If it’s what’s available.
Heck one of the founders of the BBT was himself a priest. But for some reason or another this information seems to fail to get through to huge segments of the public.
(“They are so backwards on Thing A and Thing B, they must be super backwards on EVERYTHING!!!”, I suppose is the thinking.)
Sorry, if you are adamantly against abortion unless it helps you personally, that’s not much of a stance. Especially if you view abortion as murder.
It shouldn’t. If a congregation doesn’t like it, it can drop it’s affiliation with the movement, but if it wants to maintain it, it complies with its policies.
The movements don’t go out to areas where there isn’t a congregation, and start a mission that is supported financially by the national movement until it can support itself, with the goal of recruiting members in order to become self-supporting.
Congregations start because there are a lot of Jews in an area who start coming together and decide they are a congregation; they draw up a charter or a constitution. They may build or buy a building. They may decide to affiliate with one movement, more than one, or none.
My current congregation is affiliated with both the Conservative and the Reconstructionist movements. The last synagogue I belonged to was affiliated with no movement for more than 20 years, but at one point, after being without a rabbi for a few years, decided to affiliate with the Reform movement in order to host student rabbis, and have them there every Shabbat, and on the holidays to perform some rabbinical functions.
However, there are “musts,” and “permitteds.” In other words, things that a congregation is required to do, or to recognize, and things that the congregation is allowed to do or recognize.
Recognizing same-sex marriages is required of all three liberal movements. This means that anything that is extended to a heterosexual married couple, in terms of joint memberships, or whatever, MUST also be extended to same-sex couples who are legally married.
I think the current policy in all the liberal movements is that the rabbi MUST perform a marriage ceremony for any couple where both people are Jewish, at least one is a member of the congregation, they have a valid license in the jurisdiction, and there is no legal reason they should not be married (for example, if one is divorced, a get has been issued). However, I have not checked to make sure that this is the policy for the Conservative movement. I would need to check, because there was a time when rabbis were allowed to refuse same-sex couples-- it was when it was not legal in all states.
The movements did not all come along equally. The Reconstructionist movement allowed rabbis to say a blessing over same-sex couple IIRC, back in the 1980s, and Reform and Reconstructionist movements allowed congregations to choose to offer joint memberships to same-sex couples in the 1990s.
I’m pretty sure that since same-sex marriage has been allowed in the whole country, it has been required of all rabbis in all three liberal movements.
There is a fourth sort of denomination or something, of liberal Judaism called “Renewal.” It’s kind of new-agey, and very touchy-feely. Not my cup of tea at all. But they are very much OK with same-sex marriage. They are pretty new, though, and don’t currently ordain rabbis.
There are no aborted fetus cells used in any vaccine.
Except that the vaccine has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
If you don’t have a solid grasp of human biology, this is where it gets pretty confusing. To be clear, there are no vaccines that involve stem cells from aborted fetuses.
I could explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. All you need to do is look at a news source every once in a while. I don’t know why you insist people must explain stuff to you all the time. This is a well known problem for Catholics.
I just cited a news source.
Again, nobody id required to explain things to you. The problem is heavily publicized, bishops across the US have spoken out about it. Your lack of reading does not mean everyone has to do research for you. Seriously, you are an adult with internet access, this is childs play.
Well, other than you. DrDeth provided a cite that refutes your claim, while you say “Google it yourself”, which is lazy and unconvincing and not how it usually works here at the Dope.
Read the first line of the article he posted. The entire explanation for the problem is there but apparently he didn’t bother to read his own cite. Nor did you. If you really tell me you have not heard anything about this, I promise I will get you a link.
To be honest, I didn’t know a lick about this either, as our Catholic parish is on the progressive side of the spectrum, and not a single priest has ever raised it in their homilies or otherwise, but here’s the issue. Apparently, as a Catholic, the official “moral” stance is you can take the J&J vaccine if you don’t have any other choice, pretty much:
The other problem with this is local bishops are not all following the nothing wrong with J&J vaccine thing, and are saying people should not use it.
But this has turned into a hijack, so unless EinsteinsHund still needs a cite, I won’t hijack any further.
I hadn’t heard about that controversy either, and I’m still not convinced that it’s a general controversy among Catholics. The site DrDeth linked to mentions one Catholic parish in New Orleans speaking up against the J&J vaccine, but that’s hardly the whole Catholic church nor an official statement from the Vatican. And then the article explains that the vaccine itself does NOT contain stem cells produced from fetuses.
Me too. Fire insurance.
It’s the same part of the law that says that if gay marriage is allowed then all of the straight marriages currently existing are dissolved and the two partners will be forced into a gay marriage.
At least, that’s what the objectors seem to be afraid of.
From America, the official publication of the Society of Jesus in the United States:
An interesting take from the order of which Pope Francis was a member.