Unitarian Universalists accept all religious beliefs. So there you go.

When I read this on Wikipedia it was followed by a sentence that said "Still, a few physicians have suggested they may have a secondary effect of interfering with the development of pre-implanted embryos;[42]"

Ooops, I thought I had included that line as well. But, that still doesn't = scraping. Because, if the IUD was really scraping up womens' endometriae, there'd be many more infections and deaths, right?

I think I missed the whole scraping conversation. I happened to look this up earlier in the thread to see if they were still listed as working partially by preventing implantation.

I think there were a lot of infections and deaths or maybe just infections and lasting infertility with previous versions, but I think IUDs seem to be coming back in an improved form. On the previous version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalkon_Shield

FWIW, add the Presbyterians (PCUSA, at least) to those who simply use the lower case c. No footnotes.

My post was in reference to the allegation that the IUD works by "scraping," when it does not appear to at all.

As the Wikipedia article indicates, the Dalkon Shield was poorly designed and that was the cause of its malfunction, and not a flaw in how it actually worked.

The Shield didn't work with my mother...my younger brother is an IUD kid :D

If the IUD worked by scraping, who in the hell would use it? That would be hella painful :eek:

"You sound frustrated" does not equal "Nobody in the entire thread sounds frustrated but you." That's not what I said.

To an extent, the bolded is true. I did not say I was an expert on the RCC, I was stating that I'm not as ignorant of the basic facets of the faith (including the "Catholic definition" of grace) as Irish assumed I was.

I am angry at this priest's actions. To see a person in the position to draw others to the faith instead choose to push them away by imposing such limitations is both wrong and unfair.

As far as the grace issue: I am of the opinion that grace, actual grace, is a gift from God extended to everyone. It has some limitations, but voting for a pro-life candidate is not one of them. That is a man-made imposition. So, if the term in question is something that one may only acquire via certain requirements that were set forth by religious authorities (and I admit that it is within a Church's right to do it even if I don't agree), then that should not be called "grace" because it's not. Using that particular word in any other context is to misuse it and I don't like the purposes for which it is being misused. That is ALL I said and I have already stated that this is my opinion on the matter and not an infallible fact to which the entire religion must be held. By no stretch of the imagination is that "attacking Roman Catholicism with vehemence." (Nor is it being "unchristian" IMO but I'll leave that one up to Jesus.)

If it helps any, John Kerry was told he could not take communion in the RCC during the last Presidential election for the same reasons. This isn't shocking stuff to RCCs and Obama isn't singled out with this.

I can kind of understand that. Kerry had a stance. Because he is a public person, and running for president, his views were known. Those views were in direct opposition to the RCC's stance, so he was denied communion.

In the case of denying communion to a parishioner because he voted for someone, I see that as an issue. Perhaps the parishioner placed his vote based solely on economic policy and environmental issues and let's say he sided with Obama. The parishioner may be against birth control, abortion, etc etc etc but didn't consider those issues when voting, and he sided with Obama for whatever reason. But the simple fact that he voted for one candidate makes him ineligible for communion? Seems silly to me.

Nevermind the fact that I'm sure all of McCain's stances don't match up with the RCC's ideas; the death penalty comes to mind. So did this priest want people to vote for no one since there is not going to be a candidate who agrees 100% with church teachings?

You are splitting semantic hairs, and the point which has been made over and over is that YOUR OPINION about a policy of the RC church isn't really germane to the discussion. You are narrowly defining "grace", which is certainly your right, but then criticizing the RC church because their definition is not yours. It's not about you - heck, I don't agree with the RC church, but I haven't inserted my opinion because it doesn't matter.

A Roman Catholic priest applied Roman Catholic principles to a Roman Catholic parish. His beliefs aren't mine, but he's not trying to make me (or anyone who isn't a parishioner) fall under his authority. The question is, were his actions justified (within the context of his postion and responsiblities - including his duties to warn his parishoners of endangering their immortal souls) ? Did they possibly break current tax law? As I asked before, how do his parishoners and higher up think of his actions? When it is all said and done, he answers to a higher authority. You will leave judgement of your actions up to Jesus, but will not extend the same courtesy to this priest.

Perhaps not, but I am the only one you singled out. Not that it matters.

Your posts showed a lack of any insight into Catholicism. You were obviously interjecting your own religious views, which a Catholic priest cannot be expected to follow.

A priest's role is not necessarily to "draw others to the faith." Faith is not measured in numbers. If this priest filled the pews by misrepresenting Catholic views - by adopting an "anything goes" attitude, what would that accomplish? A big group of people WHO ARE NOT CATHOLICS. It would be WRONG and UNFAIR to lead them to believe that the Church does not have doctrine. The Catholic Church is an incredibly pro-choice institution. Its faithful are allowed to choose whatever they want to the point of jeopardizing their immortal souls. If a Catholic rejects the teachings of the Church, why would he or she care if Holy Communion is not permissable for them?

