Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Every nation has what’s called an inherent right to self defense when attacked. That justified retaliation. L Qaeda attacked us. It was based there. Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11/01. The Pope said no clearly no to a pending invasion of Iraq in what BushSo why would you support a war against a country that did not attack the US,
You're wrong. There are many great bishops and canonized popes who say Catholics aren't allowed to support those who give aid and comfort to Communists, which national Democrat politicians do. There are also some great bishops who say politicians who support abortion should be excommunicated.NFBW wrote: Sure they can. It’s called voting for the lesser of two evils. Republican candidates can easily be seen as more are evil than Democrat candidates as a whole in the eyes of the pro-life Catholic who well formed conscience for evil treatment of viable innocent human beings. Bush a Republican started a needless war that killed hundreds of thousands which was enough evil to last for generations of voters.
Have you ever paid attention to
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - Part I - The U.S. Bishops’ Reflection on Catholic Teaching and Political Life
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - Part I - The U.S. Bishops’ Reflection on Catholic Teaching and Political Life
First|Prev|Next|Last Introduction Our redemption has a social dimension because "God, in Christ, redeems not only the individual person, but also . . ...www.usccb.org
Relevant Excerpts:35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.36. When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate's commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.
A practicing Catholic can be pro-choice and allow other people to choose abortion while he remains personally opposed to the practice and chooses a candidate if Jesse evil. Why
Proof of that is almost half of Catholics vote Democrat and they take communion and guess what Mashmont the Vatican takes their offerings don’t they?
Catholic Democrats, even those who are pro-life, believe that there are morally grave reasons to vote for a pro-choice Democrat over a Republican who wants to criminalize abortion.
In "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," the U.S. bishops explicitly say:
- "As Catholics we are not single-issue voters." (#42)
- A voter "should take into account a candidate's commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching." (#37)
- "A Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position [on abortion] may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons." (#35)
My opinion is that your conscience Mashmont is not well formed yet.
22FEB09-POST#1109
abcnews.go.com
I'm not "saved". That concept is not Catholic doctrine.
Catholics obviously believed in being saved in the end. But the concept you're talking about is the Protestant belief of being 'saved' while alive on earth. Catholic belief is we won't know if we are saved and therefore Heaven-bound until the moment of our death.NFBW wrote: Salvation “sais in Catholic doctrine.
Consider the following quote from Vatican II: “All children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be the more severely judged” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 2, 14, p. 337).
22FEB10-POST#
NFBW wrote: You have written an untruth. I PERSONALLY DO NOT EMBRACE ABORTION. However I embrace birth control. I have not ever impregnated a woman and embraced abortion as an irresponsible way out. I have fathered two children and devoted my life to raising them to beautiful responsible adults with s well formed conscience like mine. After the birth of my second it’s been made sure it won’t happen again. You have been informed of my position on abortion - if you attack with that same vile “false witness” nonsense again we will all know we are dealing with a common liar. It’s up to you if you want that Mashmont label attached to your exalted state of religious belief.I realize you're not a practicing Christian, and therefore embrace abortion,
It's a copout to say you oppose abortion for yourself, but think it's fine for others. Would you say the same about a woman killing her newborn? The fact is, if you say it's OK for others, you are giving your blessing to it. You're sitting here writing long screeds justifying abortion. That means you're pushing it as an acceptable option. That's vile.NFBW wrote: You have written an untruth. I PERSONALLY DO NOT EMBRACE ABORTION. However I embrace birth control. I have not ever impregnated a woman and embraced abortion as an irresponsible way out. I have fathered two children and devoted my life to raising them to beautiful responsible adults with s well formed conscience like mine. After the birth of my second it’s been made sure it won’t happen again. You have been informed of my position on abortion - if you attack with that same vile “false witness” nonsense again we will all know we are dealing with a common liar. It’s up to you if you want that Mashmont label attached to your exalted state of religious belief.
22FEB10-POST#1125
It's a copout to say you oppose abortion for yourself, but think it's fine for others. Would you say the same about a woman killing her newborn? The fact is, if you say it's OK for others, you are giving your blessing to it. You're sitting here writing long screeds justifying abortion. That means you're pushing it as an acceptable option. That's vile.
NFBW wrote: I do not think it’s fine for others. I do not agree with your religion that teaches that life begins at conception. - - - It’s not an argument any stranger should make in order to impose a belief on every pregnant woman based solely on one’s religious belief or what one thinks from early childhood religious indoctrination. - - - Furthermore BECAUSE (1) I am blessed to be living in a nation of guaranteed freedom from being required to believe what you have concocted in your intolerant religion driven mind, and (2) the exact moment when life begins being a part of the mystery of life, means you and I both have no say in the matter of a non-Catholic pregnant woman, unrelated to us, deciding that the what goes on inside her own body is a matter for her to decide. 22FEB10-POST#1128It's a copout to say you oppose abortion for yourself, but think it's fine for others
I don’t say it’s ok for others. It is wrong but it is not illegal. It is not immoral outside of Catholicism. I oppose any religious organization such as the Catholic Christian Church imposing their peculiar matters of conscience regarding the mysterious aspects of life onto the laws of the land..if you say it's OK for others,
You're tripping over yourself there mate. You say it's wrong, but not immoral outside the Catholic church. Aren't "wrong and immoral" the same? You're trying to have it both ways.I don’t say it’s ok for others. It is wrong but it is not illegal. It is not immoral outside of Catholicism. I oppose any religious organization such as the Catholic Christian Church imposing their peculiar matters of conscience regarding the mysterious aspects of life onto the laws of the land..
