Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: 'There is no sin that God's mercy cannot reach and wipe away': Pope declares that priests will permanently be allowed to forgive abortion
Source:
Daily Mail Online
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... ecial-permission-abortion.html
Published: Nov 21, 2016
Author: Associated Press and Chris Summers For M
Post Date: 2016-11-21 09:06:01 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 6165
Comments: 16
Pope Francis has said priests will from now on be able to permanently absolve the 'grave sin' of women who have abortions. The Argentine-born pontiff had granted a special permission to forgive the 'grave sin' during the Holy Year of Mercy, which began on December 8 last year and ended yesterday. But today Francis, 79, agreed to make it a permanent policy that Catholic priests can absolve women who have had abortions. In a document published by the Vatican today he said: 'There is no sin that God's mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart.' But he reiterated the Roman Catholic Church's position that 'abortion is a grave sin, since it puts an end to an innocent life.' He then gave an interview in which he described abortion as 'a horrendous crime'. The Pope did not make any concessions to cases where the pregnancy resulted from rape or where it threatened the life of the mother. Today he said: 'May every priest be a guide, support and comfort to penitents on this journey of special reconciliation.' Because the Roman Catholic Church holds abortion to be such a serious sin, it had long put the matter of granting forgiveness for it in the hands of a bishop, who could either hear the woman's confession himself or delegate that to a priest who was expert in such situations. By letting all priests absolve the sin of abortion, Francis is further applying his vision of a merciful church to those women who, as he has written in the past, felt they had no choice but to make 'this agonising and painful decision'. The pope hopes greater compassion from a more open-minded Vatican will increase church attendance. His change in policy comes as the new US President Donald Trump prepares to take office, having promised to appoint Supreme Court judges who will repeal Roe v Wade, the ruling which allows abortion. Trump and the Republican right want to allow individual states in America to decide on abortion, rather than being federally mandated to approve it.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
Tell this Marxist pope, and the remainder of the leftist religious assholes that God may forgive, but I don't. As a firm beleiver in modernized Bushido and having concern with what they're doing to to us in this life, I'm willing to send them on the long trip to see Jesus permanently and receive their hypothetical forgiveness. It's my right to do so under the prevailing multiculturalism. It's not only my right, it's a moral obligation within my subculture.
I agree with that - the key being "a repentant heart". Pope Francis has said priests will from now on be able to permanently absolve the 'grave sin' of women who have abortions. Priests and bishops do not have the power to "absolve" any sin - only God Himself can do that. It's your "right" to send them on the long trip to see Jesus permanently? No it isn't. You have no right to kill others. It's your "moral obligation" within your "subculture", to kill other people? Better get new morals quickly, and find a new subculture to inhabit.
Why not? Suppose they are inflicting harm upon me, or mine? Is there anything I must be required to submit to under your argument? You are a terrific advocate for surrender to maliciousness. I am not to be converted into being an advocate for your refined philosophy of masochism.
If they are threatening your life or limb, in the opinion of judge and jury, then you would be justified in killing them. If they aren't, and you kill them, you're a murderer who gets sent to jail or to the death guerney, depending on your state. Pretty basic stuff.
If they aren't, and you kill them, you're a murderer who gets sent to jail or to the death guerney, depending on your state. Laws are made and interpreted my lawyers, prosecutors, and judges for their own benefit. There has been an erosion of law and rationality because of it. It was not always so. I treat people the same way they treat, or intend to, treat me. If they seriously cross the line, I'm morally justified in killing them. I have an uncomfortable relationship with the Sheriff's office. I also have a few acres of property with a half finished house. Theives and malicious vandals have done $100,000 worth of damage to it. I'm financially wiped out. There is no reason to stop. In the adjacent town thieves and malicious vandals have hit every house along a distance of three miles. People are leaving the county to get away from it. I have been unable to enter my own property for two years because if I do I'll need to shoot somebody to get in. Then the lawyers and prosecutors will raise the hysterical cry of "taking the law into his own hands!" and "He thinks he should be judge, jury, and executioner!" to the applause of pseudo-moral shitheads like you. I have a large electrical generator on my truck to replace the one which was stolen that I have been afraid to unload at the building site for two years. It will be stolen in a week. There's only one way to stop it. Kill the bastards. It won't be pretty when you see what the coyote and racoons do to the bodies, but there won't be an asshole within a 40 mile radius who won't pee his pants at the very thought of robbing the area. That would be an end to the lawlessness in the area. It's the only way to stop it. The Sheriff's office knows my temperment and capability. I'm not allowed to do it.
It was always so. The burden of the bad decisions merely fell on different people than now.
