No communion for Obama supporters

[SWTXBelle]

http://www.saintgianna.org/

eta - I don't know the overall policy, but I did know of St. Gianna.

[agzg]

So then the choice is to save the baby? Interesting.

[SWTXBelle]

I wouldn't go that far based on St. Gianna - but she is an example of a mother who would not put her own self-interest first.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I wouldn't go that far based on St. Gianna - but she is an example of a mother who would not put her own self-interest first.

I hope I never have to make the choice, but it's gotta be a hard one. Give one baby life but leave three with no mother.

But I like the testimonials. There is something about faith in especially difficult times.

[agzg]

Live in is in Houston at a wedding, and he said his family has started a heated discussion. Half the family supported Obama, half supported McCain.

Apparently, they're yelling at each other.

Who was the moron who brought up politics at a family wedding?

[LttleMsPrEp]

To a certain extent those stereotypes do hold to be true.

[SWTXBelle]

Only if you are willing to make a gross generalization. And the belief that the stereotypes are true prevents either side from engaging in the kind of dialog that would enable both sides to work together to solve one problem both agree on - that we want a society with fewer abortions.

eta - back on topic. I think the issue of separation of church and state and whether that means that ministers cannot speak at all on moral issues that might have an impact on elections, or whether that means the state should not in any way, shape or form censor speech in churches, is an interesting one.

[LttleMsPrEp]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Only if you are willing to make a gross generalization. And the belief that the stereotypes are true prevents either side from engaging in the kind of dialogue that would enable both sides to work together to solve one problem both agree on - that we want a society with fewer abortions.

I didn't quite mean it that way.. what i meant to say in so many words was that on either side there are people who fit the stereotype but the topic of abortion is filled with many gray areas that it isn't wise to make such a generalization. I do agree that that would prevent both sides from engaging in dialogue but do you really think it's plausible for both sides to solve one problem that everyone agrees on?

but to get back on topic....i'm an avid supporter or the separation of church and state but is there or should there be a limit to the amount of separtation?

[SWTXBelle]

I don't know if they can solve it, but I prefer a Rogerian approach. Let's work together on those things we agree on - i.e. we want fewer abortions - while still continuing the debate on those things we don't. You've probably detected my anti-abortion stance. I believe that those who are not anti-abortion simply hold a different definition of when life begins - not that they are evil. I can disagree with their belief about when life begins without having to vilify them. I'd just ask the same courtesy from those on the other side of the fence. I'm not a crazed lunatic - I like to think I am a reasonable, educated person who, based on both scientific and logical evidence believes that life begins at the moment of conception. I used to be pro-abortion, but then I became pregnant. I have an ultrasound of my daughter Gypsyboots at 6 weeks. She is shaped like a little peanut, but it's her. It's not a potential her, it's not a piece of tissue, it's her. Having been on the other side may give me a little more understanding on how someone could believe that abortion is a simple medical procedure.

I guess you could make the case that most stereotypes may have an element of truth, but relying on them causes all sorts of problems. Of course, I think a big problem with most political debate these days is the eagerness of so many to simply try and yell louder than the other side. There's so little respect, and so little use of logic and intelligence.

[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.

[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.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by aephi alum

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.

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

[UGAalum94]

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.

Nicely played.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by laylo

It wouldn't be accurate because prostitution itself is not what they support.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I like to think I am a reasonable, educated person who, based on both scientific and logical evidence believes that life begins at the moment of conception.

I completely agree.

[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.