Permissibility Of Abortion

[altersteve]

Now, when an 8 year old is baptized in the LDS church, the baptizer does not intend to do what the Church intends -- namely, to remove original sin. That is the major reason why LDS baptisms are invalid.

Do you know what our intention is with baptism?

Edited September 26, 2012 by altersteve

[MiserereNobis]

We do not intend to "remove original sin" when we are baptized. Our intention is to enter into a formal covenant with God.

Which is exactly why LDS baptism is invalid from the Catholic point-of-view.

[altersteve]

Sorry, I edited my post. I realized I had misunderstood what you said.

[Storm Rider]

Which is exactly why LDS baptism is invalid from the Catholic point-of-view.

I thought the reason our baptisms were rejected by the Catholic Church had more to do with our concept of the nature of God that the CC determined that even though we baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, it was not valid. Although I did read this fuller explanation, which does include the point you made, I think the reason the CC rejects LDS baptisms is broader.

In reading the text, it disturbs me that their review is based on non-doctrinal teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ. It is a shame they did not ask a LDS to explain their position and gain an understanding of what is and what is not doctrine of the Church.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Storm Rider

[Calm]

As usual, you've decribed it correctly that we are against artificial birth control but not natural birth control. There's nothing wrong with working what God has naturally given to us.

We seem to discuss this in about every contraceptive thread which I've come to expect...

Here is my attempt this time. Too much of a good thing can eventually be bad. There is nothing wrong with a couple using natural birth control to delay pregnancy or to space out pregnancies. If they are using it to excessively wait or to not have children, there is a problem since they are using it for selfish reasons. That's an obvious abuse of something meant to be good.

It is not that I don't understand that is your point of view, it is just that it doesn't seem any different to me to avoid having sex and using a barrier. But this is a personal viewpoint, I am subjectively giving the same weight to two positions while Catholics weight it differently. Maybe some day I will change my mind, but at this point it probably won't be for awhile.

Not that it is a problem. I am not asking Catholics to justify their choices, I am just saying that I myself don't view it as any different so I if I were in that position of choice wouldn't view it as a different choice.

[Calm]

We are not known to God before baptism.

God knows everything and everyone, does he not? How can we not be known to God prior to baptism (if this is answered in posts I haven't read yet, please ignore).

I've caught up and didn't really see this answered by a Catholic...though I might have missed it because the dog is barking for my attention and is highly distracting.

Edited September 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Because He wanted us to have free will. Why? Because we cannot love without free will. God did not want robots. He created us in His likeness, so we have intellect/reason and free will.

But it seems to me that if God made creatures with free will with no influence to sin or be sinless (if there was influence to choose one way or the other, then God would have made that influence and thus be the cause of the sin or nonsinning), that free will can not be based on anything but is really just a random choice.

I have the same problem with him. He will attack our church but never answer tough questions about Catholicism.

Do you really feel that I am attacking your church? I have not felt that I have done that. I have asked questions and started discussions that apparently are interesting to people since many of them go on page after page (like this one).

I am thinking mfb may have lost track of who was being talked about and is talking about saemo?

[zerinus]

To sin a person needs to not only have the propensity (ability) to sin, but also a knowledge of what sin actually is.

Propensity to sin is not the ability to sin, but the tendency or inclination to sin.

Edited September 27, 2012 by zerinus

[Vance]

No Catholic believes God made a mistake in the Garden. Adam and Eve made the mistake, not God.

Sure they do, they just won't admit it.

If God created Adam and Eve from nothing then God is totally responsible for their actions. They are exactly what He created them to be. They did not make the mistake, they only did what God programmed them to do. So, if a mistake was made, it was God who made it.

There it is, as plain as the nose on your face. But will you see it, or continue to blindly look past it?

[Vance]

It was a fall from grace, a fall from paradise, a fall from the world God intended us to inhabit.

Dang, God's plan foiled by the automatons He created.

I hate that, when it happens.

[MiserereNobis]

Sure they do, they just won't admit it.

