No communion for Obama supporters

[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.

[OneTimeSBX]

Originally Posted by honeychile

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.

i was told my by OBGYN that depending on which IUD you chose, it only prevents implantation by irritating the uterus, or causing damage to the egg or sperm. ive never read anywhere (and trust me i did a LOT of research before i got mines!) about it scraping anything off...

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by OneTimeSBX

i was told my by OBGYN that depending on which IUD you chose, it only prevents implantation by irritating the uterus, or causing damage to the egg or sperm. ive never read anywhere (and trust me i did a LOT of research before i got mines!) about it scraping anything off...

This is what I found on Wikipedia, so YMMV:

"The presence of a device in the uterus prompts the release of leukocytes and prostaglandins by the endometrium. These substances are hostile to both sperm and eggs; the presence of copper increases this spermicidal effect.[40][41] The current medical consensus is that spermicidal and ovicidal mechanisms are the only way in which IUDs work.[35]"

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

This is what I found on Wikipedia, so YMMV:

"The presence of a device in the uterus prompts the release of leukocytes and prostaglandins by the endometrium. These substances are hostile to both sperm and eggs; the presence of copper increases this spermicidal effect.[40][41] The current medical consensus is that spermicidal and ovicidal mechanisms are the only way in which IUDs work.[35]"

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]"

[ForeverRoses]

Originally Posted by honeychile

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.

True- that is one reason why IUDs are a no-no. Some NFP practioners will also tell you that Birth Control Pills can cause a failure to implant- so you do have fertilization but not implantation. And if you believe that life begins at conception- is that at fertilization, implantation or both?

And the prohibition behind artificial insemination goes back to the "spilled seed" argument. In order to get the sperm, the sperm donor would usually need to masterbate. That is a no-no per Roman Catholic Church teaching. So AI is (artificial insemination as apposed to alumni initiation) wrong because of the means used to gather the sperm. The only acceptable way to have AI is if the sperm is gathered as I outlined above, and I believe it can only come from the husband.

IVF is always a no-no since fertilization occurs outside the womb. it also brings up the issue of what to do with the fertilized but unused eggs. (which could be one reason there has never been a statement on embryo adoption).

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by ForeverRoses

The only acceptable way to have AI is if the sperm is gathered as I outlined above, and I believe it can only come from the husband.

So condom use = ok to get pregnant. But condom use =/= ok to not get pregnant.

I am Catholic. My entire family is Catholic. But it's 2008. Having stringent rules against sex education, birth control AND abortion are conflicting, confusing and out of touch with people's reality. It's 2008.

But I agree with whoever said you just need to go find another church. We "parish-shopped". Seriously. There's a church not a 1/4-mile from us that is what I think of as "old-line" Catholic church. Did not enjoy it there. At all. We found another parish that is much ... trying to think of the word ... "friendlier"? I remember when I walked in and saw a plaque that said "all are welcome here" and there was a huge mural of a smiling Jesus I thought, "hm, now this isn't what I'm used to!" It's a great parish, it's a comfortable parish, our pastor (who happens to be African American) is one of the most laid-back, personable priests I have EVER known and he's never once given us an ultimatum about being Catholic OR voting the way he (or the Church) might think is "right". He's just glad to see us every week.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by honeychile

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.

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.

I know at least 5 people who were "IUD babies" and they are all perfectly healthy.

This post is exactly why I previously posted that this is an issue for Catholics. Your definition of grace is not the issue here, and your post indicates that you do not understand Catholic teachings on grace or of ordination and priesthood.

So then what is the Catholic definition of Grace?

I was a Catholic for 12 years, and when we left the church I really wanted to go back, UNTIL I found old Catechism booklets I had and read that (as a Catholic) i'm suppose to believe that Jesus Christ came down, not to die on the cross & save us from eternal damnation, but to build & found the Catholic Church. There is your "Catholic teachings" for ya.

[Munchkin03]

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.

I know at least 5 people who were "IUD babies" and they are all perfectly healthy.

But the whole "scraping" thing is a myth, it seems. Just like how a lot of people think the Pill works by making your body think it's pregnant.

All BC has a possibility of failure, even with perfect use.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by epchick

I was a Catholic for 12 years, and when we left the church I really wanted to go back, UNTIL I found old Catechism booklets I had and read that (as a Catholic) i'm suppose to believe that Jesus Christ came down, not to die on the cross & save us from eternal damnation, but to build & found the Catholic Church. There is your "Catholic teachings" for ya.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. If, as Roman Catholics do, you believe that the Church is the way to salvation, then in fact Jesus came down to found the Roman Catholic Church TO save you from eternal damnation. Again, I'm not RC, but that's my understanding.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

The two aren't mutually exclusive. If, as Roman Catholics do, you believe that the Church is the way to salvation, then in fact Jesus came down to found the Roman Catholic Church TO save you from eternal damnation. Again, I'm not RC, but that's my understanding.

