Catholics for Choice: We’re so brave for making this heretical video
Politicians often come to [Catholics for Choice] when they are being pressured by their local bishop. They want to know if they’re getting the full story in the one supplied by the institutional church. As can be seen in the movie, the answer is a resounding “No.”
The “secret” is that there is more than one magisterium — in addition to the hierarchy, there is also the magisterium of the theologians and that of the people. This means that any of us can be called to teach, and for many this can mean doing what the theologians and thinkers in the film — Rosemary Radford Ruether, Dan Maguire, Mary Hunt, Anthony Padovano, Sheila Briggs, Daniel Dombrowski and Kate Ott — have done: bravely speak out.
~ Jon O’Brien (pictured above right), president of Catholics for Choice, explaining how the recent release of “The Secret History of Sex, Choice, and Catholics” video has somehow set the record straight on what the Catholic Church really teaches regarding human sexuality, RH Reality Check, December 19
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/magisterium :
mag·is·te·ri·um
[maj-uh-steer-ee-uh?m] Show IPA
noun, Roman Catholic Church .
the authority and power of the church to teach religious truth.
Origin:
1585–95; < Latin: magistery
Note in particular the terms authority and power, and that it’s specifically of the Church. It’s hard to see from this definition, it’s hard to see that just anyone could start saying whatever they want and call it a magisterium.
I don’t know if what he said is true but as a Protestant I would say people can be called to teach, but if your views conflict with the WORD OF GOD then it is WRONG. Period. You may argue against Catholic church doctrine and think you’re right but if what you’re arguing is forbidden by God’s Word (shedding innocent blood is an abomination to God, children are valued by God and a blessing. God forms the child within his mother’s womb) then you’re WRONG. Period. There is no argument against the Word ofGod. How do they reconcile their position in light of God’s Word and science? They’re murderous monsters! And if they really believe in a holy and just God I would tremble if I were them.
Selling their souls to impress the world of men…
Below is the authentic teaching from the Catholic catechism if anybody is interested:
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person — among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth .
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish .
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
2272 Formal co-operation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. ‘A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae‘ ‘by the very commission of the offence’, and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law . The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
‘The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.‘
‘The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.’
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, ‘if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human foetus and is directed toward its safeguarding or healing as an individual… It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.’
2275 ‘One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.’
‘It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.’
‘Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity’ which are unique and unrepeatable.
But truthseeker, you’re quoting from the wrong magisterium, LOL.
Actually, truthseeker referred to the institutional magisterium.
He could pick from any number of magisteriums according to O’Brien: magisteriums of theologians, of nuns, of the laity, of the professors, even filmmakers can have their own magisteriums. Pick any group; they can become a magisterium!
Didn’t you know that?
There is only one Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Any other “teaching authority” is not part of the Catholic Church. Catholics for Abortion is a schismatic group that is teaching heresy.
Cool. So now they’ve found a term that sounds better than “cafeteria Catholic”! MAGESTERIUM! Makes it sound all official and whatnot, instead of just a bunch of people claiming to be something they’re not-Catholic.
You guys might not have known this about me, but I’m actually a Code Pink member! I just belong to a different magesterium that believes in a strong national defense of our country through military action. 9_9
O’Brien – “No – Lord!”
Yeah, right.
Jon – you should ensure the light inside you is not really darkness.
Who are the real Magisterium? Are they mysterious white bearded old men, sequestered in high, unreachable ivory towers? No. They are our priests, our deacons, our bishops, cardinals, and all the people who also do the daily hard work of running parishes and diocese. It is a thankless job, kind of like motherhood! Thank you everyone out there who works hard and gives of themselves to help others! Keep the faith.
ninek says: “Who are the real Magisterium? They are our priests, our deacons, our bishops, cardinals, and all the people who also do the daily hard work of running parishes and diocese.”
Not exactly.
Magisterium:
“The Church’s teaching authority, vested in the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, under the Roman Pontiff, as successor of St. Peter. Also vested in the Pope, as Vicar of Christ and visible head of the Catholic Church.”
Yes. Lrning, and where do those Bishops come from? From among the local diocese, working their way up. My point is that they originate among the community; today’s altar server may grow up to become the next member of the Magisterium.
I don’t know nothin about the ‘magical mystery tour’, but these ‘catlicks for a choice’… for a dead baby are nothing new.
The apostle Paul warned us about these weasels like them:
Eph 4:14 So then, we may no longer be children, tossed [like ships] to and fro between chance gusts of teaching and wavering with every changing wind of doctrine, [the prey of] the cunning and cleverness of unscrupulous men, [gamblers engaged] in every shifting form of trickery in inventing errors to mislead. AMP
1 John 2:18-19 18 Boys (lads), it is the last time (hour, the end of this age). And as you have heard that the antichrist [he who will oppose Christ in the guise of Christ] is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen, which confirms our belief that it is the final (the end) time.
19 They went out from our number, but they did not [really] belong to us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us. But [they withdrew] that it might be plain that they all are not of us. AMP
In case I don’t post here again until after Christmas I would just like to say Merry Christmas to anyone who is reading this.
