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...

Just War Theory doen't apply to abortion. We should set aside false analogies like that.

There may be extenuating circumstances in specific cases...maybe even a lot of cases. But, it is improper to make a blanket exception based on a theory that has no application to abortion.

Regarding to absolution by priests: I had thought you were referring to something new by Leo. I see now that you are referring to the one year delegation of absolution for abortion to all priests during the Jubilee Year of Mercy in 2016. I have no problem with that historical move, and even if it were initiated again by Leo, I would support it. It does not imply that abortion is somehow less sinful, though, pursuant to Church Doctrine. It is merely a change in discipline, not doctrine.

...here is an AI summary of the RCC's position on Just Wars...i.e. the RCC provides counsel regarding the Prudential Judgement of 'extenuating circumstances' that would justify the killing of other persons...among them would be severe threats to the victim nation's citizens' physical well-being and freedom. Now change the ID of the victim to a woman who has been impregnated through force or coercion...again, there are severe threats to her health, even life...as well as personal freedom...for the rest of her life. Should she be given the right to exercise Prudential Judgement in deciding whether or not to terminate her Unwanted Pregnancy? Note that the pregnant woman is clearly the victim in such cases...not any government entity. (Cue the issue of fetal Personhood and its relevance)

------------------
From the Catholic Church's perspective, the determination of whether a war is just rests with the civil authorities (political and military leaders) responsible for the common good, not with Church hierarchy. While the Church provides the moral framework (Just War Theory), leaders must make the prudential judgment that conditions—such as lasting, grave, and certain damage—are met.

Key Details on Responsibility and Criteria:

Responsibility of State Leaders: The Catechism of the Catholic Church (§2309) leaves the evaluation of the strict conditions for legitimate defense to those who have the responsibility for the common good.

Role of the Church: The Church counsels and provides moral guidelines, but does not dictate political or military decisions.

Conditions for Just War: According to the Catechism and thinkers like St. Thomas Aquinas, a war must meet specific criteria:
Damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain.
All other means of ending the conflict must be impractical or ineffective (last resort).
There must be serious prospects of success.
The use of arms must not produce evils graver than the evil to be eliminated (proportionality).

Modern Context: Pope Francis has expressed deep skepticism about whether modern, indiscriminate weapons allow any conflict to meet these "rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy".
---------------------

(no message)

life is codified in the RCC Catechism par 2309…but only under certain conditions that are the responsibility of the victim people only…not the RCC or anyone else.

So too for the women who are truly victimized by men forcing or coercing her reproductive system to produce a totally unwanted child…it is their decision only as to whether or not to carry that pregnancy to term…she MUST have the right to her own reproductive decisions.

This is key, and you know it…let’s discuss how to truly reduce the number of abortions…btw, don’t ignore the reality of “Self Abortions” and “Back Alley Abortions” that are Guaranteed to occur under any ban…with consequent physical harm and death to hundreds of thousands of women as a result…something that doesn’t get discussed very much…yet is absolute reality.

The vast number of Americans who understand this can’t be ignored…let’s keep discussing this very important issue.

Moral Guidance...so you need to stop dismissing it. Furthermore, in Just Wars we're talking about Un-Debated Persons being killed...contrary to the situation wrt Abortions, where the status of a fetus is indeed Debated. And let's not forget that we are discussing U.S. National Policy, where the well-being of citizens with other faiths, or no faith, needs to be considered.

Back to the RCC...and Abortion. I'd like to hear more about your perspective on "extenuating circumstances" when it comes to abortion...please expand.

Read the Catholic Catechism section on abortion. The guidance is clear. There are no "debated persons."

Popes and the Magisterium have recognized throughout RCC history...again, read the linked "Where Peter Is" article...especially the last paragraph regarding the issue of fetal "Personhood"...

-------------------
"What does all this mean? Well, for one thing, it is clear that the Magisterium has acknowledged on multiple occasions that there is a debate about personhood. It is also clear that the Church has not always considered the life of a human person to begin at conception. More recently, the Church has pushed back against the idea that "delayed personhood" is relevant to its position on the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. It has taught instead that life, from the moment of conception should be treated and respected as a human person. And in this Pope Francis has always been in line with Catholic Tradition."
-------------------

I fully support this summary...we "Should" always Treat and Respect...from conception...the fetus "AS" a person...without the definitive statement it "IS" a person...since there is no RCC Theology that defines the outcomes of 'Failure to Implant'...or 'Miscarriage'...which occur in the Majority of conceptions...nor are there secular/governmental rights firmly established for ALL who live in this nation.

With that said, let's hear what you have to say about "Extenuating Circumstances" that certainly pertain to Unwanted Pregnancies...not unlike "EC's" that come up in determining allowable killings in "Just Wars".


Link: https://wherepeteris.com/pope-francis-and-the-personhood-debate/

(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?