Pro-abort Catholic communion showdown
This morning at 9:30a EST the Pope will celebrate Mass at the new Nationals Park baseball stadium in DC before an expected crowd of 45,000+.
That crowd will include notorious Catholic pro-abort politicians, including Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry.
And they plan to receive communion.
Reported the Associated Press last night…
Catholic members of Congress who publicly support the right to abortion will trek to Nationals Park Thursday for a Mass celebrated by a pope who has said such lawmakers should not receive Communion.
Leading these lawmakers, some of whom have repeatedly complained about remarks by Pope Benedict XVI and a few bishops on the subject, will be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the government’s highest-ranking Catholic and a supporter of abortion rights….
S]he bent to kiss his ring at the White House Wednesday… and later she spoke glowingly on the House floor about his commitment to truth, justice and freedom….
And yes, her spokesman said, she intends to receive Communion from one of the 300 priests and lay ministers who will offer it….
Meanwhile, American Life League, plans to document the breaches:
Pro-abortion politicians attempting to receive Holy Communion at the papal Masses in New York and Washington, D.C. will be photographed in an effort spearheaded by American Life League.
“Organizations such as Catholics for a Free Choice and the so-called Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence have tried time and time again to politicize the Eucharist and ALL is saying ‘enough!'” said Judie Brown, president of ALL. “We’re asking our bishops and priests to be extraordinarily vigilant in defending the Eucharist.”…
[S]aid Brown… “This is no small matter, and we have full faith that Pope Benedict XVI will make clear that any unrepentant person who facilitates, promotes, obtains or assists in an abortion is not fit to receive the body and blood of Christ.”
Don’t forget Pelosi was one of 48 Catholic members of Congress who in 2004 had the gall to write the Pope a complaint letter about about this abortion business. It read, as quoted by the AP:
If Catholic legislators are scorned and held out for ridicule by Church leaders on the basis of a single issue, the Church will lose strong advocates on a wide range of issues that relate to the core of important Catholic social teaching…. Moreover, criticism of us on a matter that is essentially one of personal morality will deter other Catholics from entering politics, and in the long run the Church will suffer.
I can’t imagine what will go through Pelosi’s head as she stands in line to receive communion, as she finally stands before the priest her people have certainly hand-picked beforehand they know will not turn her away. She won’t go to Cardinal Archbishop Burke, that’s for sure.
I imagine the hand-picked priest will think he’s extending some sort of grace to Pelosi.
He’s mistaken. Clearly Pelosi’s heart is so hardened, he will do her no favor today by continuing to indulge this gravest violation of her faith. These indulgences have only emboldened Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, etc., and now new Catholic politicians who see the continued placations and think they don’t have to “choose” between their faith and abortion.
And by not turning her away, he will not only aid in the destruction of her soul, he will become complicit with her direct influence in the killing of babies.
I’m not even Catholic, and I get all this.
[HT: friend Ed; photo of Pelosi courtesy of the Associated Press; photo of John Kerry taking communion in 2004 also courtesy of AP]
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.
The rules are pretty simple.
Not Catholic? No communion for you.
State of Mortal Sin? No communion for you.
Burke is an Archbishop, not a Cardinal. Hopefully, someday he will be a Cardinal.
Like I said yesterday, Nancy Pelosi makes me want to vomit.
Keep the under 18 boys out of that stadium!
PeachPit,
There are pedophiles in every other faith out there. My uncle is a Minister and has stated that it just doesn’t get any press.
There are pedophiles in schools. Doesn’t get much press.
Your statement was offensive and rude.
PeachPit,
There are pedophiles in every other faith out there. My uncle is a Minister and has stated that it just doesn’t get any press.
There are pedophiles in schools. Doesn’t get much press.
Your statement was offensive and rude.
‘Bout time somebody highlight the scandal these politicians are calling upon themselves.
Wonder if any of those good folks ever heard of St. Thomas More, a politician who chose to die rather than renounce basic tenets of his faith for the sake of the British King.
It’s cool that you’re featuring this, Jill. You probably have a better grasp about our faith than some of the politicos.
It kills me how often we, the pro lifers, are called intolerant, and yet Catholic Bashing on this website has been running rampant!
I would NEVER even contemplate bashing someone elses faith…it’s right up there with the crazy “degenrate guy” and whoever messed with Bethany’s pictures.
What compels you people to do this? It’s amazing to me…
Peachpit:
Keep boys and girls under the age of 18 out of public schools!
Archbishop Burke is sooo cool!
BTW, I don’t think that picture of Kerry receiving communion is not from a CATHOLIC Church. When the wine is offered (its not at my parish, but it is at my sister’s parish in another diocese) it is not distributed to the faithful in little cups. At least its not in my state.
Archbishop Raymond Burke would definitely not give communion to any Pro Abortion Catholic, and neither would my own Bishop, whom I think is also there. However, from Papal Masses I have watched on EWTN in the past, its usually all the priests distributing communion. I hope they make sure not to give communion to those CINO politicians.
Whoops, will change title to Archbishop.
Not only don’t they give out the wine in little cups but Catholics aren’t allowed to participate in communion services of other faiths…wow, he’s just battin’ a thousand!
“Peachpit: Keep boys and girls under the age of 18 out of public schools!
Posted by: Bethany at April 17, 2008 8:30 AM
————————————
*LOL* ..now, If we could only open up our public education funds and allow people to CHOOSE whether they want their kids to go to Catholic/Religious schools or public schools…
If the Pope denies communion to pro-choice politicians, more American Catholics will leave the Church.
A large majority of American Catholics–something like 80%–support the use of birth control.
The Pope is out of touch.
Some Catholics don’t understand the teaching on contraception. Many are poorly catechized. Denying Communion, which Catholics believe is the BODY and BLOOD of Christ, is something a Priest or Bishop has the right to do.
Of course, we **all** face Judgement Day, so maybe the Priests and Bishops might be trying to save souls?
Do a hemoglobin test if you think communion wine is blood.
“If the Pope denies communion to pro-choice politicians, more American Catholics will leave the Church.”
so what.
“A large majority of American Catholics–something like 80%–support the use of birth control.
The Pope is out of touch.”
Yes SoMG, don’t you think the Pope should be pro-birth control and pro-choice? I mean, why not be screwed up like the rest of the culture? he should join in.
“Do a hemoglobin test if you think communion wine is blood.”
The accidents remain but the substance changes.
“Do a hemoglobin test if you think communion wine is blood.”
————————————
We know and believe it is..
This test was done already (with one of the eucharistic miracles)..it was, I believe, Type A.
And the Host (from another eucharistic miracle) was identified to be made of cardiac tissue.
Miracle of Lanciano Italy, baby!
A large majority of American Catholics–something like 80%–support the use of birth control.
The Pope is out of touch.
No, SoMG, The numbers are not that high. It depends on which Catholics are polled. Cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose what they want to believe are not true Catholics. The Pope is not the one out of touch, unfortunately many American Catholics are.
PeachPit said: “Keep the under 18 boys out of that stadium!
PeachPit—What an accomplishment! Less than an hour after Jill posted this, you’ve managed to illustrate Anderson’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law (also known as the reductio ad pedophilium):
Hey smoggy,
Do a brain scan if you think you have a brain.
Kidding, just kidding. Please no comments about judgement, charity etc.. It was a joke.
I read this week that somewhere around 60% of American Catholics disagree with the Church on abortion.
A large majority of American Catholics–something like 80%–support the use of birth control.
*
The Pope is out of touch.
Leave it to you to turn the whole thing into numbers. Catholics will leave? Let them and good riddance! The pope is out of touch? Couldn’t be the dissenting Catholics that are out of touch with the church???? No…that would be crazy talk!
The church is not a democracy. The church is what she is and nobody is forced to belong. You don’t like it…go. You want to stay? Welcome, now get on board.
Exactly what would the church have to offer if she became just another social club that was subject to the whims of every new “idea” that comes along.
Truth. I realize you are unfamiliar with the word, but it is what the church is all about. We aren’t planned parenthood, willing to change ‘truth” to suit our needs or please the masses!
Jill—
This is a minor quibble, but FWIW, the general consensus among Catholics is that “receive” is a better word than “take” to describe one’s act of consuming the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
Although I will admit that in the case of pro-abortion Catholic politicians, who know that they ought not be receiving Holy Communion, perhaps “take” is the appropriate word.
“Do a hemoglobin test if you think communion wine is blood.”
Been there, done that. Type AB.
Janet, check this out:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/22678.php
Money quote: “More than 75% of U.S. Catholics believe the church should allow the use of contraception, according to a recent Gallup poll (Roylance, Baltimore Sun, 4/10). ”
A large majority of American Catholics–something like 80%–support the use of birth control.
That means that 20% get it. This would be who the pope is speaking to.
I read this week that somewhere around 60% of American Catholics disagree with the Church on abortion.
PeachPit,
There are pedophiles in every other faith out there. My uncle is a Minister and has stated that it just doesn’t get any press.
There are pedophiles in schools. Doesn’t get much press.
Your statement was offensive and rude.
Posted by: Sandy at April 17, 2008 8:00 AM
*************************
Schools and other churches dont cover up for them and protect them and try to intimidate and buy off the victims. Schools, other churches, boyscouts, etc dont move the pedophiles from one place to another giving them free reign to a whole new crop of victims time after time after time. What is offensive and rude is the way the Roman Catholic church ENABLED and PROTECTED and HID these pedophiles.
thanks for the correction on the blood type, MK…
Money quote: “More than 75% of U.S. Catholics believe the church should allow the use of contraception, according to a recent Gallup poll (Roylance, Baltimore Sun, 4/10). “
oh..and guess what, the blood on the Shroud of Turin is also of type AB (discovered by Prof. Baima Bollone when he examined the Shroud)
“Money quote: “More than 75% of U.S. Catholics believe the church should allow the use of contraception, according to a recent Gallup poll (Roylance, Baltimore Sun, 4/10). “”
In fact, this illustrates what I was trying to tell Hieronymous about yesterday; how there is so much confusion about church teaching because of the scandal that dissenters cause. Those who cause others to fall into sin; may God have mercy on their souls.
NPR had a big piece about the papal visit and mentioned the souvenirs being sold – dont know why but the idea of a Pope t shirt tickles me – no insult intended, but it strikes me as funny
Here, I’ll save everyone the trouble: the Shroud of Turin is fake, the so-called “Eucharistic miracles” are fake.
TR: Schools and other churches didn’t cover-up abuse pre-1990’s? Then why are certain segments of society legally required to report suspected child abuse? If schools were doing such a good job of reporting abuse, then why do we need the “mandated reporter” laws for school personnel? Many segments of society were guilty of looking the other way back then. I can tell you from personal experience that families,schools, and doctors looked the other way back in the 1970’s.
Money quote: “More than 75% of U.S. Catholics believe the church should allow the use of contraception, according to a recent Gallup poll (Roylance, Baltimore Sun, 4/10). ”
I’ll get a message to the pope immediately. I’m sure he’ll want to change the entire Catholic Teaching based on a gallup poll…
Posted by: mk at April 17, 2008 9:44 AM
***************************
The RCC has changed its position on a whole lot of issues over the centuries and those changes were influenced by the people who made up the church. That’s fact, not opinion. Insisting it couldnt possibly change its position on contraceptives or any other issue is being willfully ignorant. Whether you want to admit it or not, the current position on abortion wasnt reached until 1869.
“If the Pope denies communion to pro-choice politicians, more American Catholics will leave the Church.
A large majority of American Catholics–something like 80%–support the use of birth control.
The Pope is out of touch.”
It doesn’t really matter how many people leave the Catholic church over BC or any other issue for that matter. Pope Benedict has already stated that he would rather have fewer Catholics but faithful ones, than wolves in sheep’s clothing who PRETEND to be practicing Catholics.
Numbers are not important, it’s whether a person really believes in his faith. The Catholic Church has always been counter-cultural.
For a brief change of topic:
My 13 year old won her Gr.8 violin sight reading class in the musical festival this morning beating out 6 other competitors. Yeah for Becca!!!!
SoMG:
Something you don’t understand about Christianity is obvious in your posts and really shows how utterly ignorant you are with regards, matters of faith.
Christianity is a revelation from God. Our faith is not based on what we think it should be or based on a vote of hands.
No, what you’re desribing is paganism.
Further, the Bible is very clear about the penealty of receiving Holy Communion unworthily. These pro-abort politicians make a mockery of Christ and are profaning His blood. They should read Hebrews chapter 10, especially the part where it describes God as being a consuming fire.
And the respect for the Catholic Church would skyrocket if they enforced their own teaching, i.e., refused communion to all such people who partake in the shedding of innocent blood.
Patricia,
Congrats to your Daughter!
The music for the Pope’s mass has been beautiful so far, by the way.
TR: What I am trying to say is that even families Enabled and Protected and Hid pedophiles back in the day and some still do unfortunately.
TR: Schools and other churches didn’t cover-up abuse pre-1990’s? Then why are certain segments of society legally required to report suspected child abuse? If schools were doing such a good job of reporting abuse, then why do we need the “mandated reporter” laws for school personnel? Many segments of society were guilty of looking the other way back then. I can tell you from personal experience that families,schools, and doctors looked the other way back in the 1970’s.
Posted by: Carrie at April 17, 2008 9:51 AM
*****************
What in the world does suspected child abuse in the home have to do with teachers or boy scout leaders or coaches who are molesting children? The RCC didnt cover up for abusive parents. It covered up for priests who were molesting and raping children. Trying to pretend one has anything to do with the other is ridiculous.
John J: Got it. Will change.
Thanks Janet. She’s got a concerto class this afternoon and tomorrow is piano and violin!!
Liturgical music can be beautiful if done properly!!
Been there, done that. Type AB.
and….
This test was done already (with one of the eucharistic miracles)..it was, I believe, Type A.
And the Host (from another eucharistic miracle) was identified to be made of cardiac tissue.
From previous posts, I thought you guys told us it the “appearance”, and that it doesn’t physically change into Christ’s real blood or body. Now these posts.
So, I guess I’ll have to ask again….if someone were to make the bread with arsenic in it, and put some cyanide in the wine BEFORE the priest “changes” it….would you guys still eat the eucharist and drink the wine????
What in the world does suspected child abuse in the home have to do with teachers or boy scout leaders or coaches who are molesting children? The RCC didnt cover up for abusive parents. It covered up for priests who were molesting and raping children. Trying to pretend one has anything to do with the other is ridiculous.
Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 9:58 AM
Child abuse in ALL of its forms is a universal problem, TR. Be fair and admit that, instead of hounding the Catholic Church.
These are observable miracles that have happened throughout history, JLM. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle In general, they host can’t be empirically tested.