Again, as you yourself state, this is your opinion, your definition. This priest was articulating the CATHOLIC position on this, as should be expected. You, and everyone else on earth, are entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps instead of demanding that this priest "gets off his high horse", you should consider dismounting yourself. You are insinuating, no matter what you now backpeddle and say, that he apply elements of your faith in speaking with his own congregation. For example, in a previous post you reference a biblical definition of grace. An understanding of Catholicism would include the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Perhaps the priest at issue was reacting to the post-election data that about 50% of people who consider themselves Catholic voted for Obama. There was certainly a time when Catholics voted in a much more predictable fashion.

Perhaps you can redirect your anger toward this priest to gratitude that your candidate won.

The Church holds that the issue of life is to be held in higher regard than economic issues, so that would be the justification if the parishioner voted on economy (or something like that) rather than life. The Church hasn't ever swayed in that.

You are right that McCain didn't match up 100%. I don't know that any candidate ever has. That's why the Church pushes the development of a "Catholic conscience" and "Catholic identity." So far there has always been one candidate who is clearly more in line with Catholic teachings than another. And, like I said before, the Catholic Church is opposed to liberal application of the death penalty, but it is not an absolute like abortion. (That's a pretty complicated issue, and I wouldn't say that the Church is ok with the death penalty, just that it does recognize occasional justification for it. It does not recognize any justification for abortion.)

...

Like I said above, it is not "splitting semantic hairs" if I am being held to assertions that I never made. The claim is that I hold others to standards that I have injected my own standards into. Well, the two of you keep twisting my words out of context then trying to hold me to them. What is that supposed to be called?

No, I don't feel that they were justified at all and one reason is the one that DolphinChica stated (which, admittedly, is a scenario that came to mind long ago but I never got around to posing it in between explaining myself on every other issue). Some people (myself included) voted for Obama without supporting each and every one of his issues. Say a member of the Catholic church voted like that: Do they deserve to be denied Communion even though they are pro-life themselves? No, in my opinion, they don't. I don't like that action nor do I agree with the premise behind it (their not being in a "state of grace"). I'm not saying that the RCC should revamp its doctrine and re-evaluate what it puts emphasis on. I don't "demand" that this priest change his tactics. I'm just saying that I disapprove and THAT'S IT. Please, take it at face value. I don't have anything against either of you, but I don't like the way you've made all of this to be about how I can't stay on topic, how I'm demanding everyone to be on my wavelength when that's simply not true. If you felt that my answers weren't what you were looking for, you could've said that without claiming I am being "unchristian" and "unloving" (which can be taken as just as much of a judgement as you claim I have made). That's really all I've got to say on the matter, if my intentions aren't clear by now then they won't be tomorrow. Let us agree to disagree unless there is something else you would like me to know.
ETA: In reading that last bit again, it looks really sarcastic and I wanted to input that that's not how I meant it. I genuinely mean that, unless you really have something else to add, I'd like to just let it drop.

I don't have any trouble being judgemental about rhetoric - in fact, I am paid to do just that. I have pointed out your errors purely from a rhetorical standpoint - that whole "Judge not lest ye be judged" thing? As you undoubtly know, it refers to trying to judge someone's relationship with God - where they stand with Him. My pointing out flaws in logic, and yes, an inability to discuss the topic at hand without making it about you, you, you, is not theological at all. So let it drop - all you had to do was step back and realize that our point(I'm dragging you into this, irishpipes and other Roman Catholics!) is the fact that you are actually criticizing Roman Catholic doctrine (i.e. the idea that communion can be denied at the discretion of the priest for things YOU don't think should matter). There is no need for this to be a RC bashing thread.

That's all I'm sayin'. So ONE MORE TIME - does anyone have anything new to add about the reaction of the bishop or the congregation?

Apparently, the majority of his congregation agrees with the letter. Also, here is a quote from the diocese:

Quote:

Stephen Gajdosik, spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Charleston, told The News that calling parishioners who voted for a candidate who supports legalized abortions to penance is a question of how best to deepen a flock's relationship to God and a move left up to local priests. He said such a move is appropriate and in line with church teaching

.

Here is a link to the article:http://http://www.greenvilleonline.c...WS01/811130314

Based on the last part of the article, it doesn't sound like he is going to refuse communion to anyone- if they go up for communion then they will recieve it. But he does want his congregation to be in full communion with church teachings before they recieve communion. So maybe the letter wasn't so much a threat as it was an attempt to teach his congregation about the Church's stance and give ways to get back in full communion.

