Re: Athletes and religion
posted at 3/2/2012 2:53 PM EST
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?