No, we wouldn’t drink it.
TR: RCC wasn’t the only segment of society/institution that covered-up abuse back then. That was my point.
TR: What I am trying to say is that even families Enabled and Protected and Hid pedophiles back in the day and some still do unfortunately.
Posted by: Carrie at April 17, 2008 9:57 AM
**********************
And that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the RCC covering up for pedophile priests who were molesting and raping dozens and hundreds children in their parishes.
http://www.remnantofgod.org/nl011024.htm
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=21229
I dont like Wiki that much as a source but still –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
Child abuse in ALL of its forms is a universal problem, TR. Be fair and admit that, instead of hounding the Catholic Church.
Posted by: Janet at April 17, 2008 10:08 AM
**************
Systimatically covering up for pedophiles and defending them and protecting them is NOT a universal problem.
It is the only organization in the world where you can be a pedophile and keep your job…amen to that! We need more donations..lots of court cases coming down the pipe.
TR: That’s true. I am not denying it. I just wanted to point-out that sexual abuse was often enabled and hidden by not just the Catholic Church. Families have learned how to do better and hopefully the Catholic Church has learned too. What do you want from the Catholic Church now? What do you think she should do now?
TR: RCC wasn’t the only segment of society/institution that covered-up abuse back then. That was my point.
Posted by: Carrie at April 17, 2008 10:10 AM
********************
“Back then”? Do some research.
There is a huge difference in not telling the police that Great Uncle Albert showed his dingus to 14 year old Mary and having a priest rape and molest and abuse HUNDREDS of parish children and having the hierarchy of the church cover up for them, protect them, and move them from parish to parish to parish. Geogan had over 130 charges against him. I cant remember how many charges were made against Koss but it was in the hundreds and cost the Ft Worth diocese (sp?) millions. Then there was the scandall at St Vincents in canada. And I wont even go into the scandal in Ireland. The issue isnt that pedophiles became priests. Pedophiles gravitate towards jobs that put them in contact with children and give them a measure of ‘power’ over children. The issue is how these pedophiles were protected and deliberately hidden and covered up for by the upper echelon of the church.
The RCC has changed its position on a whole lot of issues over the centuries and those changes were influenced by the people who made up the church. That’s fact, not opinion. Insisting it couldnt possibly change its position on contraceptives or any other issue is being willfully ignorant. Whether you want to admit it or not, the current position on abortion wasnt reached until 1869.
Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 9:54 AM
The Church has NEVER changed her position on matters pertaining to doctrine – the RCC has ALWAYS been against the practice of abortion, BC, divorce and homosexuality. In fact, at the Second Vatican Council when it was apparent that the working committee was willing to recommend a change in the Church’s teaching on contraception, Pope Paul VI issued Humane Vitae which not only reaffirmed the Catholic teaching on BC but also was prophetic in the consequences of widespread use of BC – ALL of which have come to pass.
Texas Red:
Sin is a universal problem.
That’s why Christ died.
We all need him.
Systimatically covering up for pedophiles and defending them and protecting them is NOT a universal problem.
Public schools are guilty of this very thing. Disgraceful…and this is one reason we homeschool our kids.
“The report, Secret Shame Of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse Of Students Runs Rampant, by Douglas Montero, is the result of an analysis of 117 cases of sexual abuse between January 1999 and June 2001. Sixty percent of those accused of sexual abuse were transferred to desk jobs inside the school district. Forty percent of those transferred suspects were repeat sex offenders.”
Patricia,
See, for example, the didache from, what, the first century, where it says
“you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.”
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
HisMan, Paganism was also based on revelation, not on “majority-rules”.
TR: I will do some research, but it has been said that most pedophiles will have hundreds of victims before they are stopped. That includes pedophiles that molest members of their own families. Great Uncle Albert wasn’t just showing his “dingus” to 14 year old Mary. (By the way, I am from MA, so I am very familiar with Geoghan.)
TR: That’s true. I am not denying it. I just wanted to point-out that sexual abuse was often enabled and hidden by not just the Catholic Church. Families have learned how to do better and hopefully the Catholic Church has learned too. What do you want from the Catholic Church now? What do you think she should do now?
Posted by: Carrie at April 17, 2008 10:20 AM
*************************
‘She’ can close the barn doors but the horses are long gone. Abuse in a family has absolutely nothing to do with a priest abusing the children in family after family after family and having their superiors cover up for them. I honestly dont believe this is an issue from which the RCC will quickly recover if it recovers at all. It doesnt seem to matter much to people who are Catholics – they keep making excuses and rationalizing. But to the non catholic world it was far far more than a ‘black eye’. Having the pope say ‘we cant accept it’ NOW doesnt alter the fact that the hierarchy did NOTHING to PROTECT these chilren for decade after decade after decade. The RCC has tried to present itself as some kind of ‘moral beacon’ and in a position to lecture the rest of the world. Its lost one whole heck of a lot of ground.
Homeschool is also a good way to shield children from the dangers of social interaction, varsity athletics and organized activities.
Homeschool is also a good way to shield children from the dangers of social interaction, varsity athletics and organized activities.
Actually, most homeschooled children are very social, very much involved in athletics, and organized activities.
TR: I will do some research, but it has been said that most pedophiles will have hundreds of victims before they are stopped. That includes pedophiles that molest members of their own families. Great Uncle Albert wasn’t just showing his “dingus” to 14 year old Mary. (By the way, I am from MA, so I am very familiar with Geoghan.)
Posted by: Carrie at April 17, 2008 10:27 AM
***************************
For the majority of society when a pedophile is discovered he is STOPPED. He may have hundreds of victims BEFORE he’s caught but WHEN he is caught he’s turned in, arrested, he goes to jail and when he gets out hes a registered sex offender. The RCC didnt do that – they defended the pedophile, covered up for him, ‘rescued’ him, bought off or intimidated the victims, and moved the priest to a different parish. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.
The Church has NEVER changed her position on matters pertaining to doctrine – the RCC has ALWAYS been against the practice of abortion, BC, divorce and homosexuality. In fact, at the Second Vatican Council when it was apparent that the working committee was willing to recommend a change in the Church’s teaching on contraception, Pope Paul VI issued Humane Vitae which not only reaffirmed the Catholic teaching on BC but also was prophetic in the consequences of widespread use of BC – ALL of which have come to pass.
Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 10:21 AM
********************
yeah, right
as long as you believe that…..how do you get your homeschooled children to interact with individuals of different races and faiths?
TR: Can’t deny that. See your point.
Patricia,
See, for example, the didache from, what, the first century, where it says
“you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.”
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 17, 2008 10:23 AM
****************************
And that doesnt change the fact that the Bible never even remotely comes close to condemning abortion, nor does it change the fact that ‘the didach’ is meaningless to anyone who isnt Catholic. But the fact of the matter is the CURRENT position on abortion wasnt reached until 1869.
And TR, Janet is correct that there is a much more significant abuse problem in the PUBLIC schools in the USA than there ever was in the RCC. And those teachers DO keep their jobs until they are caught and they ARE enabled to continue the abuse too.
However, what is interesting is that the MSM will not really touch the problem. Instead they have gone after the Catholic church like a bunch of hyenas that they are. The abuse scandal is pretty much over and it has been dealt with. The Church never condoned this at higher levels.
This is WAY off topic as we are supposed to be discussing proabort Catholic politicians receiving communion – NOT the sex abuse scandal in the CC.
TR is right–nothing in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament–explicitly condemns or forbids induced abortion.
as long as you believe that…..how do you get your homeschooled children to interact with individuals of different races and faiths?
Posted by: PeachPIt at April 17, 2008 10:33 AM
All homeschoolers are not Christian, Peachpit. Did you really think they were?
There are many various races within the organizations of homeschoolers, as well as many different types of homeschoolers, and many different types of faiths.
You are trying desperately hard to trash them, but you’re failing because you are completely ignorant about what homeschooling really is, as opposed to what you’ve been told it is. ‘
Besides, you’re simply trying to avoid the issue I brought up which was pedophilia in the schools. You said that we should keep children out of the CAtholic church. Well, shouldn’t we keep children out of public schools, since they’re doing the same thing that you see in the RCC?
yeah, right
Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 10:32 AM
A typical TR rebuttal. Go do some more research TR before you come back to the discussion board on this one.
the RCC has ALWAYS been against the practice of abortion,
******************
St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, by returning to the Aristotelian Pagan concept of “delayed ensoulment.” He wrote 7 that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church’s canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed “fetus animatus” (animated fetus) was punished as murder.
St. Jerome (circa 340 – 420) wrote in a letter to Aglasia:
“The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs”
Starting in the 7th century CE, a series of penitentials were written in the West. These listed an array of sins, with the penance that a person must observe as punishment for the sin. Certain “sins” which prevented conception had particularly heavy penalties. These included:
practicing a particularly ineffective form of birth control, coitus interruptus (withdrawal of the penis prior to ejaculation)
engaging in oral sex or anal sex
becoming sterile by artificial means, such as by consuming sterilizing poisons.
Abortion, on the other hand, required a less serious penance. Theodore, who organized the English church, assembled a penitential about 700 CE. Oral intercourse required from 7 years to a lifetime of penance; an abortion required only 120 days.
Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216):
He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not “animated.”
Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” – when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an “animated” fetus as murder.
Pope Sixtus V (1471-1484) issued a Papal bull “Effraenatam” in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.
Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591) revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the “quickening” test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16
And TR, Janet is correct that there is a much more significant abuse problem in the PUBLIC schools in the USA than there ever was in the RCC. And those teachers DO keep their jobs until they are caught and they ARE enabled to continue the abuse too.
However, what is interesting is that the MSM will not really touch the problem. Instead they have gone after the Catholic church like a bunch of hyenas that they are. The abuse scandal is pretty much over and it has been dealt with. The Church never condoned this at higher levels.
This is WAY off topic as we are supposed to be discussing proabort Catholic politicians receiving communion – NOT the sex abuse scandal in the CC.
Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 10:37 AM
******************|
Oh please. Whimpering that people are just ‘picking’ on the RCC is laughable. Please give us examples of any school system that has covered up for pedophile teachers and has any teacher on par with Geoghan or Koss or any of the other pedophile priests who have cost the RCC millions and millions of dollars. And your shuck and jive over the ‘morality’ of the RCC and how its not ‘right’ for ‘certain people’ to receive communion because they arent ‘moral enough’ is a huge part of the whole discussion.
From Catholic.com for you esp. TR:
The Catholic Church has always condemned abortion as a grave evil. Christian writers from the first-century author of the Didache to Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (“The Gospel of Life”) have maintained that the Bible forbids abortion, just as it forbids murder. This tract will provide some examples of this consistent witness from the writings of the Fathers of the Church.
As the early Christian writer Tertullian pointed out, the law of Moses ordered strict penalties for causing an abortion. We read, “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Hebrew: “so that her child comes out”], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman
We used grape juice for communion, not wine, and we were told that it was symbolic – and we had broken bits of saltine crackers instead of some kind of special ‘wafer’. What is in the hearts of the people taking part in communion is what should matter. And insisting that ‘you’ are in a position to decide if someone is ‘worthy’ of communion, or to sit in judgment of their relationship with god is incredibly egocentric and arrogant. I think its difficult for Catholics to understand the perception of non catholic denominations when it comes to ‘the last supper’ and the pope overall. To non catholics he is the head of a religious group but he is no more ‘special’ than Billy Graham or the Dali Llama.
“What is in the hearts of the people taking part in communion is what should matter. And insisting that ‘you’ are in a position to decide if someone is ‘worthy’ of communion, or to sit in judgment of their relationship with god is incredibly egocentric and arrogant.”
Stop imposing your beliefs on Catholics.
By the way there is a huge difference in a Catholic polititians position on abortion as a catholic and recognizing as a polititian or public servant the fact that non catholics couldnt care less what position the pope has on anything and have a right to their own beliefs and their own position. Theoretically the church has decided for everyone how catholics should personally feel about abortion but the RCC has no say over non catholics and its not the business of a polititian to tell the rest of the world that they have an obligation to follow the polititians personal religious beliefs.
As you can see, the Church’s position has NEVER changed regarding abortion, but has been strengthened with the advances in science and embryology.
Although the proabort politicians such as Pelosi and Kennedy may wish it so, they will never change this. Their refusal to study the Church’s position and form their consciences correctly is to their eternal detriment. They have failed to see the face of Christ in the unborn.
TexasRed at April 17, 2008 10:55 AM
AMEN, TR!!!!!
As you can see, the Church’s position has NEVER changed regarding abortion, but has been strengthened with the advances in science and embryology.
Although the proabort politicians such as Pelosi and Kennedy may wish it so, they will never change this. Their refusal to study the Church’s position and form their consciences correctly is to their eternal detriment. They have failed to see the face of Christ in the unborn.
Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 10:59 AM
************************
It most certainly has and I proved it with quote after quote and factual information. That you refuse to face those facts doesnt do you any service.
“By the way there is a huge difference in a Catholic polititians position on abortion as a catholic and recognizing as a polititian or public servant the fact that non catholics couldnt care less what position the pope has on anything and have a right to their own beliefs and their own position. Theoretically the church has decided for everyone how catholics should personally feel about abortion but the RCC has no say over non catholics and its not the business of a polititian to tell the rest of the world that they have an obligation to follow the polititians personal religious beliefs.
Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 10:59 AM”
Nevertheless, a practicing and believing Catholic cannot support or in any way aid in abortion, nor can they participate in a political process that would set up these so called “rights” for others regardless of whether the people they represent are Muslim, Protestant’s athesist etc. This would not be the loving thing to do because abortion is NEVER a loving compassionate response to a woman with a distressing pregnancy.
The RCC has changed its position on a whole lot of issues over the centuries and those changes were influenced by the people who made up the church. That’s fact, not opinion. Insisting it couldnt possibly change its position on contraceptives or any other issue is being willfully ignorant. Whether you want to admit it or not, the current position on abortion wasnt reached until 1869.
Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 9:54 AM
TR, you crazy nut! (J/K) ;) Not having an “official” position is NOT the same as changing positions. The Church didn’t have an opinion of the pill until (I believe) the 1960’s. It doesn’t mean they said they accepted it before then. When the do take a position it’s carefully thought out.
Name ONE position that’s been changed in the Church.
TR is right–nothing in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament–explicitly condemns or forbids induced abortion.
Posted by: SoMG at April 17, 2008 10:41 AM
**************************
In fact, Exodus (chapter 21 I think) states that the punishment for causing a woman to miscarry is paying a fine, which is not the punishment for causing the death of a person or a child. Only if harm comes to the woman pregnant is the punishment more severe. And this is a presumably wanted pregnancy. In Numbers – cant think of the chapter and verse – the punishment for a woman suspected of being unfaithful can be interpreted as forcing her to drink an abortifacent. This is a typical ‘trial by fire’ punishment which is common among primitive peoples. Of course WHAT the priest gives her to drink will determine the outcome if she is pregnant, not her guilt or innocence.
yeah, right
Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 10:32 AM
A typical TR rebuttal. Go do some more research TR before you come back to the discussion board on this one.
Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 10:42 AM
***********************
I already did it and I proved my point. That you refuse to face the facts I provided doesnt make you look very good at all.
From Catholic.com for you esp. TR:
***************
Patricia none of that negates the facts I presented – it just shows other people are as unwilling to face facts as you are.
Stop imposing your beliefs on Catholics.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 17, 2008 10:58 AM
*************
you first, bambino, starting with the rcc position abortion and then on gay marriage – just for starters – stop trying to impose YOUR beliefs on the rest of the USA
If a teacher is a pedophile does he keep his job?
It most certainly has and I proved it with quote after quote and factual information. That you refuse to face those facts doesnt do you any service.
Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 11:06 AM
The website you listed has the “opinions” of several authors from different religions, and the person who represents Christianity is NOT Catholic and therefore, does not know his ass from his elbow re: the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Find a reputable source and show me – otherwise you’ve not proven your position.
You are quite correct Kristen that the RC didn’t have an opinion on the BC pill because it wasn’t developed until 1961 – around the time of Vatican II.
The same situation has developed over the use of RU-486 and the Church has now completed research on this drug and has issued statements regarding its use.
I might add this is an ongoing process in many areas, including brain death criteria where there is some debate within the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
Patricia none of that negates the facts I presented – it just shows other people are as unwilling to face facts as you are.
Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 11:15 AM
I’m sorry TR but if you can’t even bother to read about the Catholic position FROM a CATHOLIC author, then there is NO point debating you.
Do what I suggested yesterday – go play with bananas.
TR: Some people don’t base their anti-abortion position on what the Bible says. Even if the Bible specifically supported abortion, I would still be against it.
Kristin – the position on abortion and on the fetus HAS changed over the centuries
Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216):
He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not “animated.”
Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” – when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an “animated” fetus as murder.
Pope Sixtus V (1471-1484) issued a Papal bull “Effraenatam” in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.
Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591) revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the “quickening” test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16
BTW, dear Pope Benedict has a rather repulsed but fascinated look on his face when Pelosi is kissing his ring!!
TR: Some people don’t base their anti-abortion position on what the Bible says. Even if the Bible specifically supported abortion, I would still be against it.
Posted by: Carrie at April 17, 2008 11:22 AM
********************************
Fine. Those are your beliefs. The problem comes when you want to insist that no one else has a right to THEIR beliefs and you have the right to force people to live their lives by YOUR beliefs. I dont have any problem with your beliefs about your pregnancy. The problem comes when you dont extend that same courtesy to others.
Patricia, TR provided quotes from Popes changing the Catholic Church’s position on abortion from “It’s wrong if the fetus has quickened (mother feels movement)” to “It’s wrong anytime” and back again.
The web site he quoted from may not be Catholic, but its quotations from Papal documents are accurate.
TR has successfully documented that the Catholic Church HAS changed its position on abortion several times. It’s just a fact, and no amount of shutting your eyes and yelling “no no no”, which is effectively what you’re doing will change it.
If a teacher is a pedophile does he keep his job?
It appears so, Peachpit:
The report,
Kristin,
All of TR’s statements in the 11:22am post are taken out of context and are misunderstood therefore.
TR: you are such a wealth of knowledge!!!
Carrie, you wrote: “Even if the Bible specifically supported abortion, I would still be against it. ”
You mean you don’t believe the Bible is the infallable word of God?
SOMG, I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and yet, if the Bible specifically supported abortion, I would have to assume it contradicted itself, and I would therefore not assume it was the Word of God after all.
Patricia, you wrote: “All of TR’s statements in the 11:22am post are taken out of context and are misunderstood therefore.”
His direct quotations from Papal documents explicitly changing the Church’s position on ensoulment (and therefore on abortion) are “misunderstood”?
You are shutting your eyes to the documented facts and shouting “no no no”. Not very impressive.
TR: Does this satisfy your need for proof of other “mass cover-ups” of pedophilia by large groups?
Oregon Public Schools Cut Deals with Pedophiles
Teachers in the Oregon public school system accused of molesting students are offered financial incentives, confidentiality agreements, and even letters of recommendation to terminate their employment.
The deals are used to rid the school of the teacher while avoiding potentially costly legal battles with teacher union lawyers. But teachers who receive these deals simply move to other schools, their histories unknown to their new employers. Oregonian school officials call the practice “passing the trash,” as the teachers suspected of sexual misconduct are simply passed from one school to the next.
“To get Kenneth John Cushing, then 44, away from Claggett Creek Middle School students immediately, administrators cut him a deal: If Cushing resigned, they would conceal his alleged conduct
Nevertheless, a practicing and believing Catholic cannot support or in any way aid in abortion, nor can they participate in a political process that would set up these so called “rights” for others regardless of whether the people they represent are Muslim, Protestant’s athesist etc. This would not be the loving thing to do because abortion is NEVER a loving compassionate response to a woman with a distressing pregnancy.
Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 11:08 AM
*************************
Like your loving compassionate insistance that the 12 year old victim of rape has some kind of obligation to continue a pregnancy because you care more about a collection of oblivious tissue and cell structure than you care about a brutalized suffering 12 year old? You really want to pretend your attitude is ‘loving and compassionate’ towards the victim of incest and rape? How laughable! There is nothing ‘loving or compassionate’ about your self absorbed fantasy that YOU ‘know what is best’ and the opinion of the woman pregnant is meaningless. Get over your egocentric delusion that you decide how someone else ‘should’ believe or how they ‘should’ represent their beliefs.
BTW, dear Pope Benedict has a rather repulsed but fascinated look on his face when Pelosi is kissing his ring!!
Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 11:24 AM
***********
he probably isnt used to anyone sucking on his finger in the process ….
Somg: Bingo, but I don’t want to hurt the feelings of those who do so I am going to leave it at that.
“.. stop trying to impose YOUR beliefs on the rest of the USA”
——————————————–
The founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian when they signed the Declaration of Independence.
Bethany, you wrote: “If the Bible specifically supported abortion, I would have to assume it contradicted itself”
Contradicted itself where? There is no explicit condemnation or prohibition against induced abortion anywhere in the Bible (Old AND New Testament). Even the often-quoted passage about two men fighting and causing an accidental miscarriage only requires payment to the woman’s husband for loss of the pregnancy.
And so a Texasredneck, does it’s redneck thing, and post about her knowledge of the Catholic religion from her KKK/Know nothing, Catholic history book. State approved, Catholic history by rednecks, for rednecks, such as Texasred. Remember those state approved, “Texas history comic books” written by your family members where Mexicans and Catholics were presented as lazy, cattle thieving , tequila drinking citizens of Tejas, Texasredneck? You should get a new history book Texasredneck, it shows how you still vomit all the stereo types that your KKK family wrote about Catholics.
What a pendejo, Texasred is.
Texasred, why can’t we love them both?
The website you listed has the “opinions” of several authors from different religions, and the person who represents Christianity is NOT Catholic and therefore, does not know his ass from his elbow re: the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Find a reputable source and show me – otherwise you’ve not proven your position.
You are quite correct Kristen that the RC didn’t have an opinion on the BC pill because it wasn’t developed until 1961 – around the time of Vatican II.
The same situation has developed over the use of RU-486 and the Church has now completed research on this drug and has issued statements regarding its use.
I might add this is an ongoing process in many areas, including brain death criteria where there is some debate within the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 11:17 AM
********************
I provided quotes from several different saints and two different popes. Refusing to face those facts just makes you look foolish.
Patricia none of that negates the facts I presented – it just shows other people are as unwilling to face facts as you are.
Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 11:15 AM
I’m sorry TR but if you can’t even bother to read about the Catholic position FROM a CATHOLIC author, then there is NO point debating you.
Do what I suggested yesterday – go play with bananas.
Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 11:21 AM
******************
What different saints have said and what two different popes – Innocent III and Gregory XIV isnt catholic enough for you? You are too much of a coward to face facts. You prove my point. You dont have what it takes to cope with reality or face the truth.
Keep vomiting yllwass – its all youre good for
Contradicted itself where? There is no explicit condemnation or prohibition against induced abortion anywhere in the Bible (Old AND New Testament). Even the often-quoted passage about two men fighting and causing an accidental miscarriage only requires payment to the woman’s husband for loss of the pregnancy.
The Bible, as a whole, is life affirming, expressing how human beings are ordained and planned of God, even from the womb. This contradicts the notion that children in the womb are less significant than children out of the womb. The Bible says that children are a blessing. Would God then contradict Himself by saying sometimes they are not truly blessings, depending on the situation? No, children are always a blessing.
Yes, I’ve heard the exodus chapter a million times, and I will never read it the same way as you do.
RSD, you wrote: “The founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian when they signed the Declaration of Independence.”
But they were not right-to-lifers.
Patricia: It’s time for you to admit you are wrong and accept the fact that the Catholic Church has changed its position on abortion several times.
You’ll feel better afterwards.
If a teacher is a pedophile does he keep his job?
It appears so, Peachpit:
The report,
Bethany, you wrote: “The Bible, as a whole, is life affirming, expressing how human beings are ordained and planned of God, even from the womb. This contradicts the notion that children in the womb are less significant than children out of the womb. ”
That may be so, but it doesn’t prohibit or condemn induced abortion.
Kristin,
All of TR’s statements in the 11:22am post are taken out of context and are misunderstood therefore.
TR: you are such a wealth of knowledge!!!
Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 11:27 AM
*************
Its not my fault that you cant face the truth.
TR: Does this satisfy your need for proof of other “mass cover-ups” of pedophilia by large groups?
**************************
No, Janet, it doesnt. It doesnt even come close. There is a huge difference between a teacher being ‘accused’ of ‘massanging the shoulders’ of a student and priest after priest raping one boy after another over decades.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you”. This says He knew you BEFORE YOU WERE CONCEIVED. Not WHEN YOU WERE IN THE WOMB but BEFORE then.
Abortion does not affect people BEFORE they are formed in the womb; only afterwards.
That may be so, but it doesn’t prohibit or condemn induced abortion.
God doesn’t contradict Himself. If He considers children in the womb to be blessings, and human beings, He also by default is against abortion, since He has said that we are not to murder.
A child in the womb is not capable of committing an act worthy of being killed, and therefore is innocent and killing it is indeed murder.
God doesn’t specifically say anything about pedophilia being wrong, but we know it’s wrong according to the Bible because the principles of the Bible automatically contradict the idea that pedophilia could be acceptable.
“.. stop trying to impose YOUR beliefs on the rest of the USA”
——————————————–
The founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian when they signed the Declaration of Independence.
Posted by: RSD at April 17, 2008 11:36 AM
***************************
You need to read some of the anti religious quotes by those founding fathers. But they werent overwhelmingly catholic, and at the time the BOR and Constitution were written there were no laws prohibiting abortion in ‘the colonies’ and the framers of the BOR and Constitution made no effort to write laws against the practice.
Texasred, why can’t we love them both?
Posted by: Bethany at April 17, 2008 11:37 AM
***************
Love both of whom?
Why cant you ‘love’ the woman enough to respect her judgment and respect her right to self determination and bodily autonomy and her right to do what she knows is best under her circumstances? But you dont love her at all. You merely obsess over her fetus and hate and resent her if she doesnt see it the way you think she ‘should’.
Patricia, you wrote: “I’m sorry TR but if you can’t even bother to read about the Catholic position FROM a CATHOLIC author, then there is NO point debating you.”
So you think only Catholics can document the history of the Church and read the writings of Popes and Saints?
The reason you say there is “NO point” in debating TR is that you have lost the debate and you can’t bear to admit it. Everyone can see that! You’re just embarrassing yourself.
SOMG,
…The Founding Fathers were NOT right-to-Lifers?
hmm….does the following ring a bell?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
If it doesn’t, try taking the US Citizenship exam…
That may be so, but it doesn’t prohibit or condemn induced abortion.
God doesn’t contradict Himself. If He considers children in the womb to be blessings, and human beings, He also by default is against abortion, since He has said that we are not to murder.
A child in the womb is not capable of committing an act worthy of being killed, and therefore is innocent and killing it is indeed murder.
God doesn’t specifically say anything about pedophilia being wrong, but we know it’s wrong according to the Bible because the principles of the Bible automatically contradict the idea that pedophilia could be acceptable.
Posted by: Bethany at April 17, 2008 11:52 AM
***************************
The bible doesnt support your inventions and fabrications.
Nothing anywhere in the bible gives the most remote suggestion that god or the men who wrote the bible thought abortion WAS murder or was even killing. In fact the bible specifically states in Exodus 21 that the punishment for causing the death of a fetus was merely paying a fine determined by the womans husband. That is not the punishment for murder. Only if harm came to the woman was the punishment greater. Killing CHILDREN was acceptable and excused all through the old testament. Or do you want to pretend a child can be ‘guilty’ while a fetus cannot be? As for pedophilia, homosexuality was condemned in the OT and so was sex with a female you werent married to so that would cover pedophilia too. But I dont believe the bible addresses the age at which a girl could be married, does it?
TR: Does this satisfy your need for proof of other “mass cover-ups” of pedophilia by large groups?
**************************
No, Janet, it doesnt. It doesnt even come close. There is a huge difference between a teacher being ‘accused’ of ‘massanging the shoulders’ of a student and priest after priest raping one boy after another over decades.
Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 11:49 AM
There were 47 deals made with molesters, the details of which were not given in each case, and for that matter, you don’t know the details of each and every priest case either. So quit your crabbin’ already.
Yes, I’ve heard the exodus chapter a million times, and I will never read it the same way as you do.
Posted by: Bethany at April 17, 2008 11:41 AM
***************
If men are fighting and cause a woman to miscarry then they pay a fine determined by the womans husband. If harm comes to the woman then the punishment is greater. And this is presumably a wanted pregnant. Refusing to face those facts wont change them either, Bethany.
Bethany, you wrote: “God doesn’t specifically say anything about pedophilia being wrong, but we know it’s wrong according to the Bible because the principles of the Bible automatically contradict the idea that pedophilia could be acceptable. ”
So the Bible has a penumbra? General unwritten principles which apply because you, Bethany, are personally sure of them even though they are nowhere to be found in the Bible? I thought right-to-lifers were supposed to reject penumbras and go by the text.
