UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

I saw Democrat Claire McCaskill thinks that. Amazing TDS.

...while I've got your attention...have you read the article explaining why Pope Francis' issued a declaration that all RCC priests are now able to absolve abortions? Once you have, let's discuss.

btw, the Pope is a central and supreme part of the Roman Catholic Church's Magisterium...so it matters what he says and decides.

That's what the sacrament is for.

, but you won't read or discuss my response?...there's a word for that, which you can dispel by reading and responding.

Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=280000

I know you have reservations that prevent you from believing 100% of Church Doctrine...just for example, the doctrinal position regarding abortion. I wasn't being prideful; I was merely accurately describing my theological position (and yours). I have accepted all that the Church teaches (an act of will/choice), not just the parts that I like, or the parts which agree with my political beliefs. I guess I understand how you might have thought that was prideful, but I do not think of that as something to brag about. I was just trying to demonstrate that I do not fear your "bookmark," and I wondered why you thought it was somehow significant. You obviously hope to catch me disagreeing with the doctrine of the Church. If you do, it would be a cause for introspection on my part, not an opportunity to justify my disagreement. You opt for the latter (justifying your disagreement) when discussing abortion...again, just a statement of fact. When the Catechism points out that intentional abortion is always evil, you seek to find ways to get around that doctrine; you do not think about changing your position to bring it in line with teaching...and yet you try to claim your arguments are Catholic, which is a cause for scandal (in the theological, not secular sense of the term). If I am wrong on this point, feel free to say so.

The decision to allow all priests to handle absolution for abortion (which I did not know about) is more of a matter of discipline (practice) rather than doctrine (belief), and as such, it can be changed over time by the Church. I'm fine with that. The gravely sinful nature of abortion in the abstract, however, is a matter of doctrine, which is not changeable over time, and individual pronouncements by even a pope which purport to change that doctrine (or any doctrine) have no effect, notwithstanding the fact that the pope is part of the Magisterium...he is not all of the Magisterium. We can discuss whether his role is magnified when he speaks "ex cathedra" or "from the chair of St. Peter," but that has not happened with regard to the issues you seek to change about Church Doctrine.

First off, be clear that my goal is reduce the number of abortions by focusing on the root cause...i.e. "Unwanted Pregnancies" and reducing them...without sacrificing the woman's basic human rights. You should remember my numerous posts calling for a) Contraception Availability/Access...b) Sex/Sexuality Training for All age groups ('Age Appropriate Content')...and c) Funding for more programs that make it conceivable (no pun intended) for women to carry pregnancies to term.

It appears to me that Pro-Lifers (incl. you) envision being able to use governmental intimidation (Criminal Prosecution) to stop Abortions stemming from those Unwanted Pregnancies...but that will only cause further assault on innocent women. Back before Roe v Wade, when many states outlawed abortions, women who were victims of Unwanted Pregnancies ended up either 'Self-Aborting' or seeking out "Back Alley" abortions which too often caused great harm, or even death. In spite of such horrific outcomes, women still believed there was no other choice...so there's no reason to believe anything would change if the same rules are re-applied. That is patently unjust treatment of women...the true "Persons" in such situations. Fortunately, RvW was passed and women got excellent, professional care, if their abortions were not effected by abortion drugs.

In the article I posted about Pope Francis allowing all priests to absolve those involved with abortions, I hope you read and appreciated the 'rationale' for that change...i.e. the evolution of the RCC in trying to be more "Merciful" and understanding of the "Vicissitudes" of Human LIfe (e.g. Unwanted Pregnancies, esp. those that are Forced or Coerced). As the authors and myself view it, while abortion is surely a grave sin...just like Killing in any War, including Just Wars...there are 'Vicissitudes' with circumstances that call for "Prudential Judgement" (see use of the term in the RCC Catechism wrt "Just Wars") on the part of the woman involved...i.e. SHE is the ONLY person who can make the decision as to whether or not an abortion is appropriate for HER SITUATION...and certainly NOT any outside, government entity that has zero knowledge/understanding of the circumstances involved.

Again, I refer you to the case of the 9 yr old girl who became pregnant in Brazil (2009)...The Bishop was a hard-liner who 'Excommunicated' everyone involved with the abortion that followed. The outrage from the Brazilian population got the Vatican's attention, and it resulted in taking away any Bishop's singular authority on such matters, restoration of 'Communion' with the RCC for all involved, and allowing all priests to work with members of their flocks/parishes to discern what is the prudent course of action...hopefully, carrying the pregnancy to term...but if the impact on the woman is beyond her mental, physical, emotional capabilities, then counseling her to learn from that experience and do all she could to avoid such a future occurrence.

This example, and the bestowing on all priests the authority to absolve cases of abortion, does not signal a desire for the RCC to take a "Hard Line"...such as too many U.S. 'Pro Life' Catholics seek...rather, a more merciful approach involving direct dialogue and consultation with pastors who know their 'flocks'.

There's more to talk about, for sure...let's keep dialoguing...

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

It just outlined how Trump tries to make his negotiating opponent look good when he grants a major concession to Trump. Trump does this by starting out demanding the world, and then accepting less. Recall all the TACO posts earlier, when people did not understand this tenet of negotiation.

I could see, just for example, a 99 year lease with a referendum by the people at the end of the lease term. Denmark will have saved NATO (and looked good to its fellow members) and have received a large payment (and looked good to its people) and not have surrendered ownership.

(no message)

(no message)

And like 100K troops all over Europe.

(no message)

Annex is probably a better description, don't you think?

(no message)

(no message)

He knows how to get the inwilling Euro parasites to pony up, doesn’t he?

This guy should never have made through the first r primaries but idiots and duckers prevailed.

I have very little faith in Americans.

You have no faith in America because the DNC tells you so.

growing a spine and shed its MAGA coat.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Biden handed Trump a well-functioning economy...along with a bipartisan Border Security and Immigration Bill that addressed all outstanding issues...and other important bipartisan initiatives (e.g. Infrastructure, Advanced Semiconductors (CHIPS Act)...)...not to mention a rising stock market based on strong financials with openness toward Debt Reduction legislation...and strong foreign alliances.

(no message)

(no message)

Republicans are either critical or silent.

If the MAGA element on this board thinks this is just a bat-shit crazy idea, then who can be for it?