Arrogant IVF

[dgs49]

The Church does not limit anyone's "health care."

The Church does not prevent anyone from purchasing or using condoms, birth control pills, "morning-after" pills, or the services of an abortionist. Even Catholics and employees of Catholic institutions.

The Church does not prevent anyone from getting remarried after divorce. Even Catholics.

The Church does not prevent anyone from buggering the Cable Guy or anyone else. Even Catholics.

The Church does not prevent anyone from eating meat on Fridays during Lent. Even Catholics.

But the Church objects to being compelled by the state to pay for products and services which it considers to be immoral, even when payment is shrouded by subterfuge.

It's rather like taxpayers not wanting to pay for abortions with their tax dollars because a large portion of the population considers abortion to be morally abhorrent. You can get an abortion if you want - don't let me stand in your way - but I just don't want to be paying for it.

Seems like a reasonable position to me.

But the more compelling objections to the Obama mandate are that (1) it treats pregnancy as though it were a disease, and (2) it mandates coverage for a routine expense that has no rational basis for coverage.

[Scooter]

Let's organize a few thoughts here:

Yes, let's.

(1) The RC Church vigorously opposes politicians who (let's just call it) are "pro-choice." The Church has excommunicated individual politicians who profess to be Catholic and whose official duties included the facilitation of abortion. Because in the eyes of the Church, abortion is evil, in all cases, including the oft-cited though extremely rare instances when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape. All cases. Period. Whether you are Catholic or not.

(2) The RC Church opposes state recognition of gay "marriages," and uses what little political influence it has to further that position. Sodomy between people of the same gender is sinful in all cases, whether you are Catholic or not.

(3) Jesus (the) Christ, the titular founder of the RC Church is believed to have said that one who divorces and remarries is committing adultery, since the divorce is not effective to end the original marriage. (But see Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, re, "fornication").

So far, so good, insofar as providing a reasonable rendition of Catholic doctrine.

(4) Taking that section literally, the RC Church, AS A HUMAN INSTITUTION, teaches that one who remarries after divorce is an adulterer, AND CANNOT BE A ROMAN CATHOLIC IN GOOD STANDING while in this situation.

This is wrong on so many levels. Try this: The RC Church, speaking in the name of Jesus Christ, teaches that one who remarries after divorce remains separated from the body of Christ so long as he/she continues to live together as husband and wife with his/her new spouse, and so is ineligible to receive the sacraments so long as the situation persists.

(5) The RC Church does not recognize civil marriages. One who has had a civil marriage and been divorced by the State can usually get married in the Church without much flack (provided they go through the other preparatory steps).

That is true only if the person who entered into the civil marriage was Catholic at the time. All Catholics are required to be married in accordance with the dictates of Canon Law; that means that they must be married in a Catholic church by a Catholic priest or, with a dispensation, in another Christian church with a priest there to observe. Any other form of marriage would therefore be invalid.

If a non-Catholic entered into a civil marriage, and then divorced, he/she would not be permitted to marry in the Catholic Church, even after conversion, because a civil marriage is considered a valid natural marriage, which is just as indissoluable as a sacramental marriage.

(6) The RC Church has NEVER taken the position that civil authorities ought not be able to grant divorces and permit re-marriages.

The Roman Catholic Church throughout history has always opposed the legalization of divorce. Italy is probably the most notorious example, because it took a hundred years from the first legislative proposal until a divorce law was finally enacted in 1970. The Church repeated used its influence to rally public opinion against any divorce legislation. And even when it was finally legalized, the Church was the driving force behind a 1974 referendum to overturn the law (they lost).

What non-Catholics do is of no concern to the church.

Again, not true, see above. And on a fundamental level, so completely fucked up. Anything that is objectively sinful (such as remarriage after divorce) is a sin no matter who commits it. To say that the Church is not concerned with the sins of non-Catholics flies completely in the face of Catholic theology, to say nothing of consistent patterns of observational experience.

(7) If a politician (a) was married in the RC Church, (b) got divorced, (c) got remarried, then (d) claimed publicly to be a member in good standing of the Church, then SOMEONE within the Church - probably the local Bishop - would publicly state that the said politician is full of shit, and is not truly a member in good standing of the Church.

You again try to shift the argument to make it about the candidate's personal life, and that isn't what we are talking about.

But the Church really doesn't give much of a shit what non-catholics ("Heathens") do with their marriages, divorces, children, and so forth. Just like It doesn't care whether they go to church regularly and still profess to be good Christians (WJC), commit serial adultery (WJC), or smoke, drink, and think bad thoughts.

