What is amazing is that they got through this with a straight face.
The “Dope” ??? 
I guess I’d like to see a cite on that. Also, the Republican view on immigration seems to be turning off Hispanic voters (also largely Catholic!), but all that is really for another thread. I’m more interested in your answers to these questions from my earlier post:
How many core Catholic tenets can one violate and still be considered Catholic by the church? Can one skip church? Use birth control? Have pre-marital sex? Support the death penalty? Get a divorce? Have an abortion?
What’s your view on the recent excommunication of the nun (and, basically, the whole hospital) where an abortion was performed in order to save the life of that mother? Was the bishop who did the excommunication right or wrong?
What is the official Catholic view on people who die without being baptized? Does it matter whether they had the opportunity to be baptized?
I don’t know what kind of conservative you are, but it seems that some forms of fiscal conservative that would deny welfare and health care to the poorest among us seem to go against Catholic teaching. What is your view on that?
What is your view on the Iraq war? I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that the Catholic church was against it, and many conservatives were for it.
What is your view on condom programs in Africa?
(I know there has already been some discussion about the Iraq war, but only as it is somehow analogous to abortion , so I’m interested in what your view on it was, given the Vatican’s apparent opposition)
The Straight Dope, as in “Straight Dope Message Board”, this very board.
Yeah, dem ignorant blacks always be voting for the black guy. Instead following whatever dog-whistle calls the ‘conservatives’. Or basing their decision on whatever ‘they’ think is most important.
Where did I justify murdering babies? I’ve admitted that abortion is abhorrent. All things being equal, I’ll vote for the pro-life candidate every time. But, all things are not equal, so a candidate’s position on abortion is only one factor I consider.
Equally important is, what policies does the candidate favor that make abortion less necessary in the view of pregnant women? President Obama may be pro-choice, but I bet his policies will result in a lot fewer abortions in the long run than President Bush’s because they give women better options.
I answered you question. If you want to ridicule the beliefs of one sixth of the world’s poulation, that is not why I made this thread. I am not saying you have to agree with them, I just don’t like my core beliefs ridiculed. :mad:
The Eucharist is called the Sum and Summit of Catholic worship. And let me add: At the last supper, Jesus said “Take, eat, this is my Body”. He kept his face straight too.
.
Christ needs a spell checker
LOL. Sorry. Duhhh! :o
I don’t know about HIM, but I sure do. I am bad with typos
.
OP will hopefully forgive me for jumping in, but yinz are swarming him a bit.
Anyway, you can violate them all and still be considered Catholic. Even if you’re excommunicated, you’re still “Catholic”, though you cannot receive the sacraments until you’ve repented of what it was that got you excommunicated. The point is, if you wilfully violate a binding tenet of the religion, you’re in the state of sin, and remain so until you’ve sincerely confessed of your sin. People that wilfully skip church, continue to use birth control for contraceptive purposes, etc, cannot receive the Sacrament until they’ve repented sincerely.
Do you have a reputable cite? OP may not be familiar. Seems to me that if the child has to die in order to preserve the life of the mother, the law of “double effect” (ask your local theologian) would permit sacrificing the child.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM
OP would probably say that there is no explicit teaching on that. I would probably respond that the Pope’s recent encyclicals, especially Caritas in Veritate say a fair bit about the duty of world governments to provide welfare and health care to the poorest amont us. Reasonable Catholics may differ.
Okay, end of hijack, sorry OP, just trying to grab a shovel here.
Sorry that it came out that way. And I respect your voting record.
But you did seem to diminish the act by saying babies are not innocent. No baby has commited a personal sin.
And “Original Sin” is misunderstood by most people. “Original Sin” is actually the lack of sanctifying gace according to Catholic theology.
Adam and Eve were created in a state of grace. By their sin, they fell from grace. Therefore when we are born, we are born without the sanctifying grace neccessary for the Beatific Vision. That’s really what Original Sin is all about.