(I picked this thread because it appears to be the most active right now).
Catholics squabbling at christmas, irony overdose.
Q1) How do we know that the Bible is the true and inspired word of God?
Q2) How do we know which books belong in the Bible?
A1.2) Councils of bishops carefully discerned this. (In particular, the Councils of Carthage and Hippo, 390 – 400 AD. St. Augustine and St. Jerome were part of that group.) Christians accept this because we believe the councils were guided by the Holy Spirit in selecting the Books, just as the authors were guided by the Holy Spirit in writing them.
Q3) Why are Protestant Bibles missing 7 books from the Old Testament?
A3) In essence, Martin Luther declared himself to be a divinely guided authority over Scripture and demoted several books to the back. Over decades, Protestant put most of them back, but the deuterocanonical books were eventually removed entirely. In this sense, Luther and colleagues acted as a Magisterium for the followers of their tradition.
So….. Jon Obrien can name a large number of leaders and groups and movements who had diverging opinions about life and death and Christian faith. But none of them achieved the level of “magisterium.” As a litmus test, they cannot be magisterium until they can impose their own Table of Contents on the Scripture, and then teach with broad authority about the meaning of Scripture.
Jon is a fool. He hopes to draw Catholics away from their faith by insisting that killing children “used to be okay for Catholics to do.” Jesus had very harsh words for persons who seek to lead others astray.
Mt 18:6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
Catholics squabbling at christmas, irony overdose.
Proaborts calling themselves Catholic and/or prolife, irony death.
Ninek, my mother is a parish business manager and often has the difficult job of finding the money to keep the parish operating. I thought your 3:31p comment was right on and shared it with her and although she stated that true magisterium is the priests and bishops, she appreciated the gratitude non the less.
Happy Holidays everyone!
Catholics for Choice = Vegans for Meat. Same concept.
BTW, here is an excellent link about some the blatant lies contained in the CFC video: http://actsoftheapostasy.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/catholics-for-choice-produce-the-made-up-history-of-sex-choice-catholics-video/
“Christians accept this because we believe the councils were guided by the Holy Spirit in selecting the Books, just as the authors were guided by the Holy Spirit in writing them”
Oh, that makes sense. I’m glad they didn’t have any personal agendas.
PS Merry Christmas to all my friends here. Hope you have a wonderful year.
Proaborts calling themselves Catholic and/or prolife, irony death – that would mean that theres no irony in the sentence.
Anti-choicers calling themselves pro-life, especially those who support the death penalty, dichotomous irony.
Great point, Reality. Unborn children should be given due process of law prior to their executions, just like those on Death Row. I’m glad we agree!
Due process of law applies to citizens JoAnna :-)
Non citizens as well. You couldn’t imprison a person who was a foreigner without due process. (well, until George W. Bush, you couldn’t).
Due process applies to “persons.” Which is why you have the “personhood” movement.
“Non citizens as well. You couldn’t imprison a person who was a foreigner without due process. (well, until George W. Bush, you couldn’t).”
Now under Obama they passed a law that the Secret Service can accuse people of disrupting campaign events and arrest and detain them indefinitely with due process. Oh, and under Obama he claims (and has) he can order drone strikes on US citizens without due process too.
Given the subversive and undemocratic behaviors displayed and the muttered declarations of coups threatened by the more extreme end of the whole loonie tunes parade of idiots, obama is probably wise to be prepared to protect the majority of citizens from them. Good on him.
Reality; “anti-choicer,” “those who support the death penalty”…best you can do? The position of the Church (and of most “pro-lifers” I know) is that in today’s developed countries the death penalty is strongly discouraged because we have the means to isolate murderers and keep them from preying on the population. In ancient times there were often no means to do this and to protect the public, the death penalty was tolerated. The Church believes that the offender should be kept alive as there is a chance for redemption for his/her soul. Anti-choicer is an euphemism for anti-abortion. Don’t know of many pro-lifers who are against equality in pay, a woman’s choice of a job or not, her choice to be a believer or not, whether to marry, her choice for advanced education or whether to play sports, etc.
Reality, after all these years of having access to arguments that could enlighten your ignorance, you still think it’s a contradiction to be pro-life but also pro-death penalty?
The principle of forfeiture — a justification for death penalty — owes its internal logic precisely to the highest possible value placed on human life.
You really don’t understand this stuff, do you?
“Don’t know of many pro-lifers who are against equality in pay, a woman’s choice of a job or not, her choice to be a believer or not, whether to marry, her choice for advanced education or whether to play sports, etc.” – spend some time with us Gary, you’ll see a couple of those met.
“The principle of forfeiture — a justification for death penalty — owes its internal logic precisely to the highest possible value placed on human life” – ‘internal logic’, hm, interesting. I understand the concept rasqual, I just don’t understand how it can be accepted or defended.
Reality: Do you believe in freedom? If so, why would you advocate that perpetrators forfeit their freedom?
You’ll need to . . . think . . . to figure some of this stuff out.
Perhaps you need to…think…about how you phrase some of your questions.
