Athletes and religion

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from angeroo. Show angeroo's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    Jesus freaks, really?  If I call  homosexuals homofreaks is that ok with you?  Or is ok to be Jesus phobic but not homophobic?  Just asking.

    It's all OK.  Call it whatever you want.  We have that right.  I just used the "freaks" line to convey the fact that they (in your face christians) have no concept of logic.  People who act illogically can be called freaks.  What do you call the suicide bombers who say allah told them to kill innocent people?  Is that logical thinking?  I think to devote your life outdated concepts is a little freaky.  Does anyone here think the world is flat?  That was a belief in biblical times that has been negated by SCIENCE.  What other beliefs do we hold on to from pre-modern science times?   Except religion?  Good luck finding one...
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    "angeroo", now there is a sure fire moniker to warn one, of the subsequent drivel.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : I understand and respect your faith, but essentially you are suggesting that compromises can be made where the act in question is not a mortal sin or could lead to eternal damnation.  My point is that puts Catholicism in a unique class - if you dismiss any religious belief that is not a mortal sin, you are only providing protection for Catholics. In other words, you can't win this argument based on the severity of your religious convictions about contraception.  That is irrelevant, unless you are advocating for different levels of protection for each religion (in which case you will need to explain who decides what religions are entitled to what protections).  You have to go back to your original argument, which is that Church-run institutions can over-ride regulations governing their business and industry.  This was essentially the Blunt amendment - but you have to be prepared for the fallout. On another point, if a church-run institution prohibited contraception from his / her health plan, but an employee purchased it privately, is the church still complicit, having given the employee the money to purchase the contraception?
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]

    I don't think you understand what the church teaches about sin.

    Q. What is a mortal sin?

    A. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines a mortal sin as follows:

    "Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him." (C.C.C. # 1855)

    "Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the Sacrament of Confession." (C.C.C. # 1856)

    "Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself.     It results in the loss of charity and the private of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace.     If it is not redeemed by repentance of God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion to make choices for ever, with no turning back.     However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God." (C.C.C. # 1861)

    "To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin.     This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible.     Unrepented, it brings eternal death." (C.C.C. # 1874)


    Q. What is a venial sin?

    A. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines a venial sin as follows:

    "Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it." (To "subsist" means to "exist.") (C.C.C. # 1855)

    "Venial sin constitutes a moral disorder that is reparable by charity, which it allows to subsist in us." (C.C.C. # 1875)

    "One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law,or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent." (C.C.C. #. 1862)

    "Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment.     Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin.     However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God.     With God's grace it is humanly reparable.     'Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.'" (C.C.C. # 1863)




    We are talking about religious freedom here.  The state does not have the right to tell catholics they must provide something that goes against their religion.

    The church states that contraception in all its forms is a mortal sin.  Contraception goes against our religious beliefs.

    If other religions are fine with it they are certainly free under the law to provide contraception.  If they find something objectionable they are certainly within their rights to try and change the law.

    We, as catholics, are bound by our religion to follow just laws.  Give to cesar what is cesar's give to God what is God's.  We are also bound by all legal means to change laws that we feel are unjust.

    This is an unjust law.  Did you know where this new law came from?  An elected official maybe, someone who can be voted out of office by 'we the people' because we are a republic.  No. In the over 2,000 pages of obamacare you will find many departments set up to regulate our behavior.  The heads of these departments are appointed by the president.  These heads can make law, control our lives, without our say. 

    We the people have representation through our elected officials.  If I don't like how my representative votes I can vote him/her out of office.

    Sebeluis, the secretary of health and human services decided to implement this new law.  It didn't go through the usual channel, congress and the senate.  No speeches were made, no votes were taken. Do you think this is a good idea.

    Did you know the vic-president didn't want obama to do this?  Obama was the one instrumental in having sebeluis come out with this law.  In doing so obama has made himself a dictator.  He doesn't have to listen to the will of the people as provided by their elected officials.  He sets up a department which will regulate our behavior, he appoints the head, he tells the head what to do, he gets what he wants by totally by passing our right to representation.  Be afraid.