Thes nation has too many spoiled brats, including you, who have never learned the simple guiding principle that, There was originally a compendium of law which addressed that. That is probably a bit much for a little kid on and obscure internet site present himself as some kind of hokey French nobleman to understand.
No means no, eh? Yeah, the British tried to impose that theory of law. No only means no if you have the force to make your will stick. If I don't agree with your "No", because it's not in MY interests, then I'm not going to respect that "no" of yours. I'm going to evade it if I can, undermine it. And if I can take power from you, overthrow your no and impose my "Yes" in its place, I will. That's the way the world works. Always has. You would like for some human decisions to be nice and solid forever, decided and untouchable. You have to find a new human race to get that sort of obedience to rules (outside of Germany, of course), because human beings don't take "No" and just lump it. They challenge and chafe and kick, and question - they question who has the authority to impose "No" (or "Yes") on them, and why. And they keep questioning and kicking. Nobody ever gets the last word. All law is always a negotiation. When it is sternly enforced, by a force strong enough to enforce it, it is externally obeyed. If it's reasonable and people agree with it, you don't have to do much to enforce it. Most people agree that murder is bad, and murderers do get pursued and punished. But when, say, a bunch of old biddies decide that nobody can drink alcohol anymore, and pull off a political coup to get their Talibanic ideas enacted in the Constitution, the result is what the result was. People will not obey that law, and the whole edifice of law itself will come crashing down if you insist on trying to enforce it. That is the way among men. Men are not the docile, obedient creatures you would like them to be. Everything is always open to question and challenge. No means no - as far and as long as you can enforce that opinion, or persuade people that it's right. And the cost of enforcing an unpopular "No" will eventually become so high that "No" will become maybe...or the peasants will just chop your head off your "no" with it. Nothing is ever settled once and for all. Never will be. The dead cannot restrain the living any farther than the living decide to let themselves be restrained.
That is probably a bit much for a little kid on and obscure internet site present himself as some kind of hokey French nobleman to understand. Yeah, and that law, and the government that imposed it, is gone with the wind, because it has never been true that "No means no" absolutely. The complexity of human beings and the need for constant persuasion, negotiation, resistance and thought is apparently a bit much for an old man with hardened arteries to understand.
What was that legal theory's name?
"The Rule of Law".
"The Rule of Law". Flunk. That's not a legal theory. It's nothing but a grandiose statement on intent to impose a particular system that may exhibit anything from rationalty to the completely punitive. Any, or all, madmen or malicious societies can demand compliance to practical universal imprisonment by constructing and advocating compliance to a rule of its laws as a standard of behavior. A legal theory consists of analysis of the basic principles underwriting its legal system.
Who cares? The American system is founded upon brute force and has survived because of brute force. Democracy chooses who wields the force.
Who cares? The American system is founded upon brute force and has survived because of brute force. Democracy chooses who wields the force. Correct. And in a nuthouse democracy or rule by a entrenched corrupt self-serving group, they call imposition of that force, "the rule of law."
Law is never anything more than the opinion of those who have the power to legislate. That's even true of God's law. Might makes right. And might also makes rights. Power ultimately comes from the barrel of a gun.
#2. To: cranky (#0)
'There is no sin that God's mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart.'
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#3. To: rlk (#1)
It's my right to do so under the prevailing multiculturalism. It's not only my right, it's a moral obligation within my subculture.
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
(Edited)
You have no right to kill others.
#5. To: rlk (#4)
Why not? Suppose they are inflicting harm upon me, or mine?
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
(Edited)
If they are threatening your life or limb, in the opinion of judge and jury, then you would be justified in killing them.
#7. To: rlk (#6)
(Edited)
Laws are made and interpreted my lawyers, prosecutors, and judges for their own benefit. There has been an erosion of law and rationality because of it. It was not always so.
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
No means no! It doesn't mean yes. It does't meas yes. It doesn't mean maybe. It doesn't mean we'll talk about it. It doesn't mean we'll argue about it. It does't mean we'll pass laws against it to would-be intruders advantage. That is the way it is among men. Among men they conduct their lives and activities in such a way as to not trespass upon the lives and boundaries of other men unless they want to suffer accordingly.
#9. To: rlk (#8)
(Edited)
Thes nation has too many spoiled brats, including you
#10. To: rlk (#8)
(Edited)
There was originally a compendium of law which addressed that.
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
Yeah, the British tried to impose that theory of law.
#12. To: rlk (#11)
What was that legal theory's name?
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
What was that legal theory's name?
#14. To: rlk (#13)
A legal theory consists of analysis of the basic principles underwriting its legal system.
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
A legal theory consists of analysis of the basic principles underwriting its legal system.
#16. To: rlk (#15)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]