This is rather asinine. Do you like it when non-LDS tell you what you believe? Stop telling Catholics what they believe. No Catholic believes that God made a mistake in the Garden of Eden.

If God created Adam and Eve from nothing then God is totally responsible for their actions.

The problem is that you simply cannot accept the idea that God can create a being with free will. That is your issue.

They are exactly what He created them to be. They did not make the mistake, they only did what God programmed them to do. So, if a mistake was made, it was God who made it.

Free will is only programmed in your limited view of free will. I simply do not understand why you fail to see that God can create a being with free will.

There it is, as plain as the nose on your face. But will you see it, or continue to blindly look past it?

Right back atcha, buddy

[MiserereNobis]

Dang, God's plan foiled by the automatons He created.

I hate that, when it happens.

Ah, sarcasm, the last refuge...

[Vance]

This is rather asinine.

Yes, to believe that God is not responsible for His creation is rather asinine.

Do you like it when non-LDS tell you what you believe?

Not at all.

But your problem is that you can't explain the obvious contradiction in your theology. You are free to continue to swallow it. But don't expect your (lack of logical) explanation change the obvious facts of the situation.

Stop telling Catholics what they believe.

Just pointing out the inconsistency of it. Too bad that pointing out the obvious is a problem for you.

No Catholic believes that God made a mistake in the Garden of Eden.

The fact remains that such an OBVIOUSLY ILLOGICAL position is being put forth.

The problem is that you simply cannot accept the idea that God can create a being with free will. That is your issue.

Just as your problem is that you simply cannot accept the idea that God can create a being with free will that would be free from sin. So my "issue" is no different than your "issue".

Free will is only programmed in your limited view of free will.

So, is that an admission that God does the programming?

I simply do not understand why you fail to see that God can create a being with free will.

And I simply do not understand why you fail to see that God, (if He really started with nothing) can create a being with free will that would be free from sin.

Right back atcha, buddy

Indeed.

So, can you explain why God was incapable of creating a being with your "free will" that would also not sin? Was such a creation beyond His power? Or did He really not want to do it?

[MiserereNobis]

Yes, to believe that God is not responsible for His creation is rather asinine.

God is not responsible for my choices -- I am.

But your problem is that you can't explain the obvious contradiction in your theology.

Vance, the contradiction only exists in your mind. God creates a being with free will, that being uses that free will to choose to go against God, that being is therefore guilty of abusing his free will, not God.

Just pointing out the inconsistency of it. Too bad that pointing out the obvious is a problem for you.

You haven't pointed out anything obvious. You've only repeated yourself over and over, with no evidence or argument to support your contention that God cannot create a being with free will.

The fact remains that such an OBVIOUSLY ILLOGICAL position is being put forth.

It's only obvious to you. So, please explain how it is illogical for God to create a being with free will.

Just as your problem is that you simply cannot accept the idea that God can create a being with free will that would be free from sin. So my "issue" is no different than your "issue".

God could create a being that would be free from sin, but that being would not have free will. Free will, by definition, means that the being is free to choose God or sin.

So, is that an admission that God does the programming?

I'm just using your language. God does not program free will. It would not be free then.

And I simply do not understand why you fail to see that God, (if He really started with nothing) can create a being with free will that would be free from sin.

As I said above, the will would therefore not be free.

In the LDS view, was Satan's plan in the pre-existence rejected because it was wrong or because it was impossible? This is a sincere question -- I don't know the LDS answer.

So, can you explain why God was incapable of creating a being with your "free will" that would also not sin? Was such a creation beyond His power? Or did He really not want to do it?

Both. The will would not have been free and He did not want to force a will. God did not want automatons -- He wanted beings that could freely choose Him and freely choose love.

[Vance]

God is not responsible for my choices -- I am.

I agree. And the reason is that "creatio ex nihilo" is a false doctrine.

Vance, the contradiction only exists in your mind.

Apparently not.

God creates a being with free will, that being uses that free will to choose to go against God, that being is therefore guilty of abusing his free will, not God.

I agree. And the reason is that "creatio ex nihilo" is a false doctrine.

