No communion for Obama supporters

[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.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I'm teaching English 1301, and there are four topics my students may NOT write their research paper on: abortion, gun control, capital punishment and legalization of drugs. If I never have to read a paper on those four topics again, I can die a happy woman.

LOL - I'm teaching Ethical Theory and my class would be lost without having those topics available.

Not being Catholic, I can't really comment on how appropriate it is (or isn't) for the priest to deny Obama supporters communion. All I can say is that I'm appreciative of all my former and current religious consults. I have never been asked about political matters in a religious setting, and I'm quite happy about that.

[OneTimeSBX]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

LOL - I'm teaching Ethical Theory and my class would be lost without having those topics available.

Not being Catholic, I can't really comment on how appropriate it is (or isn't) for the priest to deny Obama supporters communion. All I can say is that I'm appreciative of all my former and current religious consults. I have never been asked about political matters in a religious setting, and I'm quite happy about that.

im nowhere near catholic, but is it just me, or does this seem like a way of "weeding out" the obama supporters, that way if you get up to do communion, but Mary next to you doesnt move this week after that comment...you can assume Mary might have voted for Obama...that makes for bad politics if you ask me. church shouldnt be about singling people out or letting it be known you arent as holy as the next person...that same person who voted for McCain might have other issues that would prevent them from taking communion...

[SWTXBelle]

Well, a parishoner at that church could just transfer to another RC church - one where the priest isn't as worked up about Obama.

[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...

[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).

[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]"

[Scandia]

Gianna is the exception. Removal of uterus when there is uterine cancer is allowed, even if the baby is not viable and does not make it. But then, removing the baby to save the mother's life is allowed if the intent is to save both, even if the baby is not viable.

My ideas about abortion may not be as strict as those of the church, but not as lax as Obama's either.

Regarding as to when life begins... I do not think fertilization of the egg (aka conception) is a good point. If all fertilized eggs were to implant successfully, the world's population would be much higher than what it is now. Implantation would be a better point- but I have known people who had miscarriages because while zygote implanted, the cells did not differentiate and at one point they just stopped multiplying and the uterus expelled the mass of identical cells. Heartbeat definitely shows life is present, though.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?