because the sun evaporates the water, it condensates until it precipitates. That is truth. If someone were to say “Because there is a faucet in the atmosphere that releases water” you would immediately correct their reasoning because the Water Cycle is a Universal Truth.
If something is not Universal then it can not be True, it becomes an opinion. Morality is not opinionated. Killing is either right or wrong. Stealing is either right or wrong. If these two moral issues are Universal Truths, then any other moral issue has to have a Universal Truth. Moral Truth cannot be some Universal and some not.
Lastly, if I believe in a certain religion it is because I know it to be True. And since I know it to be True, why would I not encourage others to seek this same Truth? Why would I not want my children to live in this same Truth? That’s the point of Christianity. God—being the Ultimate Truth—has revealed Himself to us as a God of Love. Why wouldn’t I want others to embrace this relationship with Him?
In the post I reblogged, in no way was I trying to prove that the Church never had these scandals. The twovideos I posted are from Father Barron where he talks about the reality that is the sex-abuse scandal and one of them comes from something Pope Benedict XVI said himself.
The point I…
This is still a very over-generalized statement that should be clarified, because it’s not like other organizations are not trying to fix their problems and make them safe for children as well. The way you phrase your points comes across as pompous and high-and-mighty because your use of phrases like “the safest place”. The Catholic church is not the end-all or solution to the issues you bring up. I could sort of see what you were trying to say in your initial post, but that does not negate the fact that the word choice and tone of the post was conveying a different message.
I want to start off by thanking you for the respect you’ve shown us so far, I really do appreciate it.
I’m sure other organizations are trying to fix their problems. But as Q pointed out:
No other organization even comes close to implementing the measures the Catholic Church has taken to protect children in its care. In this regard, the Catholic Church in the 21st century is the model for other institutions to follow in the safeguarding of youth.
Although you are right, I can’t say “the Church is the safest place” because that would be a sweeping generalization. But the Church is doing a lot to stamp out this scandal.
I want to apologize if any of us seemed “holier than thou” because that isn’t our intention. We are just trying to do our part to defend the Church that we love.
In the post I reblogged, in no way was I trying to prove that the Church never had these scandals. The twovideos I posted are from Father Barron where he talks about the reality that is the sex-abuse scandal and one of them comes from something Pope Benedict XVI said himself.
The point I was trying to make, as Olivier said, is that the Church does not have an extraordinary problem with child-abuse, despite some—not all, not most—but some Priests being guilty of it.
I only wanted to dispel the false idea that Pope Benedict was a pedophile. I also wanted to dispel the false idea that all Priests are pedophiles.
As Olivier, Q, and Niko all pointed out: The Catholic Church is the safest place for children. Not because She has never had problems, but because She is doing everything She can to prevent it from happening again.
Are Priests perfect? By no means. But don’t let a couple of Priests define what the Priesthood really is.
I’ve decided that I’m not going to remain silent when people make direct attacks on the Church based on what they “think” to be “true”. I can respect when someone disagrees with teachings of the Church, but personal attacks are a different story.
First off Pope Benedict XVI has never been accused of child molestation. Second, watch this video and this video.
And Third:
-Philip Jenkins, is a professor of history and religious studies at Penn State University, and has written a book on the topic. 4 He estimates that 2% of priests sexually abuse youths and children. 5
-Sylvia M. Demarest, a lawyer from Texas has been tracking accusations against priests since the the mid-1990s. By 1996, she had identified 1,100 priests who had been accused of molesting children. She predicts that when she updates the list, the total will exceed 1,500 names. This represents about2.5% of the approximately 60,000 men who have been active priests in the U.S. since 1984.
-Conservative columnist Ann Coulter claimed, without citing references, that there are only 55 “exposed abusers” in a population of 45,000 priests. This is an abuse rate of 0.12%.
-Various news services reported that 200 Roman Catholic priests in the Philippines have been investigated for “sexual misconduct and abuses” over the past two decades. That would represent almost 3% of the total population of about 7,000 priests. However, it appears that misconduct includes many offenses, from child abuse to rape to keeping adult mistresses.
