Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

robindch

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I'm curious, what part of scripture do they point to as prohibiting contraception?

I believe the church bases its entire prohibition of contraception on the story of a very minor Genesis character named Onan, who is reported to have "spilled his seed" to the enduring displeasure of the reigning deity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

Hence the term "onanism" for masturbation.

kylith

robindch wrote: »

I believe the church bases its entire prohibition of contraception on the story of a very minor Genesis character named Onan, who is reported to have "spilled his seed" to the enduring displeasure of the reigning deity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

Hence the term "onanism" for masturbation.

What gives me a chuckle is that the only method of contraception sanctioned by the church, the withdrawal method, is the one Onan used.

Lingua Franca

robindch wrote: »

I believe the church bases its entire prohibition of contraception on the story of a very minor Genesis character named Onan, who is reported to have "spilled his seed" to the enduring displeasure of the reigning deity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

Hence the term "onanism" for masturbation.

Thanks, now I have a place to start looking!

aloyisious

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Its probably best if you check in on the Christianity forum and seek out some Catholics who know their stuff on the validity of the German Cardinal's decision or lack thereof...

From the report: Archbishop Harbeke said Cardinal Meisner had consulted the Vatican, as well as a 2009 directive for Catholic hospitals in the US that says a rape victim "may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation or fertilisation".

I would imagine from the above quote that the Vatican would have pointed out to the Cardinal any errors in his approving use of the "morning-after" in rape cases , and that it approved his statement clearing up any ambiguity on the matter to the benefit of RC-ethos hospitals in Germany.

Silvio.Dante

aloyisious wrote: »

From the report: Archbishop Harbeke said Cardinal Meisner had consulted the Vatican, as well as a 2009 directive for Catholic hospitals in the US that says a rape victim "may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation or fertilisation".

I would imagine from the above quote that the Vatican would have pointed out to the Cardinal any errors in his approving use of the "morning-after" in rape cases , and that it approved his statement clearing up any ambiguity on the matter to the benefit of RC-ethos hospitals in Germany.

The Directive coming from the USCCB or the Vatican..?

Morag

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priests-told-deny-communion-to-tds-who-support-abortion-3377922.html I wondered when this card would get played. Priests to deny TDs who support abortion holy communion.

Delirium

Morag wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priests-told-deny-communion-to-tds-who-support-abortion-3377922.html I wondered when this card would get played. Priests to deny TDs who support abortion holy communion.

When all else fails resort to blackmail. :rolleyes: So much for the spirit of forgiveness and acceptance of the church.

seamus

There's that pesky "free will" thing again. Damn people for daring to use it, they need to be punished!

lazygal

koth wrote: »

Well all else fail resort to blackmail. :rolleyes: So much for the spirit of forgiveness and acceptance of the church.

Well it'll act as a handy guide so we'll know those who put their religious faith ahead of their duties as legislators, won't it?

aloyisious

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

The Directive coming from the USCCB or the Vatican..?

Re the source of the directive, Para's 11 and 12 of the report included in my post refer:

Archbishop Harbeke said Cardinal Meisner had consulted the Vatican, as well as a 2009 directive for Catholic hospitals in the US that says a rape victim "may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation or fertilisation".

That directive by the US bishops' conference does not name the Plan B pill, marketed elsewhere as Levonelle, NorLevo, Postinor-2 or Optinor, which some US Catholic hospitals use and others do not, depending on their reading of church teaching.

Peregrinus

Morag wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priests-told-deny-communion-to-tds-who-support-abortion-3377922.html I wondered when this card would get played. Priests to deny TDs who support abortion holy communion.

Well, strictly speaking Vatican cardinal says priests should deny TDS who support ordination holy communion.

lazygal wrote: »

Well it'll act as a handy guide so we'll know those who put their religious faith ahead of their duties as legislators, won't it?

It will if priests pay any attention to this. Burke is a well-known right-winger who has issued this call many times in the US context, with remarkably little effect. No doubt much to his own regret, Burke's job description does not allow him to tell priests what to do. I wouldn't hold my breath for reports of TDs being turned away from the altar rails in droves.

Morag

As was mentioned on Twitter the Vatican is a nation state and had told it's agents here to put pressure on our elected representatives...

Bannasidhe

Morag wrote: »

As was mentioned on Twitter the Vatican is a nation state and had told it's agents here to put pressure on our elected representatives...

The ECB, the IMF, US Evangelists and the Vatican are like dogs fighting over Ireland's bones. So much for 'self-determination'. :rolleyes:

Ironically we would have had more say in how the place is run if we had stayed in the Union....

Peregrinus

Morag wrote: »

As was mentioned on Twitter the Vatican is a nation state and had told it's agents here to put pressure on our elected representatives...