I don't ever remember learning it so i'm not exactly sure if that is what they are implying, but here is what it says (verbatim):

"Why did Jesus come down to earth?

God sent Jesus to earth so that he could found the Catholic Church"


I've also always wondered if other Catholics (in an area that is not predominantly Hispanic) have such an "admiration" to the Virgin Mary that the Hispanic (mainly Mexican) Catholics do.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by ISUKappa

According to dicionary.com, one of the definitions of catholic is
so the catechism may be referring to the ancient undivided church as opposed to the Roman Catholic church. I know in our hymnals (LCMS Lutheran) there's a footnote in the Apostle's Creed where it states the word Christian in one spot used to be catholic. I believe other denominations still use the term catholic when they recite the creed.

Or maybe Roman Catholics are really that self-centered.

Of course we are, somebody has to be.

Having done the traveling church circuit a few times, the ELCA seems to have catholic with a little c, you guys have the footnote, and our good friends at the WELS just have Christian. They also changed the words, but shoot, they put an ellipsis in any scripture quote that might give women the right to blink, so that's not surprising. The WELS apparently used to have a footnote but it went away.

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I'm not sure if many churches are this strict anymore, but I remember growing up as a kid, we lived by the "no food for 1 hour" before Mass. So you either got up early and ate breakfast in time for there to be at least an hour between when you ate and Mass, or you waited until after. When we'd complain, my Mom would remind us how in her day they couldn't even have a drink of water before they went to Mass (big, old church in downtown Philly, Mass was in Latin), so they'd brush their teeth but couldn't even take a sip of water while they were doing it. AND, if they forgot to wear a hat, they would put a tissue over their head because their head couldn't be uncovered. Hard core!

ETA: And so my point is, there would be people that wouldn't go up for communion, but for all you know it was because they'd just had a big family breakfast at Bob's Big Boy or back in Mom's day, it could have meant someone forgot and had a drink of water or cup of coffee before they left for Mass

I had to do this too growing up - we had it down. Communion was always at 9:35 if we went to 9:00 Mass, so we'd eat donuts and milk at 9:28 or so every Sunday.

It's really common at the churches in the midwest to see a lot of couples where one goes and one doesn't. At my church in Minnesota there were a lot of interfaith couples so they started offering a blessing at Communion to those who crossed their arms rather than stuck out their hands or their tongue.

Originally Posted by christiangirl

No, but MY DEFINITION OF GRACE is a key part in the formation of MY OPINION which I'm perfectly within right to state on a public forum.

I understand perfectly well the difference between the "Catholic" definition of grace and my own. I went to a Catholic high school and thus spent a year intensely studying the the basics of the faith as per graduation requirement. My post indicates that grace as illustrated by the actual teachings and stories of Christ should not be revised by anyone except for the One from whom it is comes. Therefore, the Church twisting and limiting such a thing by conditions other than those set forth by the Bible and calling it "grace" is misleading and unfair. This discussion is not based on whoever knows more about Catholicism and not only those baptized into it may have an opinion about it. And let's face it, this entire thread is (unless citations are provided) little more than 7 pages worth of people's opinions.

Wow, you spent one year studying a 2000 year-old religion. You must know everything there is to know about it. I'll call the Pope on my special purple phone to let him know we have a new expert on doctrine in town.

Originally Posted by irishpipes

Again, this shows a misunderstanding of Catholicism. On any Sunday many parishioners do not take the Eucharist because ANY unrepented mortal sin violates the state of grace necessary to receive it. Not just sins involving voting for pro-abortion politicians. No one is really being singled out. The Church is not about politics - bad or good. It is not a democracy. They do not take a poll before taking a stand, and on this issue the Church has resolutely stated its position. It has nothing to do with one parishioner being more or less holy than another.

The talk in this thread about the Church's position on various issues is somewhat disconcerting also. Things can't be taken out of context like that if they are to make complete sense. An understanding of the full teachings of the Church is necessary to truly understand a lot of these controversial topics.

My point is, if any of you wants to take issue with the Church's views, knock yourselves out and join a different church. But, bashing a religion that you do not understand is unfair.

You are doing a nice job in this thread. That is all.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

It's really common at the churches in the midwest to see a lot of couples where one goes and one doesn't. At my church in Minnesota there were a lot of interfaith couples so they started offering a blessing at Communion to those who crossed their arms rather than stuck out their hands or their tongue.

I made a pastoral comment at the start of this thread. I like to see a church meeting the needs of the congregants on its own terms. Any church.