You’re just reading into the Bible whatever it suits you to believe. “I’m against pedophelia, therefore pedophelia is un-Biblical, even though there’s nothing in it against pedophelia.” Similarly, “I’m a right-to-lifer, therefore the Bible is right-to-life, even though it says nothing whatsoever about abortion” seems to be your syllogism.
You go Texasredneck, your becoming a ikon of the Klan rednecks, with every post about Catholics and their evil religion. Yee Haw, we got us a real redneck from Texas posting with the pride of of Tejasredneck, with deep roots in bigotry and prejudicial history about Catholics. You go Red, your a amazing source of bigotry about Catholics learned from those edumacated Klan rednecks, in those redneck universities, founded and funded by Texasrednecks.
Are you a klegal or just a klegal in training Texasredneck? Why you might even be a old time redneck from that big old South Tejas ranch built upon killing, stealing,taxing, and taking the land of Catholics to establish a dag burned ranching empire. You know, that King Ranch built upon Catholic blood being spilt, so you can get a edumacation at a redneck university, so rednecks like you Texasred, can continue to vomit redneck history lessons about Catholics. You write like a old time redneck who wrote the state history books to assure Catholics were thought about, just like you think about Catholics Texasred.
To bad Texasredneck, but your not going to get a scholarship for just repeating previous KKK post about Catholics. Tell us something new Texasredneck, and stop vomiting that shop worn KKK history of Catholics.
Gee…I never thought TR would be a bible expert, too?
The Bible, as a whole, is life affirming, expressing how human beings are ordained and planned of God, even from the womb. This contradicts the notion that children in the womb are less significant than children out of the womb. The Bible says that children are a blessing. Would God then contradict Himself by saying sometimes they are not truly blessings, depending on the situation? No, children are always a blessing.
************************
If that were so then the bible would specifically condemn the practice of abortion and list punishments for those who performed abortion and those who had abortions. Why doesnt it? Abortion has been around for thousands of years. But the men who wrote the bible didnt even think it was important enough to mention. You have a culture where women could be killed in a particularly gruesome manner for getting pregnant outside of marriage and the victims of rape could be forced to marry their rapist. But you want to pretend the women of the Children of Israel didnt know anything at all about abortion? And no, an unwanted pregnancy is not a blessing even if you are not capable of facing that fact.
RSD, your interpretation of the words “created”, “men”, and “life” did not apply in the time of the Founding Fathers.
Like the Bible, the Founding Documents say nothing about abortion. Nor were any of the Founding Fathers anti-abortion activists.
SOMG,
…The Founding Fathers were NOT right-to-Lifers?
hmm….does the following ring a bell?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
If it doesn’t, try taking the US Citizenship exam…
Posted by: RSD at April 17, 2008 11:56 AM
*************************
And nothing suggests they viewed the fetus as having any rights at all. WOMEN had precious few rights and neither did MEN who werent caucasian. But women COULD legally obtain abortions and the framers of the BOR and Constitution never made any effort to make abortion illegal. Youre looking foolish again.
There were 47 deals made with molesters, the details of which were not given in each case, and for that matter, you don’t know the details of each and every priest case either. So quit your crabbin’ already.
Posted by: Janet at April 17, 2008 12:03 PM
**********************
Exactly. The details werent even addressed. They DID detail ONE individual and the only accusations against him were ‘touching’ that could have been done innocently without sexual intent. But the RCC covered up rape after rape after rape. Trying to compare the two is foolish.
Gee…I never thought TR would be a bible expert, too?
Posted by: RSD at April 17, 2008 12:06 PM
************************
Why shouldnt I be?
yllowass you remind me why its so good to be pro choice
And RSD, being Christian does not mean being a right-to-lifer. The majority of American Christians are pro-choice.
And yllas, it’s slander to associate TexasRed with the KKK. You have no evidence that (s)he’s associated with the KKK in any way.
Patricia, you wrote: “I’m sorry TR but if you can’t even bother to read about the Catholic position FROM a CATHOLIC author, then there is NO point debating you.”
So you think only Catholics can document the history of the Church and read the writings of Popes and Saints?
The reason you say there is “NO point” in debating TR is that you have lost the debate and you can’t bear to admit it. Everyone can see that! You’re just embarrassing yourself.
Posted by: SoMG at April 17, 2008 11:55 AM
*****************************
I provided quotes from several saints and from two Popes – Innocent III and Gregory XIV – they arent ‘catholic’ according to patricia?
This s fun, watching a Texasredneck pontificate on Catholics to the Constitution. A real lesson in understanding how a redneck from Texas understands the world in such detail is unusual to see.
You ride um redneck, round up, rope um up, and brand those Catholics for all to see.
ONce again, turning into a “bash the Catholics on Jills blog”.
I’m not participating in this, because YOU and TR won’t read the posts which explain the history and teaching of the Catholic church. It’s not in your interest to determine the truth – you want to show the RCC is inconsistent but as always many position statements of the RC are taken out of context. If you can’t go to the source of Catholic teaching you won’t get the truth. Some guy posting on a website is not an authority on Catholic teaching. Sorry, SoMG and TR, believe what you want, I’m not the loser in this one (especially in the next life). Have a nice day – I have to go watch another music competition class.
See ya on another post that doesn’t bash Catholics.
What’s fun is seeing how poorly you right-to-lifers understand the Bible and how ignorant you are of the history of the Catholic Church.
Patricia believes that only Catholics can read history. Bethany claims the Bible says whatever she thinks it OUGHT to say.
And these people want to decide for you when and whether to give birth.
Yes mommy Somg, rednecks did not hang Catholics and invent history of Catholics to steal their land in Texas. I know a redneck, when I see a redneck from Texas posting about Catholics, and Texasredneck is a redneck from her typical KKK history lessons about Catholics.
Now Somg. go back to keeping the planet beautful by panting some hippies for meat. Or murdering human beings for your elite view of the world being overcrowded by Catholics or other religious faiths.
The bible doesnt support your inventions and fabrications.
Nothing anywhere in the bible gives the most remote suggestion that god or the men who wrote the bible thought abortion WAS murder or was even killing. In fact the bible specifically states in Exodus 21 that the punishment for causing the death of a fetus was merely paying a fine determined by the womans husband. That is not the punishment for murder. Only if harm came to the woman was the punishment greater. Killing CHILDREN was acceptable and excused all through the old testament. Or do you want to pretend a child can be ‘guilty’ while a fetus cannot be? As for pedophilia, homosexuality was condemned in the OT and so was sex with a female you werent married to so that would cover pedophilia too. But I dont believe the bible addresses the age at which a girl could be married, does it?
Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 12:00 PM
TR: I will try to find out what I can about why the Church’s official teaching was vague on abortion. It may take some time.
Speculation on my part on why the teaching on abortion in the early church may be vague:
1. The difference between menstruation and spontaneous abortion may not have been well-understood by men who made the civil laws. Bleeding was not necessarily a sign of abortion. Perhaps they didn’t want to condemn a woman needlessly for murder?
2. Women married and had babies younger than they do now, and as you know the menstrual period is not as regular in young girls when they first start their periods. So the absence of a period was not necessarily assumed to be a pregnancy.
3. With a better understanding of the female productive system, the Church may have found it necessary to write the official teaching to avoid confusion.
Common sense or fabrication TR? You can decide.
And yllas, it’s slander to associate TexasRed with the KKK. You have no evidence that (s)he’s associated with the KKK in any way.
Posted by: SoMG at April 17, 2008 12:17 PM
************************
The truth means nothing to a yellow ast little piggie
Yes mommy Somg, rednecks did not hang Catholics and invent history of Catholics to steal their land in Texas. I know a redneck, when I see a redneck from Texas posting about Catholics, and Texasredneck is a redneck from her typical KKK history lessons about Catholics.
Now Somg. go back to keeping the planet beautful by planting some hippies for “smoked meat”. Or murdering human beings for your elite view of the world being overcrowded by Catholics or other some other reason you can think up. Are you related to Dogmatic Doug, and have to defend a redneck Catholic historian named Texasred, as Dogmatic Doug defended that raving anti-Catholic named Sally?
Bethany, you wrote: “If you can’t go to the source of Catholic teaching you won’t get the truth. ”
So the Popes and Saints TR quoted are not “the source of Catholic teaching”? What is the source then? The Bible? But the Bible says nothing whatsoever about abortion.
TR,
Systimatically covering up for pedophiles and defending them and protecting them is NOT a universal problem.
Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 10:16 AM
Realllllly? Tell that to the 400 mormon children in custody right now. You know, the 14,15 and 16 year olds that have been raped and impregnated by 40 year old men for the last 40 years…didn’t hear them talkin’ about it. Til they got caught. Oh that’s right, they’re STILL not talkin’!
Is it permissible to make a comment that actually relates to the post?
Common sense or fabrication TR? You can decide.
Posted by: Janet at April 17, 2008 12:27 PM
*******************
Look at the quotes I provided.
I provided quotes from a number of saints and provided the position of two different popes – Innocent III and Gregory XIV.
The position of the church on abortion has changed over the centuries.
The current position that a fertilized egg ‘is’ a person and that any abortion is ‘murder’ is NOT the position the church has always held.
It doesnt matter whether you admit it or not. Its a fact.
Whether you want to admit it or not, the current position on abortion wasnt reached until 1869.
Ahhhh TR, I needed that laugh!
Janet, your post lists reasons why it might have been difficult to DETECT abortion, but not reasons why the Bible does not condemn or forbid it.
Adultery is difficult to detect too (if the adulterers are careful), but the Bible has no problem condemning it and prescribing punishments.
See ya on another post that doesn’t bash Catholics.
Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 12:23 PM
*********************
Its not my fault that you cant face the facts about the history of the RCC. Pretending that anyone who doesnt subscribe to the ‘the church never makes a mistake and the church never changes its position on anything’ is ‘bashing’ catholics is laughable.
“..And RSD, being Christian does not mean being a right-to-lifer.”
——————————-
It does…being Christian means you are a follwer of Christ and His teachings.
TR,
Systimatically covering up for pedophiles and defending them and protecting them is NOT a universal problem.
Posted by: TexasRed at April 17, 2008 10:16 AM
Realllllly? Tell that to the 400 mormon children in custody right now. You know, the 14,15 and 16 year olds that have been raped and impregnated by 40 year old men for the last 40 years…didn’t hear them talkin’ about it. Til they got caught. Oh that’s right, they’re STILL not talkin’!
Posted by: mk at April 17, 2008 12:31 PM
*************************
What in the WORLD do you fantasize that cult has to do with this discussion? If anything that cult is on par WITH the Catholic church when it comes to covering up sexual abuse of children.
So…TR and Somg….when YOU were created in your mother’s womb, you didn’t have a right to life?
RSD, you wrote: “being Christian means you are a follwer of Christ and His teachings.”
But Christ never said or taught anything about abortion.
Whether you want to admit it or not, the current position on abortion wasnt reached until 1869.
Ahhhh TR, I needed that laugh!
Posted by: mk at April 17, 2008 12:34 PM
********************
Laugh away. It makes you look foolish. And it makes you look ignorant of the honest history of your own religion. I provided proof.
RSD, you wrote: “When YOU were created in your mother’s womb, you didn’t have a right to life?”
My mother wanted me. She CHOSE to grow me in her womb and to give birth to me. I lived the only way a fetus can legitimately live: with the pregnant woman’s continuing consent from conception until birth.
“..And RSD, being Christian does not mean being a right-to-lifer.”
——————————-
It does…being Christian means you are a follwer of Christ and His teachings.
Posted by: RSD at April 17, 2008 12:35 PM
**************************
And nothing in the teachings of christ condemns the practice of abortion or gives any indication he had a problem with the practice. this is fact, not opinion.
TR is right–nothing in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament–explicitly condemns or forbids induced abortion.
Been there, done that too. Nothing in the bible, Old Testament or New Testament–explicitly condemns or forbids killing midgets. But I’m pretty sure it would be frowned upon.
And I’m proud of it.
So…TR and Somg….when YOU were created in your mother’s womb, you didn’t have a right to life?
Posted by: RSD at April 17, 2008 12:37 PM
*******************
I love how antichoicers seem to think the most imbecilic questions are somehow awesomely relevant and meaningful. My mother was given the option of abortion because of complications in the pregnancy which endangered her health. She had already been told she wouldnt be able to have children. But she decided to continue her pregnancy and see what happened. She spent most of 1950 puking, but she still had me. Im here because she CHOSE to continue her pregnancy, not because i had any ‘rights’ or because ‘the law’ said I was more important than her health. In fact the law said I wasnt.
MK you wrote: “Nothing in the bible, Old Testament or New Testament–explicitly condemns or forbids killing midgets. ”
Yes it does: the Bible says “Thou shalt not commit murder.” That condemns and forbids killing midgets. It does not condemn or forbid abortion.
TR is right–nothing in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament–explicitly condemns or forbids induced abortion.
Been there, done that too. Nothing in the bible, Old Testament or New Testament–explicitly condemns or forbids killing midgets. But I’m pretty sure it would be frowned upon.
Posted by: mk at April 17, 2008 12:41 PM
***************
Killing a midget would be murder. Murder is forbidden in the 10 Commandments. However it would be perfectly ok to kill the midget if he/she broke any of the laws which were punishable by death.
Thats a stupid argument.
Janet, your post lists reasons why it might have been difficult to DETECT abortion, but not reasons why the Bible does not condemn or forbid it.
Adultery is difficult to detect too (if the adulterers are careful), but the Bible has no problem condemning it and prescribing punishments.
Posted by: SoMG at April 17, 2008 12:34 PM
I just had a thought – because men were ignorant of the female reproductive system back then? I’m sure they didn’t have a clue because women didn’t talk those things with men. It wasn’t socially acceptable in that time. Why would they put something like abortion in the bible if it wasn’t even talked about, or common for that matter?
There’s nothing in the bible about hitting your husband over the head with a broom either and I’m sure that was more common than abortion. Lol. (OK, let’s lighten things up a bit here.)
Let’s hear from the men, is this a feasible argument for why abortion isn’t forbidden specifically in the bible?
Janet, a more likely reason is that the men who wrote the Bible simply didn’t care about abortion.
Patricia: It’s time for you to admit you are wrong and accept the fact that the Catholic Church has changed its position on abortion several times.
I’ve read your posts TR…the only thing that changed was “when” an abortion was permissible. And I have it on good authority that these views changed because the ultra sound machine was broken that day…
Its not my fault that you cant face the facts about the history of the RCC. Pretending that anyone who doesnt subscribe to the ‘the church never makes a mistake and the church never changes its position on anything’ is ‘bashing’ catholics is laughable.
TR,
I don’t think it’s laughable…I think it’s a sad and sorry shame. But you’re right…I also agree that the history of the church, including proof with photos, does indeed make mistakes and changes positions. I myself have also been called a “catholic basher” for believing such. Not to mention if you get any information from a non-catholic website, you’ll also be accused of going to “anti-catholic” sites. Sad….really sad.
