No communion for Obama supporters

[SWTXBelle]

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

[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]"

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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]"

Ooops, I thought I had included that line as well. But, that still doesn't = scraping. Because, if the IUD was really scraping up womens' endometriae, there'd be many more infections and deaths, right?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Ooops, I thought I had included that line as well. But, that still doesn't = scraping. Because, if the IUD was really scraping up womens' endometriae, there'd be many more infections and deaths, right?

I think I missed the whole scraping conversation. I happened to look this up earlier in the thread to see if they were still listed as working partially by preventing implantation.

I think there were a lot of infections and deaths or maybe just infections and lasting infertility with previous versions, but I think IUDs seem to be coming back in an improved form. On the previous version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalkon_Shield

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

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 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".

FWIW, add the Presbyterians (PCUSA, at least) to those who simply use the lower case c. No footnotes.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think I missed the whole scraping conversation. I happened to look this up earlier in the thread to see if they were still listed as working partially by preventing implantation.

I think there were a lot of infections and deaths or maybe just infections and lasting infertility with previous versions, but I think IUDs seem to be coming back in an improved form. On the previous version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalkon_Shield

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.

[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

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

I think it is interesting that you think I sound frustrated and defensive out of all the posters in this thread.

"You sound frustrated" does not equal "Nobody in the entire thread sounds frustrated but you." That's not what I said.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

and christiangirl, despite the year's intense high school study, you betray a lack of comprehension of the biblical foundation and historical evolution of Roman Catholic tenets. You don't have to be Roman Catholic (at least I hope not, or I'm in trouble!) to comment, but attacking Roman Catholicism with the vehemence you do comes off as defensive. And dare I say - unchristian? What happened to they will know that we are Christians by our love?

To an extent, the bolded is true. I did not say I was an expert on the RCC, I was stating that I'm not as ignorant of the basic facets of the faith (including the "Catholic definition" of grace) as Irish assumed I was.

I am angry at this priest's actions. To see a person in the position to draw others to the faith instead choose to push them away by imposing such limitations is both wrong and unfair.

As far as the grace issue: I am of the opinion that grace, actual grace, is a gift from God extended to everyone. It has some limitations, but voting for a pro-life candidate is not one of them. That is a man-made imposition. So, if the term in question is something that one may only acquire via certain requirements that were set forth by religious authorities (and I admit that it is within a Church's right to do it even if I don't agree), then that should not be called "grace" because it's not. Using that particular word in any other context is to misuse it and I don't like the purposes for which it is being misused. That is ALL I said and I have already stated that this is my opinion on the matter and not an infallible fact to which the entire religion must be held. By no stretch of the imagination is that "attacking Roman Catholicism with vehemence." (Nor is it being "unchristian" IMO but I'll leave that one up to Jesus.)

[AGDee]

If it helps any, John Kerry was told he could not take communion in the RCC during the last Presidential election for the same reasons. This isn't shocking stuff to RCCs and Obama isn't singled out with this.

[DolphinChicaDDD]

Originally Posted by AGDee

If it helps any, John Kerry was told he could not take communion in the RCC during the last Presidential election for the same reasons. This isn't shocking stuff to RCCs and Obama isn't singled out with this.

I can kind of understand that. Kerry had a stance. Because he is a public person, and running for president, his views were known. Those views were in direct opposition to the RCC's stance, so he was denied communion.

In the case of denying communion to a parishioner because he voted for someone, I see that as an issue. Perhaps the parishioner placed his vote based solely on economic policy and environmental issues and let's say he sided with Obama. The parishioner may be against birth control, abortion, etc etc etc but didn't consider those issues when voting, and he sided with Obama for whatever reason. But the simple fact that he voted for one candidate makes him ineligible for communion? Seems silly to me.

Nevermind the fact that I'm sure all of McCain's stances don't match up with the RCC's ideas; the death penalty comes to mind. So did this priest want people to vote for no one since there is not going to be a candidate who agrees 100% with church teachings?

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

"You sound frustrated" does not equal "Nobody in the entire thread sounds frustrated but you." That's not what I said.



To an extent, the bolded is true. I did not say I was an expert on the RCC, I was stating that I'm not as ignorant of the basic facets of the faith (including the "Catholic definition" of grace) as Irish assumed I was.

I am angry at this priest's actions. To see a person in the position to draw others to the faith instead choose to push them away by imposing such limitations is both wrong and unfair.

