Forum Replies Created
Well, yes, I think priests do have more responsibility because they are in a public role. Similarly, the President and and corporate leaders hold more responsiblities since they represent what they work for. A priest works for Christ in the Church, he is regarded as a representative of the Catholic Church. Therefore, when it is discovered that a priest is human and/or and committed a sin, many people are shocked and the news media picks up on that. I think in the past 5 years, the news has become much more sensational (probably in and attempt to snag in more viewers). The other “perverts” would not generate that same shocked “need-to-know-more-about-this-headline” reaction so, guess who gets to be in the public eye? Yep, priests that make mistakes since it is the most shocking. I am not saying that the harrasment and child molestation are ok. No, far from it. But only that the media is risking some people’s faith and the good name of the Church by over-sensationalizing the sins of the priests.November 21, 2003 at 5:54 am in reply to: Catholics don’t use the Bible at their services…what? #2223
[quote:1plrb3ed]We as Catholics hear the entire Bible at mass once every three years.
Not many people realize that either. ” title=”Smile” />[/quote:1plrb3ed]
ha ha, you worded that kind of funny ” title=”Very Happy” />
It almost sounds like you are saying that every three years we have a mass where we read the whole Bible in one sitting… ” title=”Wink” />November 21, 2003 at 5:50 am in reply to: Catholics don’t use the Bible at their services…what? #2222
We as Catholics hear the entire Bible at mass once every three years.
Not many people realize that either. ” title=”Smile” />
good question! kind of makes you wonder….
actually, I have heard of good explanations for it, but I do not have time to post it right now. I’ll get back to you on that. ” title=”Wink” />
Three cheers for you! You’ve said it! ” title=”Very Happy” />
It’s like I am taking it for granted that God will be there when I “wake up.” I know he will be, but that is not the kind of relationship I want to have with Christ.
Why would the unborn baby not be just that: a baby? After all, even an unborn elephant is protected under law. Are not human beings put at a higher value than that of an elephant?
Humans are classified scientifically as animals, but we don’t always rise above that name when it comes to our decisons and behavior.
The pro-choice agenda is not concerned with the fact that it is killing anything. Killing is not an issue for them. It is whose rights are of greater importance than another’s and for them it is the mother’s rights. Therefore, since the mother’s rights are greater, the mother can make the decision to kill the baby.
Pro-life people, on the other hand, basically say that the rights of both mother and child are more or less equal because all life is sacred.
The other part of this issue is that pro-abortion people generally believe that a person in the fetus stage is not an actual human being until it is viable outside the womb – meaning that it is not a person until it is capable of living outside of the mother by itself. This is about 7 or so months into the pregnancy I believe (anyone correct me if I am wrong please). Therefore, by having an abortion, they are nor killing a human being.
But I still have a question:
Who says that anyone has the right or choice to kill?
[quote:1awiod6y]Thanks Jon for the heads up! I’m interested to hear what the Greek says.[/quote:1awiod6y]
Sorry, I still haven’t looked this up, but I will soon. ” title=”Cool” />
I’ve just been so busy.
Well, that’s true, but there are women out there who do not feel any emotional pain after having an abortion.
The argument is that by making women have to wait to get an abortion or to not allow them to have an abortion is to deny a woman her autonomy. People who hold this position view that those who want to take away this “reproductive right” are treating women like they are stupid and cannot make their own choices about their bodies. What I think this argument lacks, however, is the consideration of another’s body – the unborn child.
The pro-life side is concerned with the unborn child whereas the pro-abortion side is concerned about the woman and her “rights.” It’s almost like comparing apples to oranges – not quite, but close.
More on protecting women’s rights: Those who are not pro-life may call it “women’s rights”, but quite frequently a woman who has had an abortion experiences strong emotional pain after aborting her baby. I have heard it said that the doctors who perform abortions often leave out this part about the resulting emotional distress, making abortion seem like the “easy way” out of pregnancy. Thus, how is it really “protecting women’s rights” if doctors do not fully inform the woman of [u:pf0dd54l]all[/u:pf0dd54l] consequences and possible risks, [u:pf0dd54l]including the emotional risks[/u:pf0dd54l], before she makes her choice to kill? It kinda sounds like leading a lamb to the slaughter house to me.