You continue to call my religion intolerant, yet you say abortion is wrong for others. You're not being consistent, mate.NFBW wrote: I do not think it’s fine for others. I do not agree with your religion that teaches that life begins at conception. - - - It’s not an argument any stranger should make in order to impose a belief on every pregnant woman based solely on one’s religious belief or what one thinks from early childhood religious indoctrination. - - - Furthermore BECAUSE (1) I am blessed to be living in a nation of guaranteed freedom from being required to believe what you have concocted in your intolerant religion driven mind, and (2) the exact moment when life begins being a part of the mystery of life, means you and I both have no say in the matter of a non-Catholic pregnant woman, unrelated to us, deciding that the what goes on inside her own body is a matter for her to decide. 22FEB10-POST#1128
NFBW wrote: Please try harder to read my words carefully so we can have DNC civil political discourse without me spending so much time correcting your comprehension problem. I wrote about “what you have concocted in your intolerant religion driven mind,” because not all Catholics are intolerant like you.You continua to call my religion intolerant,
I am blessed to be living in a nation of guaranteed freedom from being required to believe what you have concocted in your intolerant religion driven mind,
The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, &c.
You're tripping over yourself there mate. You say it's wrong, but not immoral outside the Catholic church.
Al Qaeda was based in 40 different countries including Saudi Arabia. In fact multiple 9-11 hijackers were from there. There was a much better case that Saudi Arabia was more culpable for the attacks than Afghanistan. The country of Afghanistan did not attack us, nor were any of the hijackers from there, and the pope did NOT lend his blessing to attack that country. You are inconsistent in picking and choosing which war you favor. I am not.Every nation has what’s called an inherent right to self defense when attacked. That justified retaliation. L Qaeda attacked us. It was based there. Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11/01. The Pope said no clearly no to a pending invasion of Iraq in what Bush
The science is clear. Human life begins at the moment of conception. That is not up to debate. Only those who want to justify abortion claim it is.NFBW wrote: Please try harder to read my words carefully so we can have DNC civil political discourse without me spending so much time correcting your comprehension problem. I wrote about “what you have concocted in your intolerant religion driven mind,” because not all Catholics are intolerant like you.
NFBW wrote: Our third President was intolerant specifically of Catholicism as an intolerant organization in his time due to its centuries of history in EUROPE.
SO he helped design a governmental system to make all religions tolerable even to each other with the separation of church and state.
My belief in freedom of choice on abortion, despite my own personal view on its effect on moral behavior in Anericsn society is it’s connection to the unalienable rights within freedom of conscience for a woman and the right to control her individual body regardless of the potential for the (personal God given) growth in the CATHOLIC concept of life in her womb. - - - No human knows the exact moment individual liberty begins and terminating that growth becomes the certain deprivation of inalienable rights of a newborn baby. I can agree it occurs prior to birth but when? .. . . Because humans are not apprised of the matter of that moment we have compromised on a moment between birth and conception so the case need not be litigated every time a woman gets pregnant. Compromise is the enemy of intolerance in your case Mashmont as I perceive you to be one of those traditional American Christians who argue that the Bible and the orthodox Christian religion are where notions of human rights derive and must rest and be law.
In America you are wrong. I get my understanding of my unalienable human rights from many of our founders but specifically the champion of freedom of religion. - - - Thomas Jefferson founder and third President who believed in a rights granting God, but at the same time hentire adult life, rejected every single tenet of orthodox Christianity as He did in his October 31, 1819 letter to William Short, where he listed by name and rejected the following:
That is what I wish would be discussed instead of being told what I believe is depraved Communist Atheist and vile., Can you get beyond or use that the only reason you are here?
22FEB10-POST#1132
There is no science that proves the existence of a personal god and/or the moment when God personally creates a new life. Conception is a biological function that exist in nature. The question is at what moment does spiritual human life begin after the biological function of conception.The science is clear. Human life begins at the moment of conception.
No, it isn't. The question is when life begins. And that question has been answered. Sentience is simply another stage of development.There is no science that proves the existence of a personal god and/or the moment when God personally creates a new life. Conception is a biological functionThat exist in nature. The question is spiritual life begins at conception.
You are inconsistent in picking and choosing which war you favor. I am not.
Before, you said the question was when human life begins. Now you’re going back to when biological life begins. why? Science has no capability to produce evidence of the workings of God. As a Catholic you should know that?. The question is when life begins.
Same thing. Human life. Biological life. You're the one who tried to introduce something else. That's why I specified biological as opposed to 'spiritual' that you brought up.Before, you said the question was when human life begins. Now you’re going back to when biological life begins. why? Science has no capability to produce evidence of the workings of God. As a Catholic you should know that?