Didn’t mean to insult, but their argument was basically “I know it looks,and behaves, exactly like bread and wine, but you just have to believe it’s been changed because someone said that Jesus said so.” So, a girl with a wheat allergy still can’t eat it. The alcohol in the wine is still there. But, it is literally the body and blood of Christ. I’m not sure that’s what “literally” means. Maybe it depends on the what the definition of “is” is?
Beniamino gave some great answers there. Thanks
If you start a thread called “Ask the Catholic”, especially on this board, you must accept that some people will ridicule your beliefs. You don’t have to like it, but it may happen. I will agree that if we want to know more about your beliefs or those of people like you, and how they influence your behaviour, we should refrain from ridiculing them. But this said, there is no reason we should consider Catholic beliefs, or religious beliefs in general, as more untouchable than any other belief.
Yinz? Are you from Pittsburgh?
Here is one: http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/st-joseph’s-hospital-phoenix-desert
I don’t think it’s a hijack, but I’m still interested in the OP’s view.
Yes, thank you Beniamino. terry – can I have your view of the Pope’s encyclical regarding governments caring for the poorest among us? And, of the Vatican’s disapproval of the Iraq war?
That may be so, but other Christian sects do not necessarily believe in the literal transubstantiation into the actual blood and body. (Do any others? The various Orthodox churches do, I guess, but I don’t think Lutherans do, maybe Anglicans?)
The idea here depends on the concepts of substance and accidents.
It was Aristotle who first formalized the distinction between the essential properties of an item and its accidental properties. Consider a sphere. A sphere must be round. Its outer surface must be, at every point, equidistant from its center. That’s the key element of being a sphere.
A sphere may be red, green, small, large… all those are accidental properties of the sphere. A particular sphere may be tiny and green; another may be large and orange. Even if we systematically sought out and destroyed every single green sphere, so that none on earth remained, we still couldn’t say that “not being green” was an essential element of a sphere, since it would still be possible to have a green sphere.
So, now the bread. The essence of bread, the “breadiness,” if you will, is similarly not tied to its physically observable and testable properties. Aristotle identified nine separate accidental elements:
[ul]
[li]Quality[/li][li]Quantity[/li][li]Relation[/li][li]Where[/li][li]When[/li][li]Position[/li][li]Having[/li][li]Action[/li][li]Passion [/li][/ul]
The tenth is “Substance,” and refers to fundamental ontological dependence. The bread’s substance is changed when consecrated by the priest into the Body of Christ. This does not change the bread’s quality, quantity, relation, location, period of time present, or position.
So it’s not quite “what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” It’s more like, “What are we talking about when we say the bread IS _______?”
The bread is white. Well, after consecration, it’s still white.
The bread is hard. Well, after consecration, it’s still hard.
The bread is present on the altar. Well, after consecration, it’s still on the altar.
But… the bread’s substance is bread. Well, after consecration, it’s the Body of Christ. Even though all its accidental properties remain the same.
You want an explanation? Here you go. But you might be better off with “It’s a mystery” (in either sense of the word).
I have not read the encyclical so I can’t really say.
But regarding encyclicals in general, let me say this: They are given their due reverence because of their source. One must keep in mind two things though: The different “levels” of Catholic teaching, and the Church’s prime mission to spread the Gospel & the fact that politics is not its prime mission.
Catholics can come down on either side of the Iraq war and still be faithfull Catholics. It has to do with the Just War doctrine, and whether the Iraq war was justifiable. The argument can be made either way. So that’s pretty much that in a nutshell.
As for the different “levels” of Catholic teaching: Not all teachings are Dogmatic, or even doctrinal. “Dogma” MUST be believed by all Catholics: Failure to do so invokes in the “H=Word” (Heresy). Encylicals are not Dogmatic. That is not to say they should not be given due deference, but they are what they are.
One should note the warm relationship that was displayed between George W. Bush & Pope Benedict, and the rather less warm relations between Pope Benedict and Obama. The smallest of actions on the part of a Pope speak volumes.
.
So true. It tells us quite a bit about this Pope.