Seems to me that none of us are really fully qualified to pronounce with authority the exact meanings of Roman Catholic doctrine and practice regarding issues of faith and morals.

That being said let me share my thoughts on this matter.
The RC Church is hierarchial in structure. I'm not sure whether this priest had the authority to make the sweeping statement discussed in this thread.
If his Bishop, in his role as teacher to the faithful, had specifically required or authorized this position then the priest was just doing his job. If not, then it would appear that the priest erred by denying his flock their OBLIGATION to consider this matter within the internal forum (their conscience). Absent clear direction on faith and morals his role should be to raise the question and ask his people to consider whether they in good conscience could be properly disposed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. It is not for him to judge the consciences of the faithful, it is for him to make them think and consider.
When I was in school a wise old Jesuit Priest asked us, "When God gave you a brain, do you suppose He had in mind that you do something with it?" He went on to say that he doubted that God would be upset if you honestly followed your conscience in all your actions. Not for convenience, not for advantage, not for any purpose save for an honest considered decision of good conscience. The reason that Jesuit education is heavy on Theology and Philosophy is to provide a frame of knowledge and reference to help you with life's tough choices - you know, the ones YOU are responsible to make.
If one receives the Eucharist and is not properly disposed to receive it then this is sacrilege. A big time slap in the face to God. Not a good idea.

One should vote following one's conscience. If you think candidate X will be the better one for the job to which he/she aspires then go for it. If one honestly believes that candidate Y is the better choice then go for it.
Whether or not you agree with ALL of the candidate's positions and policies is not really the key question. How you act in light of your own conscience is the key question. I don't think God is going to ask what Candidate X did, I think He will ask, when confronted with a moral choice what did YOU do?

Now, as an addendum. I have discussed the abortion issue with two Cardinals and a raft of Jesuit Theologians. The RCs hold that human life is sacred. Abortion for convenience is never seen as a good and proper act. Termination with the intent to end the pregnancy is never seen as a good and proper act. HOWEVER, if a medical procedure is necessary to save life and the intention is save the life of the mother and if as a result of the procedure the child is lost then this is a tragic happening but it is a consequence of an act to save life, not to end it. The issue revolves around the intention. Procedure intended to save life with an unintended but inevitable consequence - morally acceptable. Procedure to intentionally end life - morally unacceptable. No, its not splitting hairs. Its a tough call but a clear standard to follow.

OK, those are my thoughts on the matter.

Tee-hee. I love irony.

That being said, I think intelligent, educated people can discuss Roman Catholic doctrine and practice with a fair amount of authority if they are educated, as obviously you are, in the same. Any questions could certainly be given to a true authority - i.e. a bishop or priest in the RC Church.

eta - although even they (priests, bishops, cardinals) can disagree as to some "exact meanings", doctrine and practice.

What I think it is interesting about this discussion as a whole is that all these non-Catholics and ex-Catholics are assuming this means everyone in the Congregation who voted for Obama is just going to stay in the pews on Sundays and not take Communion. I assume this means you think that everyone who has premarital sex, uses contraceptives, is gay and not abstinent, etc., will all also sit in the pews and not take Communion. It should be pretty speedy for the priest to dole it out, what with the 10 people going up. :rolleyes:

There was a lot of talk about Faithful Citizenship up here during the election, and I think after a reading of that, a lot of Catholics felt better about voting for Obama than they did for McCain. So be it. It's ultimately an individual choice.

I never thought they'd just be sitting there. I understand the idea of confession, etc.

I just don't think I personally would feel comfortable confessing how I voted.

Not all of us non-Catholics have been assuming this. ;)

The principle of double effect, basically? (With a nod of the head to Thomas Aquinas.)

========
A priest would lack the authority to speak with authority beyond what his
Bishop had promulgated. The Bishop would hesitate to go beyond what the Magisterium had agreed. As the Bishop is the Teacher of his diosese he is morally responsible for his guidance to his people. And yes, there is often much discussion and disagreement as to exact meanings of doctrine and practice. That is why the Magisterium acts collegially invoking the guidance of the Holy Spirit before making any pronouncements. (you can fool some of the people ... but you cant fool all of the people all the time, especially if they have the HS checking them out).

There is a bottom line to all of this. If we are people of faith we should remember that JC Himself gave us the blueprint. Remember what he said about the two greatest commandments:
Love the Lord your God;
and love your neighbor as yourself.

If one thinks that through to its conclusion and acts accordingly I would think we could not go far wrong.