    Right now those who don't like the catholic church's stand on birth control think this is great.  Don't be fooled.  There are many, many heads of departments like seleluis who can make laws in all areas of government.  Some day one of these unelected law makers may affect your life in a way you don't believe is constitutional. Believe me, having rights taken away is no fun.

    CQ HealthBeat: Sebelius Says Third Party Administrators May Be Enlisted To Provide Contraceptive Coverage
    Her statement at a House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing seemingly addresses one of the big unanswered questions about an Obama administration "accommodation" on contraception recently announced by White House officials. The policy adjustment responded to objections by some religious leaders to a health care law requirement that employers cover contraceptive products (Reichard, 3/1).

    This is an unjust law and 'we the people' will continue to fight it.  Jews, protestants and others have joined us because they understand what this means for the freedom of religion.

    Health care does not cover everything.  It does not cover elective surgery.  If I want cosmetic plastic surgery I have to foot the bill.  One could argue my large nose causes me to be depressed so health care should cover it under mental health coverage.  It doesn't.  I have a perfectly lovely nose by the way ;0)

    Pregnancy isn't a disease, it isn't an illness, it isn't a tumor.  It is a totally natural state of being.  If some one elects to prevent a pregnancy or have an abortion that choice should not be covered under insurance since it is not medically necessary just as cosmetic surgery is not medically necessary.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]"angeroo", now there is a sure fire moniker to warn one, of the subsequent drivel.
    Posted by hankwilliamsjr[/QUOTE]

    LOL
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from angeroo. Show angeroo's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    "angeroo", now there is a sure fire moniker to warn one, of the subsequent drivel.


    Sorry, I should've known better.   Logic doesn't work with religious types.  My bad...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Roadrunner9234. Show Roadrunner9234's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    Fortmeade,

    Your most recent post seems to indicate morality comes from some force other than religion. If that is the case we agree.

    A true moral code isn't coerced with the promise of an eternity in heaven.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]Jesus freaks, really?  If I call  homosexuals homofreaks is that ok with you?  Or is ok to be Jesus phobic but not homophobic?  Just asking. It's all OK.  Call it whatever you want.  We have that right.  I just used the "freaks" line to convey the fact that they (in your face christians) have no concept of logic.  People who act illogically can be called freaks.  What do you call the suicide bombers who say allah told them to kill innocent people?  Is that logical thinking?  I think to devote your life outdated concepts is a little freaky.  Does anyone here think the world is flat?  That was a belief in biblical times that has been negated by SCIENCE.  What other beliefs do we hold on to from pre-modern science times?   Except religion?  Good luck finding one...
    Posted by angeroo[/QUOTE]

    You're wrong, I am logical:

    My time is finite.

    You think it's ok to call people names.

    Since time is finite it is precious.

    Therefore I'm not going to waste my precious time listening to your senseless name calling.

    Pretty logical, don't ya think!

    You are now on ignore.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : Many of those who call us " Jesus freaks" still have a Christian funerals and burials for their loved ones, have their children baptised, take religious wedding vows, go to wakes and tell those in grief that God knows what is best, bow their heads in prayer in public settings, say their prayers while cramped in a foxhole being shot at, or have been rushed to the hospital in critical condition, or been diagnosed with a serious disease or ailment.
    Posted by FortMeade[/QUOTE]

    Very true.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    The religion behind "free contraception" is "two consenting adults Shall be provided mankind's pleasures and comforts". To mandate that The Catholic Church pay for the insurance to provide this contraception is both Marxist collectivism and a direct violation of the U.S. Constituion Amendment I and Amendment X. 

    Whatever collectivist policy by a massive central authority mandates is almost certain to be the artifice of the entire history of foolish men. That it would obtain great popularity should be of no suprise to men of intelligence. "Something for nothing" will always be popular with men. 

    The new God of America is handed down in the Federal Code of Regulations. Virtue, vice and accepted and rejected behaviors are all mandated and or regulated in some form by The State.
     