My mother wanted me. She CHOSE to grow me in her womb and to give birth to me.
For some strange reason I find myself thinking of Rosemarys’ baby…hmmmmmm…
Systimatically covering up for pedophiles and defending them and protecting them is NOT a universal problem.
TR
It’s one thing when you don’t read OUR posts, but when you don’t read your own, it gets really comical.
YOU claim that systematically covering up sexual improprieties is NOT universal, and that the Catholic Church is the ONLY was that does it, and I show you a case where another church is doing the same thing as we speak, and you want to know what it has to do with anything???
Honestly, I’m going to make some popcorn as this conversation today is on par with watching a Keystone Cop Film…maybe some milkduds…
MK, you wrote: “the only thing that changed was “when” an abortion was permissible.”
That’s still a change in the Church’s position on abortion. Patricia was claiming that the position has NEVER CHANGED AT ALL.
So the Bible has a penumbra? General unwritten principles which apply because you, Bethany, are personally sure of them even though they are nowhere to be found in the Bible? I thought right-to-lifers were supposed to reject penumbras and go by the text.
You’re just reading into the Bible whatever it suits you to believe. “I’m against pedophelia, therefore pedophelia is un-Biblical, even though there’s nothing in it against pedophelia.” Similarly, “I’m a right-to-lifer, therefore the Bible is right-to-life, even though it says nothing whatsoever about abortion” seems to be your syllogism.
No, that is not how it works, SOMG.
The Bible clearly states that fornication is sin. Pedophilia falls under the “fornication” label, although pedophilia is not explicitly mentioned.
In the same way, the Bible clearly states that killing an innocent person is murder, and murder is sin. Abortion falls under the “murder” label, even though abortion is not explicitly mentioned.
By the way, I did not write the post that you responded to at 12:30.
I thought right-to-lifers were supposed to reject penumbras and go by the text.
Right-to-lifers don’t all adhere to the Bible’s teachings either. There are pro-lifers of various different faiths, not to mention there are atheists, and agnostics who are pro-life.
SoMG,
Yes it does: the Bible says “Thou shalt not commit murder.” That condemns and forbids killing midgets. It does not condemn or forbid abortion.
YOU used the word explicitly, not me. It does not explicitly mention midgets. You yourself have admitted that the unborn is fully human and a person like any other, but that this doesn’t matter.
If it is a person, then it is murder.
Just like a midget.
“…And nothing in the teachings of christ condemns the practice of abortion or gives any indication he had a problem with the practice. this is fact, not opinion.”
——————————————
Yet, He gave the keys of Heaven to St. Peter (the first Pope) and said “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” (Mat. 16:19)
..and just so you remember..The Catholic Church has ALWAYS condemned abortion as a grave evil.
I have to ask…do you think that Catholic politicians who missed mass the week before should be denied communion? That’s a mortal sin. My sense is that none of these Dem Catholics are weekly mass attenders (and probably many Republicans as well). I doubt they go to confession. I know it’s the rule that if you are in a state of mortal sin, don’t go to communion. But considering how many Catholics a) miss mass often and b) get communion, making this a big deal is not right.
“Yet, He gave the keys of Heaven to St. Peter (the first Pope) and said “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” (Mat. 16:19)”
Oh yeah, that’s really a condemnation of abortion (sarcasm).
SoMG,
That’s still a change in the Church’s position on abortion. Patricia was claiming that the position has NEVER CHANGED AT ALL.
No it isn’t. The postition is and has always been that abortion is wrong.
The fact that the ultra sound machines were broken and people in the year 80 AD didn’t know what was growing inside a woman accounts for the change in “when”…perfectly understandable.
You guys say we ignore science, then when we keep up with it, you complain and say we’re changing our minds. Which is it?
How bout if you haven’t studied Catholic doctrine before, we shut up. K?
JLM,
Please, we had a two month conversation on Catholicism and the only time we called you on your sources was when you were using conspiracy theory sources.
The fact that you are agreeing with TR on this should tell you something.
She is right up there with those goofy sources you were using.
TR’s sources weren’t even all that bad. She quoted saints and popes. You quoted lunatics.
However, TRs sources do not prove that the church changed positions on abortion, only that they redefined the age that a child became ensouled.
Again, the church HAS ALWAYS taught that abortion is wrong.
Patricia: It’s time for you to admit you are wrong and accept the fact that the Catholic Church has changed its position on abortion several times.
I’ve read your posts TR…the only thing that changed was “when” an abortion was permissible. And I have it on good authority that these views changed because the ultra sound machine was broken that day…
Posted by: mk at April 17, 2008 1:03 PM
*******************
And that proves the position of the church on abortion HAS changed. The current position that abortion is wrong from fertilization on (so using the MAP is wrong) has not always been the position of the church. I seriously doubt if any of the saints or Gregory XIV or Innocent III had access to sonagrams. But that doesnt change their position on abortion.
Bethany, you wrote: “The Bible clearly states that fornication is sin. Pedophilia falls under the “fornication” label, although pedophilia is not explicitly mentioned. ”
There’s nothing in the Bible against marrying, and then having sex with, a child.
Its not my fault that you cant face the facts about the history of the RCC. Pretending that anyone who doesnt subscribe to the ‘the church never makes a mistake and the church never changes its position on anything’ is ‘bashing’ catholics is laughable.
TR,
I don’t think it’s laughable…I think it’s a sad and sorry shame. But you’re right…I also agree that the history of the church, including proof with photos, does indeed make mistakes and changes positions. I myself have also been called a “catholic basher” for believing such. Not to mention if you get any information from a non-catholic website, you’ll also be accused of going to “anti-catholic” sites. Sad….really sad.
Posted by: JLM at April 17, 2008 1:05 PM
**************************
History is history.
Unfortunately the RCC has a track record of trying to ‘change’ history to suit their personal agenda and insisting that pointing out that the facts dont agree with their ‘version’ of ‘history’ is just ‘catholic bashing’. I cant think of which saint it was, but Ive read quotes that lying ‘in the name of christ’ and to further the purpose of the church is acceptable and desirable. I’ll have to see if I can find it.
Brian,
I have to ask…do you think that Catholic politicians who missed mass the week before should be denied communion? That’s a mortal sin. My sense is that none of these Dem Catholics are weekly mass attenders (and probably many Republicans as well). I doubt they go to confession. I know it’s the rule that if you are in a state of mortal sin, don’t go to communion. But considering how many Catholics a) miss mass often and b) get communion, making this a big deal is not right.
I think they should forgo receiving it themselves. The difference between them and Pelosi or Kerry is that Pelosi and Kerry have chosen to sin openly, refusing to acknowledge their culpability. If someone wears a sign around their neck that says “I missed mass last Sunday and I don’t care” that a priest or bishop would be perfectly within their rights to refuse them communion.
“Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591) revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the “quickening” test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16
Systimatically covering up for pedophiles and defending them and protecting them is NOT a universal problem.
TR
It’s one thing when you don’t read OUR posts, but when you don’t read your own, it gets really comical.
YOU claim that systematically covering up sexual improprieties is NOT universal, and that the Catholic Church is the ONLY was that does it, and I show you a case where another church is doing the same thing as we speak, and you want to know what it has to do with anything???
Honestly, I’m going to make some popcorn as this conversation today is on par with watching a Keystone Cop Film…maybe some milkduds…
Posted by: mk at April 17, 2008 1:09 PM
**********************************
It isnt universal. And trying to pretend that one cult somehow ‘proves’ that covering up for pedophiles is ‘universal’ makes you look more than a little ridiculous. If anything that cult is on par WITH the Catholic church. You seem to think that looking really foolish and not understanding 90% of what you read is an asset.
Main Entry: 1uni
We have all these claims going around, but no one has produced actual documents. I would appreciate it.
Bethany, you wrote: “You yourself have admitted that the unborn is fully human and a person like any other, ”
There’s no evidence that the authors of the Bible thought that the unborn were persons, or thought that by condemning murder they were condemning abortion. That’s a post-biblical, right-to-life reading of the word “murder”.
Its not my fault that you cant face the facts about the history of the RCC. Pretending that anyone who doesnt subscribe to the ‘the church never makes a mistake and the church never changes its position on anything’ is ‘bashing’ catholics is laughable.
TR,
I don’t think it’s laughable…I think it’s a sad and sorry shame. But you’re right…I also agree that the history of the church, including proof with photos, does indeed make mistakes and changes positions. I myself have also been called a “catholic basher” for believing such. Not to mention if you get any information from a non-catholic website, you’ll also be accused of going to “anti-catholic” sites. Sad….really sad.
Posted by: JLM at April 17, 2008 1:05 PM
JLM:
Everyone has their breaking point where discussion becomes “bashing”, you should know that as well as anyone. Today was Patricia’s day, I’ve had my “fed up” days too.
Remember for Catholics, the perspective (world view) is completely different than for Protestants. And you only have the bible to defend, we have 2000 years of history. Try putting yourself in our shoes for a minute before saying how “sad” we are.
Proof with photos? A photo can be whatever one wants to make it. It’s the words behind it that count.
No one said we don’t mistakes, we’ve said the opposite here today. As far as doctrine, the core teachings never change because God never changes. That’s why it is so important to follow accepted Catholic Sources of teaching. If someone doesn’t know what our core teachings are, There are plenty of approved resources. Just ask.
I’m not angry at you, JLM, because you just got here today. Bit it gets tiring hearing that same silly responses from people who could care less about the Church and feel compelled to take the attack mode now matter how much evidence is presented against it.
TR,
I’ll have to see if I can find it.
Yes. Please do. No hurry.
Seriously, take your time.
Lots of it…
In the same way, the Bible clearly states that killing an innocent person is murder, and murder is sin. Abortion falls under the “murder” label, even though abortion is not explicitly mentioned.
****************
No, it doesnt. And nothing anywhere in the bible suggests that god or the men who wrote the bible thought abortion WAS murder or was even ‘killing’. The bible DOES say that causing a woman to lose a presumably WANTED fetus results only in the person responsible paying a fine and thats not the punishment for ‘murder’ or ‘killing’ a person.
Thanks, MK. My sense is that very few Catholics go to confession very often. More go yearly. The Easter and Christmas Catholics nearly never do but have no qualms about taking communion.
We have all these claims going around, but no one has produced actual documents. I would appreciate it.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 17, 2008 1:35 PM
Can you be more specific? I’ve been waiting for you all afternoon! Lol.:)
SoMG,
Yes it does: the Bible says “Thou shalt not commit murder.” That condemns and forbids killing midgets. It does not condemn or forbid abortion.
YOU used the word explicitly, not me. It does not explicitly mention midgets. You yourself have admitted that the unborn is fully human and a person like any other, but that this doesn’t matter.
If it is a person, then it is murder.
Just like a midget.
Posted by: mk at April 17, 2008 1:17 PM
*************************
Accidently causing the death of a presumably WANTED fetus isnt viewed doesnt result in the same punishment for killing a person. The fetus wasnt viewed as being a person or having the value of a person.
It isnt universal. And trying to pretend that one cult somehow ‘proves’ that covering up for pedophiles is ‘universal’ makes you look more than a little ridiculous. If anything that cult is on par WITH the Catholic church. You seem to think that looking really foolish and not understanding 90% of what you read is an asset.
Ooooooh, now I see what you’re saying…
The Catholic Church is the ONLY one that tries to cover up sexual crimes. NoOne else does it.
Except for the other people that do it. I get it now…rigggggghhhhht…
Bethany, you wrote: “The Bible clearly states that fornication is sin. Pedophilia falls under the “fornication” label, although pedophilia is not explicitly mentioned. ”
There’s nothing in the Bible against marrying, and then having sex with, a child.
I had a feeling you’d say that. The Bible also speaks of the evils of men, and lists many evils, and one of those is being “without natural affection.”
We know that according to the Bible, God created us male and female. Natural affection according to the Bible is a relationship between a woman (not a girl) and a man (not a boy).
The Bible says that people “without natural affection” are worthy of judgement and death. Not only does the Bible say that those who do not have natural affection are worthy of death, but also those who applaud those actions, or support them.
OK. I can’t find the document, but I did find this from an anti-catholic website, so ya’ll should believe it
“Only three years after Pope Sixtus V issued Effraenatam, he died. His successor, Gregory XIV, felt Sixtus’s stand was too harsh and was in conflict with penitential practices and theological views on ensoulment. He issuedSedes Apostolica, which advised church officials, “where no homicide or no animated fetus is involved, not to punish more strictly than the sacred canons or civil legislation does.”7 This papal pronouncement lasted until 1869.”
Let’s look at the pertinent quote
“where no homicide or no animated fetus is involved, not to punish more strictly than the sacred canons or civil legislation does.”
Punishment. This “rebuke” is about punishment for the crime.
This is what religioustolerence.com was basing their claim about abortion teaching being changed until 1869 on. Are we not allowed to show different types of disciple?
This is the only time we have seen something from the ACTUAL DOCUMENT. It does NOT say abortion is permissible. All it does is talk about a punishment. The Catholic Church never changed its stance on abortion. Until you can provide actual documentation, as opposed to anti-catholic interpretations of official papal teachings, Case closed. Period.
TR,
I seriously doubt if any of the saints or Gregory XIV or Innocent III had access to sonagrams.
Really? You don’t think so? Why?
and just so you remember..The Catholic Church has ALWAYS condemned abortion as a grave evil.
Posted by: RSD at April 17, 2008 1:17 PM
************************
No, it hasnt. For awhile there it was even less of a ‘sin’ than oral sex.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm
St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, by returning to the Aristotelian Pagan concept of “delayed ensoulment.” He wrote 7 that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church’s canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed “fetus animatus” (animated fetus) was punished as murder.
St. Jerome (circa 340 – 420) wrote in a letter to Aglasia:
“The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs”
Starting in the 7th century CE, a series of penitentials were written in the West. These listed an array of sins, with the penance that a person must observe as punishment for the sin. Certain “sins” which prevented conception had particularly heavy penalties. These included:
practicing a particularly ineffective form of birth control, coitus interruptus (withdrawal of the penis prior to ejaculation)
engaging in oral sex or anal sex
becoming sterile by artificial means, such as by consuming sterilizing poisons.
Abortion, on the other hand, required a less serious penance. Theodore, who organized the English church, assembled a penitential about 700 CE. Oral intercourse required from 7 years to a lifetime of penance; an abortion required only 120 days.
Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216):
He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not “animated.”
Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” – when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an “animated” fetus as murder.
Pope Sixtus V (1471-1484) issued a Papal bull “Effraenatam” in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.
Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591) revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the “quickening” test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16
“Can you be more specific? I’ve been waiting for you all afternoon! Lol.:)”
It’s over, Janet. See my above post.
The fact that you are agreeing with TR on this should tell you something.
Sorry, mk….I don’t fall into the stigma that all pro-lifers MUST think the same and ALWAYS disagree with a pro-choicer.
How bout if you haven’t studied Catholic doctrine before, we shut up. K?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 17, 2008 1:25 PM
*******************
Youre embarassed by history and factual information.
Main Entry: 1uni
Bethany, you wrote:”The Bible says that people “without natural affection” are worthy of judgement and death. ”
That would of course open up the question whether pedophilia was considered “natural” at the time.
It certainly was in Tiberius’ and Caligula’s time (which was also Jesus’ time).
Ooooooh, now I see what you’re saying…
The Catholic Church is the ONLY one that tries to cover up sexual crimes. NoOne else does it.
Except for the other people that do it. I get it now…rigggggghhhhht…
Posted by: mk at April 17, 2008 1:41 PM
**********************
Keep looking foolish. Youre really good at it.
All that could possibly be pertinent in that list of quotes above is the one from Gregory XIV which I have already refuted.
We have all these claims going around, but no one has produced actual documents. I would appreciate it.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 17, 2008 1:35 PM
****************
And that means what?
What kind of ‘documents’?
TR:I seriously doubt if any of the saints or Gregory XIV or Innocent III had access to sonagrams.
mk: Really? You don’t think so? Why?
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
I heard about this man in Egypt who has a polaroid of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, and it sounds really cool!
You’re too easy TR…you almost take the fun out of it.
Posted by: mk at April 17, 2008 1:46 PM
*********************
You can look just as stupid as you want – enjoy yourself.
I mean, rather than just copying and pasting quotes from some website, show me the document that Gregory XIV issued which made abortion OK.
I already found the pertinent quote above, and it doesn’t do that.
*THE CROWD ROARS*
Give me a “B”
Give me an “O”
Give me a “B”
Give me a “B”
Give me a “Y”
What’s that spell!
TRUTH!!!!
This is the only time we have seen something from the ACTUAL DOCUMENT. It does NOT say abortion is permissible. All it does is talk about a punishment. The Catholic Church never changed its stance on abortion. Until you can provide actual documentation, as opposed to anti-catholic interpretations of official papal teachings, Case closed. Period.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 17, 2008 1:43 PM
***********************
‘Case closed’ and ‘period’ makes you look foolish. Refusing to face facts makes you look foolish too. The current position is that a fertilized egg is ‘a person’ and that even the MAP is ‘murder’. That has not always been the position of the RCC.
I mean, rather than just copying and pasting quotes from some website, show me the document that Gregory XIV issued which made abortion OK.
I already found the pertinent quote above, and it doesn’t do that.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 17, 2008 1:51 PM
************************
The position of the RCC on abortion has changed over the years whether you have what it takes to face that fact or not.
SoMG,
Pedophelia is indeed condemned by Paul…Hisman and I just had a bout over this…
The word Effeminate refers to boy prostitutes…
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, NOR EFFEMINATE, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor 6:9-10
Bobby B wrote: “How bout if you haven’t studied Catholic doctrine before, we shut up. K?”
Once again the “If you’re not Catholic you can’t understand the history of the Church” argument rears its ugly head.
Sorry Texas. There is no official document issued by the Pope that says abortion is OK. The one that you thought you had turned out to be a gross misrepresentation of the text. That’s it. There is no arguing anymore. You have to produce for me an official papal decree saying that abortion is permissible (or something to that affect). You have not done that. The burden of proof is now on you if you want to make that claim.
Look, we can start over. We’ve had our differences. I’m willing to forgive and forget. Seriously, I’m stretching out my hand in a sign of peace. I apologize for the way I’ve treated you before.
Not all Catholics have studied Catholic doctrine SoMG.
So it’s not a “if you’re not Catholic you can’t understand the history of the church” argument.
It’s a “if you don’t really know what you’re talking about then you should stuff it” kind of an argument.
MK, there’s nothing in your quotation from Paul against marrying, and having (heterosexual) sex with, a child.
No, SoMG, you don’t understand how Catholic doctrine works. Many people don’t, as I have just demonstrated by quoting the phrase from Sedes Apostolica that some people interpret to mean that the church once taught that abortion was permissible until quickening. It doesn’t say that. It just doesn’t. That one sentence is what all this mumbo-jumbo is based on.
Bobby, I didn’t read up far enough, sorry. This has been fun, ::passing the baton::
The point is that the position of the RCC on abortion has changed – Canon 2350 says that a person who procures an abortion will be excommunicated – but Gregory XIV MODIFIED the punishment so that the penalty didnt apply if the fetus was not ‘ensouled’ –
This MODIFICATION PROVES that the position on abortion changed
In 1869 PiuxIX RESCENDED the modification – the position changed AGAIN
http://hometown.aol.com/abtrbng/canonl.htm
Canon 2350,
No one is claiming that the Church ever SUPPORTED abortion. TR and I have only been arguing that the Church’s position on abortion has CHANGED. Which it clearly has! At one time, it was not a sin to abort a pregnancy before quickening. Now personhood begins at conception and the morning-after-pill is murder. Those are DIFFERENT positions. That’s a CHANGE in the Church’s position on abortion. Not a radical change, you could argue, but still a change.
http://home.earthlink.net/~davidlperry/abortion.htm
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/abortion.html
Thanks Janet. She’s got a concerto class this afternoon and tomorrow is piano and violin!!
Liturgical music can be beautiful if done properly!!
Posted by: Patricia at April 17, 2008 10:02 AM
……………………………………………..
Congrats to your daughter! I have an uncle that is a master pipe organist. He is a retired missionary and composes for his church. I can barely play chop sticks on the piano. Someone has to be the audience!
No one is claiming that the Church ever SUPPORTED abortion. TR and I have only been arguing that the Church’s position on abortion has CHANGED. Which it clearly has! At one time, it was not a sin to abort a pregnancy before quickening. Now personhood begins at conception and the morning-after-pill is murder. Those are DIFFERENT positions. That’s a CHANGE in the Church’s position on abortion. Not a radical change, you could argue, but still a change.
Posted by: SoMG at April 17, 2008 2:04 PM
*********************
Thank you!
I have already proven that the position changed -at one time anyone who procured an abortion would be excommunicated. Period. THEN the position of the church CHANGED to say that you wouldnt be excommumicated if you procured an abortion BEFORE ‘ensoulment’. Thats a CHANGE. Im amazed that people cant face this fact.
OK. Fair enough, but all that is is a matter of discipline. Perhaps I am confused about the nature of the argument, but if all you’re saying is that it changed not the teaching about the MORALITY of abortion, but the punishment, then MK, Janet, Brian, and all of us agree with you and we have no problem with that. If that’s what you want to mean by position changed, then fine. I was confused, and I apologize for it.
Discipline changes all the time. Certain offenses which were once excommuticable are now no longer excommuticable and vice versa. I appreciate the clarification, TR. But yeah, we have no problem admitting that the way we handle certain sins, punishments, etc. can change.
http://www.flutterby.com/danlyke/religion/abortion.html
So I think we were confused about what each other has been saying. I didn’t do a good job of listening. I apologize.
Gee SoMG,
You must mean like the “Jill, you don’t know anything about the abortion industry and I know everything” argument. Thought it sounded familiar.
Well it’s nice to have settled that!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion
Great! Now I can actually do some work!
SOMG, it still goes against natural affection, whether it is a female or a male, if it is a child.
Children are not naturally designed to have sex at such a young age. It can be physically harmful to them.
Being married to, and having sex with a (opposite sex) child would absolutely be without natural affection. It would only seek to satisfy the pervert’s lust, which is yet another sin in the Bible.
God made us MALE and FEMALE. Not boy and girl.
And not MAN and GIRL, and not MAN and BOY, and not WOMAN and BOY and not WOMAN and GIRL….
Sorry Texas. There is no official document issued by the Pope that says abortion is OK. The one that you thought you had turned out to be a gross misrepresentation of the text. That’s it. There is no arguing anymore. You have to produce for me an official papal decree saying that abortion is permissible (or something to that affect). You have not done that. The burden of proof is now on you if you want to make that claim.
Look, we can start over. We’ve had our differences. I’m willing to forgive and forget. Seriously, I’m stretching out my hand in a sign of peace. I apologize for the way I’ve treated you before.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 17, 2008 1:57 PM
******************
No one ever said the church said abortion was good or ‘ok’ – the point is the POSITION of the church has CHANGED over the years and the CURRENT position of the church wasnt reached until 1869. I pointed out specific instances WHERE it changed. Initially the position of the church was anyone who procured an abortion would be EXCOMMUNICATED. Gregory XIV amended that to say that if the abortion was procured before ‘ensoulment’ then the person would NOT be excommunicated. That was a CHANGE IN THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH. Pius XIV got rid of the ammendment in 1869 which was a CHANGE IN THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH yet again and the position of the church in 1869 is the CURRENT position. I’ll take your hand, bambino, but how you’ve ‘treated’ me hasnt mussed a single red hair on my head.
MK, there’s nothing in your quotation from Paul against marrying, and having (heterosexual) sex with, a child.
Well, back then that wasn’t considered abnormal. People only lived to 40 or 50 and they got married at 12, 13 or 14.
While it is true that the bible doesn’t reference every form of pedophelia, your claim was that it didn’t mention it AT ALL. And it does.
Bethany, you wrote: “SOMG, it still goes against natural affection, whether it is a female or a male, if it is a child. ”
That is the MODERN meaning of the word “natural”. There’s no reason to believe Paul meant it that way.
The word Effeminate refers to boy prostitutes…
************
And the bible says that where?
It’s in the greek root, Texasred. You can find it at http://www.blueletterBible.com:
From the Greek root μαλακός:
Effeminate
1) soft, soft to the touch
2) metaph. in a bad sense
a) effeminate
1) of a catamite
2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
4) of a male prostitute
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3120&t=kjv
Anyway, I wasn’t the one who first said the Bible doesn’t condemn pedophilia. Maybe it does for all I know. I’m not an expert on pedophilia.
I do know that the Bible does not condemn abortion. Nor is there any evidence that its author(s) meant to include abortion within the meaning of the word “murder”.
TR: do you always have to have the last word?
So I think we were confused about what each other has been saying. I didn’t do a good job of listening. I apologize.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 17, 2008 2:11 PM
****************************
The argument was the RCC has had the exact same position on abortion since ‘year 0001’ and it hasnt – the fact that initially youd be excommunicated if you had an abortion THEN according to Gregory XIV you WOULDNT be excommunicated if you had an abortion before ‘ensoulment’ proves the position changed and changed again when PiusXIV got rid of Gregory XIVs ‘exception’.
TR,
The argument started by us saying that church TEACHING does not change. I still hold that it doesn’t. What you put forth is not doctrine. Janet (?) said that the doctrine has never changed and you brought up the abortion thing. The doctrine on abortion has never changed.
But I agree with Bobby. Many “things” within the church have changed. Just not doctrine.
We can receive communion in the hand now. We no longer have to wear head coverings at mass. You’re right some things change.
But not doctrine.
While not one red hair on your head has been ruffled, I’m afraid Bobby has a few new gray ones!
TR: do you always have to have the last word?
Posted by: Janet at April 17, 2008 2:23 PM
**************
Not if I agree with the person who DOES have the last word.
Anyway, I wasn’t the one who first said the Bible doesn’t condemn pedophilia. Maybe it does for all I know. I’m not an expert on pedophilia.
I do know that the Bible does not condemn abortion. Nor is there any evidence that its author(s) meant to include abortion within the meaning of the word “murder”.
I never said that the Bible didn’t condemn pedophilia, SOMG. Please try to listen to what I am saying. I said that it doesn’t say it explicitly.
My use of the pedophile argument was to explain to you why abortion can still be considered wrong according to the Bible, yet not be mentioned explicitly.
Cool, Texas.
But see, this is what I mean when we say Catholic doctrine is tricky for those who haven’t studied it. You pointed out the change in excommunication, which is just discipline. It doesn’t change the position. For example, I can decide that if my daughter stays out past her curfew, I ground her for 2 weeks. Perhaps I change my mind and think that that punishment is too harsh and it won’t encourage her to come home any earlier in the future, so I change the punishment to a week. It doesn’t mean I think staying out late is less bad, it’s just that I’ve changed my mind about how best to discipline her. And that’s all that the church has done. Pope Gregory thought the punishment was too harsh, so he changed it. He never taught that you could abort a fetus before quickening. He just changed a punishment. Does that make sense?
I do know that the Bible does not condemn abortion. Nor is there any evidence that its author(s) meant to include abortion within the meaning of the word “murder”
Posted by: SoMG at April 17, 2008 2:23 PM
SoMG,
Then it must be OK. You and TR won.
Different translation of 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
New International Version
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%206&version=31
“While not one red hair on your head has been ruffled, I’m afraid Bobby has a few new gray ones!”
Yah, not only my head, but also my beard!
Texas red 2:28, that’s what Marykay was trying to tell you! ;)
SoMG,
I do know that the Bible does not condemn abortion. Nor is there any evidence that its author(s) meant to include abortion within the meaning of the word “murder”..
Because if it did you’d suddenly change your views?
Why is this so important to you? Those of us who “believe”, understand the abortion is wrong by inferring it from many, many other things that the church teaches. You were right. Abortion probably wasn’t an issue like it is then, and it never ocurred to the apostles to specify it. This is the first time in history where abortion is as prevalent as it is. I’m sure if billions of children were being aborted for money in Jesus’ time, He would have mentioned it….
Translation from The Message version –
9-11Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom. A number of you know from experience what I’m talking about, for not so long ago you were on that list. Since then, you’ve been cleaned up and given a fresh start by Jesus, our Master, our Messiah, and by our God present in us, the Spirit.
Janet, I’m not arguing (here) that abortion is “OK”. I’m only arguing that the Bible does not prohibit or condemn it.
From The Amplified Bible –
9Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,
10Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.
Texasred, off topic, but I would love it if we could put a face to your name.
Is there any chance we could ever have a picture of you on the who’s who page? :)
Whether or not it’s “OK” is a completely different question.
Not all translations of 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 say the same thing – so obviously the assumption about ‘child prostitutes’ isnt universally accepted.
Check out BibleGateway – has about 30 different versions of the scriptures
Because if it did you’d suddenly change your views?
Why is this so important to you? Those of us who “believe”, understand the abortion is wrong by inferring it from many, many other things that the church teaches. You were right. Abortion probably wasn’t an issue like it is then, and it never ocurred to the apostles to specify it. This is the first time in history where abortion is as prevalent as it is. I’m sure if billions of children were being aborted for money in Jesus’ time, He would have mentioned it….
