Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Priest says followers who voted for Obama must get forgiven (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Priest says followers who voted for Obama must get forgiven
coldwarkiddo
Member
Member # 6354

 - posted      Profile for coldwarkiddo   Email coldwarkiddo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, though the priest made this statement - and I think it was a legitimate one for him to issue, and in keeping with his church's dogma - his diocese overruled it, in what I hope was a thoughtful process and not a capitulation to the mainstream media. While the liberal illuminati might not comprehend it, the issue of the sanctity of life is important in Catholic doctrine; what many Americans have even more trouble comprehending is the concept of authority. Priests do have the authority to withhold the sacrament; the Catholic church is based on hierarchy.
I'm Protestant, and yet I have deep respect for the position the Roman Catholic Church takes on abortion. My hope is that a Cardinal or someone will actually overrule the diocesan ruling.

Posts: 5 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, and the United States government has the authority to withdraw a tax exempt status when a church uses its authority to influence who its followers vote for. Is that hard to comprehend?
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
Yes, and the United States government has the authority to withdraw a tax exempt status when a church uses its authority to influence who its followers vote for. Is that hard to comprehend?

What's hard to comprehend is how you manage to construe this priest's remarks AFTER THE FOCKING ELECTION as trying to influence followers' votes, 0meg. Please do explain that causality.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can't speak for 0mega. But I imagine that these parishioners will feel strong pressure to vote against Obama when he is running again in 4 years, to save their souls! Wooooooo!
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Come now, Pete. I'm not that much like Tommy, am I?
Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're just like me, four years ago
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Catholic church has a much more consistent view on the sanctity of life, however: all life (not just pre-natal life) is sacred.
There's nothing inconsistent about being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. You simply have to believe that innocent life is sacred, and guilty life isn't. What's so hard to understand about this?

A baby (let's take a one-month old child, to avoid the personhood issue) is an innocent. They not only have not done immoral things, they are not capable of doing so.

Compare that with Ted Bundy, serial killer. He did a whole bunch of things that anyone who believes in morality at all would concede as horrifically immoral.

You can take the life=life position, and argue that a baby is worth just as much as a serial killer, that killing one is just as bad as killing the other, but not everyone believes that.

Those who believe life's sacreditity is affected by one's moral choices are not being inconsistent. They are simply using a different metric than you do. One which, BTW, makes a lot more sense to me.

"I'm surprised I have to point this out." -- Joe Bob Briggs

Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Those who believe life's sacreditity is affected by one's moral choices are not being inconsistent. They are simply using a different metric than you do. One which, BTW, makes a lot more sense to me.

One could also argue then, that those who believe that a zygote is not equivalent to a neonate are also using a different metric.

And the word your are looking for is "sanctity".

[ November 17, 2008, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Haggis ]

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I think you'll get an argument from the Catholic Church, but whatever.

On the other hand, life comes in more than just two flavours - fetuses and death row inmates - you do realize that, yes? I'm surprised I have to point this out...

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Me says priest who said that thing needs to get laid. Oh, wait, problem...
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
True that, Haggis. Ironically, it's both the pro-life and pro-choice extremists who hold that killing a zygote is no different than strangling a neonate. See the (fortunately overturned) caselaw on the partial birth procedure.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"And the word your are looking for is "sanctity"."

No, dude, look again. He was actually trying to say, "sacred titty". It's all that religiously suppressed sexuality [Wink]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TommySama,

For Christmas I am going to get you a huge pink beach-ball that has a nipple on it.

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
Come now, Pete. I'm not that much like Tommy, am I?

You mean other than young, horny, and politically correct? [Wink]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mormegil

Yes but it is inconsistent for the Catholic Church which is both strongly anti-abortion and ant-deth penalty to point out Obama's pro-choice stance and not McCain's pro-death penalty (though Obama is too) and his support of a war the church opposes.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Me says priest who said that thing needs to get laid. Oh, wait, problem...

That's why OUR priests aren't celibate...well actually our bishops are. [Smile]
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I reject any description which uses politically correct to describe me!