[quote:1w8ipbcl]St. Peter’s experience is more realistic, but I also think there is a little bit of St. Paul-type conversion for most people. It is just that we have many very small conversions, such as temporary “blindness” where we are taken slightly aback in life and/or cannot see where we are going, and we have to put trust in God. These small conversions add up, some contribute more than others, but nonetheless, they have an effect. ” title=”Smile” />
If I think about it, I do find that there were/are “mini-conversions” in my life that did in fact influence my faith, but that I seem to forget or overlook . How about you? Do you think small faith experiences add up?[/quote:1w8ipbcl]
I think that is a great way to look at things. ” title=”Smile” />
For me, the St. Peter way seems more realistic, but you are right – there are small conversion experiences in my life. Once in a while there are big ones, which is what St. Paul is known for, but I do have small ones along the way.
You know, on that same note, how is it that when an unborn child is killed in a crime it is referred to as just that – an unborn child (whether son or daughter), but for abortions or legal definitions supporting abortion it is generally referred to as a fetus or embryo.
Why is it only in crime that we put a human likeness to an unborn child and recognize it as such, but not when the mother does not want her baby?
See, the pro-life movement is not about taking away “women’s rights” but is about protecting the rights of [i:3lyd8iua][b:3lyd8iua]all[/b:3lyd8iua][/i:3lyd8iua].
I think affiliating a particular religious group with a political party is dangerous – especially in terms of the Catholic Church which serves as more of an arbiter between the 2 sides. I will write more on that topic later because I am discussing some very interesting things along these lines in one of my classes (I guess all those thousands of dollars going to the state for an “education” are really worth something after all :rolleyes: ).
Anyway, I can’t believe that there would even be a law that would deny someone food and water because they cannot verbalize that they need it. I mean, that is just purely idiodic! How could anyone with even half a brain make a law like that much less a group of people?
And it’s nice to see some progress on this abortion thing. I think this topic will heat up more as the years pass, especially if Bush is reelected in 2004 and continues to support laws like this. Some of the comments I have on the abortion issue also lead to the comments I said I was going to make earlier so I will not go into those here, but in a separate post. ” title=”Smile” />
Hmmm…I think I [i:3mcaxflf]might[/i:3mcaxflf] be able to run a mile that fast. ” title=”Razz” />
St. Peter’s experience is more realistic, but I also think there is a little bit of St. Paul-type conversion for most people. It is just that we have many very small conversions, such as temporary “blindness” where we are taken slightly aback in life and/or cannot see where we are going, and we have to put trust in God. These small conversions add up, some contribute more than others, but nonetheless, they have an effect. ” title=”Smile” />
If I think about it, I do find that there were/are “mini-conversions” in my life that did in fact influence my faith, but that I seem to forget or overlook . How about you? Do you think small faith experiences add up?
Actually, I recently became my sister’s confirmation sponsor. It is wonderful to see her mature and grow in her faith. Witnessing another’s confirmation is, in a way, a reminder and confirmation of our own faith.
I bet it was also like that (both becoming a full member of the church as well as being a faithful reminder for others) when it was celebrated at the same time as baptism.
Confirmation is an interesting sacrament because many hundreds of years ago it was celebrated at the same time someone was baptized.
Now it has taken on the meaning of someone’s faith maturing or becoming an adult in the church.
And no, the bishop doesn’t slap you anymore. ” title=”Wink” />
Well, what I like about St. Peter is that he did not have this radical conversion experience like St. Paul. I mean, those types of experiences are good, but not everyone has them – in fact I never had one. I have just had faith in Jesus while making mistakes along the way. I think the St. Peter way is a bit more of a realistic or common way people experience their faith.
I would bet that there are a lot of us that can relate to St. Peter ” title=”Very Happy” />
He was a great man but human nonetheless, and that gives hope for the rest of us—it’s not all about perfection.