You haven't pointed out anything obvious.

The fact that you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't obvious to others.

You've only repeated yourself over and over, with no evidence or argument to support your contention that God cannot create a being with free will.

Projection.

It's only obvious to you. So, please explain how it is illogical for God to create a being with free will.

I have several times.

God could create a being that would be free from sin, but that being would not have free will. Free will, by definition, means that the being is free to choose God or sin.

You are getting THAT logic but you are missing mine.

God CAN create a being with free will because He doesn't create ex nihilo. Get it?

I'm just using your language. God does not program free will. It would not be free then.

If God creates ex nihilo then God does program.

If God does not program free will (which He can't) then creatio ex nihilo is false doctrine. Simple really

As I said above, the will would therefore not be free.

I wonder if you are grasping the concept that it is creatio ex nihilo that is the problem here.

In the LDS view, was Satan's plan in the pre-existence rejected because it was wrong or because it was impossible? This is a sincere question -- I don't know the LDS answer.

False dichotomy. Both.

Both. The will would not have been free and He did not want to force a will. God did not want automatons -- He wanted beings that could freely choose Him and freely choose love.

Both? I asked three questions.

Still wondering if you are grasping the concept that it is the false doctrine of creatio ex nihilo that is the problem.

[zerinus]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". (

417

)

Original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act. (

404

)

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. (

405

)

[Adam] has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul". Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin. (

403

)

Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin (

405

).

The unborn have not committed any personal sins to be guilty of, and the original sin that afflicts them lacks the character of a personal fault. But because they are deprived of original holiness and justice, once born they need Baptism to receive the justice of God (cf. Council of Trent, Session 5; Session 6, Chapter 7).

That doctrine contradicts the Bible, and therefore it is false:

Matthew 19:

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 10:

14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:

16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 7:

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

These verses teach that little children are holy, and untainted by original sin; because they are already heirs of the kingdom of heaven. When it says “for of such is the kingdom of heaven,” that means that they are heirs of that kingdom already, which in turn means that they are unaffected by any manner of sin.

[zerinus]

From the LDS point-of-view (as I understand it), we are not a fallen race, so I can understand why they think the concept of "original sin" is so strange.

From LDS point of view, we are a fallen race. The difference is that unlike Catholicism, being a fallen race does not make us guilty for the sin of Adam. We become guilty by our own sins, not the sin of Adam.

[zerinus]

Even in the LDS 'Articles of Faith', they distinctly state that we are not accountable for the sin of Adam and Eve.

As a Catholic, I totally agree with this understanding but it's discussion like this that I wished the RCC didn't use the term 'Original Sin.'

According to Catholic theology, we are guilty because of the sin of Adam---otherwise why baptise little children for the remission of sins?

[Calm]

Vance, it seems to me to be sufficient to simply say that you (and me for that matter) find the premise that "God can create a being with free will" from ex nihilo that is not a being that makes random choices nor a being that is neither influenced to sin or sinlessness impossible, like God creating a rock that is too big for him to raise and leave it at that.

That others do not find that premise illogical in the same way but take it as a matter of faith is not something that needs to be belaboured.

[zerinus]

Do you really feel that I am attacking your church? I have not felt that I have done that. I have asked questions and started discussions that apparently are interesting to people since many of them go on page after page (like this one).

I refrained from engaging Ahab on sense vs. nonsense because he and I went the rounds on that before and didn't convince the other what it means to have an explanation that makes sense or not.

You and I have gone back and forth and determined that you have a postmodern outlook and I a neo-Platonic one. We both reject the other's underlying philosophical assumptions. You in fact told me that there was no need for us to go at it over philosophy, because "that's called the History of Philosophy."

From my point-of-view, I have offered Catholic answers to Catholic questions. If you don't accept them, that is understandable. But that doesn't mean I never try to answer them.

I am also not the Encylopedia of Catholicism. I do not have the answers to all questions regarding Catholicism, just as posters here do not have the answers to all things LDS.