Reality, if you’re truly interested in learning about how being pro-life and pro-capital-punishment are not mutually exclusive, I’d advise that you read the following: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/01/abortion-and-death-penalty.html
Gee thanks JoAnna, such an academically researched, unbiased and evidential article – not.
Why don’t you try reading it, Reality, before criticizing it?
I did read it, that’s why I criticized it!
Waffling on about fetuses being ‘innocent’ and conveniently ignoring the fact that executed prisoners and some on death row have been subsequently proven innocent.
Uh, with all due respect, I sympathize with Reality on that link. :-
C’mon, people, you can do better with an “I’m feeling lucky” at Google. ;-)
But as for concern about “bias,” Reality, I happen to really believe that this syllogism holds true:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal
Clearly I’m biased. Ergo, on your logic, it’s not a credible arguments because it’s being advanced by . . . someone who believes it?
And a jury, I suppose, is supposed to discount BOTH sides in a case — because they’re both “biased?”
Dude. That’s as irrational as it comes. Sounds like a lame excuse to discount anything you disagree with. But easily reduced to the absurd — your own bias disqualifies your dismissal of such sources. D’oh!
“Ergo, on your logic, it’s not a credible arguments because it’s being advanced by . . . someone who believes it?” – well you’ve come up with a poor example because the fact that Socrates died demonstrates that he was in fact mortal :-)
But as a rule no, in some instances “being advanced by . . . someone who believes it” is not a credible argument because the argument proposed may not be credible and/or because it lacks adequate and/or genuine evidence.
“And a jury, I suppose, is supposed to discount BOTH sides in a case — because they’re both “biased?” – what’s this, your interplanetary thought frisbee? You know how a jury works, you know how the judge directs. The verdict is generally based on the evidence provided. You also know that there are cases where evidence may have been fabricated or hidden or is discovered later, thus rendering a previous guilty verdict faulty.
Therefore, based on the evidence at hand and the application of logic your quip “Dude. That’s as irrational as it comes. Sounds like a lame excuse to discount anything you disagree with. But easily reduced to the absurd — your own bias disqualifies your dismissal of such sources. D’oh” is found to be totally bereft of either.
You start by agreeing with my summary of the article. I provided evidence for my summary of the article. Then you proceed to claim that I discounted it purely on the basis of its being biased? I think your comments are rather more self-reflective than you may recognize.
Reality: “you’ve come up with a poor example because the fact that Socrates died demonstrates that he was in fact mortal” So the fact that empirical evidence is valuable makes deductive logic less so? Dude… What a lame, lame response, Reality. Yes, I know how a jury works. And by your example, because each side is “biased,” we can dismiss what they have to say. Nice attempt to deflect from your infantile retort to JoAnna. I agree with you the source is bogus. But you have to go and ruin the joy by impugning it for thoroughly irrational reasons. Even when I throw you a sop, you blunder about like a moron (moderators, I’m not saying Reality’s a moron. There’s a difference between being one and, through no fault of one’s own, acting like one).
As for “purely” on the basis of its bias, dude. If you’ve already cited genuine reasons why it’s a bad source, why would you show serious intellectual deficits in impugning it on account of your own mere disagreement with its position on the topic? Weak, lamer.
Sweet! Nice little doggie paddle around the ‘pool of scrabbling for recovery’ there fella.
“So the fact that empirical evidence is valuable makes deductive logic less so?” – did I say that? No, I didn’t.
“because each side is “biased,” we can dismiss what they have to say” – still struggling to keep up are you? Each side presents their case, biases and all. The jury assesses their claims, biases and all, against the evidence which is shown. Their respective viewpoints are also used to analyze and interpret evidence to some extent. Pure speculation and opinion is not classified as evidence.
Why am I not surprised that you classify a request for an article to be “academically researched, unbiased and evidential” as infantile.
“But you have to go and ruin the joy by impugning it for thoroughly irrational reasons” and “why would you show serious intellectual deficits in impugning it on account of your own mere disagreement with its position on the topic?” – please cite these ‘irrational reasons’ I used to impugn the article.
There is no such thing as being a true Catholic and supporting abortion. It’s been absolutely put down as not possible by the Catechism and popes.
Catholics For Choice are NOT truly Catholic. They are in direct violation of the teaching of the Church and therefore not reliable source on what the Church truly teaches on the subject of abortion.
Someone posted what’s in the Catechism–The Catechism IS a reliable source on what the Catholic Church teaches.
THIS NEEDS TO BE READ 1000 Times for boneheads to get it,,,,,,,,,,
There is no such thing as being a true Catholic and supporting abortion. It’s been absolutely put down as not possible by the Catechism and popes.
Catholics For Choice are NOT truly Catholic. They are in direct violation of the teaching of the Church and therefore not reliable source on what the Church truly teaches on the subject of abortion.
Someone posted what’s in the Catechism–The Catechism IS a reliable source on what the Catholic Church teaches.
Sorry, Only THE magestirium is THE Magestirium, hence its erm….. name…The magestirium.
The Catholic Church has clearly stated its position on Abortion for many years. Wot a few cafetersia Catholics think…pah! it is not a democracy.