You are, of course, completely wrong. Wrong on marriage certainly, which the Church considers indissoluable almost 100% of the time. And if you ask you priest or bishop, he will tell you that you are wrong when you say the Church doesn't give a shit about what non-Catholics do. But let's assume you are right - that the Church has little or no interest in how non-Catholics live their lives, they can sin as much as they want, and the Church just doesn't care. Why the opposition to same-sex civil marriage, then? Presumably a same-sex civil marriage is as inconsequential to the Church as you claim all other civil marriages are. And if they don't care about all those other sins being committed by non-Catholics, then they don't care about "sodomy" either, so that can't be the reason. What then?

It's actually quite a stretch to expect the Church to condemn non-Catholics for being divorced and remarried. The Church simply takes no position on the matter.

On the contrary, the Church's position is very clear, and that is position is that virtually all marriages legally performed are considered indissoluable. But don't take my word for it.

So if the Church is going to condemn one form of sin against marriage, it should be condemning at least those sins against marriage that completely dwarf it in magnitude. Oh that's right, hypocrisy and political expedience get in the way...

[rubato]

You have to hand it to them. They are absolutely consistent in opposing any product of science and education which will benefit women.


If a woman does NOT want to get pregnant and have a child they say she must do so, even if it kills her.

And if she DOES want to get pregnant and have a child and biology is uncooperative they are against it too.


yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

The Church does not limit anyone's "health care."

Only because it no longer can. When it could, it did.

The Church does not prevent anyone from purchasing or using condoms, birth control pills, "morning-after" pills, or the services of an abortionist. Even Catholics and employees of Catholic institutions.

Only because it no longer can. When it could, it did.

The Church does not prevent anyone from getting remarried after divorce. Even Catholics.

Only because it no longer can. When it could, it did.

The Church does not prevent anyone from buggering the Cable Guy or anyone else. Even Catholics.

Only because it no longer can. When it could, it did.

The Church does not prevent anyone from eating meat on Fridays during Lent. Even Catholics.

Only because it no longer can. When it could, it did.

Face up to the truth, dgs49: Your Church does not "prevent" those things simply because it cannot. But it would love to.

[dgs49]

Scoots, did you actually read the article you linked? "Non-Christian marriage can be dissolved by absolute divorce under certain circumstances in favor of the Faith."

Andrew, how nice of you to weigh in. How unfortunate that what you write is such balderdash.

The Catholic Church believes in the concept of objective morality, which presumes something called, "free will." Everyone is free to follow the teachings of the Church. Or not. The Church is powerless to prevent them, except to the extent you define as "prevent" convincing someone by moral persuasion. (Which would be nonsense, as I'm sure you would agree, as most Catholics are prodigious sinners, including myself).

If "moral" behavior could be compelled, it would not be moral, would it?

Scooter, some day you will have to explain to me why, as a Canadian and apparently a non-Catholic, you are so obsessed with U.S. politics and the Catholic Church. You have really gone off the deep end on this thread.

[Scooter]

Scoots, did you actually read the article you linked? "Non-Christian marriage can be dissolved by absolute divorce under certain circumstances in favor of the Faith."

Yes, Pauline Privilege, I already described it if you had even bothered to read. It's application is extremely limited, available only in those cases where the presence of a non-Christian spouse is seen as a threat to the faith of a Christian spouse. OIherwise, NO legally contracted marriage can be dissolved.

A very far cry from your claim that any non-Catholic marriage can be dissolved in the eyes of the RCC.

Scooter, some day you will have to explain to me why, as a Canadian and apparently a non-Catholic, you are so obsessed with U.S. politics and the Catholic Church.

And someday you will have to explain to me how someone who has the gall to call themselves a practicing Catholic can be shown up to be so completely ignorant of Catholic theology.

I was Catholic born and raised, and attended Catholic educational institutions throughout my academic career. And I obviously spent a heck of a lot more time learning about the faith you ever have or will. Maybe you should shut up and try to learn something about the religion you purport to profess instead of continuing to show what a dunce you are.

[Sean]

Andrew, how nice of you to weigh in. How unfortunate that what you write is such balderdash.

Actually, as somebody who grew up surrounded by Catholicism I find nothing to disagree with in Andrew's post.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Mega-dittoes there Sean.

Hey that's an anagram of 'Meade's got it'

[Sean]

Also 'It Deems Goat'.