    If you vote for me:

    1. I will see that all of your two, but only two, consenting adult sexual behavior based relationships are insured, promoted and institutionalized and endorsed by The State  

    2. I will see that you do not have to pay for all of your human needs and some of your highest human desires

    Sincerely,

    Your Resident Democrat Party Charasmatic Leader of The People's Republic
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from angeroo. Show angeroo's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    You're wrong, I am logical:

    My time is finite.

    You think it's ok to call people names.

    Since time is finite it is precious.

    Therefore I'm not going to waste my precious time listening to your senseless name calling.

    Pretty logical, don't ya think!

    You are now on ignore.




    Namecalling?   Still waiting for someone to name one thing from those times we still believe in.  Anyone?

    Sorry I offended you with "namecalling"  Guess the truth hurts eh?

    "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints"  -- Billy Joel
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Roadrunner9234. Show Roadrunner9234's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    Redsox67,

    I suspect you have me on ignore as well, so this is probably wasted effort but I'm going to ask anyway.

    How can you say homosexuality is unnatural when god created homosexuals?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    I am going over to my best friend's house tonight for dinner.  

    He is as gay as the day is long.  He is also the most generous, caring, unselfish person I have ever met.  He is hard-working, has made incredible sacrifices in his life, and has born great tragedy with grace and indominable spirit.  He is a role-model for my daughter, who, at a year and a half, adores him.  His mother died when he was young, and he has been the rock for both his brother and father for years.  He works hard and saves his money.  He never has a bad word for anyone.  And he is an honest man.

    If a moral code says that, at the end of the day, who he lays down with outweighs all this true goodness, and that he is judged as condemned, well, I just can't abide by that, even if a hallowed ancient text codifies it.  To me, that judgement is ... immoral.  The scales of this moral justice are way out of whack.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    He is as gay as the day is long.

    One is male or female. Sexual behavior is only known by those who witness it or participate in it. The artifice of a class of people denoted as "gay", almost always used to refer to men who self profess and or engage in homosexual relations, is the childish device of a group of people. 

    Persons who engage or publicly profess to engage in vice should never be condemned for human failings, as all people share human failings. But the vice should not be professed as a virtue, and institutionalized by artifice of The State. No State licensed relationship between two same-sex persons should be called "Marriage". It is a perversion of the word that represents the family institution itself.   

    It should come as no surprise that men will always seek approval and, more importantly, legitimization of all human pleasure. Fairness will always be invoked as the bugaboo of choice.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Roadrunner9234. Show Roadrunner9234's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    Speaking of drivel, Hank...

    Did you choose your preference? I know I didn't.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]Redsox67, I suspect you have me on ignore as well, so this is probably wasted effort but I'm going to ask anyway. How can you say homosexuality is unnatural when god created homosexuals?
    Posted by Roadrunner9234[/QUOTE]


    Homosexuality is a choice. It IS unnatural, why is it in the animal kingdom, only man exhibits those tendencies? Why also, if it is normal as you say, only approximately 7% of the population say they are gay? Seems to me that of all the men and women, there ought be an equal amount that are homosexual, but there is not.
    Now could it be that there is a chemical imbalance that causes people to be attracted to their own gender? Maybe, but it's still a sin. People do not have to act on those desires, they choose to.
    Homosexuals have been around since the beginning of time. Homosexuals should be discriminated against nor hated. But neither should they flaunt their lifestyle like it's some kind of badge of honor.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from lowelll. Show lowelll's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]Jesus freaks, really?  If I call  homosexuals homofreaks is that ok with you?  Or is ok to be Jesus phobic but not homophobic?  Just asking. It's all OK.  Call it whatever you want.  We have that right.  I just used the "freaks" line to convey the fact that they (in your face christians) have no concept of logic.  People who act illogically can be called freaks.  What do you call the suicide bombers who say allah told them to kill innocent people?  Is that logical thinking?  I think to devote your life outdated concepts is a little freaky.  Does anyone here think the world is flat?  That was a belief in biblical times that has been negated by SCIENCE.  What other beliefs do we hold on to from pre-modern science times?   Except religion?  Good luck finding one...
    Posted by angeroo[/QUOTE]

    The Muslims claim that the terrorists do not represent them or their religion. The terrorists are motivated by politics and not by religion. It is not a religious crusade. Terrorists were not born as terrorists and are not a product of the Muslim religion. They are upset with how the West has favored Israel and disfavored the other nearby countries.