"For Christmas I am going to get you a huge pink beach-ball that has a nipple on it. "

As my ex would say when she was about to suck on stuff, "nomnomnomnom"

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
One could also argue then, that those who believe that a zygote is not equivalent to a neonate are also using a different metric.
Well, duh. :-)

quote:
And the word your are looking for is "sanctity".
I was channeling Radar O'Reiley.

quote:
Yes but it is inconsistent for the Catholic Church which is both strongly anti-abortion and ant-deth penalty to point out Obama's pro-choice stance and not McCain's pro-death penalty (though Obama is too) and his support of a war the church opposes.
That is certainly true. However it wasn't what I was responding to.
Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's interesting, Viking. I did not know that. Makes much, much more sense.

So only unmarried priests get bishopized? I guess priests who have ambitions just don't get married and get noticed that way?

[ November 18, 2008, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To quote Wikipedia on celibacy, "In Eastern Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Catholic Churches (which latter are in full communion with Rome), married men may be ordained deacons or priests, but may not be ordained bishops, and one may not marry after ordination." I do not know whether some form of dispensation is possible from those rules; while Latin Rite Roman Catholic priests must in general be unmarried, a fair number of married priests who have converted from other denominations exist. No Christian church could have a rule declaring married priests or bishops totally unacceptable, because Peter was both married and conspicuous among the disciples of Jesus, so the regulations merely represent current practice.

Edited to add: Of course Peter could have still had someone called his mother-in-law if he were a widower. And could God still inflict a man with a mother-in-law if he had never married? I tend to think that logically impossible.

[ November 18, 2008, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I understand it clerical celibacy was introduced to stop priests from forming family dynasties and their children seeking church property as part of their inheritance.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My understanding is that the time period on that idea, above, was William the Conqueror's new England in which he wanted to be able to re-bequeath land-holdings. If the receiver had legitimate children there was to be the presumption of inheritance, and upon that information, the Catholic Church discovered a love for certain of Paul's writings.

[ November 19, 2008, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just a quick question, know I'm coming in on this one late, but why is it only when a church comes down on the side of a conservative issue do we hear about the tax exempt status being revoked. Obama was blatant about using religious leaders to get the vote out for him, http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/26/faith_a_key_issue_in_obama_cam.php but no one is claiming those churches should have their tax exempt status removed. Hmmmm!

And just to make sure everyone has something to be upset about, I've always wondered how it is more humane to keep a man (most death row inmates are men) in a 6 X 6 cell, locked away from loved ones, consigned to the hell that prison is than to allow that person to pay the price for his sin, give up his life for the one he took and go on to what lies after this life. His life here will be of little good to himself or to another person. It seems to me more hateful and vengeful to make him suffer for 30-50 years languishing in prison. I have always thought the death penalty more beneficent than maleficent. Now, if we demanded that the murderer was put to death the same way he killed his victims, then that would be vengeful and malicious. But painless injection, very humane.

OTOH, aborting a fetus that within 4 weeks has a beating heart, at 6 wks is recognizable as a baby and at 8 weeks has fingers and toes and at 21 weeks (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/feb/07022003.html) has proven to be viable is far from humane. Rape, incest and mothers life at risk (not simply inconvenienced) should be the only reasons for infanticide. In this day and age of contraceptives and women’s empowerment, there is no excuse for destruction of life as a means of birth control.

[ November 19, 2008, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: cb ]

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
OTOH, aborting a fetus...has proven to be viable is far from humane.
Only, by your logic, if that fetus' life is likely to be better than a felon's life in prison.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NSCutler
Member
Member # 1403

 - posted      Profile for NSCutler   Email NSCutler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Had John McCain been elected, chances are it would have resulted in a supreme court that would eventually over turn Roe v. Wade and abortion would then have been restricted in some states resulting in a reduction in some abortions among women who lack resources to cross state lines. Some fetuses would be saved and allowed to achieve personhood and become unwanted children.

