Again with the Pro-Life March coming up, it is important for Catholics to remember that the movement is not just to protect the unborn children from surgical abortions, but also from chemical ones. These chemical abortions include contraception. I know that many think that contraception is a way to lower the changes of getting diseases and unwanted pregnancy; however, if this is the goal of a sexual union, then it is not truly a union.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church Jesus taught that the marital union was willed by the Creator from the start of time and were to last for all of time (CCC 1614). The church also teaches in paragraph 1631 that the fulfillment of a faithful contract of marriage is required for many different reasons.
The purpose of these marriages is not only to bring two people together, but to imitate the Trinity (CCC 2335); this is done by the procreation of children. The marriage is also there to educate the children (CCC 2249). This idea is also repeated in paragraph 2263. Here we are told that the union is twofold, the transmission of life as well as the good of the spouses. It continues to proclaim these ideas cannot be separated from marriage without altering the spiritual life and the good of the family unit.
If you do not agree with my interpretation, please comment and I will be glad to defend the Church’s teachings. Though I am not highly educated in theology, I have been well taught by the Church. Also here are the quotes used from the Catechism.
As a side note, if you are a Catholic and you are reading this, remember if you are knowingly behaving in such a manner that contradicts the Church you are living in sin and should not be partaking in the sacraments of the Church until you make things right with Her and God.
Contraception
Original meaning 1614
1614
In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning: permission given by Moses to divorce one's wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts.106 The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it: "what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."107
As a state of life in the Church 1631
1631
This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:134
· Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
· Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;
· Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
· The public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.
Ordered to the procreation and education of offspring 1652, 2249
1631
This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:134
· Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
· Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;
· Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
· The public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.
· 2249
· The conjugal community is established upon the covenant and consent of the spouses. Marriage and family are ordered to the good of the spouses, to the procreation and the education of children.
Marriage union of man and woman 2335, 2363
2335 Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."121 All human generations proceed from this union.122
2363
The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Comment
I received a comment on my posting "I Really Hate This". I would like to post the comment here with my response since that person posted anonymously and I cannot respond directly... I also felt it was important enough to obtain its own post :)
From: Vox Populi anonymous-comment@blogger.com
You know what I really hate? Seeing people suffering from curable diseases because a handful of their countrymen think that a cluster of cells is more entitled to life than a living, breathing human being. I've got news for you: Every member of Congress that voted against stem cell research just voted to destroy 400,000 embryos (which you call 'babies'), not for research purposes, but just because that's what will happen to the 400,000 embryos now sitting in storage freezers, left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. With the stem cell research you hate so much, those embryos might be put to some use, saving lives. When you vote against stem cell research, your vote not only says that it's ok to kill the millions of people suffering from what may be curable diseases, you're also voting for an even more wanton, wasteful destruction of embryos than would occur via stem cell research. The bottom line is this: Those embryos are going to be destroyed, and there's nothing you can do about it. Now do you want to do the real pro-life thing and use these embryos to save human life, or do you want to just pitch them in the dumpster and call it moral? --Posted by Vox Populi to Gethsemane at 1/13/2007 12:36:55 AM
***My response***
Thank-you for your words. I do understand and once held the same ideas :) As far as the research goes, the bill was to add federal funding for these programs. It is different if it is personal funds and the embryos are already available. Also there is nothing wrong with using stem cells from adult cells. In fact to date these are the only cells that have achieved any results! It is the embryonic cells that are the road to a very scary place. God has given man wondrous abilities to find ways to preserve life, this I have no doubt. Just remember, there are always the adult cells, we can concentrate on those and leave the embryo cells alone. It is like saying that we need a child's life to be sacrificed to save a life when we can use materials from an adult without harming the adult! This was off the cuff so I hope it makes sense. Again thank-you for your comments and interest in the topic.