    Other beliefs from Biblical times that still exist today.

    Much of our present legal system, punishment for criminals, etc..
    Establish of vital government entities
    Taxation to allow government to function
    Establishment of armies, conscription, publically financed
    Providing charity and care to the unfortunate
    Construction of infrastructure - roads, wells, public buildings
    Importance of the family unit ( grandparents, parents, children)
    Importance of learning a trade.
    Importance of government.
    Uniting to form a common defense against invaders
    Laws of mathematics, calculus, physics, astronomy, calendar
    Importance of education and knowledge.
    Food processing, hygiene, proper storage, healthy diet
    Intelligent agriculture, soil preservation, crop rotation
    Fishing, Sailing



     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Roadrunner9234. Show Roadrunner9234's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    You are demonstrably wrong on all counts. Firstly, it does exist in the animal kingdom. Secondly, there is no requirement that it occur as frequently as heterosexuality for it to occur naturally. Lastly, if god made gay people as they are(I noticed you failed to comment on that aspect) why should they be expected to supress that part of themselves? To deny themselves that which makes life itself worth living, a loving connection with another human being?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    Oh sh*t - The Rick Santorum posse is out. Take your judgements of people and stick them where the sun don't shine. Let's ask God, afterall, we were made in his image. Maybe God is gay.And don't dare utter the words "free will" to me. Most gays (women and men) are aware of this at an extremely early age but have little knowledge of what it is. These children are born to straight couples and were not introduced to it in the home. 

    Personally, if there is a God, I think he is a she and she is bi-sexual, wearing leather and 5 inch heels.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]He is as gay as the day is long. One is male or female. Sexual behavior is only known by those who witness it or participate in it. The artifice of a class of people denoted as "gay", almost always used to refer to men who self profess and or engage in h o   m o sexual relations, is the childish device of a group of people.  Persons who engage or publicly profess to engage in vice should never be condemned for human failings, as all people share human failings. But the vice should not be professed as a virtue, and institutionalized by artifice of The State. No State licensed relationship between two same-sex persons should be called "Marriage". It is a perversion of the word that represents the family institution itself.    It should come as no surprise that men will always seek approval and, more importantly, legitimization of all human pleasure. Fairness will always be invoked as the bugaboo of choice.
    Posted by hankwilliamsjr[/QUOTE]

    First, the only reason it became important for a group of people to self-identify as "gay" is because they had already "childishly" been systematically labeled and discriminated against.  It is a political alignment.  

    Second, seriously, what is the difference between h  om  o or hetero sexual behavior?  From a sin standpoint, anything outside of sex with the specific intention of procreation should really be classified as sin.  It is weird to think that our oversexed culture can, on one hand, sell casual sex anywhere and everywhere, and, with the other, condemn a group of people for the way in which they choose to have their human pleasure.  In my eyes, heterosexuals are perverted too.

    the mighty and righteous Rush Limbaugh can make moral judgement and villify a woman as "s l u t " and "prostitute", and then, in the same breath, demand that, if she get free birth control, she post her sexual exploits on the internet for all to see.  Did you see his leering face when he said that.  If you tell me ho m o sexuals have any corner on the perversion market, I'll tell you you are not seeing the whole picture.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    My father was a deeply religious man, but he once told me something that I've never forgotten: You can take statistics or the Bible to prove or disprove just about anything you want.

    True, Leviticus 18:22 says "do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman." But 19:19 says "do not plant your field with two kinds of seed" and "do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of materials." 19:27 says not to cut the edges of your beard. 19:28 says you can't have tattoos.

    Yet I don't know anyone who considers that an abomination.

