A Birth Control Quiz

The point is that while the RCC supposedly is claiming to have respect for the unborn souls - the actual fact is - that RC citizens vote "overwhelmingly" for political parties with "pro-abortion" platforms.

I appreciate the attempts to misdirect that issue by clinging to the aberrant views of some within the more conservative typically "pro-life" party, but my point is that ONE of the political makes it a "distinctive" of its platform to be explicitly and consistently pro-abortion. How curious that it is THAT party that Catholics are "most" willing to promote.

My question - is how is it that the RCC with its heavy handed view on pre-born life -- is churning out so many pro-abortion votes in the US? And it is not just that there cases were you find "some" - rather it is the overwhelming majority such that the "catholic vote" is characterized in that way.

Surely a Catholic has been allowed to think about that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That kind of nonsensical blaming-the-baptists-for-what-the-episcopalians-do defense - could only have worked in the dark ages.

Like blaming the Roman Catholics for what the Eastern Orthodox church did in Russia??

How about blaming the Pope's in France for what the Popes in Rome did?

Why not just blame the RCC for those that she chose to burn at the stake and blame the others for those crimes they committed. Leaving the blame at the doorstep of the ones who did it.

But there is one case of "inherited excuse" and that is in the case of the Catholic Reformers - the fact that they carried some "catholicism with them" in the form of intolerance of some of those who opposed them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Any "Catholic" who votes for a candidate who has a pro-abortion stance has sinned against the Lord.

 

I have read parts of a whole lot of them. I have read both pros and cons. I have not simply read the positive or negative. I have read the catechism. I have read Trent. I have read many things.

Come on, Carson. You know this isn't true. Show me evidence. I asked Thessalonian to answer the issues he put forth. I am perfeclty willing to be convinced. But you have to meet the standard. And you have to realize that the positions I hold I did not come to easily. Therefore, teh standard is high because the process of coming to them was high. My feeling is that you are simply not willing to put forth the evidence here because you know it can be refuted. For instance, I read teh Humana Generis last night. It was not convincing in the least because of the weakness of the argumentation in it and the assumptions that underlie its premise. I cannot grant those assumptions because they are not biblical assumptions. They are the assumptions of men.

Yes, he did give us a church. But the RCC left that church long ago when they reject his doctrine. The test of a church is not history or the name on the door. It is the doctrine that they hold. Anyone who looks at the text can find answers. The arbitrator is the Holy Spirit working through the word.

Surely you are not that naive and I would like to think that you are not blatantly dishonest about this. Anyone who has even remotely studied church history know that the meaning of "outside" the church has changed many many times over the years. Certainly you have had enough church history to know that. Or do they not teach you that part in Catholic seminary?

Did you think I disagree with that??

The word of God is self-attesting. You think that the church decided the canon. I think that God did.

I agree with this. This is standard orthodox doctrine. Why you bring this up here, so out of place, makes me wonder how engaged you are truly are in this conversation.

Assuming you are talking about the apostles, they are not mere fallible men. In the capacity as authors of Scripture, they are inspired, moved by the Holy Spirit. That is common doctrine; I can't believe you didn't know that. Why would you be asking this??

Yet again, you deny what I have explicitly said. I am not following my own mind. I am following Scripture. Yes, we have different authorities. You follow your mind to the RCC; I follow my mind to Scripture. God gave us one; he did not give us the other.

 

Once again Bob has to come in an redirect the conversation from contraception to his distorted view of history that has Popes slaughtering half the population of Europe single handedly. It gets old Bob. You don't understand history and you don't understand truth. You just use as a bandaide for disfunctional childhood.

Blessings

 

That kind of nonsensical blaming-the-baptists-for-what-the-episcopalians-do defense - could only have worked in the dark ages.

Like blaming the Roman Catholics for what the Eastern Orthodox church did in Russia??

How about blaming the Pope's in France for what the Popes in Rome did?

Why not just blame the RCC for those that she chose to burn at the stake and blame the others for those crimes they committed. Leaving the blame at the doorstep of the ones who did it.

But there is one case of "inherited excuse" and that is in the case of the Catholic Reformers - the fact that they carried some "catholicism with them" in the form of intolerance of some of those who opposed them.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob,

You still have not replied to the post I made earlier in this thread (to you).....here it is again (in part):

The General Conference of SDA's president announced to the press, "that although we walk the fence we lean TOWARD abortions" because of the problems of world overpopulation.