From: Vox Populi anonymous-comment@blogger.com
You know what I really hate? Seeing people suffering from curable diseases because a handful of their countrymen think that a cluster of cells is more entitled to life than a living, breathing human being. I've got news for you: Every member of Congress that voted against stem cell research just voted to destroy 400,000 embryos (which you call 'babies'), not for research purposes, but just because that's what will happen to the 400,000 embryos now sitting in storage freezers, left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. With the stem cell research you hate so much, those embryos might be put to some use, saving lives. When you vote against stem cell research, your vote not only says that it's ok to kill the millions of people suffering from what may be curable diseases, you're also voting for an even more wanton, wasteful destruction of embryos than would occur via stem cell research. The bottom line is this: Those embryos are going to be destroyed, and there's nothing you can do about it. Now do you want to do the real pro-life thing and use these embryos to save human life, or do you want to just pitch them in the dumpster and call it moral? --Posted by Vox Populi to Gethsemane at 1/13/2007 12:36:55 AM
***My response***
Thank-you for your words. I do understand and once held the same ideas :) As far as the research goes, the bill was to add federal funding for these programs. It is different if it is personal funds and the embryos are already available. Also there is nothing wrong with using stem cells from adult cells. In fact to date these are the only cells that have achieved any results! It is the embryonic cells that are the road to a very scary place. God has given man wondrous abilities to find ways to preserve life, this I have no doubt. Just remember, there are always the adult cells, we can concentrate on those and leave the embryo cells alone. It is like saying that we need a child's life to be sacrificed to save a life when we can use materials from an adult without harming the adult! This was off the cuff so I hope it makes sense. Again thank-you for your comments and interest in the topic.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
The children die
OK, I am going to the Pro-Life March in DC. My co-worker and I were speaking about my trip. Another co-worker got angry because there was a march! She said that it is no ones business if a girl wants to "fix-it" if her father molests her! What bothers me is the fact most people do not understand is most of the time the abortion is there to PROTECT the offender. The abused young girl hides the event and has to live with the pain her entire life that she not only was violated, but she killed her child. I did not know how much abortion hurt the women until I read things from the Indianapolis archdioceses Pro-Life office! It is amazing these things are hidden from us. Women do not know that their child has a beating heart when it is savagely ripped from her, or even when it is cut up.
In fact they have found that the child feels the pain! Think about that when someone says that it is a woman's choice! It is also the woman's choice to drown her children, no, but it is OK if she has someone else cut it to pieces and vacuums it up.
In fact they have found that the child feels the pain! Think about that when someone says that it is a woman's choice! It is also the woman's choice to drown her children, no, but it is OK if she has someone else cut it to pieces and vacuums it up.
I really hate this
Now here is something very sad... Why does the House spend so much of our tax money to make it legal to spend more tax moeny to kill babies?
It amazes me that so many people think that it is OK to kill children! I firmly believe the research should be done, but it should be done with adult cells not embryonic! Besides all of the break thoughs have been made with the adult, so why push the agenda? It seems so sad to me that people still fight to distory instead of save.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-11-stem-cell_x.htm?csp=34
Bill's backers predict end to stem cell limitsUpdated 1/11/2007 8:58 PM ET
By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Despite threats of a presidential veto, supporters of research on embryonic stem cells say an end to restrictions on federal funding is inevitable after an overwhelming House vote Thursday.
The House of Representatives voted 253-174 on a stem cell research bill identical to one President Bush vetoed last year. Supporters were 37 votes shy of the 290 needed to override a veto but got 14 more votes than last year.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush remains opposed to the legislation. "We believe we should not be using tax dollars to provide incentives for the continued destruction of embryos," Fratto said.
In the Senate, Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said he has 66 votes lined up in favor of the bill; he needs 67 to override Bush. "We're working on everybody," Harkin said.
Harkin and other proponents of research with embryonic stem cells — basic building blocks that can be coaxed into developing into a wide range of cells — say the work holds the promise of curing diabetes, Alzheimer's and other diseases.
Opponents such as Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., say it's an unproven field of study that involves the destruction of human life, because embryos are used to obtain the stem cells. "This is not necessary, and it's morally wrong," said Weldon, a doctor. He and others argued that medical breakthroughs can be achieved by using adult stem cells, such as those derived from a pregnant woman's uterus.
At issue is whether to lift restrictions on embryonic stem cell research that Bush established early in his first term. Under an Aug. 9, 2001, order, Bush limited federal funding for research to stem cell lines created before that date. Of the $600 million the National Institutes of Health provides for stem cell research, $39 million went to human embryonic stem cells last year. The rest went for studies on animal and adult stem cells.
