No communion for Obama supporters

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Well now you know that Mike and Carol were married in 1978.

My mom was a little offended. Her name was Karen.

The pastor was a Brady Bunch fan?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

The pastor was a Brady Bunch fan?

Ha or maybe he just saw the show right before heading off to the ceremony. I'm really glad my mom's name wasn't actually Carol. Otherwise, my brother's name would be Greg and my name would be Marcia.

My parents debated on having fun with our names before we were born. A play on words here, alliteration there... my dad saw the combo of my name/middle name in the newspaper. They thought they were freakin' funny.

[AGDee]

I just want to add, in the Roman Catholic mass, when we recite "One holy, catholic and apostolic church" during the Nicene creed, it is also lower case and meaning "universal". That's why it is followed by "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" The RC church recognizes any Christian baptism. If you have been baptized in another denomination and go through RCIA to convert to Catholicism, you are not baptized again, you only do the sacraments of Communion and Confirmation. Most of the people in my RCIA group had been baptized already in some faith.

The RCIA experience was fascinating and I did it in a rather liberal RC church. The main concerns of most of the people in my group were the church's views on birth control and abortion. When we asked the Priest about those items in particular, he told us that ultimately, what you do is between you and God and if you truly felt that it was detrimental to bring a child into your life at some point, you needed to pray and discern with God what was best.

ETA: For some of us, there is no church that agrees with our belief systems 100%. Does that mean we can never worship in fellowship with others by attending church? Of course not. That just means that ultimately, it will be between us and God.

[agzg]

28 and three quarters happy years of marriage - If I didn't believe in soul mates before I did when my mom got sick and my dad spent 12 hours a day, more if they let him, in the hospital with her.

Karen (alias Carol) is in non-denominational heaven now, I do believe.

[agzg]

Yeah - I put the caveat in there that his Catholic education was from the 50s, he knows there's been a lot of changes/deeper understanding since then.

[Scandia]

Not only no religious denomination agrees with my views 100%, but no political party or candidate does either.

[SWTXBelle]

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

[agzg]

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.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.

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.

Originally Posted by dekeguy

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.

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?

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by ;1745858

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

[ForeverRoses]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

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

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.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

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.

Originally Posted by ForeverRoses

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.

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.

[SWTXBelle]

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?