No communion for Obama supporters

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by aephi alum

What irishpipes said is true. The Catholic Church's view is "all or nothing" - accept everything the Church hands down, or don't be Catholic. You can't pick and choose. Miss Sunday Mass, eat meat on a Friday in Lent, vote for a pro-choice candidate, and you'd best head for the nearest confessional post-haste.

I personally couldn't deal with that. I didn't like the idea of some old guy in Rome telling me what I could and could not do with my body and my life. Hence my rejection of the Church. But if you choose to be Catholic and follow the rules, more power to you. You don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you what to do.

I'm also strongly pro-choice. If you're against abortion, fine - don't have one - but don't go telling me I can't have one.

But surely you wouldn't apply this same standard to murder of a 20 year old or even a two day old? If you don't believe in it, don't kill anyone, but don't tell me I can't?

Of course not and that's the reason why this argument won't work for people who think life begins in the womb.

Now, I think it's probably a minority of citizens who think life begins at conception or we wouldn't be so down with IVF, embryonic stem cell research, and some IUDs as we are. I think the debate ought to shift to when a fetus ought to have some rights.

But we don't typically have a standard of letting people do what they think it right when it comes to destroying others and I'm not sure why, if it's an area of uncertainly, that we'd err on the side of mother's wishes over offspring's life.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But surely you wouldn't apply this same standard to murder of a 20 year old or even a two day old? If you don't believe in it, don't kill anyone, but don't tell me I can't?

This is where I'm coming from. You should know better. You shouldn't need a law to tell you and, if you don't know better, you can take it up with God. I think I'm an anarchist.

Originally Posted by 1744482

Now, I think it's probably a minority of citizens who think life begins at conception or we wouldn't be so down with IVF, embryonic stem cell research, and some IUDs as we are. I think the debate ought to shift to when a fetus ought to have some rights.

You're on the right track here. I believe that a number of other countries (including Canada if I'm not mistaken) have set an actual week date - 22 weeks for example - as the time when the baby has rights and can no longer be aborted.

I'd also like to see adoption become less stressful for all involved...however that could occur.

[Jill1228]

Originally Posted by aephi alum

Oh for crying out loud.

It's crap like this that drove me away from the Catholic Church 15 years ago. The Church tries to dictate its members' choices - which is fine and dandy if you happen to agree with Church doctrine, and not so pleasant if you don't. No premarital sex, no birth control, no abortion, no homosexuality and no voting for any candidate who supports abortion rights or anything else the Church doesn't like.

Also, I thought clergy weren't supposed to dictate to their congregants how they should vote? If they do, they risk losing their tax-exempt status.

Girlfriend, you said it!
Yeah I read the article...and douchebags like this are one reason why I call myself a Recovering Catholic.

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

How does the Catholic Church feel about reduction if one is having multiples (for instance, if you're pregnant with sextuplets and can only feasibly carry a couple of the babies).

Although it's really rare for a woman to be pregnant with that kind of multiples without modern medicine making it so - does the Catholic Church have a stance against fertility treatments?

Fertility treatments are a no-no, and this hits too close to home.
Another reason I call myself a recovering Catholic

I'm also strongly pro-choice. If you're against abortion, fine - don't have one - but don't go telling me I can't have one.

Yeah that! And yes, I marched on Washington

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by Jill1228

Yeah I read the article...and douchebags like this are one reason why I call myself a Recovering Catholic.

All Catholics have the choice to leave the Church. You weighed your options and made that choice for yourself. But, how do you justify calling this priest a douchebag? Because he didn't make that same choice? So are you really pro-choice, or just when the choices are all the same? By that token, you are saying that all Catholics who actually follow/proclaim the teachings of the Church are douchebags, I guess.

[Jill1228]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

All Catholics have the choice to leave the Church. You weighed your options and made that choice for yourself. But, how do you justify calling this priest a douchebag? Because he didn't make that same choice? So are you really pro-choice, or just when the choices are all the same? By that token, you are saying that all Catholics who actually follow/proclaim the teachings of the Church are douchebags, I guess.