As far as the grace issue: I am of the opinion that grace, actual grace, is a gift from God extended to everyone. It has some limitations, but voting for a pro-life candidate is not one of them. That is a man-made imposition. So, if the term in question is something that one may only acquire via certain requirements that were set forth by religious authorities (and I admit that it is within a Church's right to do it even if I don't agree), then that should not be called "grace" because it's not. Using that particular word in any other context is to misuse it and I don't like the purposes for which it is being misused. That is ALL I said and I have already stated that this is my opinion on the matter and not an infallible fact to which the entire religion must be held. By no stretch of the imagination is that "attacking Roman Catholicism with vehemence." (Nor is it being "unchristian" IMO but I'll leave that one up to Jesus.)

You are splitting semantic hairs, and the point which has been made over and over is that YOUR OPINION about a policy of the RC church isn't really germane to the discussion. You are narrowly defining "grace", which is certainly your right, but then criticizing the RC church because their definition is not yours. It's not about you - heck, I don't agree with the RC church, but I haven't inserted my opinion because it doesn't matter.

A Roman Catholic priest applied Roman Catholic principles to a Roman Catholic parish. His beliefs aren't mine, but he's not trying to make me (or anyone who isn't a parishioner) fall under his authority. The question is, were his actions justified (within the context of his postion and responsiblities - including his duties to warn his parishoners of endangering their immortal souls) ? Did they possibly break current tax law? As I asked before, how do his parishoners and higher up think of his actions? When it is all said and done, he answers to a higher authority. You will leave judgement of your actions up to Jesus, but will not extend the same courtesy to this priest.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

"You sound frustrated" does not equal "Nobody in the entire thread sounds frustrated but you." That's not what I said.

Perhaps not, but I am the only one you singled out. Not that it matters.

Originally Posted by christiangirl

To an extent, the bolded is true. I did not say I was an expert on the RCC, I was stating that I'm not as ignorant of the basic facets of the faith (including the "Catholic definition" of grace) as Irish assumed I was.

Your posts showed a lack of any insight into Catholicism. You were obviously interjecting your own religious views, which a Catholic priest cannot be expected to follow.

Originally Posted by christiangirl

I am angry at this priest's actions. To see a person in the position to draw others to the faith instead choose to push them away by imposing such limitations is both wrong and unfair.

A priest's role is not necessarily to "draw others to the faith." Faith is not measured in numbers. If this priest filled the pews by misrepresenting Catholic views - by adopting an "anything goes" attitude, what would that accomplish? A big group of people WHO ARE NOT CATHOLICS. It would be WRONG and UNFAIR to lead them to believe that the Church does not have doctrine. The Catholic Church is an incredibly pro-choice institution. Its faithful are allowed to choose whatever they want to the point of jeopardizing their immortal souls. If a Catholic rejects the teachings of the Church, why would he or she care if Holy Communion is not permissable for them?

Originally Posted by christiangirl

As far as the grace issue: I am of the opinion that grace, actual grace, is a gift from God extended to everyone. It has some limitations, but voting for a pro-life candidate is not one of them. That is a man-made imposition. So, if the term in question is something that one may only acquire via certain requirements that were set forth by religious authorities (and I admit that it is within a Church's right to do it even if I don't agree), then that should not be called "grace" because it's not. Using that particular word in any other context is to misuse it and I don't like the purposes for which it is being misused. That is ALL I said and I have already stated that this is my opinion on the matter and not an infallible fact to which the entire religion must be held. By no stretch of the imagination is that "attacking Roman Catholicism with vehemence." (Nor is it being "unchristian" IMO but I'll leave that one up to Jesus.)

Again, as you yourself state, this is your opinion, your definition. This priest was articulating the CATHOLIC position on this, as should be expected. You, and everyone else on earth, are entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps instead of demanding that this priest "gets off his high horse", you should consider dismounting yourself. You are insinuating, no matter what you now backpeddle and say, that he apply elements of your faith in speaking with his own congregation. For example, in a previous post you reference a biblical definition of grace. An understanding of Catholicism would include the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Perhaps the priest at issue was reacting to the post-election data that about 50% of people who consider themselves Catholic voted for Obama. There was certainly a time when Catholics voted in a much more predictable fashion.

Perhaps you can redirect your anger toward this priest to gratitude that your candidate won.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by DolphinChicaDDD

I can kind of understand that. Kerry had a stance. Because he is a public person, and running for president, his views were known. Those views were in direct opposition to the RCC's stance, so he was denied communion.

In the case of denying communion to a parishioner because he voted for someone, I see that as an issue. Perhaps the parishioner placed his vote based solely on economic policy and environmental issues and let's say he sided with Obama. The parishioner may be against birth control, abortion, etc etc etc but didn't consider those issues when voting, and he sided with Obama for whatever reason. But the simple fact that he voted for one candidate makes him ineligible for communion? Seems silly to me.