This is an older quote...what does the SDA president say today?

and what about this:


"The doctor who is the king of abortion and owns more than 20 abortion mills on the west coast is named Edward Allred. He has personally bragged about doing tens of thousands of abortions and his many clinics into the millions. He is the unborn butcher who needs to be written up in history as the Hitler of the innocent unborn. I know about him because he used to be a
Seventh-day Adventist. He graduated from the SDA college in Riverside CA. He has given millions of dollars to his alma matter and even gives FREE abortions to many unwed pregnant students---especially med students at Loma Linda Medical
University." He was recently disfellowshipped from the SDA church................for
gambling!!!


LaRae

 

1968

"Pope Paul VI, in a prophetic way, warned all what would happen if these unlawful birth control methods were used. He said there would be a lowering of moral standards and marital infidelity. In addition, he mentioned that young people would be tempted easily to break the moral law. Paul VI also said women would become mere objects for men’s satisfaction. Abortion, divorce rates (50 - 60 %), teen pregnancies, prostitution, etc., all show the accuracy of Paul VI’s predictions. "


From Humanae Vitae:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM

17. Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based, if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificial birth control. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.

Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies. Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be most efficacious? In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family, or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy.

Consequently, if the mission of generating life is not to be exposed to the arbitrary will of men, one must necessarily recognize insurmountable limits to the possibility of man's domination over his own body and its functions; limits which no man, whether a private individual or one invested with authority, may licitly surpass. And such limits cannot be determined otherwise than by the respect due to the integrity of the human organism and its functions, according to the principles recalled earlier, and also according to the correct understanding of the "principle of totality" illustrated by our predecessor Pope Pius XII.[21]

18. It can be foreseen that this teaching will perhaps not be easily received by all: Too numerous are those voices—amplified by the modern means of propaganda—which are contrary to the voice of the Church. To tell the truth, the Church is not surprised to be made, like her divine Founder, a "sign of contradiction",[22] yet she does not because of this cease to proclaim with humble firmness the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical. Of such laws the Church was not the author, nor consequently can she be their arbiter; she is only their depositary and their interpreter, without ever being able to declare to be licit that which is not so by reason of its intimate and unchangeable opposition to the true good of man.

In defending conjugal morals in their integral wholeness, the Church knows that she contributes towards the establishment of a truly human civilization; she engages man not to abdicate from his own responsibility in order to rely on technical means; by that very fact she defends the dignity of man and wife. Faithful to both the teaching and the example of the Savior, she shows herself to be the sincere and disinterested friend of men, whom she wishes to help, even during their earthly sojourn, "to share as sons in the life of the living God, the Father of all men."[23]


ABC is involvement in the culture of death. Satan has blinded you people. Repent. For the kingdom of God is at hand.

 

He was right.

 

Correction! Any 'Christian of any denomination' who votes for a candidate who has a pro-abortion stance has sinned against the Lord!

 

The point is that while the RCC supposedly is claiming to have respect for the unborn souls - the actual fact is - that RC citizens vote "overwhelmingly" for political parties with "pro-abortion" platforms.

You are confusing the rebellious wickedness of the laity with the official documents of the Church. The Church has made it crystal clear to all in Her fold that it is a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion politician. The rebellion and general political and theological stupidity of the laity does not change the fact that the Church is on the side of life.

I appreciate the attempts to misdirect that issue by clinging to the aberrant views of some within the more conservative typically "pro-life" party, but my point is that ONE of the political makes it a "distinctive" of its platform to be explicitly and consistently pro-abortion. How curious that it is THAT party that Catholics are "most" willing to promote.

It is an open SCANDAL and reproach upon Christ that ANY Catholic would think to vote for a pro-abortion candidate of any party. BTW....that pro-death stance is not just particular to the Demonrats...there are Ratpublican politicians who espouse it too. After years of being force fed political hacks who support the killing of babies, I changed my party to Independant. After all, I jumped party lines and voted twice for Democrat Bob Casey, the pro-life CATHOLIC governor of Pennsylvania. And I let the Ratpublican party poobahs know about my choice also.

My question - is how is it that the RCC with its heavy handed view on pre-born life -- is churning out so many pro-abortion votes in the US? And it is not just that there cases were you find "some" - rather it is the overwhelming majority such that the "catholic vote" is characterized in that way.

Why, sir, is standing for LIFE called "heavy handed" in your opinion? I would think that you, as a professing Christian, would be rather glad that life is being defended against unjust killing. Seems strange to me that you pour such contempt upon the pro-life position.

