Pro-abortion leader: We’re losing
Frances Kissling was the founding president of the National Abortion Federation from 1977-1980 and president of Catholics for Choice from 1982-2007.
I’m always interested in what Kissling has to say, because these days she often spends her time taking her own side to task, insightful in that regard. This was no different in Kissling’s op ed piece in the Washington Post on February 18. It was fascinating.
Kissling admits her side is losing. But it seems to me the actions she suggests will only hasten the day when preborn human life is preserved again in America. In other words, I don’t think that her side has any way out. There is no path to success. Excerpts:
In the nearly four decades since the Supreme Court ruled that women have a fundamental right to decide to have an abortion, the opposition to legal abortion has increased dramatically. Opponents use increasingly sophisticated arguments – focusing on advances in fetal medicine, stressing the rights of parents to have a say in their minor children’s health care, linking opposition to abortion with opposition to war and capital punishment, seeking to make abortion not illegal but increasingly unavailable – and have succeeded in swinging public opinion toward their side.
Meanwhile, those of us in the abortion-rights movement have barely changed our approach. We cling to the arguments that led to victory in Roe v. Wade. Abortion is a private decision, we say, and the state has no power over a woman’s body. Those arguments may have worked in the 1970s, but today, they are failing us, and focusing on them only risks all the gains we’ve made.
The “pro-choice” brand has eroded considerably. As recently as 1995 it was the preferred label of 56% of Americans; that dropped to 42% in 2009 and was 45% in 2010, according to Gallup polls. And abortion rights are under attack in Congress…. Meanwhile, 29 governors are solidly anti-abortion, while 15 states passed 39 laws, most of them restrictive, relating to abortion in 2010 alone….
[U]nfortunately we’re not going to regain the ground we have lost. What we must do is stop holding on to a strategy that isn’t working, and one that is making the legal right to abortion more vulnerable than ever before.
We can no longer pretend the fetus is invisible. We can no longer seek to banish the state from our lives, but rather need to engage its power to improve women’s lives. We must end the fiction that an abortion at 26 weeks is no different from one at 6 weeks.
These are not compromises or mere strategic concessions, they are a necessary evolution. The positions we have taken up to now are inadequate for the questions of the 21st century….
The fetus is more visible than ever before, and the abortion-rights movement needs to accept its existence and its value. It may not have a right to life, and its value may not be equal to that of the pregnant woman, but ending the life of a fetus is not a morally insignificant event…. Abortion is not merely a medical matter, and there is an unintended coarseness to claiming that it is.
We need to firmly and clearly reject post-viability abortions except in extreme cases….
Those kinds of regulations are not anti-woman or unduly invasive. They rightly protect all of our interests in women’s health and fetal life….
Finally, the abortion-rights movement needs to change the way it thinks about the state. Right now government is mainly treated as the enemy…. The public is ambivalent about abortion. It wants it to be legal, but will support almost any restriction that indicates society takes the act of abortion seriously. For the choice movement to regain popular support and to maintain a legal right to abortion, it has to work with the state….
We have been demanding that the state mind its own business. That lets government abdicate all responsibility for funding reproductive health care. We need more responsible and compassionate state policies.
But respect for fetal life also requires that men and women take every step possible not to create fetuses they will have to abort….
The moral high ground on abortion is not to be found in asserting an absolute right to choose. Instead, it is to be found in the movement’s historic understanding that when abortion is illegal, it is poor women who suffer….
These shifts I am suggesting are not about compromising or finding common ground with abortion opponents. Compromise assumes that there are two parties prepared to give up something in return for settling an issue. Neither opponents nor advocates of legal abortion are willing to do that. But, for pro-choice advocates, standing our ground will mean losing ground entirely….
If the choice movement does not change, control of policy on abortion will remain in the hands of those who want it criminalized. If we don’t suggest sensible balanced legislation and regulation of abortion, we will be left with far more draconian policies – and, eventually, no choices at all.
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.
Sounds like another soon-to-be convert to me!! :)
I actually agree with the militant abortionists whom Kissling is criticizing. There is no fundamental difference between killing a human being at 6 weeks or at 26 weeks. You are killing the same human being and taking away the same human lifespan, so it is fundamentally the same crime.
The fundamental weakness of the anti-unborn human rights movement is that their “position” is totally contrary to natural law and completely logically impossible. This is why they have always resorted to extreme intellectual dishonesty and deceit. They have absolutely no way of winning an honest and rational debate and so they have never tried. This explains why Bernard Nathanson and other leaders of the anti-life movement in its early years told lies, fabricated statistics and demonized the Catholic Church in their attempts to “legalize” the crime of prenatal homicide, as Dr. Nathanson himself later admitted. They had no other alternative.
The fundamental “strength” of the pro-prenatal homicide movement has been the extreme lack of strategic understanding on the part of the leadership of the unborn human rights movement of the last 45 years. If our movement had a solid understanding of precisely what it will take to stop the killing of our children (which tragically it still does not), we would have defeated the criminal abortionist movement long ago.
It is still not too late. If we can get our act together, IF we can, we have a real opportunity, if everything falls into place, to achieve victory for the pro-life cause in 2012 and beyond. If we do everything right from now on, I do not think that the abortionist movement can continue to maintain virtually unlimited violence against human beings.
Frances Kissling said:
Frances – you’re implying abortion is the only solution – but that’s antithetical to the idea that a couple respects the life of their child. You’re not making an argument – you’re just changing words. The couple can choose life. Freedom of choice is about choosing how you think about your relationships – all of them, prior to sexual relations.
By demanding abortion, men and women clearly state they want the sex, but reject the consequence, the child, and that binding relationship with their sexual partner. You talk about a coarsening of attitudes, but that’s really the heart of the matter: sexual satisfaction without commitment has always been there.
The coarsening you’re now seeing is really a complete disregard for all life that’s been there all along when we ignore the power of our sexuality.
Abortion doesn’t respect anyone – least of all those who are killed in the process.
If you want to be more humane – start by recognizing the humanity of our children.
Kissling says “The positions we have taken up to now are inadequate for the questions of the 21st century….”
That struck me because truth is truth one day from now, a hundred days from now, a hundread YEARS from now. Truth does not change just because the century advances. If their position doesn’t work now then it was always false. If you have to change your tune regarding the fetus because of ultrasound etc.. then what you were saying about the fetus to women in crisis pregnancies during the last 40 years were LIES. you LIED to women Kissling and told them their baby was not formed, not a life, and these women aborted. They made life-altering decisions based on LIES told by YOU. That is so abhorrent to me I cannot even wrap my mind around the selfishness of the pro-abortion side.
She goes on to suggest to start with opposing post viability abortions , with the exceptions for the immediate risk of the life of the mother and then goes into to the health exception that has been used to mean anything in the past and even starts to list those such as psychological health and further states if the fetus has a condition that are incompatible with a good quality of life…. but fear not we will regulate these exceptions with confirmations by medical or psychiatric specialists. Hmmm…..wonder if that means some psychologists suggesting this child would want to be dead rather than suffer from this disability. Maybe Rep.Gwen Moore ( D ) WI could talk again about raising kids eating Ramen noodles. As she thinks further about this issue she suggests that even after 20 weeks, those seeking abortions should have the benefit of special counseling like women who find out their fetus have anomalies, teens who did not realize they were pregnant or women who just could not make up their mind?? Come to think of it, it would be a good idea for “mandating and funding non directive counseling……
In return for all of that maybe we could find common ground and what would that look like?? Well for Frances Kissling it would ideally look like the European model which does have some regs but PAYS for the abortions and of course has a panacea of other state benefits like parental leave, child care and their own version of Obamacare.