    As for homosexuality being a choice, I once asked a gay friend of mine his opinion on this. His answer was something along the lines of, "Why would I choose to subject myself to the bigotry out there?"
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    Since men and women have distinct physical differences, there is no equal protection violation for every policy or law that treats them differently. What is required is that all men and all men be provided with equal protection of the laws, and all men and women have the right to marry one person of the opposite of sex. A rational basis is all that is required, and it is quite rational to limit marriage to men and women who, together, have the naturally born physical potential, if not actual given time potential, to naturally procreate a family. 

    States are free to sanction almost any relationship they wish, no matter how ill advised perverted and foolish a particular State sanction might be. 

    But there most certainly is no US Constitutional basis to require States to sanction same-sex marriage or nullify the US Congressional Defense of Marriage Act.

    On an intellectual level, consenting adults of polygamous relationships should be making the public campaign to challenge State laws that criminalize these marital relationships. 

    When one recognizes that 3 consenting adults can be imprisoned for consesual marriages, by the State, while there is a public and federal campaign to simply institutionalize, not criminalize, same-sex "unions", one cannot be left but with any reasonable thought other than how perverted and disturbed current cultural values are.

     
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : Homosexuality is a choice. It IS unnatural, why is it in the animal kingdom, only man exhibits those tendencies? Why also, if it is normal as you say, only approximately 7% of the population say they are gay? Seems to me that of all the men and women, there ought be an equal amount that are homosexual, but there is not. Now could it be that there is a chemical imbalance that causes people to be attracted to their own gender? Maybe, but it's still a sin. People do not have to act on those desires, they choose to. Homosexuals have been around since the beginning of time. Homosexuals should be discriminated against nor hated. But neither should they flaunt their lifestyle like it's some kind of badge of honor.
    Posted by Alibiike[/QUOTE]

    I say, flaunt away.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : I say, flaunt away.
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]

    What was the comic book - Fantastic Four I think. What did the kid always say:

    "Flame On"
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]Redsox67, I suspect you have me on ignore as well, so this is probably wasted effort but I'm going to ask anyway. How can you say homosexuality is unnatural when god created homosexuals?
    Posted by Roadrunner9234[/QUOTE]

    Hey RR
    I don't have you on ignore.  I am happy to have a civil conversation with one and all.  If my religious beliefs are ridiculed or name calling is used I won't waste my time with that poster.  If you glance through my posts you will see I  respect those who post in good faith.

    God created men and women that is true.  There is no proof that homosexuality is innate.  For those who think there is a homosexual gene my question is what causes someone to be bi-sexual, a bi-sexual gene?

    If there is a homosexual gene is there a cross dresser gene, transvestite gene and so on.

    There are studies on the left that prove homosexuality is inborn, there are studies on the right that negate those studies. 

    Pedophile is said to be incurable and there are many theories as to its cause.  So did God make people to be pedophiles?  Since they have no control over their behavior should we make their behavior legal. 

    I shudder when I type this because if the premise is that marriage isn't a sacred union between one man and one woman of legal age  then all bets are off when it comes to marriage as a whole.


    These people can't control their attraction to prepubescent children.  If you believe that homosexuality is a God given state because they are attracted to the same sex then it must follow that the same holds true for pedophiles.

    Of course I don't believe this in either circumstance,  I'm just trying to show you how that argument is flawed. 

    As long as you don't call me names I'll be happy to chat with you!Smile
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Athletes and religion