Burke's not an official of the Vatican City State. And Catholic priests worldwide are not "agents" of that state.

I object to Burke's views, but I don't think my objections are at all strenghthened by pointing to the diplomatic status of the Vatican City State. That seems to me like a complete red herring.

Silvio.Dante

Morag wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priests-told-deny-communion-to-tds-who-support-abortion-3377922.html I wondered when this card would get played. Priests to deny TDs who support abortion holy communion.

If they remove themselves so wilfully form the Church they have no grounds to complain about being refused the Eucharist I'd have thought...

Silvio.Dante

koth wrote: »

So much for the spirit of forgiveness and acceptance of the church.

I'm sure the Methodists will welcome them...:rolleyes:

Silvio.Dante

seamus wrote: »

There's that pesky "free will" thing again. Damn people for daring to use it, they need to be punished!

So, in your view the Eucharist should be available to all, no matter their deeds..?

Sarky

Salvation only for some, eh? Thanks for nailing your exclusionist colours to the mast.

Delirium

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

So, in your view the Eucharist should be available to all, no matter their deeds..?

Last time I checked, the RCC allowed a person to receive communion once they had received absolution via confession. Are you saying that absolution no longer works?

EDIT: and AFAIK if you miss a Sunday or holy day of obligation you're required to receive absolution before receiving holy communion. Do the priests also refuse those people holy communion?

Silvio.Dante

Sarky wrote: »

Salvation only for some, eh? Thanks for nailing your exclusionist colours to the mast.

Salvation is available to everyone, if they choose to accept it...:)

Silvio.Dante

koth wrote: »

Last time I checked, the RCC allowed a person to receive communion once they had received absolution via confession.

Correct...

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

So, in your view the Eucharist should be available to all, no matter their deeds..?

I think you'll find that most people here are of the view that elected representatives are there to uphold the Constitution and do as they have been instructed by the electorate, not do as their religion tells them.

In 1992 the Irish electorate told them to enact a specific piece of legislation. If their religious beliefs prevent them from carrying out the will of the people they should resign. They can then run in the subsequent by-election and make their case for why their religion should allow them to ignore the electorate.

They were not elected to represent the Catholic Church, they were elected to represent all of their constituents. If they put their personal religious beliefs ahead of the Constitution then they are acting fraudulently unless they made it clear to their constituents that they would put their religion first when voting on legislation.

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think you'll find that most people here are of the view that elected representatives are there to uphold the Constitution and do as they have been instructed by the electorate, not do as their religion tells them.

In 1992 the Irish electorate told them to enact a specific piece of legislation. If their religious beliefs prevent them from carrying out the will of the people they should resign. They can then run in the subsequent by-election and make their case for why their religion should allow them to ignore the electorate.

They were not elected to represent the Catholic Church, they were elected to represent all of their constituents. If they put their personal religious beliefs ahead of the Constitution then they are acting fraudulently unless they made it clear to their constituents that they would put their religion first when voting on legislation.

They have a choice to accpet or reject X. Haven't you heard..?

There's a vote in the Dail in the coming months...

The Mad Hatter

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

They have a choice to accpet or reject X. Haven't you heard..?

No, they don't. Haven't you been listening?

seamus

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

So, in your view the Eucharist should be available to all, no matter their deeds..?

Aren't the church only allowed to deny the eucharist to people who've been excommunicated?

Also, considering what the eucharist means in your religion in regards to salvation, it seems deliciously ironic that you would support denying the eucharist to sinners, when surely they are the ones most in need of forgiveness and salvation?

Delirium

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

They have a choice to accpet or reject X. Haven't you heard..?

There's a vote in the Dail in the coming months...

You know well that they must legislate for X, it has been pointed out to numerous times.

robindch

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Salvation is available to everyone, if they choose to accept it...:)

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Correct...

Silvio, you may not have had time to read Dade's warning yesterday about "Drive-by one-liners".

If you continue to post in this silly, nose-thumbing style, you will be banned from A+A for your third and final time.

Silvio.Dante

seamus wrote: »

Aren't the church only allowed to deny the eucharist to people who've been excommunicated?

They excommunicate thmeselves by their unrepented acts...

Silvio.Dante

robindch wrote: »

Silvio, you may not have had time to read Dade's warning yesterday about "Drive-by one-liners".

If you continue to post in this silly, nose-thumbing style, you will be banned from A+A for your third and final time.

Oh stop it for pity's sake...

If my presence here offends you so much go right ahead and ban me but quit the sanctimonious pomposity...

Silvio.Dante

koth wrote: »

You know well that they must legislate for X, it has been pointed out to numerous times.

There's no legislation until its passed by the Dail. If a majority reject X legislation, there is no legislation...