Oh no way am I calling all Catholics douchebags, and I don't appreciate that assumption. Some of my dearest friends and family members are Catholic (including my best friend). There are some things I love about the church and some of my best memories are in the church. Hell, 11 years ago it helped me kick cigarettes because I needed to give up something for Lent. I gave up cigarettes and haven't touched one since.

I just think that priest is an extremist. Is he gonna ask every parishoner "you voted for Obama? No? Proceed. Yes? GTF outta my communion line!"
None of his business and he IMO is making the church look bad

[aephi alum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But surely you wouldn't apply this same standard to murder of a 20 year old or even a two day old? If you don't believe in it, don't kill anyone, but don't tell me I can't?

Of course not and that's the reason why this argument won't work for people who think life begins in the womb.

That's the thing. Any sane person is going to agree that, by the time a baby is born alive, it's, well, alive. And many world religions, including my own, dictate, "Thou shalt not kill." So murdering the two-day-old baby is wrong. BUT not everyone agrees that life begins at conception. If you think life begins at conception, fine, don't have an abortion. But I DON'T believe life begins at conception. There's no proof either way. So until there is conclusive proof either way, kindly stay out of my uterus.

Originally Posted by Jill1228

Fertility treatments are a no-no, and this hits too close to home.
Another reason I call myself a recovering Catholic


Yeah that! And yes, I marched on Washington

THANK YOU.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by aephi alum

That's the thing. Any sane person is going to agree that, by the time a baby is born alive, it's, well, alive. And many world religions, including my own, dictate, "Thou shalt not kill." So murdering the two-day-old baby is wrong. BUT not everyone agrees that life begins at conception. If you think life begins at conception, fine, don't have an abortion. But I DON'T believe life begins at conception. There's no proof either way. So until there is conclusive proof either way, kindly stay out of my uterus.

As to "proof" - I'm not sure what you would regard as acceptable. At what point do you believe an embryo/fetus is alive? Is it the point at which there is a heartbeat? A beating heart = life seems to be pretty straight forward. Is it at the point of viability? That is of course a slippery slope - only 5 - 10 years ago babies who can now be saved would not have been considered viable. Is it when a certain stage of development has been reached? A student today told me he believes life begins when X number of chromosomes are present. I'd never heard that definition before.

The "stay out of my uterus" argument seems to argue that because there is no agreement, we should err on the side of the more restrictive definition of life. I would say that if there is a question we should err on the side of the more open definition of life. That being the case, it's not your uterus that is being discussed. It's the zygote/fetus/baby/whatever you care to call it that is there, and his/her/its rights that are the topic of discussion. As I said earlier, castigating those who disagree with your viewpoint as somehow trying to deprive you of your rights misses the actual point of concern for whether or not a human life is being taken. Do you really want to live amongst those who would say "I believe a life is being taken, but it's none of my business"? I can understand arguing that a life is not being taken, but I can't understand counseling those who think a life is being lost and who believe they should do something about it to stand aside. The 20th century had plenty of examples of that, and it wasn't pretty.

It's interesting that we are also seeing a great deal of debate as to when life is over - there is a case now where an orthodox Jewish family whose son is on a respirator is saying that because their rabbinical authority has ruled that as long as his heart is beating he is alive, even though he has absolutely no brain function. If he were taken off the respirator he would die - I imagine what will happen is that he will be taken out of the hospital (which is arguing that there is no treatment for his current condition, and the insurance company will not pay for his care) and taken home or to another facility. Both sides are trying to avoid taking it to court.

[aephi alum]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

As to "proof" - I'm not sure what you would regard as acceptable. At what point do you believe an embryo/fetus is alive? Is it the point at which there is a heartbeat? A beating heart = life seems to be pretty straight forward. Is it at the point of viability? That is of course a slippery slope - only 5 - 10 years ago babies who can now be saved would not have been considered viable. Is it when a certain stage of development has been reached? A student today told me he believes life begins when X number of chromosomes are present. I'd never heard that definition before.