And I found some sources, not nearly as authoritative that say less than 1%.
- Cynthia Stewart’s “The Catholic Church: A brief popular history.”
furnishedtower: You say that Catholics shouldn't partake in eating the Body of Christ if we don't believe in everything the Church stands for because what the Church and Christ stand for are one in the same, yes? Well, why then does the Church have view points on birth control and homosexuality (those are just the easy ones to mention) if Jesus didn't tell us anything about that, not directly or in a matter of speech? If Jesus didn't say something was wrong/right was does the Church say it is?
Hey!
The Church isn’t limited to just what Jesus specifically said. Jesus gave the Church authority to bind and loose things here on earth. So even though Jesus never explicitly mentioned topics such as homosexuality and birth control, we can form teachings on those topics based on what Scripture has to say, based on what Tradition has to say, and through prayerful discernment with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
For example: Jesus explicitly told us that God made man and woman for each other, that a man is to leave his family and become one with his bride (Mk 10:1-9, Mt 19:1-6). In Genesis the man and woman are to be fruitful and multiply. Based on these verses and prayerful reading of Song of Songs, and meditation on what God intended sex and marriage to be, John Paul II wrote Theology of the Body which outlines the Church’s teaching on contraceptives and touches on homosexuality.
So the Church can make teachings as long as they are in-line with the Message of Christ. But even then, the Church doesn’t make the teaching, She just relays what God has revealed.
I hope that made sense, if anyone else has a better way to put it feel free!
-Javi
Olivier: I’d like to point out that every single thing that the Church teaches is based on Jesus’ commandment to “love one another as I have loved you,” “love one another as you love yourself,” or even more plainly, “love one another.”
Every single Church teaching on sexuality (and every teaching for that matter) is based on the notion that humans are created in the image of God, that man and woman are made for each other (as Javi said), and that there is a distinction between using someone (wrong) and loving someone (right).
When the Church teaches sexual ethics, it all stems from the fact that we must love one another. Church teaching is the authoritative source of answering applied ethical questions (such as “why is birth control immoral” or “why are homosexual actions immoral”) for the reason that Javi stated, and as I’ve said multiple times, all detailed explanations come from the fact that we were made out of and for love, and we were made to love. I hope this helps.
Anonymous: why is it that some people say that Adam and Eve are just linguistic figures to refer to the whole creation if the church says that everybody holds the original sin because of adam and eve? How can I hold a sin commited by a linguistic figure? And if they existed, how humanity grew out of just these two people? AND more, what do I have to do with their sin? Why did they cursed the whole humanity if they were just two people?
The Creation story is creative writing so in a sense Adam and Eve were “linguistic figures”.
Genesis isn’t a play by play detailed account of what happened. The method in which it was written is to be able to draw out important truths. Genesis teaches us that God created everything, that mankind is the pinnacle of creation, and that there was perfect communion between God and Man.
Man was given free will and humanity as a whole turned its back on God and perfect communion was broken thus resulting in Original Sin.
If you need any more clarification, let us know!
-Javi
~
To quickly clarify, most theologians today understand the original sin to mean pride. And they understand it in a very specific way, its the idea that we don’t need God and that we should seek elsewhere for fulfillment. Original sin was when man tried to replace God with himself. Many, such as Chesterton, considered the existence of original sin as axiomatic. He’d say, look at the sorry state of the world and that’s all you need to believe in the existence of sin.
The belief that there was a first Cause of existence. A Cause that must not be contingent (an uncaused cause) and therefore outside of Time and Space. The first Cause is known as God. God created everything out of love and created you to share in His exchange of love. Humanity as a whole turned its back on this love so God the Father sent His Son—who is consubstantial with the Father—to die and rise again so that you may once again partake in this exchange of love.
In order to accept this invitation to partake in this exchange of love, we must physically eat His flesh and drink His blood, and physically tell Him we accept Him as our Savior through baptism, communion, and confirmation.
-Javi
I realize this isn’t exactly perfect…but I figured it’s a better representation than the picture gave.
(Credit to St. Thomas Aquinas for the bit of Philosophy I added in there)