Posted by: mk at April 17, 2008 2:30 PM
Marykay, I have many times gotten the feeling that if SOMG could be convinced the Bible was against abortion, he would rethink it. I don’t know why.
He seems to be very much in need of the Bible to confirm his beliefs, which I find odd for an atheist.
Texasred, off topic, but I would love it if we could put a face to your name.
Is there any chance we could ever have a picture of you on the who’s who page? :)
Posted by: Bethany at April 17, 2008 2:31 PM
**********************
I dont have any pictures on my current computer but this weekend I’ll dig out my old clunker and send you a photo
“Is there any chance we could ever have a picture of you on the who’s who page? :)”
I second that, Texas :)
Not all translations of 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 say the same thing – so obviously the assumption about ‘child prostitutes’ isnt universally accepted.
Different translations change things, Texasred.
Some Bible translators don’t care about changing the meaning of the texts, and they do so with their own biases.
The greek or hebrew is where you want to go, to get to the root of each word. Aramaic is even better.
MK, you wrote: “This is the first time in history where abortion is as prevalent as it is. ”
Where in the world did you get this idea? Abortion was THE method of reproductive control in Ancient Rome.
Read EVE’S HERBS: A HISTORY OF ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION IN THE WEST by John M. Riddle.
Cool, Texas.
But see, this is what I mean when we say Catholic doctrine is tricky for those who haven’t studied it. You pointed out the change in excommunication, which is just discipline. It doesn’t change the position. For example, I can decide that if my daughter stays out past her curfew, I ground her for 2 weeks. Perhaps I change my mind and think that that punishment is too harsh and it won’t encourage her to come home any earlier in the future, so I change the punishment to a week. It doesn’t mean I think staying out late is less bad, it’s just that I’ve changed my mind about how best to discipline her. And that’s all that the church has done. Pope Gregory thought the punishment was too harsh, so he changed it. He never taught that you could abort a fetus before quickening. He just changed a punishment. Does that make sense?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 17, 2008 2:26 PM
**********************
But thats the point – the position of the church on abortion did change. And that was the point. At one point it was so serious a transgression that it warranted excommunication. Then Gregory XIV said – no – if you have an abortion early enough its not serious enough a sin to warrant kicking you out of the church. Then PiusXIV (I think?) Said wait a minute – yes it IS that serious a sin – and reached the CURRENT position on abortion. At one time the punishment for oral sex was greater than for having an abortion. How the church saw abortion, the punishment for abortion, the position of the church on abortion did CHANGE. And that was the whole point. The church did not reach its CURRENT position on abortion until 1869 when PiousXIV rescended the exception made by Gregory XIV because Gregory said that an early abortion was not serious enough a transgression to warrant excommunication and Pious disagreed.
oh that would be great, Iva! I am so glad I’ll finally get to see what you look like.
By the way, since many have already been apologizing on this thread, can I tell you how sorry I am for some of the things I have lashed out at you with since you started posting here again? I am sorry for anything I have said to you that was inappropriate and unprofessional on this forum. No matter what made me feel compelled to say things to you, or about you, it was still not right, and I just wanted to let you know that I have no hard feelings towards you anymore. I used to, but I have gotten rid of them.
oh that would be great, Iva! I am so glad I’ll finally get to see what you look like.
By the way, since many have already been apologizing on this thread, can I tell you how sorry I am for some of the things I have lashed out at you with since you started posting here again? I am sorry for anything I have said to you that was inappropriate and unprofessional on this forum. No matter what made me feel compelled to say things to you, or about you, it was still not right, and I just wanted to let you know that I have no hard feelings towards you anymore. I used to, but I have gotten rid of them.
Posted by: Bethany at April 17, 2008 2:40 PM
*********************
If I didnt piss you off it wouldnt be worth showing up
Bethany, let me correct you: I am not an atheist. I am an agnost. I believe it is intrinsically impossible for human beings to know anything whatsoever about God, including whether or not there is one.
And no, I don’t care much what the Bible says about abortion. I just think it’s amusing that so many right-to-lifers think it says something against it when it doesn’t.
SoMG,
Where in the world did you get this idea? Abortion was THE method of reproductive control in Ancient Rome
Ancient Rome wasn’t THE ENTIRE WORLD…it was a large part yes, but not all of it. There are only a handful of countries that forbid abortion today. And the EU is making sure they don’t last…
There wasn’t even a billion people on earth at the time, let alone a billion abortions.
There weren’t abortion clinics on every corner. There were herbs, sure. And that is awful. But people weren’t ripping fully formed children out of the womb limb by limb, and becoming millionaires off of it.
And I will get that book and read it…
Texas red 2:28, that’s what Marykay was trying to tell you! ;)
Posted by: Bethany at April 17, 2008 2:29 PM
********************
Uhm – no – she said the verse condemned child prostitutes because it condemns ‘the effiminate’and that means boy prostitutes. Not all translations of those verses says the same thing. Not all translations use the word ‘effiminate’.
I’m sorry, SOMG, I didn’t know you were agnostic. Why do you believe it is impossible for us to know about God? Suppose you had created the world, would you not want your creation to know you existed? This is a serious question.
SoMG,
And people who sacrificed their children to Molech were told not to.
Uhm – no – she said the verse condemned child prostitutes because it condemns ‘the effiminate’and that means boy prostitutes. Not all translations of those verses says the same thing. Not all translations use the word ‘effiminate’.
But your 2:28 post used the term “male prostitute”, which is what I was replying to. However, I do not agree with all translations of the Bible. Only the ones that agree with the original root, as closely as possible.
For instance, I do not agree with the NIV because it changes and alters the meanings of many different words (can’t think of them all right off the bat), and not only this, but it omits a few verses and in one place, an entire chapter (unless I’m thinking of another translation).
So the fact that another translation might not use that word doesn’t mean that’s not the word that was originally used.
Because if it did you’d suddenly change your views?
Why is this so important to you? Those of us who “believe”, understand the abortion is wrong by inferring it from many, many other things that the church teaches. You were right. Abortion probably wasn’t an issue like it is then, and it never ocurred to the apostles to specify it. This is the first time in history where abortion is as prevalent as it is. I’m sure if billions of children were being aborted for money in Jesus’ time, He would have mentioned it….
Posted by: mk at April 17, 2008 2:30 PM
*******************************
But the bible doesnt SAY that and thats the point. A huge portion of the antichoice argument is ‘abortion is wrong because god says its wrong’ and the fact of the matter is nowhwere anywhere in the OT or NT does ‘god’ say that or is the practice of abortion condemned. God doesnt say ‘abortion is wrong’ anywhere in the bible. You may PERSONALLY BELIEVE that abortion is wrong but that still doesnt mean ‘god says its wrong’. Abortion has been around for thousands of years. Jesus knew about abortion. He would have had to. But he didnt condemn the practice. And apparently he didnt grow up in a household where the practice was condemned either because if he had been taught his whole life ‘thats wrong’ then it would have been reflected in the things he DID teach. You can say ‘I think abortion is wrong’. But when you say ‘God says abortion is wrong’ then you dont have anything beyond your own assumptions and interpretations and inventions to back you up, and that isnt ‘the word of god’ – thats the word of ‘you’.
And no, I don’t care much what the Bible says about abortion. I just think it’s amusing that so many right-to-lifers think it says something against it when it doesn’t.
Posted by: SoMG at April 17, 2008 2:41 PM
It’s there, you have to read BETWEEN the lines.
MK, you wrote: “This is the first time in history where abortion is as prevalent as it is. ”
Where in the world did you get this idea? Abortion was THE method of reproductive control in Ancient Rome.
Read EVE’S HERBS: A HISTORY OF ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION IN THE WEST by John M. Riddle.
Posted by: SoMG at April 17, 2008 2:38 PM
***********************
There is also a book by Devereaux – cant for the life of me think of the title – but it says the same thing. There were some really weird potions they thought would prevent conception too – Egyptians even used crockodile poop … Id think that would cut down on oral sex at any rate … *twitch*
The Darby translation seems to think it means transvestites –
9Do ye not know that unrighteous [persons] shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,
10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor abusive persons, nor [the] rapacious, shall inherit [the] kingdom of God.
And no, I don’t care much what the Bible says about abortion. I just think it’s amusing that so many right-to-lifers think it says something against it when it doesn’t.
Posted by: SoMG at April 17, 2008 2:41 PM
It’s there, you have to read BETWEEN the lines.
Posted by: Janet at April 17, 2008 2:52 PM
***************
but your assumptions arent the word of god and thats the point
SOMG, if God says:
Children are a blessing, an heritage of the Lord
And God says:
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not into thine own understanding.
But then, if God would condone a woman killing t which he called hat blessing, of her own will, because she felt that she had to keep her job, or finish college, etc, and felt that if she didn’t, the world would “come to an end”, then this means that:
#1. she is sinning because she is failing to trust that God will take care of her and turn this situation into a good one. “Whatever is not of faith is sin”
#2.) that God thinks that children are not always a blessing. And this would clearly contradict what He says about children.
God cannot contradict. What He says in one place MUST correlate with what He says elsewhere.
I see, MK, you’re arguing that there were fewer abortions because there were fewer people to have them. Well you may be right about that. But when you say abortion is more “prevalent” than it used to be, this suggests to me that you mean on a per capita basis. Number of abortions per thousand reproductive-age women. Do you believe that there are more abortions PER CAPITA than at any other time in history? If you do believe this, why?
Bethany, you wrote: “Why do you believe it is impossible for us to know about God?”
Because there is no way to prove anything about it experimentally, and there is nothing in nature that cannot be explained with a less powerful hypothesis (Occam’s Razor).
MK, sacrificing already-born children as part of a religious rite is completely different from abortion. The prohibition (probably) has much more to do with the commandment to worship no one other than God than with saving the children from being killed.
Janet, you wrote: “It [a prohibition against abortion]’s there, you have to read BETWEEN the lines.”
I see, it’s in the penumbra, like Roe vs Wade.
(sarcasm)
SoMG,
You may be interested in the book “I don’t have enough faith to be atheist” by Norm Geisler and Frank Turn. They address your concern about whether or not we can know. It is very highly acclaimed. Might be worth looking into.
Oops. That’s Frank Turek, not Turn.
Abortion in Primitive Societies – devereaux – its an old book –
Bethany, you wrote: “SOMG, if God says:
Children are a blessing, an heritage of the Lord
And God says:
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not into thine own understanding.”
…then He must disapprove of abortion because it treats children as a non-blessing and fails to trust the Lord to make the best of her pregnancy. (I paraphrase).
But your argument proves too much: if a woman avoids having children BY MEANS OF CHASTITY she also is treating children as a non-blessing and failing to trust the Lord to make good of the pregnancy she would have if she were unchaste.
God cannot contradict. What He says in one place MUST correlate with what He says elsewhere.
Posted by: Bethany at April 17, 2008 2:58 PM
***************
But the bible does have contradictions. And if the men who wrote the bible or god felt as strongly about abortion as you want to say they did then they wouldnt need you to be trying to ‘explain’ and ‘translate’ and ‘interpret’ what they ‘meant’ or ‘intended to say’ or ‘actually felt’. It would be written out and there would be verses mentioning abortion and condemning the practice. It wasnt even significant enough to mention. And yet there are detailed rules dealing with what to do with poop and what to do if a man has a wet dream, never mind all the verses on hairstyles, fashion statements, crops you can and cannot plant, and detailed lists of foods you can and cannot eat.
Sorry–that above Anonymous is me.
There weren’t abortion clinics on every corner. There were herbs, sure. And that is awful. But people weren’t ripping fully formed children out of the womb limb by limb, and becoming millionaires off of it.
And I will get that book and read it…
Posted by: mk at April 17, 2008 2:43 PM
********************
Actually later term abortions would have been more common place because the fetus would have to be larger in order to remove it. One method was to manually crush the fetus in the uterus. Today over 60% of abortions are performed by 8 weeks, 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester and 97% by 15/16 weeks. Going on about ‘fully formed children’ is more melodramatic hysteria.
Janet, you wrote: “It [a prohibition against abortion]’s there, you have to read BETWEEN the lines.”
I see, it’s in the penumbra, like Roe vs Wade.
Posted by: SoMG at April 17, 2008 3:01 PM
No, not like Roe.v.Wade.
It is there, you just aren’t “seeing it” in your mind. Use your mind, not your eyes.
Yep. Whether or not there are more abortions being done than at any other time in history, we CAN say with some certainty that abortions are being done EARLIER IN PREGNANCY than at any other time in history.
SoMG,
You may be interested in the book “I don’t have enough faith to be atheist” by Norm Geisler and Frank Turn. They address your concern about whether or not we can know. It is very highly acclaimed. Might be worth looking into.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 17, 2008 3:05 PM
******************
I know how I was raised and I know I cant buy into what I was taught when I was little. If there is ‘a god’ then its not the petty spiteful capricious hateful deity I was taught about growing up. And please dont tell me ‘god isnt like that’. Because yes, it is. I believe that Jesus (if there was ‘a jesus’) taught a whole lot of really good things and that a true christian is a very good person. But I dont have to buy into anything supernatural to believe that and live to all intents and purposes a ‘good xtian life’.
But your argument proves too much: if a woman avoids having children BY MEANS OF CHASTITY she also is treating children as a non-blessing and failing to trust the Lord to make good of the pregnancy she would have if she were unchaste.
Virginity is not a sin, if you are unmarried.
However, I think in a certain context your argument is correct. If a married woman chooses to prevent children by using birth control, or by abstaining, because she thinks “I can’t afford a child right now”, or “I don’t think I could handle two this close”, etc, I believe that is a result of not trusting in God, and obviously that would make it a sin. This is why I am what you might call “quiverfull”.
TexasRed,
when your baby kicked inside of you, did you say “the baby just kicked” or did you say “the fetus just kicked” ?
But the bible does have contradictions. And if the men who wrote the bible or god felt as strongly about abortion as you want to say they did then they wouldnt need you to be trying to ‘explain’ and ‘translate’ and ‘interpret’ what they ‘meant’ or ‘intended to say’ or ‘actually felt’. It would be written out and there would be verses mentioning abortion and condemning the practice. It wasnt even significant enough to mention. And yet there are detailed rules dealing with what to do with poop and what to do if a man has a wet dream, never mind all the verses on hairstyles, fashion statements, crops you can and cannot plant, and detailed lists of foods you can and cannot eat.