==============

Has a bit more to do with specific intent, unintended consequences and, inter alia, a nod to St Thomas Aquinas, OP (yes I know where the hand grenade is but its his moral thought process to which I refer rather than his obsolete understanding of quickening). Then of course one should consider St Thomas More (the role of Mens Rea in legal and moral decisions). Lots more but don't let me get too pedantic.

Nor have all of the ex-Catholics. ;)

It's worth noting that, while all Catholics must attend Mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation (or attend a vigil Mass the night before), Catholics are not obligated to receive communion every week. Many do - it is a sacrament, after all. But sometimes, people opt out for one reason or another. The reason could be anything from "I just had an abortion and the Church considers that murder, so I need to seek reconciliation first" to "I ate less than an hour ago". And asking someone "Why didn't you take Communion today?" just isn't done.

Catholics who have had their first Communion are required to receive at least once per year. This must happen during the Lent or Easter seasons. This covers a span of about three months, so there are plenty of opportunities to receive (and to go to confession first, if need be).

======================

The once a year minimum used to be called "Easter Duties". That was a rule intended to keep the faithful close to the sacraments and the practice of one's religeon. That ceased to be a mandatory requirement years ago as it was considered mildly absurd to FORCE people to partake in sacraments which are designed to strengther one's connection to God. Sort of like holding a gun to your head and saying be holy or I'll blow your head off.
For a long time it has been a recommended act of piety without anyone cracking the whip to enforce this.

When did that happen? It was a requirement back when I was Catholic, but then again, it's coming up on ten years since I converted to Judaism. I remember announcements at Mass that said things like, "Remember that you are obligated to receive Communion at some time before or on Pentecost. Three more weeks to go!"

(I also remember announcements saying, "Please be sure to dress appropriately for Mass." The church I attended as a child had no air conditioning in the building, and the building could get stifling hot in summer. People would come to Mass in tank tops, shorts, and flip-flops. But I digress.)

Well, there we have it. I don't consider what I did to be criticizing, but I'm positive that word probably doesn't mean to me what it does to you. So, this shall be where we settle on opposite sides of the fence and no real harm done. Like I said, I really didn't mean to offend or "bash" anybody. I apologize for letting my temper surface and hope there's no hard feelings.

I'm sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what the example means. Are you referencing a procedure meant to save the mother that resulted in the loss of the child? Or, in the midst of a procedure intended to save the mother, it is found that aborting the fetus is necessary to keep her alive? Because the former wouldn't technically be an "abortion"--just an accident, right?

============

As I understand it (and remember I am not a Theologian) the key is the intention. If the intention is to save life [the mother] and incidentally the child is lost, even if the loss is inevitable, but the intention is not to destroy life then this would be morally acceptable. So, if governed by the proper intention both situations would be tragic but morally sound. Again I must apply the caveat that my opinion does not carry Theological teaching authority. Domine non sum dignus.

If there are any RC Theologians reading this please chime in and make sure my understanding of the issue is sound.
Many thanks,
Peter

I'm not a theologian, however I do know a bit about Catholic NFP teachings. You are correct-btw, it is all about intent.

To give a real-life example- If a woman has an ectopic pregancy (where the fertilized egg has implanted in the fallopian tube rather than the uterus), then this is a life threatening condition. The way to save the woman's life is to remove the fallopian tube- however to remove it will kill the developing baby. But since the objective is to save the life NOT kill the baby, it is acceptable.

Another example would be amniocentisis. In a small percentage of cases, an amnio can lead to a miscarriage (spontanious abortion). The objective of the amnio IS NOT abortion- in fact most amnios are performed to help diagnose health conditions with the baby- some which can be corrected in utero.

Thanks, I think I get it now.:) I always wondered about that scenario (if the pregnancy must be "sacrificed" [in a way] for the life of the mother). Focusing on intention puts everything into much clearer perspective. I don't mean as far as "which is morally right," but as far as a basis for personal choices.

Intentions
 

I thought I had read that condom use is a no-no, even if the intention is to prevent disease and not pregnancy. Any one have insight into this?

Well, if you were both virgins when you got married and neither of you strayed, what diseases would you be preventing? I believe that's the logic. The only form of birth control allowed is the rhythm method. I suppose if you contracted something like hepatitis or HIV in some other manner and needed to protect your spouse from that, a priest would okay that. Or, if you had a medical condition that a pregnancy would exacerbate, birth control would be ok. But, I liked the way my first priest said it with "You need to pray and discern with God if you feel that you shouldn't bring a child into the world" (basically, it's between you and God)

Using a condom is a no-no. However in NFP if sperm needs to be collected, Then a condom can be used. HOWEVER (I am not making this up), the condom actually has holes in it so some amount can reach the intended target (therefore not preventing a pregnancy)