CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholicism > News and Politics
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 27th May 2009, 06:25 PM
TheGiftOfLife
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron,
Thanks for putting this in more technical terms. It's very important that people in the forum get the facts because, at some point, we, as a group, might be very instrumental in spreading the truth about Catholicism and the coming events.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 27th May 2009, 06:36 PM
js1975 js1975 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 914
Default

Sure, Obama's actions appear to be anti-Catholic/Semetic.

I believe he is not though. I think he has embraced the idea of separation of church and state, and also the idea of upholding a citizens right to choose how they want to live their life.

I think in his act of embracing these concepts, he had to decide against things such as abortion and the definition of marriage.

Perhaps I am naive, or just hopeful, but he would be a great Catholic once his eyes are opened to the truth. This is speculation to what is in his heart, and because he shows little shame, I believe he has a high degree of ignorance which serves as a layer of protection.

-jay
__________________
2cor 7:1 Therefore, having these promises, most beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 28th May 2009, 04:10 AM
Sacredcello's Avatar
Sacredcello Sacredcello is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by js1975 View Post
Sure, Obama's actions appear to be anti-Catholic/Semetic.

I believe he is not though. I think he has embraced the idea of separation of church and state, and also the idea of upholding a citizens right to choose how they want to live their life.

I think in his act of embracing these concepts, he had to decide against things such as abortion and the definition of marriage.

Perhaps I am naive, or just hopeful, but he would be a great Catholic once his eyes are opened to the truth. This is speculation to what is in his heart, and because he shows little shame, I believe he has a high degree of ignorance which serves as a layer of protection.

-jay

I agree with you that Obama is not anti-Catholic, but he is highly ignorant about the cause of abortion which is the widespread use of contraception which is never 100% effective. Of course, you could say that he and George Bush have this in common. Do you really believe that George and Laura Bush had twin daughters and then suddenly became infertile for the rest of their childbearing years? This is not at all likely. Therefore, his opposition to abortion is just lip service. I am not going to vote for someone who ignores the root cause of abortion, but tries to use the topic of abortion to get him or herself elected by pointing the finger at vulnerable young pregnant women, but doing nothing to help them with programs that would ensure the safe delivery of these unwanted children.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 28th May 2009, 05:34 AM
TheGiftOfLife
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by js1975 View Post
I think he has embraced the idea of separation of church and state
-jay

The concept of separation of church and state is one that is most misunderstood!

What most people think it is, is actually and completely the opposite of what it really means.

The Puritans came to this country to escape religious persecution. The USA is founded on the freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.

Separation of church and state clearly means that the government CAN NOT establish a state religion OR prohibit the free practice of religion.

A shocking example of the need for this can be found in England where they have an established religion called the Church of England. In England it is against the law for the prime minister to be a member of any other church other than the Church of England. Could you imagine if this was the case in the USA???

So, remember that separation of church and state DOES NOT MEAN that a politician cannot bring his beliefs to the table, on the contrary, it means that the state cannot tell him that he cannot use his morals and standards and convictions and still be a religious person

So, if anything Obama is the opposite of what you seem to think he is since he claims to be a “Christian”, and so is Biden and Pelosi and every other Liberal Democrat Pro-Abort who is a Catholic. Separation of church and states does not mean you check you morals at the door and play it both ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacredcello View Post
he is highly ignorant about the cause of abortion which is the widespread use of contraception which is never 100% effective. Of course, you could say that he and George Bush have this in common

God Bless President Bush for sticking to his morals and convictions and not changing with the political wind.

BTW Bush is not a Catholic at this point and to judge his possible use of contraception based on our Catholic teaching and putting him in the same pool with Obama who favors infanticide is disingenuous.

Ron, it seems that this forum is getting way to political and I would suggest that you flag when you see unfair discussion based on emotions getting in the way. Granted I am a bit guilty as well but I am reacting and not initiating the bashing of political figures based on emotion and giving incorrect comparisons. Anytime I have critiqued Obama , it had to do with stating factual information that he is a supporter of Abortion. I do not make unfounded suggestions or comparisons.