Maybe she needs to think some more about this….but it shows that the evidence is getting through. Now she needs to attend a Klusendorf lecture on size, level of development, environment and degree of dependence.
Perhaps the worst part of her article is her byline at the bottom, stating she was formerly president of Catholics For Choice. That is maddening beyond words. There is no such thing as Catholics for Choice. Such a group exists, yes, but it is not Catholic. No genuine Catholic is “for Choice” because the Catholic faith unequivocally says that all abortion is intrinsically evil. Period. Kissling cannot use the Church for cover. Her views are completely anti-Catholic. This woman is very deceived and badly in need of conversion.
We can no longer pretend the fetus is invisible.
Wow. There are no words.
There’s one thing here that is downright refreshing. Intellectual honesty. How rare from their side!
“We must end the fiction that an abortion at 26 weeks is no different from one at 6 weeks.”
Sorry, Frances, but you can’t do that. The pro-abortion argument’s last leg is that the unborn child is a part of his mother until he is born, PERIOD. This is the only thing that the pro-aborts can argue in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that abortion kills a human being. If you start to argue that an unborn child at 26 weeks shouldn’t be aborted, you will splinter the pro-abortion movement into a thousand pieces. “My body my choice” cannot be changed into “My body my choice… unless the blob of cells in me is at 26 weeks”. It’s only a matter of time before Frances realizes that the pro-aborts have painted themselves into a corner with their rhetoric.
So, the abortionists have been “pretending” all along? That is a very damning indictment of that movement by one of its own “leaders”.
I agree that Frances Kissling is “badly in need of conversion”. However, that is unlikely to happen. If at her age, after all these years, her conscience has not been jogged, it probably never will be. Remember, Bernard Nathanson converted more than thirty years ago, when he was much younger. Abby Johnson recently converted at a fairly young age. The older abortionist activists, sadly, will probably never convert and go to their graves being wrong. How tragic.
The reality is that, for all intents and purposes, only criminal abortionists, along with mothers and fathers who have killed their unborn children, ever really convert. The reason for this is that they have to endure the horror of prenatal homicide full blast. Parents who were not particularly committed to criminal abortion find out very quickly and painfully how wrong they were. Criminal abortion practitioners, solidly committed to their position, resist change for a long time, but eventually their long slumbering consciences awaken (if they have a sufficiently developed conscience) and they change their ways.
The abortionist politician, the abortionist pressure group “leader” and the abortionist activist rarely, if ever, change, because 1) they are strongly committed to their mentality and very resistant to change and 2) they do not usually have to deal with the evil on a first hand basis. I know of only one major politician who converted in the last 40 years: former Governor Hugh Carey of New York in 1989. I know of not one major abortionist activist or “leader” who has seen the light and repudiated their support for this terrible crime against human life. It simply does not happen and in the case of Frances Kissling almost certainly will not happen.
Given this, our strategy should be to isolate the more militant abortionists, reduce them to their hard core base, while converting the main mass of people in the middle to the pro-life cause.
One of the few reasons for pro-abortion loses in the polls is quite obvious if someone takes the time to realize that the majority of the people who have strong abortion views will also tend to re-produce less, have less children. Children tend to hold to their parents beliefs, especially when considering something as fundamental as the respect for life. In the following decades it will be impossible for those who hold pro-abortion views to do much, simply because they have chosen to stand on the side of death, they kill their own children. Those who stand for life will win in the end because time and demographics is on our side (not to mention God :) ).
The moral high ground on abortion is not to be found in asserting an absolute right to choose. Instead, it is to be found in the movement’s historic understanding that when abortion is illegal, it is poor women who suffer…
Since the legalization of abortion, African American women lead the way in the highest rates of STD in every category:
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats09/slides.htm
While one in four American girls will have contracted at least one STD by her nineteenth birthday, according to CDC, that rate is 48% for African American girls.
Black women have three times the rate of abortions as white women, nationally. They also have three times the number of extreme pre-mature deliveries (which come from abortion’s damage to the cervix), and three times the rate of cerebral palsy in their babies (which comes from extreme pre-mature birth). In medicine, this is called a dose-dependent response.
Illegitimacy rates have soared in the black community to over 70% since Roe v Wade.
I honestly believe that people like Frances know and understand these data on one level, but the sheer magnitude of what it is they have wrought is simply too overwhelming for them to take ownership. It requires extraordinary grace and fortitude. For Frances, Dr. Bernard Nathanson should be her model and inspiration. He was perhaps one of the most responsible persons for this national tragedy that has befallen us, and with submission to God’s call, he humbled himself and worked tirelessly to do all in his power to wipe this barbarism from the American landscape.
If he could do it, so can Kissling. I think she might be getting there. Her last lines show that she is actually boxed in:
If the choice movement does not change, control of policy on abortion will remain in the hands of those who want it criminalized. If we don’t suggest sensible balanced legislation and regulation of abortion, we will be left with far more draconian policies – and, eventually, no choices at all.
I would argue that the right to choose, if one believes in such a right, must be absolute. It can’t be anything else. How can the government dictate who can have an abortion and who must accept continuing a pregnancy to term? The right to kill the unborn child derives from the invented right of a woman to privacy over her own body. At best, the government becomes the arbiter for the rationale for exercising such a right. Such a system is actually untenable, and makes of Kissling the exact dictatorial entity who uses the threat of criminal punishment to coerce women into carrying an unwanted child that the feminists have railed against all along.
Move over male chauvinist pigs, Radical Feminist version 2.3.1 is in charge now. In a sense, that’s who these women have been all along.
No, I believe that Abraham Lincoln had it right in his famous “House Divided” speech in 1858 when he addressed the endurance of slavery. The nation would not remain half slave, half free. It would either be all one thing, or all the other.
The same with abortion, except Kissling seems to be maneuvering the feminist leadership into the role of overseer.
The thing is, today’s kids have ultrasound pictures of themselves. I know this has been pointed out before, but it is worth repeating. Kids today identify with other people who are still in the womb because they know THAT WAS ONCE THEM! My son has seen all the ultrasounds of himself from 5 weeks to 18 days before his birth. He knows THATS HIM. He loves loves loves to hear the story of how I found out I was carrying him. He asks tons of questions of what it felt like when he was in my belly. He loves to see the pictures of his birth. He knows HE was in my womb, not a blob that became him. And other kids are no different. To this next generation a fetus is not an alien life form. Its just another stage of human life, one that they can identify with. Abortion is on its way out. Thank GOD.
“If the choice movement does not change, control of policy on abortion will remain in the hands of those who want it criminalized. If we don’t suggest sensible balanced legislation and regulation of abortion, we will be left with far more draconian policies – and, eventually, no choices at all.”
This is so obviously false. The choices would be different. Abortion would not be one of them. Right now, due to birth control and abortion, for many women marriage is not one of the choices. Men generally don’t have to marry to have a relationship and they feel entitled to have totally consequence free sex. Birth control/abortion has not been liberating for the woman who wants to marry and have a family. Nor has it been great for children who increasingly don’t have involved fathers.
But it seems to me the actions she suggests will only hasten the day when preborn human life is preserved again in America. In other words, I don’t think that her side has any way out. There is no path to success.