The "stay out of my uterus" argument seems to argue that because there is no agreement, we should err on the side of the more restrictive definition of life. I would say that if there is a question we should err on the side of the more open definition of life. That being the case, it's not your uterus that is being discussed. It's the zygote/fetus/baby/whatever you care to call it that is there, and his/her/its rights that are the topic of discussion. As I said earlier, castigating those who disagree with your viewpoint as somehow trying to deprive you of your rights misses the actual point of concern for whether or not a human life is being taken. Do you really want to live amongst those who would say "I believe a life is being taken, but it's none of my business"? I can understand arguing that a life is not being taken, but I can't understand counseling those who think a life is being lost and who believe they should do something about it to stand aside. The 20th century had plenty of examples of that, and it wasn't pretty.

It's interesting that we are also seeing a great deal of debate as to when life is over - there is a case now where an orthodox Jewish family whose son is on a respirator is saying that because their rabbinical authority has ruled that as long as his heart is beating he is alive, even though he has absolutely no brain function. If he were taken off the respirator he would die - I imagine what will happen is that he will be taken out of the hospital (which is arguing that there is no treatment for his current condition, and the insurance company will not pay for his care) and taken home or to another facility. Both sides are trying to avoid taking it to court.

We are not going to agree. You want to err on the side of "a fetus / unborn baby is alive from the moment of conception" - that is your right. I choose to err on the side of "abortion of a non-viable fetus is not 'murder'" - that is my right.

The Church also takes a hard line against any form of birth control other than abstinence or natural family planning. Even those forms of birth control that are intended to prevent fertilization from taking place at all, are considered sinful and wrong. That means no tubal ligation, no vasectomy, no diaphragm, not even a condom. Perhaps the Church would like to outlaw condom sales?

But I digress. The issue here is that a priest has declared (without any backing from higher-ups in the Church hierarchy, as far as I am aware) that those of his parishioners who voted for Obama should not receive communion unless and until they do penance for their vote.

The Catholic Church's pro-life stance (as it was taught to me in Catholic school) is that life begins at conception and ends when the body naturally expires as a result of illness or injury. Killing a person before they would naturally die, therefore, is murder - a sin. Execution of criminals would thus fall under the category of murder. McCain is in favor of the death penalty. So he's not in line with the Church's pro-life stance either. So isn't it just as "wrong" and "sinful" to support McCain as it is to support Obama?

[Jill1228]

Originally Posted by epchick

Although this might be true a lot of the time, you'd be surprised how many children are born even though the mother has/had an IUD.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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

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

[ForeverRoses]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

How does the Catholic Church feel about reduction if one is having multiples (for instance, if you're pregnant with sextuplets and can only feasibly carry a couple of the babies).

Although it's really rare for a woman to be pregnant with that kind of multiples without modern medicine making it so - does the Catholic Church have a stance against fertility treatments?

Selective Reduction is considered a form of abortion. See the rest of this thread for the Roman Catholic Church's stand on abortion.

Also, Fertility treatments ARE NOT against the Roman Catholic Church. Certain fertility drugs are perfectly acceptable. Some fertility treatments are not acceptable- a rule of thumb is if conception occurs outside the womb, then it's a no. There is even a fertility center in Omaha (I think) that is a Roman Catholic Fertility center- they do all sorts of procedures to help a couple get pregnant.

Originally Posted by irishpipes

I like the idea that a poster brought up that this is an issue for Catholics. The teachings of the Church are too complicated to be properly addressed in a GC thread, so the reactions are reflecting misunderstandings of those teachings. Basically, (and I hate to say basically, because none of it is basic,) no Catholic can receive Communion if they are not in a state of grace. That state is affected by any unforgiven mortal sin, not just those relating to abortion. Many people think that they individually determine what constitutes a sin. The Catholic Church doesn't harbor that view. If a Catholic intentionally violates the teachings of the Church, the Church views that as sin.

I hate talking religion online, but this is really a situation that opens one can of worms after another. Catholics know what is expected of them. If they choose to act differently, the Church teaches what the repercussions are.

It seems like the biggest issue with a lot of people is that the Church dares to clearly define sin. A lot of people don't want to be told that anything is wrong - everything is just a personal choice. The Catholic Church doesn't work that way. They're very upfront about it, and always have been. The strong stances of the Catholic Church frequently lead to attacks by outsiders AND insiders.