"None offer as much promise as human embryonic stem cells," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., a microbiologist.
Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and other bill supporters said the measure would provide a positive use for leftover embryos kept at fertility clinics and destined for destruction. That was the reason Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., switched his vote this year to support the bill. "He felt that since the embryos were going to be destroyed anyway, it was better that some good come out of it," said Christopher Mansour, Kildee's chief of staff. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said federal funding for the research would amount to a financial endorsement for "a policy that innocent life can be destroyed for utilitarian purposes."
Some lawmakers cited friends and family members they said might be aided by embryonic stem cell research. Freshman Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill., said the research could help his predecessor, Lane Evans, an Illinois Democrat who retired last year because of Parkinson's disease. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., told members about his 5-year-old daughter's battle with brain cancer.
In all, 38 freshmen lawmakers voted for the bill. "I'm a pro-life Democrat," said Rep. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania. "This is a pro-life vote."
DeGette and Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., the bill's sponsors, said the growing support in the House of Representatives is a sign that political momentum is shifting. "This will be the law of the land in 2009 no matter what," said Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., referring to the year Bush's term ends. "Our job is to get the inevitable to happen as early as possible."
DeGette said she's eager to discuss a compromise with the White House, but she said Bush has rejected offers to meet with her and GOP bill supporters.
Contributing: David Jackson and Dan Vergano
It amazes me that so many people think that it is OK to kill children! I firmly believe the research should be done, but it should be done with adult cells not embryonic! Besides all of the break thoughs have been made with the adult, so why push the agenda? It seems so sad to me that people still fight to distory instead of save.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-11-stem-cell_x.htm?csp=34
Bill's backers predict end to stem cell limitsUpdated 1/11/2007 8:58 PM ET
By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Despite threats of a presidential veto, supporters of research on embryonic stem cells say an end to restrictions on federal funding is inevitable after an overwhelming House vote Thursday.
The House of Representatives voted 253-174 on a stem cell research bill identical to one President Bush vetoed last year. Supporters were 37 votes shy of the 290 needed to override a veto but got 14 more votes than last year.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush remains opposed to the legislation. "We believe we should not be using tax dollars to provide incentives for the continued destruction of embryos," Fratto said.
In the Senate, Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said he has 66 votes lined up in favor of the bill; he needs 67 to override Bush. "We're working on everybody," Harkin said.
Harkin and other proponents of research with embryonic stem cells — basic building blocks that can be coaxed into developing into a wide range of cells — say the work holds the promise of curing diabetes, Alzheimer's and other diseases.
Opponents such as Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., say it's an unproven field of study that involves the destruction of human life, because embryos are used to obtain the stem cells. "This is not necessary, and it's morally wrong," said Weldon, a doctor. He and others argued that medical breakthroughs can be achieved by using adult stem cells, such as those derived from a pregnant woman's uterus.
At issue is whether to lift restrictions on embryonic stem cell research that Bush established early in his first term. Under an Aug. 9, 2001, order, Bush limited federal funding for research to stem cell lines created before that date. Of the $600 million the National Institutes of Health provides for stem cell research, $39 million went to human embryonic stem cells last year. The rest went for studies on animal and adult stem cells.
"None offer as much promise as human embryonic stem cells," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., a microbiologist.
Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and other bill supporters said the measure would provide a positive use for leftover embryos kept at fertility clinics and destined for destruction. That was the reason Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., switched his vote this year to support the bill. "He felt that since the embryos were going to be destroyed anyway, it was better that some good come out of it," said Christopher Mansour, Kildee's chief of staff. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said federal funding for the research would amount to a financial endorsement for "a policy that innocent life can be destroyed for utilitarian purposes."
Some lawmakers cited friends and family members they said might be aided by embryonic stem cell research. Freshman Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill., said the research could help his predecessor, Lane Evans, an Illinois Democrat who retired last year because of Parkinson's disease. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., told members about his 5-year-old daughter's battle with brain cancer.
In all, 38 freshmen lawmakers voted for the bill. "I'm a pro-life Democrat," said Rep. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania. "This is a pro-life vote."