From your lips, to God’s ears, Jill!
I agree that Frances Kissling is “badly in need of conversion”. However, that is unlikely to happen. If at her age, after all these years, her conscience has not been jogged, it probably never will be. Remember, Bernard Nathanson converted more than thirty years ago, when he was much younger. Abby Johnson recently converted at a fairly young age. The older abortionist activists, sadly, will probably never convert and go to their graves being wrong. How tragic.
The reality is that, for all intents and purposes, only criminal abortionists, along with mothers and fathers who have killed their unborn children, ever really convert.
Wow, talk about pessimistic. She’s got as many years left on earth as God wants to give her and we’ll see what happens.
To this next generation a fetus is not an alien life form. Its just another stage of human life, one that they can identify with.
That’s the thing – the “old guard” 1970s pro-choicers were in relatively little danger of having been aborted themselves. Abortion was legal in some states, though not most of them, and a lot of pro-choice leaders were from fairly well-off families who didn’t feel desperate about whether they could afford to raise their children. Young pro-life people today have been raised in a society where the statement “I’m pregnant,” if not delivered in an excited tone of voice, leads to the question “What are you going to do?” instead of “Oh, wow! Congratulations!” Abortion was a legal option for their mothers, even if their mothers would have never taken it. Some of them have mothers who considered aborting them, or mothers who were told that aborting them was “the best thing to do.” Because of increased pre-marital sex, income level doesn’t determine the likelihood of a baby being aborted as much as it used to. Financially comfortable college students at prestigious universities have abortions because “it’s not the right time.”
For 1970s pro-choicers, the thought that they could have been aborted themselves was mostly an abstract concept. For young pro-lifers today, it’s not.
Gerard, I just knew you’d see the connection with Dr. Nathanson. In the realm of grace, his influence and prayers only have the potential to snowball now. I have every confidence he will continue to work with God’s grace in bringing about a culture of life. Dr. Nathanson would naturally have a special interest in praying for the conversion of Kissling, etc. God is so good!!!
I was that 6 week fetus (embryo) when Roe v. Wade happened. And while murder will likely be with us in some small measure because of human nature, I’m more encouraged than ever that the legal slaughter of innocents will end soon.
Thanks for the hope, Kissling!
Marauder wrote:
“Young pro-life people today have been raised in a society where the statement “I’m pregnant,” if not delivered in an excited tone of voice, leads to the question “What are you going to do?” instead of “Oh, wow! Congratulations!” ”
How true, how true!! Back in my childhood, when a woman was pregnant, she was going to have a baby, plain and simple. I remember thinking a few years ago, “What the heck has happened to us?” Women who are happy to be pregnant now have to contend with “well meaning” friends and family who pressure them to abort. It’s no longer even about a woman’s “privacy,” now it’s open to debate among all who know the mother and think they know what’s “best.”
A few years ago, I dared not imagine that abortion could be illegal again. The hope that it will has blossomed in my heart. It’s a little peek at heaven. We are on the side of life and hope. Humans will heal because nature is driven to healing and growth. Abortion is a disease from which we can and will heal. For so many years, we pro-lifers have felt demoralized and overwhelmed, but we pressed on against all odds. Look how quickly the pro-choicers panic and consider throwing in the towel. In the last week I have heard Cecile Richards utter the words “before it’s too late” and now I read Kissling:
If the choice movement does not change, control of policy on abortion will remain in the hands of those who want it criminalized. If we don’t suggest sensible balanced legislation and regulation of abortion, we will be left with far more draconian policies – and, eventually, no choices at all.
Sweetness! There should be only two choices: raise the child yourself or allow another family to raise the child through adoption. Both of those choices are healthy, humane, and everyone involved can live with them. Even though adoption is so difficult (from the mother’s point of view) I almost can’t imagine it, it’s a sacrifice for life and love. Mammals thrive on life and love. :>) !!
@Jennifer: I agree with you about the “Catholics for Choice” moniker being annoying. It irritates me, and I’m not even Catholic! Why join a group and then do everything possible to undermine its viewpoints?
Hey, I got an idea- who wants to join my club: Vegetarians for Meat. Anyone? Hello?
Kissling says: “The moral high ground on abortion is…to be found in the movement’s historic understanding that when abortion is illegal, it is poor women who suffer”
Yes – but the solution is not to make this form of murder legal, but to assist the poor women in danger of such suffering.
@ninek: Great idea!!
Actually, William Saletan has been writing about the dissention within the pro-abort ranks since back in December, and reiterated his challenge to the “absolutists” after the revelation of Dr. Kermit’s Little Shop of Horrors. But Nancy Pelosi has the clearest view of the matter, and understands why concessions won’t do any good; in her own words, “We don’t have a set of shared values.” We’re not looking to make abortion more reasonable; we want it to end as a right, as an industry and as an acceptable practice. In this matter, half a loaf is simply not good enough.
(If you need the links, contact me at my blog.)
I’m starting a club called Lifeguards for Drowning
Personhood amendments will overturn Roe. The real battle will be undoing nearly 50 years of the contraceptive mentality that exists in this world. Time to start some contraceptive anonymous groups that offer NFP or abstinence as a solution.
As long as we’re starting clubs…
How about ‘Social Service and Clinic Workers for Child Abuse and Sex Slavery’?
Oh, shucks. Been done. And the acronymn is much easier to remember.
Seriously- Thanks, Jill, for this Kissling post. It’s given me so much hope!
Pro-choice advocates have good reason to oppose legislation that restricts abortion in any way …
So you say, but below I read:
We need to firmly and clearly reject post-viability abortions except in extreme cases.
So in ten years a ‘fetus’ the same age as the ones you’re killing now are human, but now they’re not? Like an arrival-date doom? Come early and you’re dead, later and you’re allowed to live?
We can no longer pretend the fetus is invisible.
I agree. You’ve pretended for far far far too long. And through your pretence (that ‘your’ is plural) thousands upon thousands of people have lost their innoccent little lives. Hospitals became battlefields through that pretence – doctors vs. babies.
Ah ha, but now we are taking over the battle from the babes! For we read, military style:
… but unfortunately we’re not going to regain the ground we have lost. What we must do is stop holding on to a strategy that isn’t working…
You say that
We must end the fiction that an abortion at 26 weeks is no different from one at six weeks.
But we will keep the truth going. There is a difference, as you say – just as there is a difference between a two-year-old child and a nearly-two-year-old child. That’s all.
The fetus is more visible than ever before, and the abortion-rights movement needs to accept its existence and its value.
True, true!
It may not have a right to life, and its value may not be equal to that of the pregnant woman …
Oh yes it does and believe it or not, yes it is!
… but ending the life of a fetus is not a morally insignificant event.
Other than the ‘but’, I’d agree.
We need more responsible and compassionate state policies. But respect for fetal life also requires that men and women take every step possible not to create fetuses they will have to abort.
Where’d the ‘have to’ come from? Grrr!
I’d like to use Winston Churchill’s quote, rephrased for the times: We will fight them in the courts, we will fight them in the media, we will fight by the Parliment and the White House, we will fight them on the internet and on the streets. We will never surrender!
One thing that’s interesting is the way it seems to be ‘how to get abortion legal and available’ etc, not ‘why to get it…’. ‘We want it, how can we get it?’ instead of ‘This is right, let’s do it.’
@praxedes, I like it! Ver close, too … supposed to be guarding something, saying they can choose to let it ‘drown’.