I think we need to stick more to learning about Catholicism and stop the unfounded arguments for the sake of Bush Bashing!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 28th May 2009, 02:46 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,570
Default

I'm going to permit discussion of politics in the news and politics forum. Members are free to disagree on political questions, within the limits of definitive Catholic teaching on faith and morals.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 28th May 2009, 04:23 PM
js1975 js1975 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 914
Default

TheGiftOfLife,

You are correct in your point regarding the true meaning of separation of church and state. Things have really been twisted around.

-jay
__________________
2cor 7:1 Therefore, having these promises, most beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 28th May 2009, 11:47 PM
Sacredcello's Avatar
Sacredcello Sacredcello is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGiftOfLife View Post
I think we need to stick more to learning about Catholicism

According to Catholic teaching, the use of contraception is a gravely immoral act. It is not merely due to the possible effects of contraception (divorce, adultery, etc) that makes it immoral. This is a consequentialist argument and the Church denies that consequentialism is the ultimate standard to evaluate anything. With contraception use, it is the act itself which changes the meaning of the marital act, and this is why the Church teaches that it is gravely immoral, in the same way that she teaches that homosexuality is gravely immoral. Just because the use of contraception is considered by many to be a private matter between spouses, it does not change the fact that each act of contraception is objectively immoral. There may be reduced culpability, just as there may be reduced culpability with someone who favors abortion rights. But, there is objective sin in both cases.

I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a politician who plays the pro-life card, but does nothing to help bring about an end to abortion, such as helping young pregnant women to find safe places to live during their pregnancies, for example. As Ron has said, we have already had 20 years of pro-life Presidents and we have seen no change in regard to the number of abortions that are performed. We should have had better than that, if these Presidents were truly pro-life, as they claimed during the election process.

It has already been established by Ron in this forum that one is not morally required to vote Republican in order to be a devout Catholic in good standing with the Church. I would not belong to this forum if this were the requirement, because that position is false.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 29th May 2009, 12:16 AM
js1975 js1975 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 914
Default

SacredCello,

I don't disagree. I wonder if there has ever been a practicing pro-life President in the past 50-75 years, or even ever.

It seems Pres. Bush is really a small ripple in a pretty big pond full of sin.

-jay
__________________
2cor 7:1 Therefore, having these promises, most beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 29th May 2009, 12:39 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,570
Default

To modify my position, it seems that Obama does not have a problem working with liberal Catholics, such as his new nominee to be the ambassador to the Vatican (a liberal theologian), and the new Supreme Court nominee, who seems politically fairly liberal. He does not seem to be able to work across the aisle with Catholics who are also conservative.

I'm still hoping that Obama will do some good while he is president. Perhaps Sotomayor will turn out to be a Souter-like appointee and end up eventually being a conservative Justice (by a renewal of her Catholic faith at a later time).
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 29th May 2009, 04:59 AM
TheGiftOfLife
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I am not suggesting that any of you vote republican. But voting for Obama knowing his abortion record makes you accountable for his promotion of abortion.

My point was that one can not pass judgment on the fact that president Bush MIGHT use contraception based on him only having 2 children. This is twisted logic.

Also, since im sure many of you are not very political, let me shed some light on what the president's power is over ending abortion. NONE AT THIS POINT!

Until the Supreme Court overturns roe and/or passes an amendment that defines personhood to be from the moment of conception, the only thing a president can do is publicly fund and promote abortions. BOTH of which Bush did not do via the Mexico Policy and by signing the Partial Birth Abortion Act. Both of which were overturned within DAYS of obama's inauguration by obama! Bush also made it illegal to create ANY embryos for stem cell research. Something obama fundeded MILLIONS for in his first weeks.

President Bush is extremely pro-life and not Catholic. He is not held accountable if he does not become Catholic and know the gravity of contraception and Catholic teaching.

Ron, please explain the concept that even if someone is Catholic, if they are not aware of the fact that they are sinning, they are not held accountable.

This treatment of President Bush is biased and unfair and to hold him accountable for the sins of contraception is utterly ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.