Nevermind the fact that I'm sure all of McCain's stances don't match up with the RCC's ideas; the death penalty comes to mind. So did this priest want people to vote for no one since there is not going to be a candidate who agrees 100% with church teachings?

The Church holds that the issue of life is to be held in higher regard than economic issues, so that would be the justification if the parishioner voted on economy (or something like that) rather than life. The Church hasn't ever swayed in that.

You are right that McCain didn't match up 100%. I don't know that any candidate ever has. That's why the Church pushes the development of a "Catholic conscience" and "Catholic identity." So far there has always been one candidate who is clearly more in line with Catholic teachings than another. And, like I said before, the Catholic Church is opposed to liberal application of the death penalty, but it is not an absolute like abortion. (That's a pretty complicated issue, and I wouldn't say that the Church is ok with the death penalty, just that it does recognize occasional justification for it. It does not recognize any justification for abortion.)

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

Perhaps not, but I am the only one you singled out. Not that it matters.

That's just the way I post--I noticed that others were way more amped, but they weren't speaking to me, you were. I only comment on what is relevant (i.e., who is talking to me). No big deal.

Your posts showed a lack of any insight into Catholicism. You were obviously interjecting your own religious views, which a Catholic priest cannot be expected to follow. I already said that a Church is perfectly within its right to make up their own doctrine. No, I don't agree, but so what? I don't have to and they don't have to care that I don't either.



A priest's role is not necessarily to "draw others to the faith." Aside from the fact that I only agree with this to an extent, ONCE AGAIN. I never said it was. I said that he is in a position where he could, which is NOT the same thing. Faith is not measured in numbers. If this priest filled the pews by misrepresenting Catholic views - by adopting an "anything goes" attitude, what would that accomplish? A big group of people WHO ARE NOT CATHOLICS. Yes, it would. It would be WRONG and UNFAIR to lead them to believe that the Church does not have doctrine. The Catholic Church is an incredibly pro-choice institution. Its faithful are allowed to choose whatever they want to the point of jeopardizing their immortal souls. If a Catholic rejects the teachings of the Church, why would he or she care if Holy Communion is not permissable for them? <---This sentence is a fair point.



Again, as you yourself state, this is your opinion, your definition. This priest was articulating the CATHOLIC position on this, as should be expected. You, and everyone else on earth, are entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps instead of demanding that this priest "gets off his high horse", you should consider dismounting yourself. I expressed what I felt he should do, but certainly did not "demand" him to do anything and ended the statement with JUST MY OPINION. You are twisting my words again. You are insinuating, no matter what you now backpeddle and say, that he apply elements of your faith in speaking with his own congregation. For example, in a previous post you reference a biblical definition of grace. An understanding of Catholicism would include the doctrine of sola scriptura. I understand that, which is why I said that it is my opinion (read: preference) as opposed to something the entire faith must follow. Didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you.

...

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

The question is, were his actions justified (within the context of his postion and responsiblities - including his duties to warn his parishoners of endangering their immortal souls) ? Did they possibly break current tax law? As I asked before, how do his parishoners and higher up think of his actions? When it is all said and done, he answers to a higher authority. You will leave judgement of your actions up to Jesus, but will not extend the same courtesy to this priest.

Like I said above, it is not "splitting semantic hairs" if I am being held to assertions that I never made. The claim is that I hold others to standards that I have injected my own standards into. Well, the two of you keep twisting my words out of context then trying to hold me to them. What is that supposed to be called?

No, I don't feel that they were justified at all and one reason is the one that DolphinChica stated (which, admittedly, is a scenario that came to mind long ago but I never got around to posing it in between explaining myself on every other issue). Some people (myself included) voted for Obama without supporting each and every one of his issues. Say a member of the Catholic church voted like that: Do they deserve to be denied Communion even though they are pro-life themselves? No, in my opinion, they don't. I don't like that action nor do I agree with the premise behind it (their not being in a "state of grace"). I'm not saying that the RCC should revamp its doctrine and re-evaluate what it puts emphasis on. I don't "demand" that this priest change his tactics. I'm just saying that I disapprove and THAT'S IT. Please, take it at face value. I don't have anything against either of you, but I don't like the way you've made all of this to be about how I can't stay on topic, how I'm demanding everyone to be on my wavelength when that's simply not true. If you felt that my answers weren't what you were looking for, you could've said that without claiming I am being "unchristian" and "unloving" (which can be taken as just as much of a judgement as you claim I have made). That's really all I've got to say on the matter, if my intentions aren't clear by now then they won't be tomorrow. Let us agree to disagree unless there is something else you would like me to know.
ETA: In reading that last bit again, it looks really sarcastic and I wanted to input that that's not how I meant it. I genuinely mean that, unless you really have something else to add, I'd like to just let it drop.