    In Response to Re: Athletes and religion:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Athletes and religion : I don't think you understand what the church teaches about sin. Q. What is a mortal sin? A. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines a mortal sin as follows: " Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him." (C.C.C. # 1855) " Mortal sin , by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the Sacrament of Confession." (C.C.C. # 1856) " Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself.     It results in the loss of charity and the private of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace.     If it is not redeemed by repentance of God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion to make choices for ever, with no turning back.     However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God." (C.C.C. # 1861) "To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin.     This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible.     Unrepented, it brings eternal death." (C.C.C. # 1874) Q. What is a venial sin? A. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines a venial sin as follows: " Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it." (To "subsist" means to "exist.") (C.C.C. # 1855) " Venial sin constitutes a moral disorder that is reparable by charity, which it allows to subsist in us." (C.C.C. # 1875) "One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law,or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent." (C.C.C. #. 1862) "Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment.     Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin.     However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God.     With God's grace it is humanly reparable.     'Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.'" (C.C.C. # 1863) We are talking about religious freedom here.  The state does not have the right to tell catholics they must provide something that goes against their religion. The church states that contraception in all its forms is a mortal sin.  Contraception goes against our religious beliefs. If other religions are fine with it they are certainly free under the law to provide contraception.  If they find something objectionable they are certainly within their rights to try and change the law. We, as catholics, are bound by our religion to follow just laws.  Give to cesar what is cesar's give to God what is God's.  We are also bound by all legal means to change laws that we feel are unjust. This is an unjust law.  Did you know where this new law came from?  An elected official maybe, someone who can be voted out of office by 'we the people' because we are a republic.  No. In the over 2,000 pages of obamacare you will find many departments set up to regulate our behavior.  The heads of these departments are appointed by the president.  These heads can make law, control our lives, without our say.  We the people have representation through our elected officials.  If I don't like how my representative votes I can vote him/her out of office. Sebeluis, the secretary of health and human services decided to implement this new law.  It didn't go through the usual channel, congress and the senate.  No speeches were made, no votes were taken. Do you think this is a good idea. Did you know the vic-president didn't want obama to do this?  Obama was the one instrumental in having sebeluis come out with this law.  In doing so obama has made himself a dictator.  He doesn't have to listen to the will of the people as provided by their elected officials.  He sets up a department which will regulate our behavior, he appoints the head, he tells the head what to do, he gets what he wants by totally by passing our right to representation.  Be afraid. Right now those who don't like the catholic church's stand on birth control think this is great.  Don't be fooled.  There are many, many heads of departments like seleluis who can make laws in all areas of government.  Some day one of these unelected law makers may affect your life in a way you don't believe is constitutional. Believe me, having rights taken away is no fun. CQ HealthBeat : Sebelius Says Third Party Administrators May Be Enlisted To Provide Contraceptive Coverage Her statement at a House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing seemingly addresses one of the big unanswered questions about an Obama administration "accommodation" on contraception recently announced by White House officials. The policy adjustment responded to objections by some religious leaders to a health care law requirement that employers cover contraceptive products (Reichard, 3/1). This is an unjust law and 'we the people' will continue to fight it.  Jews, protestants and others have joined us because they understand what this means for the freedom of religion. Health care does not cover everything.  It does not cover elective surgery.  If I want cosmetic plastic surgery I have to foot the bill.  One could argue my large nose causes me to be depressed so health care should cover it under mental health coverage.  It doesn't.  I have a perfectly lovely nose by the way ;0) Pregnancy isn't a disease, it isn't an illness, it isn't a tumor.  It is a totally natural state of being.  If some one elects to prevent a pregnancy or have an abortion that choice should not be covered under insurance since it is not medically necessary just as cosmetic surgery is not medically necessary.
    Posted by 67redsox[/QUOTE]

    OK, I think this position is more consistent, but it opens the door to things I described before, like a Muslim hospital requiring that women (even Christian employees) veil their heads.  Most regulations are set in place to protect employees - allowing religious institutions to over-ride these regulations is a far greater threat to individual freedom than Obamacare will ever be.

    In an ideal world, I would not want health care provision to be the responsibility of the employer at all, but we'll never live in an ideal world, and the best we can hope from any piece of legislation in the world we do live is to move the chains toward something a little less bad.  All in all, I think that's what the health care bill does.  

    As to your point about electing not to become pregnant, isn't it also a choice to become pregnant?  Even a devout Catholic has the option to abstain or use methods that do not result or are less likely to result in pregnancy.  Should all medical provisions relating to pregnancy be removed from health care plans?  Should child-care leave legislation protecting your job be overturned?  If it's your right to elect one state of being, why not the other?


     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share