Djushi
“Joe”, you said: “The fundamental weakness of the anti-unborn human rights movement is that their “position” is totally contrary to natural law and completely logically impossible. This is why they have always resorted to extreme intellectual dishonesty and deceit. They have absolutely no way of winning an honest and rational debate and so they have never tried.”
I’m sorry you feel that way about the pro-choice movement. I would be happy to engage with you in an honest and rational debate to fully flesh out each other’s positions, but the comment thread to this post is obviously not the right place for it. Please feel free to email me at drewmm@gmail.com (anyone who wants to, for that matter) and I’ll be happy to discuss these issues with you at length.
I’m not going to try to respond to everything that’s been posted here, but one thing stuck out: “Catholics for Choice” is as legitimate a name as any. Many people believe that to be “Catholic” you must accept the teachings of the magisterum, but “Catholic” is, at the end of the day, just a word like any other. If it means something else to someone else, you cannot force your definition onto them.
Not to pop anybody’s hope balloon but Kissling was, is now, and continues to be a incomprehensible illogical intrinsically evil baby killing wretch and I put no trust or aspirations into any word that come from the mouth of a person whose conscience is so skewed. And one other thing; since I live in Wisconsin and all the Democrats have fled the state I was thinking of filling the void by starting a club called liberals for Scott Walker.
I’m not going to try to respond to everything that’s been posted here, but one thing stuck out: “Catholics for Choice” is as legitimate a name as any. Many people believe that to be “Catholic” you must accept the teachings of the magisterum, but “Catholic” is, at the end of the day, just a word like any other. If it means something else to someone else, you cannot force your definition onto them.
Go ahead and respond Andy. That is how you learn. Here is the section of the Catholic Catechism that outlines what Catholics believe abortion abortion.
“Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”77 “by the very commission of the offense,”
How would a catholic for choice reconcile with the above doctrine?
<em>Go ahead and respond Andy. That is how you learn. Here is the section of the Catholic Catechism that outlines what Catholics believe abortion abortion.</em>
Thank you for the attempt at familiarity, but it’s Andrew, not Andy. And my desire not to respond to every issue is due to time: I don’t have an unlimited amount to expend on every thread. Trust me, I don’t shy away from discussion.
As to your substantive point, I myself do not identify as Catholic, and so I’m not well enough versed in the Catechism or other Catholic doctrines to say how every Catholic for Choice would reconcile their views. If you want to learn, I would humbly suggest that engaging one of them in sincere conversation rather than invective would work pretty well.
My simple point is that no group, not even the Roman Catholic Church, has unique authority to define the meaning of the term “Catholic.”
“My simple point is that no group, not even the Roman Catholic Church, has unique authority to define the meaning of the term “Catholic.”
Andrew, their is already an Andrew that posts and so I called you Andy instead. Since you don’t like being called Andy I will call you M&M (short for Mackie-Mason). And a Catholic is a Catholic when they follow the Catechism period. Can she also vote Democrat and define herself as a Republican? Can she be for torture and the death penalty and call herself a pacifist? No she can’t. This is not a matter of opinion. I would be curious though, where do ‘Catholics for Choice’ derive their Catholicism from if not from the Roman Catholic Church?
I know many people who identify with one political party (and would register as such in states that require political party registration) but who don’t hesitate to vote for candidates from the other party. Nor is pacifism necessarily incompatible with the death penalty and torture, to the extent that one believes they lead to peace. Ultimately, the legitimacy of labels comes from self-identification, and such identification is wrong only in so far as it’s misleading. “Catholics for Choice” is about as far from misleading as it’s possible to be. It’s all laid out directly in the label.
More specifically for the term “Catholic,” though it’s not necessary, there are institutional uses far beyond the Roman Catholic Church. The Liberal Catholic Church and Ancient Catholic Church come to mind, though I suspect Wikipedia or some such website has a more comprehensive list if you’re interested. I’m also under the impression that many other churches use the term “catholic” in its definitional sense, that being the universal church of believers. I know I’ve heard the term “Methodist Catholic” once or twice growing up.
I don’t know for sure why this specific woman identifies as Catholic: you’d have to ask her. I suspect it’s because in other areas she agrees with the Roman Catholic Church, and feels it’s the community that best expresses her identity.
At the end of the day, your attempt to limit the label to the Catchecism is no more legitimate than it would be for me to say that only people who abandon judgment and welcome all people into communion are real Christians.
I know many people who identify with one political party (and would register as such in states that require political party registration) but who don’t hesitate to vote for candidates from the other party.
Catholicism isn’t a political party. To be a member of the Catholic Church in good standing, one adheres to the teachings of the Church. To pick and choose what to believe or adhere to isn’t Catholicism. To disobey Church authority isn’t Catholicism.
The NOW members who started Catholics for Choice chose to put “Catholic” in the name to suggest that abortion is a legitimate Catholic position when it’s not. It implies that it is a “Catholic” group when in fact the majority of its donors do not support organizations approved by the Catholic Church.
Ultimately, the legitimacy of labels comes from self-identification,
Nope. I grew up in Amish country. I can say I’m Amish, but that doesn’t make it so. If I started an Amish for Choice group, I’d be misrepresenting what most people understand when the word “Amish” is used, even though many churches have the word “Amish” in their name. And it’s the same for the word “Catholic.” The overwhelming majority of people understand it to mean the Roman Catholic Church when capitalized and the adjective (universal) when used in lower case.
“Catholics for Choice” is about as far from misleading as it’s possible to be.
Wrong. Those who advocate for abortion “rights” have excommunicated themselves and are no longer Catholics. To be “as far from misleading as it’s possible to be,” they’d have to call themselves Former or Lapsed Catholics for Choice.
@Jacqueline and John L.,
So when do we suppose it is that the fetus becomes un-invisible?
Fed Up, of course Catholicism isn’t the same as a political party. My reference to political parties was simply a response to “truthseeker”‘s claim that the same principles should apply to political labels as to religious ones.
The rest of your argument is based on the assumption that the Bishop of Rome has full, universal authority over the term “Catholic.” That is true, once one accepts the full teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. But if that’s the only group you’re capable of convincing, then you really haven’t accomplished much.
The fact of the matter is that no one can lay absolute claim to terms, and that using certain terms is only wrong if it is misleading.
You claim that “Catholics for Choice” is misleading because it suggests that the group adheres to Catholic teachings, and Catholics cannot be pro-choice. However, what can possibly be misleading about that? The title itself makes it clear that the group does not adhere to the church’s teaching on abortion: they didn’t try to hide that fact. Furthermore, the fact that it’s “Catholics for Choice” reinforces that fact that the standard “Catholic” position would not be “for Choice.”
Finally, while Catholic is generally understood to mean Roman Catholic (though that does not mean that Roman Catholics can lay sole claim to the term), it is most certainly not universally understood to mean anti-choice. After all, from 2006-2008 24% of regularly church-going Catholics thought abortion was morally acceptable, and 52% of non-regularly church-going Catholics thought the same. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/catholics-similar-mainstream-abortion-stem-cells.aspx) (By the way, the fact that in American parlance only 43% of those who identify as “Catholic” even regularly attend church calls into suspicion your claim that disagreeing with the Catchechism and identifying as Catholic is deceptive.)
You’re free to not think of people who are pro-choice as Catholic. But don’t try to assert some natural right of ownership over a word.