With Obama, if he keeps his pledge to highly regulate the coal industry, environmental mercury contamination will decrease, resulting in fewer spontaneous miscarriages. Some fetuses would be saved and allowed to achieve personhood and become wanted children.

Of course, in the latter case, we don't get to punish immoral women, so clearly the McCain scenario is preferable.

Posts: 789 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
CB, with you on A. And if the condemned man wanted to make some kind of amends he could donate his organs. Or we could just take them, whatever.

B) No, abortion should not be 'used' as birth control, and I've known girls that have used it that way. But, as a solution to an accident or mistake IMO it is better than ruining two lives. I know it is cruel but if a woman is willing to do that then I think the possible baby is better off. Stacy and I couldn't do it. You don't know our story but we went to the clinic they called Stacy's name and as she got up to walk to the back and have the 'procedure' I realized we couldn't do it and called her back and took her home. Thank goodness. But it was 'our' choice. I personally couldn't make that choice for another woman.

And I don't think there is a verified time when the fetus becomes a baby. Though I am against late term abortions when it is obvious the fetus is a baby.

Which is why we need education and birth control pills hand out to any girl old enough to get pregnant. With or without parental consent, since they are going to have sex with or without parental consent in most cases. Especially if they have decided to get on the pill.

Just my two cents.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
cb, it's odd that you point out some legitimate problems with prison, but your solution is to kill the inmates. What about making prison less inhumane, but still effective for its purpose, which is to prevent similar crimes from occurring in the future?

The problem with the death penalty, in my opinion, is that society doesn't get a chance to fix its mistakes. Are you OK with a 1% chance of executing men who didn't do the crime they were accused of? 5%? 10%? How do you decide when you are actually sure enough that it doesn't matter if you execute the wrong person? Keeping the person in prison at least allows for the possibility of future exoneration of the wrongly convicted.

quote:
His life here will be of little good to himself or to another person.
Why not? He can do work, produce things that society needs. He can write books, have pen pals, maybe help others with his thoughts and writings. If he has family members they might like for him to be around: they probably don't value his life the same way you do. (Not to mention the value he places on his own life which I suspect is not negligible, as you suggest.) Generally we don't want to risk the person killing anyone else. But we don't have to throw away his entire life. Fix the prisons, and figure out how to extract some value from this person (preferably with his consent, although I don't think we need to have that to require a reasonable amount of basic labor from people who are incarcerated...but I need to think about that). Don't throw away what only seems worthless because of our immature understanding of how to deal with criminals and corrupt and brutal prisons.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[quote] But, as a solution to an accident or mistake IMO it is better than ruining two lives.

May I say that even in truly bad situations, it's a rare case indeed where I would accept the premise that a person would have been better off aborted than being born. Not to say that it can't ever happen, but I really really really doubt that it happens very often in the first world, provided the baby isn't born with some horrific illness.

That's the only point I wanted to make. I'm pro-choice, so don't bite my head off please. I just don't think it helps to suggest that two ruined lives are the consequence of not aborting your baby.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cb
Member
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, abortion should not be 'used' as birth control, and I've known girls that have used it that way. But, as a solution to an accident or mistake IMO it is better than ruining two lives.
KE why is it always assumed that two lives will be "ruined"? And why is it an innocent life has to pay the price for a woman's mistake? There is always the option of adoption, even though it is not one that is encouraged by Planned Parenthood.
quote:
quote:
OTOH, aborting a fetus...has proven to be viable is far from humane.
Only, by your logic, if that fetus' life is likely to be better than a felon's life in prison. [/QB]
An innocent life that has yet to make a choice one way or another as compared to a person who chose to kill. Hmmm. Hard choice.

quote:
cb, it's odd that you point out some legitimate problems with prison, but your solution is to kill the inmates. What about making prison less inhumane, but still effective for its purpose, which is to prevent similar crimes from occurring in the future?
AHHH! So a system that is already spending $28.6 billion to protect society from these criminals now should spend what?...twice that much to make sure they are comfortable?

quote:
Are you OK with a 1% chance of executing men who didn't do the crime they were accused of? 5%? 10%? How do you decide when you are actually sure enough that it doesn't matter if you execute the wrong person? Keeping the person in prison at least allows for the possibility of future exoneration of the wrongly convicted.

