Catholics Hho Voted For Obama Should Confess

[geni]

The League of the South has a party now?

Constitution party.

 

[Beerina]

I thought God decides who wins anyway. Aren't you supposed to respect "those the Lord has appointed over you" in the civic government, dictator or not? Note that most of the time this is probably a test by God rather than a benefit to you, per se.

But shouldn't people who voted for McCaine also confess since he voted for the Iraq war, which was not "turning the other cheek"?

Of course, voting for either should drive a confession, given they both espouse government taking the money of people, by force, to give it to others. Jesus told you to help the poor, not to threaten others with violence if they don't help.

 

[Careyp74]

I don't see a contradiction. According to Exodus, causing a miscarriage isn't killing. If causing a miscarriage isn't killing, then "Thou shalt not kill" can't be a condemnation of abortion. So we still need book, chapter, and verse of God's condemnation of abortion.

I don't think you are interpreting it correctly. Mischief is the term being used for harm. If you didn't harm the fetus, you get a fine. If you harm the fetus (following verse) you get put to death, eye for an eye.

This is only if you are fighting with another man, and harm the fetus. To intentionally harm the fetus at the mother's will isn't covered here. And does not get covered by the "Thou shalt not kill" because it is not established that a fetus is alive, although some bible versions refer to fetus' in the womb as babies.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

You know what's funny? That Republican politicians who describe themselves are pro-choice never take this kind of heat. Christine Todd Whitman and Arlen Specter never went through this.

I can't imagine the Catholic Church doing this if Rudy ran a real campaign, survived the primaries and was elected. Or Mitt Romney and John McCain, when they were still liberal on the issue.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Again I challenge anyone to cite the book, chapter and verse of God's condemnation of abortion.

Your aim is a bit narrow. You must recall that he is an officer of his Church. There are volumes upon volumes of doctrine from Rome on abortion, all of which is derivative from the base admonition not to murder. When the clergy, or church leadership is confronted with a moral question that is not explicitly spelled out in Scripture, its obligation to the Church as a whole is to come up with the best guidance it can. For the Church (which is the entirety of the people within it) the leadership has done so.

A small sample taken slightly out of context from here:

6. The tradition of the Church has always held that human life must be protected and favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of its development. Opposing the morals of the Greco-Roman world, the Church of the first centuries insisted on the difference that exists on this point between those morals and Christian morals. In the Didache it is clearly said: "You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born."[6] Athenagoras emphasizes that Christians consider as murderers those women who take medicines to procure an abortion; he condemns the killers of children, including those still living in their mother's womb, "where they are already the object of the care of divine Providence." Tertullian did not always perhaps use the same language; he nevertheless clearly affirms the essential principle: "To prevent birth is anticipated murder; it makes little difference whether one destroys a life already born or does away with it in its nascent stage. The one who will be a man is already one."[8]

7. In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine - the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous. Among the many documents it is sufficient to recall certain ones. The first Council of Mainz in 847 reconsidered the penalties against abortion which had been established by preceding Councils. It decided that the most rigorous penance would be imposed "on women who procure the elimination of the fruit conceived in their womb."[9] The Decree of Gratian reported the following words of Pope Stephen V: "That person is a murderer who causes to perish by abortion what has been conceived."[10] St. Thomas, the Common Doctor of the Church, teaches that abortion is a grave sin against the natural law." At the time of the Renaissance Pope Sixtus V condemned abortion with the greatest severity.[12] A century later, Innocent XI rejected the propositions of certain lax canonists who sought to excuse an abortion procured before the moment accepted by some as the moment of the spiritual animation of the new being.[13] In our days the recent Roman Pontiffs have proclaimed the same doctrine with the greatest clarity. Pius XI explicitly answered the most serious objections.[14] Pius XII clearly excluded all direct abortion, that is, abortion which is either an end or a means.[15] John XXIII recalled the teaching of the Fathers on the sacred character of life "which from its beginning demands the action of God the Creator."[16] Most recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most severely condemned abortion: "Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."[17] The same Paul VI, speaking on this subject on many occasions, has not been afraid to declare that this teaching of the Church "has not changed and is unchangeable."[18]

8. Respect for human life is not just a Christian obligation. Human reason is sufficient to impose it on the basis of the analysis of what a human person is and should be. Constituted by a rational nature, man is a personal subject capable of reflecting on himself and of determining his acts and hence his own destiny: he is free. He is consequently master of himself; or rather, because this takes place in the course of time, he has the means of becoming so: this is his task. Created immediately by God, man's soul is spiritual and therefore immortal. Hence man is open to God, he finds his fulfillment only in Him. But man lives in the community of his equals; he is nourished by interpersonal communication with men in the indispensable social setting. In the face of society and other men, each human person possesses himself, he possesses life and different goods, he has these as a right. It is this that strict justice demands from all in his regard.

And there is more, reams and reams more.

This priest, from a doctrinal perspective, is correct is supporting Church doctrine. Rome does not adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that was Martin Luther's line, among others, and was part of why Protestants left what was then Mother Church.

Your question is incorrectly aimed at this priest. It is correctly aimed at anyone who defends as correct the doctrine of Sola Scriptura: a Protestant of some sort. Some of the previous responses to you demonstrate the fun that can be had with this.

DR

 

[linusrichard]

I don't think you are interpreting it correctly. Mischief is the term being used for harm. If you didn't harm the fetus, you get a fine. If you harm the fetus (following verse) you get put to death, eye for an eye.

This is not clear. I think there's two ways of looking at it:

22 ¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her (i.e., she miscarries), and yet no mischief (i.e. harm to the woman) follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief (i.e. harm to the woman) follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

or

22 ¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her (i.e. she gives birth prematurely), and yet no mischief (i.e. harm to the mother or infant) follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow (i.e. harm to the mother or infant), then thou shalt give life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Most translations I found support your interpretation (the second one), but I found a couple that support mine, and a lot that are ambiguous. I also found two that recognize the ambiguity, noting it with a footnote. Heck of a way to reveal the inerrant word of God.

And I agree with you that this does not cover abortion - the case where the pregnancy is terminated with the woman's consent. I only brought it up because I thought it treated a fetus as non-life, although I guess that's not as clear as I thought it was.

Where in the Bible are fetuses referred to as babies?