DeGette and Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., the bill's sponsors, said the growing support in the House of Representatives is a sign that political momentum is shifting. "This will be the law of the land in 2009 no matter what," said Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., referring to the year Bush's term ends. "Our job is to get the inevitable to happen as early as possible."
DeGette said she's eager to discuss a compromise with the White House, but she said Bush has rejected offers to meet with her and GOP bill supporters.
Contributing: David Jackson and Dan Vergano
Monday, January 08, 2007
The tabernacle
Personal beef!
I went into a Catholic Church and I could not find the tabernacle! I guess from what some people tell me it is in the backroom, or in other strange places. I feel it should be front and center and near the alter. However, it seems that some churches do not agree. So let us see what the Catechism has to say…
IV. Where Is the Liturgy Celebrated?
1179
The worship "in Spirit and in truth"53 of the New Covenant is not tied exclusively to any one place. The whole earth is sacred and entrusted to the children of men. What matters above all is that, when the faithful assemble in the same place, they are the "living stones," gathered to be "built into a spiritual house."54 For the Body of the risen Christ is the spiritual temple from which the source of living water springs forth: incorporated into Christ by the Holy Spirit, "we are the temple of the living God."55
1180
When the exercise of religious liberty is not thwarted,56 Christians construct buildings for divine worship. These visible churches are not simply gathering places but signify and make visible the Church living in this place, the dwelling of God with men reconciled and united in Christ.
1181
A church, "a house of prayer in which the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved, where the faithful assemble, and where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered for us on the sacrificial altar for the help and consolation of the faithful—this house ought to be in good taste and a worthy place for prayer and sacred ceremonial."57 In this "house of God" the truth and the harmony of the signs that make it up should show Christ to be present and active in this place.58
1182
The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord's Cross,59 from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the center of the church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs. The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the People of God are invited.60 In certain Eastern liturgies, the altar is also the symbol of the tomb (Christ truly died and is truly risen).
1183
The tabernacle is to be situated "in churches in a most worthy place with the greatest honor."61 The dignity, placing, and security of the Eucharistic tabernacle should foster adoration before the Lord really present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar.62 The sacred chrism (myron), used in anointings as the sacramental sign of the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit, is traditionally reserved and venerated in a secure place in the sanctuary. The oil of catechumens and the oil of the sick may also be placed there.
I went into a Catholic Church and I could not find the tabernacle! I guess from what some people tell me it is in the backroom, or in other strange places. I feel it should be front and center and near the alter. However, it seems that some churches do not agree. So let us see what the Catechism has to say…
IV. Where Is the Liturgy Celebrated?
1179
The worship "in Spirit and in truth"53 of the New Covenant is not tied exclusively to any one place. The whole earth is sacred and entrusted to the children of men. What matters above all is that, when the faithful assemble in the same place, they are the "living stones," gathered to be "built into a spiritual house."54 For the Body of the risen Christ is the spiritual temple from which the source of living water springs forth: incorporated into Christ by the Holy Spirit, "we are the temple of the living God."55
1180
When the exercise of religious liberty is not thwarted,56 Christians construct buildings for divine worship. These visible churches are not simply gathering places but signify and make visible the Church living in this place, the dwelling of God with men reconciled and united in Christ.
1181
A church, "a house of prayer in which the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved, where the faithful assemble, and where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered for us on the sacrificial altar for the help and consolation of the faithful—this house ought to be in good taste and a worthy place for prayer and sacred ceremonial."57 In this "house of God" the truth and the harmony of the signs that make it up should show Christ to be present and active in this place.58
1182
The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord's Cross,59 from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the center of the church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs. The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the People of God are invited.60 In certain Eastern liturgies, the altar is also the symbol of the tomb (Christ truly died and is truly risen).
1183
The tabernacle is to be situated "in churches in a most worthy place with the greatest honor."61 The dignity, placing, and security of the Eucharistic tabernacle should foster adoration before the Lord really present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar.62 The sacred chrism (myron), used in anointings as the sacramental sign of the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit, is traditionally reserved and venerated in a secure place in the sanctuary. The oil of catechumens and the oil of the sick may also be placed there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