I disagree. I believe that it is my duty as a Christian to “rightly divide” the word of God, and “study [the scriptures], to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed”
The Bible isn’t clear to everyone. I understand that. I believe Gods word is meant to be a stumbling block to unbelievers and and a living stone/foundation for believers. 1 Peter 2
Janet, you wrote: “Use your mind, not your eyes.”
Just “close your eyes and believe real hard”, eh?
You can make any text appear to say anything that way.
TR: 3:11: But the bible does have contradictions. And if the men who wrote the bible or god felt as strongly about abortion as you want to say they did then they wouldnt need you to be trying to ‘explain’ and ‘translate’ and ‘interpret’ what they ‘meant’ or ‘intended to say’ or ‘actually felt’. It would be written out and there would be verses mentioning abortion and condemning the practice. It wasnt even significant enough to mention.
I agree with you that the bible does have contradictions (or paradoxes). Not everything is literal as I see it. This article is a very interesting take on this idea of paradox that you might enjoy reading:
LEARNING TO THINK SPIRITUALLY
How to perceive God; Truth in Paradox
by
A.S.A. Jones
http://www.ex-atheist.com/Learning%20To%20Think%20Spiritually.html
Janet, you wrote: “Use your mind, not your eyes.”
Just “close your eyes and believe real hard”, eh?
You can make any text appear to say anything that way.
Posted by: SoMG at April 17, 2008 3:37 PM
You must have special powers that I don’t! Actually, You might be interested in the post that I directed to TR as well. @ 3:40.
TR and SoMG:
Here is the above author’s personal story.
FROM SKEPTICISM TO WORSHIP
MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY
by
A.S.A. Jones
09/01/02
http://www.ex-atheist.com/from-skepticism-to-worship.html
Whew wee, now that Texasredneck is getting more fired up then a redneck at a Klan meeting in August. Burn that cross Yexasredneck and make sure it’s a Catholic cross or your klegal will have to make you read ten chapters from your KKK religious history, book.
Ah, the truth means nothing to a little Texasredneck piggie from Texas.
You get those evil Catholics Texasredneck, your grand pappy is smiling from his grave built upon killing Catholics for his Texas longhorn ranch.
yllas, if I were a right-to-lifer or a Catholic I would be embarrassed by your posts.
Thank you for letting me know why you feel that way, SOMG. 2:58 I appreciate one thing about you, and that is that you will always answer questions honestly as you see it. That’s all I wanted to know. Thanks.
Janet, that is a great link, very interesting!
And there it is, a Texasredneck confessing about the God she knew when she was “little”. A “petty spiteful capricious hateful diety I was taught growing up”. No one can define a redneck version of God better then a Texasredneck. Born a Catholic hating redneck and always a Texasredneck, who post her religious thinking, which is dead stopped as a little piggie child redneck.
I admire you Texasreneck for confessing in public about your redneck version of God. You getum Texasredneck, those Catholics are evil, as evil as that petty spiteful capricious redneck God you fought soo bravely against as a little piggie Texasredneck, who doesn’t know what truth is to this day.
TexasRed,
when your baby kicked inside of you, did you say “the baby just kicked” or did you say “the fetus just kicked” ?
Posted by: jasper at April 17, 2008 3:30 PM
***********************
I knew it was a fetus. Why do facts bother you? That kind of ‘argument’ is so idiotic.
Keep looking like a demented gibbering idiot yellowass – Im so glad youre not on the prochoice side.
Bethany, 3:59,
Thank you, I thought so!
Somg,
Your being a defender of anti-Catholic rednecks is a embarrassed. Try again you silly minded agnostic who does not know about God by studying to not know or know about God. Your thinking about God leaves one laughing about any statement in matters about God SOMG, because you absolutely are sure you can not know or know about God. Please refrain from discussing theology since you self admit your absolutely don’t know or know about God. Your a self admitted ignorance SPMG, of not being able to know, or not know about some God(s) you studied and have absolutely decided you don’t know enough to decide about that God. It’s embarassing to be a person who can’t decide to know, or not know, a subject they pontificate on.
Somg,
Your being a defender of anti-Catholic rednecks is a embarrassed. Try again you silly minded agnostic who does not know about God by studying to not know or know about God. Your thinking about God leaves one laughing about any statement in matters about God SOMG, because you absolutely are sure you can not know or know about God. Please refrain from discussing theology since you self admit your absolutely don’t know or know about God. Your a self admitted ignorance SOMG, of not being able to know, or not know about some God(s) you studied and have absolutely decided you don’t know enough to decide about that God. It’s embarassing to be a person who can’t decide to know, or not know, a subject they pontificate on.
Way to stick to the topic, people!
TexasRed,
when your baby kicked inside of you, did you say “the baby just kicked” or did you say “the fetus just kicked” ?
Way to stick to the topic, people!
Posted by: Gerry at April 17, 2008 4:32 PM
Sorry, Gerry. Go ahead and post.
Let’s see,
Next Texasredneck will admit to knowing “good Catholics” as all bigots eventually do. Who was raised by a redneck family that taught that God was a spiteful petty God who hated Catholics before he hated his Catholic hating redneck worshipping families also.
Which is why Texasredneck is posting to this day, trying to get that devil God out of her mind and heart. Ironically, nothing has changed in Texasredneck mind and heart about Catholics to this day. Clinginig to her abortion God and being embittered about Catholics soo much, she has spent the whole day preaching her embittered version of anti-Catholicism to anyone who wants to read a Texasredneck pouring her heart out about those evil Catholics. Own a pop gun too Texasredneck, from being embittered about Texas not killing more Catholics for land, Texasredneck? Shucks and be hornswoggled, Obama has got your number Texasredneck.
Janet, I absolutely love his argument for why he believes in God. It is very long but VERY worth the read.
http://www.ex-atheist.com/why-i-believe-god-is-real.html
This part I thought was especially good:
“What is the truth about morality? If we say that no such truth exists because it can’t be captured through logic, then we are hypocrites every time we demand justice and our entire legal system is the result of a delusion. Moral truth exists – we just can’t seem to pin it down.”
“In asking the first question, I found that I could logically justify contradictory behavior. I could give logical reasons for divorcing my spouse and I could also give logical reasons for staying married. I could justify lying, and I could justify telling the truth, both for the same situation. If I could intellectually reason to equal and opposite conclusions, then I had to admit that moral behavior could not solely be determined through logic. If logic alone could not allow us to determine the truth about right and wrong, then perhaps logic alone could not tell us the truth about a god who is closely connected with morality.”
Bethany, The article you posted was good. Here’s another one. (The whole site is interesting!)
CONTENDING EARNESTLY FOR THE FAITH
Logic, Debate and Apologetics
by
A.S.A. Jones
http://www.ex-atheist.com/contending-for-the-faith.html
Quoting from your link:
http://www.ex-atheist.com/why-i-believe-god-is-real.html
It begins: “My belief in God is based on a primary perception of Him, the perception of truth in His Word,…”
Great. A primary perception. That’s worthless. From the URL (“ex-atheist”) I was hoping for an ARGUMENT, a proof against atheism.
Instead he gives us the history of his conversion to Christianity. He writes:
“I was struck with a very powerful conviction that I wasn’t the good person that I had thought I was. I saw that faith in Jesus Christ was the only way to fix what was wrong with me ”
In other words, as he read the Bible he became emotionally invested in believing that it was true. If it turns out it isn’t true, how will he fix what’s wrong with him?
So he indulgently deceives himself about the reliability of his “primary perception”. He virtually admits this:
“I have no way to confirm that these [religious] experiences are accurate reflections of reality, but I accept them as such because they are powerful enough for me to think it unwise to ignore them.”
In other words “It felt so meaningful it just HAS to be true.” Surely, Janet and Bethany, you can see that this is faulty reasoning?
So why DOES he think God is real? He writes: “I believe that the Bible describes a very REAL God because of the way in which it was revealed. It wasn’t as if the prophets sat down and decided which elements would go into making a good god model. It’s as if they were given the parts to the model and, with no understanding of how they would fit together, accurately described them. The parts of the model were delivered over a span of 1500 years and through over 40 different authors, yet they come together to make sense when they are viewed in the light of their entirety. That’s why the Bible is said to be authored by God, because the writings were designed and directed by one source. ”
In other words, he believes atheism is wrong because the Bible is a good book written by several people over time. Sorry. That’s not a convincing argument. It COULD have been written by people with merely human inspiration.
If this is the best you all can do, it’s not very good.
I find it amusing youve removed a couple of my posts but you have no trouble at all leaving up the long string of yllass’ incoherent gibbering insulting idiocy.
TexasRed,
when your baby kicked inside of you, did you say “the baby just kicked” or did you say “the fetus just kicked” ?
Posted by: jasper at April 17, 2008 4:33 PM
********************
Before birth it was a fetus. I knew it was a fetus. Why do antichoicers think that something this stupid is somehow fantastically meaningfull and relevant?
Way to stick to the topic, people!
Posted by: Gerry at April 17, 2008 4:32 PM
************
It all ties in – the initial issue was someone who is pro choice being ‘allowed’ to take communion.
Texasredneck post were removed for the reason they were incoherent gibbering insulting Texasredneck idiocy. Now you know why your post were removed, you great big oxymoron of a redneck from the friendly state.
Your a great source into the thinking and heart felt theology and philosophy of a old fashion anti-Catholic, Texas bigot. Well that, and being the village pendejo.
But you go Texasredneck, I admire a person who admits their family raised you on a redneck version of God, and have only accomplished becoming a redneck theologian doing what redneck theologians have always preached; more and deeper research about Catholics to spread the word of Texasredneck theology concerning Catholics.
Whooo weee, Texasredneck, your KKK/Know Nothing theology might resurrect another great KKK/Know Nothing theology march in Austin, or even the nation.
Now, let’s give a great big Texas whoop for the talented redneck theology preacher, Texasredneck. And soo Texasredneck got her family recognition and redneck esteem, after years of being considered another embittered, clinging to the abortion God, Know Nothing redneck from the friendly state.
SOMG, I think the point of the posts was not to convert you to God, but to explain to you how you can read something one way, but also it is entirely possible to read it another way.
SoMG,
There are other articles I posted, read them in order, and I think you’ll get the gist of Bethany’s point to you at 8:46.
The whole web site link is interesting whether or not you look at it from the point of converting an atheist.
SoMG: yllas, if I were a right-to-lifer or a Catholic I would be embarrassed by your posts.
:: chuckle ::
yllas has damaged the Catholic Church so much that the Pope has come over for damage control.
SoMG, actually, I think that pro-lifers stand solidly behind yllas’s posts.
Heh – just kidding.
SoMG:
From the same site: Equality, and Morality:
We say that all people should be treated equally, yet it is evident that not all of us are equal. Some of us are born with physical attributes that allow us to succeed on the basketball court; others of us trip over our own feet. Some of us are born with a higher capacity for intelligence; others aren’t very bright. When we say that we should be treated equally, despite the fact that we are all not equal, we are appealing to an idea that is baseless in an atheistic philosophy. In Christianity, however, our equality is based on the existence of our souls, which are all equal in the sight of God. We see how Christianity defines a property that is necessary for equality to be asserted.
Atheism doesn’t allow for people to be genuinely special. But if a couple presents their newborn baby to you and say, “Look at how special and beautiful she is!,” it will not be well received if you reply, “Not really. She is only a product of your copulation, a random selection of your genes.” But if the Christian God is real, we can claim that people are special without being hypocritical, because every person would be uniquely created.
If morality is relative, then morality can only be a subject reality. In other words, morality is reduced to opinion. When we legislate any morality, we are actually forcing other people to live by our opinions. Majority rule is an ad populum fallacy; so is rule by force, because might does not make right. When we throw a person in jail because he has robbed a house, he is being imprisoned because of another man’s opinion that stealing is wrong. Once again, the opinion in question concerns a subjective reality and is, therefore, purely subjective and a matter of preference. Our entire justice system becomes illusory. In order for our justice system to have credibility, it has to be based on an authority that exceeds the mere opinion of men. But with a God who establishes morality as an objective reality, we are no longer dealing with the opinions of man’s preference, but the opinions of men concerning God’s preference.
The above is not a demonstration of God’s existence through an appeal to consequence. In reality, we do think our lives have meaning. We do think that we should all be treated equally, and we do think of some people as special. We do believe in a right and a wrong, even though we may disagree over what is right and wrong. We see all of these matters as realities, yet atheism does not allow us to logically maintain these beliefs as real. God becomes a better model for reality as we know it, than atheism.
http://www.ex-atheist.com/Learning%20To%20Think%20Spiritually.html
The Pope is at the United Nations right now, I’m going to watch on TV.
yllas, if I were a right-to-lifer or a Catholic I would be embarrassed by your posts.
Posted by: SoMG at April 17, 2008 3:57 PM
____
Yllas has no shame but other people feel it for her.
Gerry, 4:32:
Waiting for your comment….
If morality is relative, then morality can only be a subject reality. In other words, morality is reduced to opinion.
Janet, yes, morality is relative. It’s opinions. It’s feelings of good/bad/right/wrong as related to what we want to happen. Without a conscious mind to have desires, there would be no such thing. It’s ideas, it’s internal to the mind, rather than external to it. By definition it’s subjective, not objective.
……
When we legislate any morality, we are actually forcing other people to live by our opinions.
Societies are groups of people with things in common, opinions included, usually. But yeah – if there is sufficient opinion that we should try to affect behavior that way, it’ll happen.
……
Majority rule is an ad populum fallacy; so is rule by force, because might does not make right. When we throw a person in jail because he has robbed a house, he is being imprisoned because of another man’s opinion that stealing is wrong. Once again, the opinion in question concerns a subjective reality and is, therefore, purely subjective and a matter of preference. Our entire justice system becomes illusory. In order for our justice system to have credibility, it has to be based on an authority that exceeds the mere opinion of men. But with a God who establishes morality as an objective reality, we are no longer dealing with the opinions of man’s preference, but the opinions of men concerning God’s preference.
“God” is an opinion, in the first place. No, the majority does not “have” to rule, and often has not and does not. It depends on the given system in place. Could be a monarchy, etc.
It is not that “might makes right,” it is that “might makes….” and then one may agree or disagree with the effect. The “right” or not is in the eye of the beholder. The ones’ pushing for a given law would obviously want it, but a given person could well feel “good” or “bad” about it.
The stuff about our justice system “becoming illusory” is just plain silly. People have the opinions we’re talking about, that’s just a fact; whether or not they have beliefs in the supernatural.
Doug: Feelings, oh, oh, oh, feelings…
Sorry, couldn’t resist..
So my moral decisions today will be, I will listen to some great music, then read the paper, do some laundry, make lunch, all because that’s what I feel like doing….(?)
No, Janet, I don’t think those are moral decisions.
“Feelings” is a larger set than “moral feelings.”