Originally Posted by irishpipes

For the record, Catholics do not believe that some old guy in Rome has that authority, either. It comes from someone higher than that.

Thank you!

[Jill1228]

Originally Posted by ForeverRoses

Selective Reduction is considered a form of abortion. See the rest of this thread for the Roman Catholic Church's stand on abortion.

Also, Fertility treatments ARE NOT against the Roman Catholic Church. Certain fertility drugs are perfectly acceptable. Some fertility treatments are not acceptable- a rule of thumb is if conception occurs outside the womb, then it's a no. There is even a fertility center in Omaha (I think) that is a Roman Catholic Fertility center- they do all sorts of procedures to help a couple get pregnant.

Point taken. But with IUI (inter uterine insemination), conception is in the womb. However, the male counterpart has to do his donation outside the womb (and yes, I know the church looks down on "handling your business")...so is that a no?

So if a couple has done all the low tech procedures and some of the higher tech (IUI) and have resort to IVF, gestational carriers, or surrogacy are they SOL and should not be able to take communion?

Just wondering

[ForeverRoses]

Originally Posted by Jill1228

Point taken. But with IUI (inter uterine insemination), conception is in the womb. However, the male counterpart has to do his donation outside the womb (and yes, I know the church looks down on "handling your business")...so is that a no?

So if a couple has done all the low tech procedures and some of the higher tech (IUI) and have resort to IVF, gestational carriers, or surrogacy are they SOL and should not be able to take communion?

Just wondering

Okay- here is the info on IUI as it was explained to me. I hope this post doesn't stop me from getting a job with the Obama admin.

There is a device that allows for the collection of semen while a "normal" copulation is taking place. Think a condom with holes in it to allow some semen to flow through, while collecting some as well.
This device allows that "no seed is being spilled". It also allows for semen to be tested for things like sperm count. This semen can theorectically also be used for IUI. using this method, IUI would be acceptable. Again, the Pope Paul VI Institute (it is in Omaha) would be the best resource for someone wanting to know the details.

The Roman Catholic Church also does not have a stand (currently) on Embryo adoption, so that is another alternative for a couple that cannot concieve on their own, but wants to follow church teaching.

Should people who go outside the Roman Catholic Church teachings be denyed communion? Personally, who am I to judge someone else? However I don't completely understand why you would WANT to take communion if you disagreed with major church teachings.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by ForeverRoses

Okay- here is the info on IUI as it was explained to me. I hope this post doesn't stop me from getting a job with the Obama admin.

There is a device that allows for the collection of semen while a "normal" copulation is taking place. Think a condom with holes in it to allow some semen to flow through, while collecting some as well.
This device allows that "no seed is being spilled". It also allows for semen to be tested for things like sperm count. This semen can theorectically also be used for IUI. using this method, IUI would be acceptable. Again, the Pope Paul VI Institute (it is in Omaha) would be the best resource for someone wanting to know the details.

The Roman Catholic Church also does not have a stand (currently) on Embryo adoption, so that is another alternative for a couple that cannot concieve on their own, but wants to follow church teaching.

Should people who go outside the Roman Catholic Church teachings be denyed communion? Personally, who am I to judge someone else? However I don't completely understand why you would WANT to take communion if you disagreed with major church teachings.

Not being Catholic, I don't have a dog in this fight. However, when my ex and I went for premarital counseling (mandatory in our church), we were told that the IUD is prohibited in our church. The concept behind it is that the IUD allows fertilization of an egg, but doesn't allow the fertilized egg to implant into the uterus. The IUD basically does the job of a D&C, so that even if a gamete is able to implant itself, sooner or later, the IUD will scrape it (or worse, part of it) off.

Catholic friends of mine who couldn't conceive were told that they must refuse IVF, or even artificial insemination. While I can somewhat understand religious grounds for IVF, if a couple undergoes artificial insemination then has normal relations, who would know which sperm impregnated the egg? But that may be my limited understanding on the process.

I completely understand your last paragraph.