I think I’ll head up to Wisonsin and start a “Labor in Support of Scott Walker” group. After all, I work, so the unions have no right to claim the term “Labor.”
JohnMcG, that is, indeed, your right. We could certainly question your sincerity if you never identify as a member of “Labor” in other parts of your life, but so long as you didn’t fraudulently claim the support of organizations whose support you didn’t have, then it would be permissible.
You’re free to not think of people who are pro-choice as Catholic.
Ummm, I don’t need your permission to think as freely as I like. Your side hasn’t yet outlawed certain forms of thought.
But don’t try to assert some natural right of ownership over a word.
Catholics for Choice are not Catholics. You can play your word games until you’re blue in the face but I suspect you fool very few people.
Fed up, your attempt to distract through irrelevant indignation aside, by what authority do you claim the right to define the meaning of the word “Catholic”?
Don’t be daft, Andrew. We are not claiming a right to define the meaning of the word “Catholic” – but we are, unlike you, adhering to the accepted definition. You are the one claiming to have the right to define it according to your own idiosyncratic whims.
Words have meanings. If they didn’t, all communication would be meaningless; and meaningless is clearly what you’re trying unsuccessfully to say. Your ‘logic’ is illogical. Reminds me of the word games played by 10-year-olds. Please, if you can’t come up with something adult to say, just go away and find a playground site of your adolescent peers.
Fed up, your attempt to distract through irrelevant indignation aside, by what authority do you claim the right to define the meaning of the word “Catholic”?
Andrew, are you okay with Lutherans for Rape? If not, by what authority do you claim the right to define the meaning of the word “Lutheran”?
Seriously, I agree with scragsma that it’s probably time for you to find a different playground.
Scragsma, when 40% of those who identify as Catholic believe that abortion is morally acceptable, I think it’s you, not I, who is out of touch with what the term “Catholic” means. I’m not arguing for some idiosyncratic definition of “Catholic”. Merely, the same requirements that are applied to all labels: that they be used in a sincere and non-fraudulent way.
Praxedes, what do you mean, am I ok with Lutherans for Rape? Of course I don’t approve: rape is a terrible thing, and groups that support it should not be approved of. But do I think it’s inappropriate to call a group “Lutherans for Rape”? Not if it consists of people who honestly identify as Lutherans who support rape. (What would that even mean? They think that rape is a good thing? That everyone should rape someone once a day? I’m confused about just what this hypothetical group would stand for…)
I’ve found, generally, that those who appeal to age are generally those least capable of engaging in mature conversation, especially when those same people employ pseudonyms rather than real names. If you want to actually learn about me, feel free to go here: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=58522741&trk=tab_pro or, you know, just Google. I suspect there aren’t that many Andrew MacKie-Mason’s running around. I’m not afraid of who I am, and if you want to engage in adult conversation rather than juvenile insults, I’m perfectly willing to join you.
What math courses are you currently taking, Andrew?
Analysis. Are you a mathematician, Bobby?
rape is a terrible thing, and groups that support it should not be approved of.
By what authority do you claim this, Andrew?
I’m not afraid of who I am
Maybe you should be.
Praxedes, by the harm it causes, by the agreement on that general point throughout years and across cultures, by the widespread acceptance of that stance in modern society, and by the personal conscience that gives each person the ability to judge for themselves what acts should be approved of and what acts should be censured.
As for the other thing…surprisingly enough, contentless criticism from a random person on the internet who won’t even sign their names somehow doesn’t affect me that much. Fancy that.
M&M,
I know many people who identify with one political party (and would register as such in states that require political party registration) but who don’t hesitate to vote for candidates from the other party.
Then they would register as an Independent if they were intellectually honest
Nor is pacifism necessarily incompatible with the death penalty and torture, to the extent that one believes they lead to peace.
So in M&M’s world if I were to destroy everything and everybody I would be a pacifist because it would end war. Welcome to the liberal mind.
Ultimately, the legitimacy of labels comes from self-identification, and such identification is wrong only in so far as it’s misleading. “Catholics for Choice” is about as far from misleading as it’s possible to be. It’s all laid out directly in the label.
It is misleading because non-Catholics like yourself could be misled into believing that it is possible to be Catholic and be pro-choice. Catholicism is not a democracy. If you follow the teachings of the magesterium then you are Catholic.
At the end of the day, your attempt to limit the label to the Catchecism is no more legitimate…. The Catchism is filled with Jesus’ words and teachings to provide the reasoning for every word in it. If you provide me with which of Jesus’ words and teachings lead you to say that only people who abandon judgment and welcome all people into communion are real Christians; then your argument would have standing to Christians.
The choice we are talking about here is the choice to kill unborn babies. If Kisslinger really wanted to be honest she would drop the word Catholic from her clique and call themselves ”Ex-Catholics for killing the unborn”. Killing the unborn is antithetical to Jesus’ teachings and rails against the Holy Spirit who is the giver of life. According to your reasoning somebody could just as easily identify themselves as ”Catholics against the Holy Spirit”, could they not?
Praxedes said to M&M:
“By what authority do you call rape a terrible thing?”
M&M responded:
“by the personal conscience that gives each person the ability to judge for themselves what acts should be approved of and what acts should be censured.”
How you form your conscience is a decision and Catholics choose to form our conscienses to Christ’s teaching as laid out in the Catechism. We understand that we must form our consciences to intellect and will and not according to ‘feelings’. It is the gift of the Holy Spirit that guides us into deciding that we care for the victims of rape and that rape bothers us. Catholic’s are called to exercise our faith in “all we do”. In the well formed catholic conscience there is no allowance for a mother to kill her baby in the womb than there is for her to kill baby outside the womb. Catholic freedom is not the ability to do whatever you want to do; it is the capacity to do what you ought to do.
“by the personal conscience that gives each person the ability to judge for themselves what acts should be approved of and what acts should be censured.”
By the mere fact that your personal conscience states that a mother can dismember her own baby in the womb, apparently this ability you are banking on can be seriously flawed, no?
Kevin Boyd-
My point was that it takes a serious coward to kill something only if they can not see it. Unborn children are already so much smaller than we are and so defenseless, but they must be invisible so pro-aborts can continue to kill them. That’s what she was saying. She admitted what pro-lifers say all the time, that if you can see the baby via ultrasound or graphic pictures, you are less likely to kill that child.
“Analysis. Are you a mathematician, Bobby?”
Indeed. Are you using baby Rudin?
BTW, if you ever are hanging around teh math building and see a guy who looks like a mafia don, that’s Peter May. He’s one of the top scholars in my particular field.
Good stuff, they’re finally figuring out why they are losing the battle. As technology marches on more and more Americans will embrace the pro-life philosophy because it’s right in front of their eyes. The curtain of deception is being drawn back and there is no way our opponents can deny the humanity of the unborn child when everyone has a 4-D ultrasound photo on their frig or in their wallet.
I disagree. I am pro-choice, and I don’t believe that just putting up a baby for adoption is a good alternative to abortion. I could never see myself looking a woman in the face and telling her, regardless of her economic or social background, or the circumstances under which she got pregnant, that she must carry a baby she does not want inside her for 9 months. For a woman who desperately does not want to be pregnant, I think that sort of forced control over her body is unacceptable, especially if the pregnancy resulted from rape. Do I think abortion is a light-hearted or non-moral matter? Absolutely not. I can’t imagine how hard it would be to make that decision. However, I don’t think the government, religion, or anybody else has the right to make that decision for other people. The idealist in me wants better sex education and birth control programs in America that would make abortions, other than in case of rape or medical necessity, an issue of the past.