Are you ok with the rate of guilty who are set loose because of legal technicalities and go on to rape, murder and pillage at will? There is always a margin of error in any system which has to be compared to the effectiveness of the system. 1-5% error is acceptable in most systems and still grant success to the process. There is certainly more than a 1-5% error rate in the legal system in bringing the quilty to justice.

quote:
But we don't have to throw away his entire life. Fix the prisons, and figure out how to extract some value from this person (preferably with his consent, although I don't think we need to have that to require a reasonable amount of basic labor from people who are incarcerated...but I need to think about that). Don't throw away what only seems worthless because of our immature understanding of how to deal with criminals and corrupt and brutal prisons.
But we don't have to throw away a baby's entire life. Fix the system that negates adoption as an option, and figure out how to extract some value from this person (preferably with the mom's consent, although I don't think we need to have that to have a reasonable expectation of possible benefit from this child). Don't throw away what only seems worthless because of our immature understanding of how to deal with an unexpected occurance. [Smile]
Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Catholic Church's view is that life begins at conception. But merely because cells are living and growing, does not mean they have a "soul." Does your finger have a soul? I regard what many call the soul as actually being the spirit of life with a unique identity, which only God can confer upon an embryo to make it a person, and as such, it requires a brain which can support a mind with self-awareness. (I do not believe this spirit can think without a brain, so death is a sleep, as the Bible so frequently says. When the spirit of life with the unique identity is re-united with a body in the Resurrection, then the actual, original person lives again.) I presently incline to believe that an embryo is counted as a person only after the embryo reaches the point where it has sufficient complexity to have a mind with conscious awareness. That may happen as early as near the end of the second trimester. There would be no point in God giving to an embryo the spirit of life with an identity, before the embryo is capable of supporting a mind with self-awareness. At least, this is what seems reasonable to me, answering various questions better than other theories can.

If my way of looking at it is correct, then abortion in the first trimester (to play it safe) would not be the murder of a human person. But of course it still would constitute disruption of an organism that would have become a human person. How serious a matter that might be would be subject for debate.

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
RL-

The conception-abortion sin has further complications for me when I understand that the natural flow of anything in a plasma is to vortex (double helix).

Nevertheless, I'm always inclined to personally err on the side of life, but I can see that calling a helical structure "life" isn't necessarily correct.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NSCutler
Member
Member # 1403

 - posted      Profile for NSCutler   Email NSCutler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cb:
But we don't have to throw away a baby's entire life. Fix the system that negates adoption as an option, and figure out how to extract some value from this person (preferably with the mom's consent, although I don't think we need to have that to have a reasonable expectation of possible benefit from this child). Don't throw away what only seems worthless because of our immature understanding of how to deal with an unexpected occurance. [Smile]

I know more than I want to about dealing with unexpected occurrences. Three years ago my wife and I conceived an evil placenta-like cancerous thing that then proceeded to try and kill her, all the while keeping her in a hormonal state reminiscent of the first month of pregnancy for over a year. We poisoned it with abortificants, we scraped it out with D&C, we cut it out with surgery and the evil thing kept growing back. It was very, very hard. I can only imagine how much harder it would have been if we had to get special permission from the state or a church every step of the way.

By all means, fix the system so that every child that is born has as many options as possible. That will certainly encourage at least some women to bring children to term. But the state lacks the wisdom or resources to bequeath personhood on whatever happens to be growing in someones uterus. It's none of their business and it should stay that way.

Posts: 789 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I do not believe this spirit can think without a brain, so death is a sleep, as the Bible so frequently says.
The Bible says death is sleep, in a metaphorical sense, when talking of the human body. From the perspective of the spirit, it goes to Hades where it maintains consciousness. In Luke 16, Jesus describes two people going there, where they can still think and communicate.
Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1