I guess I feel a little bummed out that you consider me to be on the attack yet evasive, as I don't see myself doing that at all. Oh well. *shrug*

ETA: I also cannot respond to every post/question by every post/questioner simply because I am just one guy. I'm happy to see a few other Catholics responding to help spread out the load. If I do not respond to a particular post, please don't anyone take it personally.

I have never felt that you are attacking Mormonism.

[zerinus]

We do not intend to "remove original sin" when we are baptized. Our intention is to enter into a formal covenant with God.

Which is exactly why LDS baptism is invalid from the Catholic point-of-view.

Mormon baptisms are for the "remissions of sins," but not of the "original sin".

Edited September 28, 2012 by zerinus

[Ran]

According to Catholic theology, we are guilty because of the sin of Adam---otherwise why baptise little children for the remission of sins?

I think that needs to be qualified.

The Catholic Church baptizes little children for the remission of sins because they are afflicted with original sin. While original sin is called "sin", it is only in an analogical sense, since it is not an act but a state of deprivation. More importantly, it does not have the character of a personal fault [culpae] (cf. 404, 405 [Lat.]). Culpa is also translated as "guilt" (cf. 1801 Eng. v. Lat.).

Therefore, saying "we are guilty because of the sin of Adam" may be imprecise, since original sin does not have the character of culpa.

[MiserereNobis]

Vance, it seems to me to be sufficient to simply say that you (and me for that matter) find the premise that "God can create a being with free will" from ex nihilo that is not a being that makes random choices nor a being that is neither influenced to sin or sinlessness impossible, like God creating a rock that is too big for him to raise and leave it at that.

That others do not find that premise illogical in the same way but take it as a matter of faith is not something that needs to be belaboured.

Thank you -- I think Vance and I have belabored the point ad naseum now, eh?

I'll end with one thought and then Vance or whomever can have the last word. The example of God creating a rock that is too big for him to raise (which is an analogy, of course) really asks the question if God has the power to limit his power. The answer is yes. God could create such a rock because he would be actively willing to limit his power. So, through his power he limits his power. This applies to human free-will as well. God limits His will in relation to ours. This is usually referred to as active vs. passive will. He actively wills our existence and passively wills our will, which leaves us free to choose.

As the Blessed Virgin Mary heard and believed, "with God, nothing is impossible."

Peace be with you!

[zerinus]

I think that needs to be qualified.

The Catholic Church baptizes little children for the remission of sins because they are afflicted with original sin. While original sin is called "sin", it is only in an analogical sense, since it is not an act but a state of deprivation.

I think you are playing with wods here, trying to square a circle. When someone commits a sin, that is an act, resulting in a "deprivation," as you would like to call it. The "deprivation" is the consequence of the "act". The purpose if baptism is to remove the deprivation, not the act that caused the deprivation. Now in this scheme of things it is immaterial how the deprivation was caused, but only it's removal. So technically and in practical terms there is no distinction between the two. It is a distinction without a difference.

More importantly, it does not have the character of a personal fault [culpae] (cf. 404, 405 [Lat.]). Culpa is also translated as "guilt" (cf. 1801 Eng. v. Lat.).

Therefore, saying "we are guilty because of the sin of Adam" may be imprecise, since original sin does not have the character of culpa.

But in practice it amounts to the same thing. Whether it is a personal fault or not, the consequences remain the same, so it appears to be too much fuss over nothing. You are trying to square a circle, which cannot be done.

[Vance]

As the Blessed Virgin Mary heard and believed, "with God, nothing is impossible."

As the saying goes, "A text without context is pretext for a proof text".

Actually I think you are mis-attributing the quote to Mary.

The full context may I suggest,

Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

I actually prefer some of the other translations.

International Standard Version (©2008)

Nothing is impossible with respect to any of God's promises."

American Standard Version

For no word from God shall be void of power.

Douay-Rheims Bible

Because no word shall be impossible with God.

English Revised Version

For no word from God shall be void of power.

Weymouth New Testament

For no promise from God will be impossible of fulfilment."

World English Bible

For everything spoken by God is possible."

Edited September 28, 2012 by Vance