@Nora R: How can you possibly hold that it’s better to kill a baby than to give it to a loving family? If a woman gets pregnant through carelessness – and even artificial birth control methods are, in the long run, careless, because over a 5-year period it’s a 50-50 chance of failing – she can hardly complain that she didn’t want to become pregnant. If through rape or incest, it’s a tragedy but still unjust to punish the baby for the crime of its father. The solution is not to kill the baby, but to help the mother.
Also, how can you possibly hold that abortion is a moral matter, and still approve of it? If it’s a moral matter, it is by definition either OK or wrong. If it’s wrong, it should be illegal. If it’s OK, why do you feel it would be hard to make the decision?
Sex education and birth control programs have increased, not decreased, the incidence of abortion over the past 40 years. Just check with the CDC and Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood’s research arm) for verification.
Finally, as for medical necessity, with the state of medicine today, there is no circumstance under which an unborn baby’s life must be deliberately sacrificed in order to save the mother’s life. Ethical medicine must, and CAN, always aim to save both baby and mother.
Nora, who are you disagreeing with?
“Truthseeker,” I’m sure that the world would be a much simpler place if people would just accept your definitions of everything, but that’s sadly not how it works. Registering as a Democrat (or as a Republican) is not understood to make you a slave of the Democratic party: it means that that’s the group you identify with and are a part of. No one would suggest that groups called “Democrats for Bush” or “Republicans for Obama” were being dishonest in their names, so long as the people within the groups sincerely identified as Democrats or Republicans. (The exception lies with groups like the liberals who organized a “Tea Party” political party in Michigan to try to get on the ballot and confuse ignorant voters: the label was deceptive and irrepresentative of their views in a way that “Catholics for Choice” or “Republicans for Obama” wouldn’t be.)
As to your more ridiculous example, a “pacificst” group that advocated complete extermination wouldn’t be taken seriously (partially because peace consists in more than just the absence of war), but that doesn’t mean the name “Pacifists for Annihilation” would be inappropriate, since it isn’t deceptive.
Basically, you have a conception of what Catholicism is. At least 40% of American Catholics disagree with you. I just fail to see why what you claim the term means is more correct than what all those people think the term means. Please continue trying to convince your fellow Catholics that they must submit themselves to the Catechism in every way. I wish you luck, I really do. But as a simple definitional matter, you’re wrong that “Catholic” means “believes every single thing commanded by the magisterum.”
Also, labeling pro-choice people as being in favor of killing the unborn is more deceptive than “Catholics for Choice” ever will be. Being pro-choice does not necessarily involve the belief that abortion is a good thing, when considered in a vacuum, or that killing the unborn is something to be advocated on its own merit.
Jacqueline, if I understand what you’re saying correctly, then it’s completely circular. You assume that abortion is necessarily wrong in order to prove that the conscience that approves it is erring. That argument, while perhaps convincing to your compatriots, won’t do anything to convince those who don’t already agree with you.
Bobby: nope, although I know there are analysis sections that use Rudin. If you’re familiar with UC, I’m in Paul Sally’s honors analysis sequence. We primarily use his Tools of the Trade and printed chapters from a new book he’s writing, although we also have Kolmogorov for reference.
Scragsma, if a woman is raped due to her own carelessness walking through a dark alley alone at night, she can hardly complain that she didn’t want to be raped, right? Consent to sex in no way constitutes consent to pregnancy.
“Also, how can you possibly hold that abortion is a moral matter, and still approve of it? If it’s a moral matter, it is by definition either OK or wrong. If it’s wrong, it should be illegal. If it’s OK, why do you feel it would be hard to make the decision?”
You have a very simplistic view of morality. Things can be moral matters and still depend on circumstance. It need not be “this is always alright” or “this is always forbidden.”
Andrew, it is always wrong to kill children. No situation justifies it.
Sydney M, I would be very interested in discussing that point with you at greater length, but I think this comment thread is getting long enough as it is. Would you care to have a reasoned debate about it over email? drewmm@gmail.com
But of course consent to sex implies consent to pregnancy. Pregnancy is the logical consequence of sex, though it doesn’t occur every time any more than being killed is always a result of playing Russian roullette.
True that not all moral matters are black and white. But some are, and the deliberate killing of a totally defenseless human being is universally understood to be one of them.
And it doesn’t really matter that 40% of Americans who call themselves Catholic refuse to recognize the magisterium as authoritative. What matters is that the leadership of the Catholic Church have the authority to define what constitutes authentic Catholicism, just as the leadership of the Boy Scouts have the authority to define what constitutes authentic membership in their organization, and as the government of the US has the right to define who is a US citizen. I can claim to be a Boy Scout, but if I don’t enroll or belong to a troop or attend meetings or otherwise participate, my calling myself a Boy Scout is a sham. Those in this country illegally pass themselves off as citizens every day, but they live a lie. Just so, only those who recognize the authority of the magisterium and do their best to follow its mandates can be, by definition, considered Catholic. The others are deluding themselves and/or lying to the world.
Scragsma, can I presume from your silence that you would agree that a woman who is raped because of carelessness has consented to rape? In activities like sex, where there are numerous possible goals, pursuing the activity to achieve one of the goals most certainly does not constitute consent to all of the possible ends. Consent to sex no more constitutes consent to pregnancy than consent to going on a date constitutes consent to a long-term relationship, even though relationships are one of the “logical consequences” of dating. Unlike Russian Roulette, where participants derive the benefit from the thrill of risking death, sex is not pursued because of the risk of pregnancy.
I like the attempt to claim that abortion is “universally understood” to be a black and white moral issue, but that’s just obviously not true.
As to the matter of Catholicism…you’re just arguing in circles. The Roman Catholic Church has the authority to say who’s really a part of the Roman Catholic Church, but that doesn’t mean they have the right to control the word “Catholic.” They have that right only so long as people understand “Catholic” to mean being in full communion with the bishop of Rome. And since a large portion of people obviously think that Catholicism and pro-choice are reconcilable positions, and since pro-choice and full communion are not reconcilable (as you claim), then “Catholic” must not mean, in common usage, only those people whom the Roman Catholic Church approves of.
You may think that God has given some special right to the Pope to define the meaning of the word “Catholic.” But there’s no reason that view should be controlling.
Wow! No kidding, Andrew. As I’m sure you’re aware, U of C is one of the top math schools in the country, and Paul Sally has his own textbook line named in honor of him! Very, good, very good. There is actually the Midwest Topology conference at U of C on April 3. I wish i could be there, but sadly funds are short. Try and go to that if you can. It’ll be really fun.
Andrew,
In the Roman Catholic World (in which I live), there are cafeteria Catholics and what I would say – orthodox Catholics. (Forgive me if I mentioned this already.) Some Catholics treat their religion as a country club that they belong to, and others as an inherited trait passed down through generations, without much paying much thought to what “Catholic” stands for. (In this case, you are actually ahead of them for caring enough to be commenting here.)
Kissling is a cafeteria Catholic because she calls herself Catholic but doesn’t believe abortion is a grave sin, which it is. The Catholic Church teaches that because abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, it is a sin. Kissling may not realize that abortion is a sin and I am not judging her, just explaining the “Catholic” position.