Fr. Mike had a homily before an election in which he said that going up into the "coal region" of central Pennyslvania (which is HEAVY Catholic) and seeing statues of the Blessed Virgin Mary next to a sign for some baby killing political hack was like walking through the Twilight Zone. He just shook his head and asked rhetorically "WHAT are they thinking?"

Good question.

We have a pro-death governor now -- compliments of the Catholic vote in Pennsylvania. He has just paved the way for a new murder sanctorium to be opened in Erie.

Keep it up Gov. Ed Rendell. Hell is waiting for you too.

 

And I wouldn't confuse the rantings of our favorite Catholic Senator from Massachusetts with the teachings of the RCC. Ted Kennedy is an evil man, and I know he doesn't represent the majority of serious Catholics.

There is no question in my mind that any abortion, regardless of circumstance, is abomination. But I believe there are methods of birth control that are perfectly allright. Preventing life does not equal ending life.

 

Actually Sen Kennedy has become Episcopelian...when he married again he married in their Church and now attends their services.


LaRae

 

I agree that it is not abortion but here is the problem with your thinking. Scripture everywhere speaks of the blessings of children. We do not even see the blessing that they present to us. They are intended for our growth ironically. Spiritual growth. Even difficult children are meant for our benifit. Handicapped children are meant for our benefit. They are all blessings. They are our opportunity to live the beatitudes. Now noone would have blamed my wife and I if we had stopped 6. In those early weeks of our 7th I think my wife would have said had she had it to do all over again she would not. You see our latest child is hearing impaired. But God was not foolish for sending us this child. He has been the greatest blessing of them all. The most joyful. The funniest. We have learned more from him than any of the others. We have had people come in to our lives that have blessed us far more than we could imagine. Now my wife says if you have another hearing impaired child for us that is fine.

I will not say that there is never reason to space births or to delay pregnancy. But I will say that as God is generous with life so should we be. To say I am only going to accept two or three of your blessings is wrong. (inability to have children is another issue). To worry about what we can afford when it is God who provides is foolishness. To reject the blessings that he has for us is a lack of faith. To destroy the fertility that he gave us is simply wrong.

Blessings.

 

I've run across statements to this effect a number of times, but on his Senate website he still identifies himself as "Catholic."

I, for one, wish he'd stop.

Mark

 

#1. I did not see the source that you quoted - what was it?

#2. There is no doctrinal statement by SDAs saying that the church is "pro-abortion".

#3. Our Church "president" is an administrative leader - not a doctrinal or theological one. He does not set/determine doctrine for the church.

That is published in the 27 fundamental beliefs - they are posted on line - and you are free to view them and ask about anything that appears to remotely condone abortions.

These are of course "the details".

You say that he is an ex-SDA member - I have no knowledge of who he is - or the details of what he does.

I can tell you that when I contacted the previous GC president asking about the administration's position on Abortion the answer he gave was that the church was only supporting it administratively in special cases such as those where the mother's life was in danger. However even then - it was not making a doctrinal statement.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You hear that now and then from a Catholic posting on the web - but still the "action" by vast majority is that Catholics are voting for pro-abortion platforms in "droves".

My question is about the "mechanism" that would have that curious result - given the RCC's strong position on pro-life.

(But of course there are some RC's on this board who can only read in that - yada-yada-yada-something-bad-about-catholics).

In Christ,

Bob

 

I have read several pages of this thread but not all of it.

I would like to add here that I think it is possible that mankind, with the number of people presently on the planet, have substantially fulfilled God's ongoing command to "Be fruitful and multiply" and to "fill the earth."

Does God want there to be more humans on the planet than the earth can support in bad crop years without the genetic modification of His creation?

There are a lot more people on the planet now than there were when the early Protestants made the statements quoted in this thread. That cannot be irrelevant. One could argue that the earth could comfortably feed more people, I suppose. But some scientists believe that there is impending climactic change in store for the earth...so I would be careful in asserting such a proposition with certainty.

What did God mean when He told us to "fill the earth?" That the earth should consist of a mass of humanity which, but for a miracle, could not be fed from the natural abundance of the creation?

Whether birth control is sinful is something which might change as the population of the earth changes because it is to be judged on the basis of humanity's fulfilling God's instructions.

Thoughts?

 

Moral relativism - one of the fruits of sola scriptura.

 

I don't know about birth control, but it does make sense out of Jesus statement that it is better for people to not get married and have children.

See Matthew 19:1-12.