So when Jennifer commented that there was no such thing as “Catholics For Choice”, she meant that it is a contradiction in terms, ”Catholic being understood as Roman Catholic by almost anyone who hears the term in our society, except may be you. :) ”Prochoice” means one allows for elective abortion – forbidden by the RCC. So Catholics For Choice is really an oxymoron. I hope that clears things up.
As for the other thing…surprisingly enough, contentless criticism from a random person on the internet who won’t even sign their names somehow doesn’t affect me that much. Fancy that.
There are legitimate reasons people may not feel safe using their given names when they relate their stories of domestic violence, rape and coercions in relationship to the proabort movement, Andrew Mackie-Mason. Fancy that.
Bobby, thanks for the pointer, I’ll look into the topology thing. Give me a shout if you ever make it down here.
Janet, whether or not most people interpret Catholic as Roman Catholic, they clearly don’t interpret it as strict Roman Catholic. Simple statistics demonstrate that “cafeteria Catholics” have just as much claim to the name as “orthodox Catholics”. It’s a simple fact of language.
Praxedes, it’s one thing to use a false name because you have a legitimate fear for your safety. It’s quite another to hide behind a false identity while you attack others. Mind you, I’m not blaming you: the Internet has made many people forget the value of actually standing behind what they believe in. But I just wanted you to know that until you step out from behind your mask, rude comments about my character mean nothing.
“Give me a shout if you ever make it down here.”
You mean UP! Hehe… Anyway, good to know someone else as interested in both math and abortion as I am… an unlikely combination indeed.
Andrew,
You say aren’t Catholic. Ex-Catholic? This is not a trivial language issue for Catholics (for me, anyways). It’s surprising that you are so preoccupied with Catholics for Choice and their choice of language. The only conclusion I can make from your comments is that you are an abortion advocate just as they are.
Yep, nice to meet you, Bobby. I wouldn’t say that abortion is one of my prime interests, but it’s one of many things that deserves a good debate every now and then.
Janet, I’m really not sure what you’re talking about. No, I’m not Catholic. I’m actually Methodist, if that’s relevant. Is this a Catholics-only area? And I’m pro-choice, though I wouldn’t say I’m an abortion activist.
Andrew,
Of course this isn’t a Catholic-only area. There are many non-Catholics and non-religious on this site. Just wonder why you are so defensive. Maybe you and Bobby can talk “Catholic” sometime. We’re obviously not connecting. Sorry.
Janet, I see. No, I’m not being defensive. I’m arguing a position I think is right against one I think is extremely misguided.
But I just wanted you to know that until you step out from behind your mask, rude comments about my character mean nothing.
You say rude comments — I say thought-provoking comments. (:
Seriously though, welcome to Jill’s. I hope you stick around. Some of our country’s greatest, compassionate, funniest and smartest people hang out here (as well as a few dullards like myself).
And I’m pro-choice,
What do you mean when you say choice?
M&M,
It sounds like you would admit that it would be deceptive for Kissling to start a group Roman Catholics for Choice. That is a good place of agreeement to build upon. My next question to you would be is Kissling’s catholicism even Christian? Cause there is NO such thing as a Christian who would kill a baby in the mother’s womb. Don’t confuse that with meaning there can’t be people who call themselves Christian and still commit abortion. But these people also choose not to follow Jesus’ teachings. According to your reasoning it would not be deceptive for somebody to start a group called ‘Christians for the Devil’ as long as they “felt” like Christians and served the devil. That just doesn’t cut it logically.
Jesus said it would be better that you had a millstone tied around your neck and be cast to the bottom of the sea then to hurt one of these little ones. That means he would rather you tied a millstone around your neck and threw yourself into the sea then to hurt one of God’s children. So, if they truly want to follow Jesus’ teaching then the next Catholic’s for Choice conference should be held on a cruise ship and everybody bring your own rope and millstone.
Praxedes, pro-choice means supporting an individual’s right to choose what uses their body is put to, rather than using the coercive power of the state to make that choice for everyone. Many pro-choice people are pro-life, and very, very few, in my experience, are pro-abortion.
Truthseeker, I don’t think that it would be deceptive to name a group Roman Catholics for Choice. I think it would be deceptive for someone who is pro-choice to claim to be in perfect compliance with the Catechism or to claim that they are in good standing with the Bishop of Rome. But until Roman Catholic is widely enough understood to mean either of those things so that the label becomes deceptive, which it isn’t, then the group name is acceptable. More than that, even: it is one of the most honest names I’ve seen. (Far more so, for instance, than the “National Organization for Marriage.”)
According to your interpretation of Jesus’ teachings, abortion is forbidden. However, you have no more right to claim that I am not a true Christian than I do to claim that you are not a true Christian. Perhaps you should take a day or two to pray over John 8.
Andrew – the Catholic Church has always taught that abortion is a grave moral sin. Even in Roman times, when families wanted to get rid of their born babies, they would leave them out in the open – for them to die of natural causes or be eaten by dogs and other animals.
It was the Christians who scooped these children up and took them into their own homes. If you wish to comment on Catholic teaching, please buy yourself a Catholic Catechism. Then you would be in possession of the exact teaching, and that would be very good.
Catholics are supposed to accept the Deposit of Faith – and if they have any trouble with it, truly to assent to it while learning. It is totally ok to say ‘I’m not sure why the Church teaches what is does – so I will find out’ and ‘I will accept the teaching, and if I need to know more, I will – and still follow the teaching.’ The Teaching (capitalized on purpose, is meant to keep people safe. The purpose of the Church is to bring all people to Heaven – even those not in the Church. The Church is a good Mother – wanting all the children to be in Heaven with God.
For a group to disobey and indeed cause scandal (look that up in the Catechism) and not only disobey the Teaching, but help others to do that also is akin to having someone be a murderer and help others be involved in the sin of murder. As you can see – totally absurd, (and yes evil), and totally not what good people should do.
Just substitute ‘toddler’ for fetus when you are discussing abortion. If you would not kill a two year old – why not? And if it’s repugnant to you – why? Because that two year old was once a new-born, a one-day-before-birth, a one-month-before-birth and so on, right till the moment of conception. That child has not changed – in species – but just in development. Same human, different stages of development.
so again – why do we protect humans at some stages instead of all.
So if you are pro-choice – why is abortion a good choice? And again if abortion ends a human life – why is that a choice that people can make? it’s not like choosing spaghetti or sandwiches for dinner – it’s choosing to end human life.
Think. Love. Then re-think abortion.
According to your interpretation of Jesus’ teachings, abortion is forbidden. However, you have no more right to claim that I am not a true Christian than I do to claim that you are not a true Christian.
Matthew 7 is a great chapter, as well.
7:12 – “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” It’s not difficult to tell a tree by its fruit, as Jesus pointed out. Somehow I think the fruit of death, destruction, and other things wrought by the “pro-choice” movement aren’t likely to be seen as “good fruit.” It isn’t difficult to see that Christ pointed out we do have a choice, but there are choices which lead to death and others to life.
And in John 8 – Jesus said go – do not sin again. That is the crux – not that he would not condemn her – but as a repentant sinner – go and sin no more. That is the part that WE have to correspond with.
Recognize sin. Repent. Sin no more.
so recognize abortion as the taking of human life. Tell God that you are truly sorry for your past abortion, support of abortion etc. And do not support abortion any more. It’s that simple, and it’s called a conversion of heart.
Joyfromillinois, there are too many threads in your comment to respond to them all. I’ll extend the same offer to you that I have to other people: if you’d like to have a more in depth debate about abortion and morality, feel free to email me at drewmm@gmail.com
As for issues of Catholicism: you have put forward one reasonable interpretation of the Catholic faith. But that does not mean that you, or even the Roman Catholic Church as controlled by the Bishop of Rome, have the right to control the word “Catholic.” Usage has spoken, and has determined that “Catholic” does not mean accepting every article of the Catechism or teaching of the magisterum.
As for John 8, it’s interesting (and telling) that you seem to put yourself in the place of Jesus in the parable, rather than in the place of the sinners he rebukes.
Kel, I’m not sure what your point is.
My point, Andrew, is that it is not actually difficult to evaluate another person’s Christianity on the basis of one’s beliefs and practices. This should be obvious, but sadly, to many who claim to be Christians, it isn’t. They claim you cannot judge them, but the examination of one’s life based on its fruits is not the same as judging/condemning. Jesus asked that we be “fruit examiners” to know the difference between individuals who merely say they are Christian and those who actually are Christian.
And as for doing unto others, and the choosing life scriptures – to me, those are pretty obvious. Choosing death and destruction (abortion, self-mutilation, etc,) are clear indicators that a person is not on the narrow path that leads to life.
Kel, perhaps Matthew 7? Even taking Christianity alone as simple truth, it’s incredible arrogance to judge others and claim to alone understand the truth. Let ye without sin throw the first stone. Judge not lest ye be judged. And, of course, once you acknowledge that perhaps even Christianity doesn’t have a complete hold on truth, judgment or “evaluation” (which is, really, the same thing) becomes even more arrogant.
Certain moral judgments must be embodied in law for human society to function. But when the conversation degrades to “you’re not really Christian,” then arrogance, not prudence, has taken over, and reasoned discussion has become impossible.
Andrew, I believe Matthew 7 was where I pointed you originally.
Jesus claimed to BE the truth. Was He then arrogant? If I claim to believe that He is Who He claimed to be, and believe His teachings above all others, does this constitute arrogance? Do I understand correctly that you do not claim to be a Christ follower? You are simply making an argument?
Believers are often told they are “arrogant” for daring to think they are right – by those claiming to know more than they. Ironic.
It is, again, very simple to know who is and who is not a Christ follower. If it were not, Christ would not have said the things he said about knowing a tree by its fruit.
Judging, as I’ve discussed multiple times before on these boards, means “condemning.” It is God’s place to condemn – and He does so, with standards very clearly laid out in His Word. It is OUR place to know the tree by its fruit. It is our place to inspect the evidence and action resulting from one’s beliefs.
Kel, I do, indeed, consider myself a Christian. Since you know better, though, perhaps you could inform me if my faith is sincere?
God cannot be arrogant by claiming to be himself. But someone is clearly arrogant by pretending to put himself in the place of God.
Christ did not name a successor. He did not create someone to be his sole interpreter. And he certainly did not establish you for that role. You are free, and perhaps commanded, to distinguish between believers and non-believers for your own purposes. But you are not given the authority to speak for others and declare their faith to be sincere or fake. As Jesus made clear, there is no one who truly follows the way, because everyone is human. Only those who have not sinned – those who are purely divine – can legitimately speak about others’ characters.
You are free, and perhaps commanded, to distinguish between believers and non-believers for your own purposes. But you are not given the authority to speak for others and declare their faith to be sincere or fake.
Andrew, if a person does not live according to or accept the tenets of a faith, is that person a member of that faith?
Kel, I do, indeed, consider myself a Christian.
Andrew, the devil tried to deceive Christ himself but you don’t even believe that the devil exists. This is one of the reasons I doubt your claim to be Christian.
Of course, I guess I could say, “I do, indeed consider myself a rock star.”
Who is anyone else to argue that I’m not?
Now Andrew, I hate to keep picking on you, my friend, but when you write
“Even taking Christianity alone as simple truth, it’s incredible arrogance to judge others and claim to alone understand the truth.”
Is that true? Do you claim to understand the truth that ‘it is arrogant to judge others and claim to alone understand the truth’? Because none of us here understand that truth, so it seems that you alone understand that truth about judging and understanding the truth.
Of course, I would argue that there is a very big difference between judging a person and judging their actions. If I am going out every night and shooting up heroine, you have every right to tell me that I am putting myself in grave physical danger and that I need to stop. However, what you wouldn’t do is presume to judge the state of my soul- whether or not my actions will send me to hell or not. It is the latter that, as Christians, I believe we are called to NEVER do. Even though I profoundly disagree with you on the subject of abortion and hence I believe you are objectively supporting the killing of human persons, I would never presume to know the state of your soul or your standing with God. That is between you and God alone. Now I simply use that as an illustration, but I think the point is valid. As I mentioned above, I think if anything, you point proves too much. For then we can never let anyone else know if they are doing something wrong out of fear that we are “judging” them. Does that distinction make any sense?
Kel, I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking, or what you mean by “a faith”.
Praxedes, you’re correct, I don’t believe in the devil. I take seriously the unity of substance posited in John 1 and Genesis 1. The devil clearly exists as a symbol throughout scripture, but I think it’s mistaken to take the devil as an actual substance somehow opposed to the nature of God.
Bobby, I think you’re drawing an important distinction, and I agree. There’s room for judgment and communication about temporal, knowable things (shooting heroin is dangerous to your health), the Christian faith forbids judging others on the state of their Christianity.
Andrew – In discussing John 8, Jesus did admonish the sinner and told her to sin no more. That is his command to us – we are imitate Him and be as close to Him as possible.
As a sinner, I am striving to not to sin and to repent and change ways. I said so in my previous post. Why would you ignore that and continue on without even addressing that point? I’d love to do things on email – but I have LOADS of email and too much to do, and can not have a private one-on-one, at least at this time. I come here to banter publicly, because everyone has something valuable to offer – and the topic is so important to discuss fully and at length.
Human lives depend on it, for sure.
As much as I would love to emulate Jesus perfectly, I am not Jesus. I am that woman – we all are. And why would you think I was in the position of Jesus?
Instead of placing me as Jesus, I am instead at His feet, which is my rightful place. He is my Teacher, my Love, my All. I am learning and making my way slowly. I have many past sins, and those faults, pride and sinfulness gives me room to grow and improve, which I am extremely serious about.
We all have improvement to attend to – to become the very best Joy, Andrew, Bobby, CC, ninek, Kel, Jill etc. we were meant to be when God formed us. We have a journey to complete and a duty to perform. We were sent here for a specific mission, all for His glory.
Please Andrew – we need to finish a thought here. You, yourself asked for more complete dialogue. Now please continue on a thread instead of a quick poke and moving on.
I think that the way the dialogue has turned – a Christian in the fullest sense is not lukewarm – but knowledgeable and living a life in all aspects that would self-identify one as a Christian. As my former pastor noted: If a non-believer in Christ looked at my daily life, that person would not understand how I spent my time or my effort. It would make no sense to a non-Christian. May I live my life fully for Christ, in all aspects.
It takes a spiritual awakening to get there – and I think that most of us know a loving Christian who walks the walk and talks the talk. My first Spiritual Director said ‘You are who you hang out with.’ Very true words indeed. So if you want to be a wonderful, dedicated Christian, you hang out with those that do that the very best.
And since you self-identified as a Christian, you may want to see in what ways are you emulating Christ? In what ways do you avoid sin? What virtues are you working on? And most importantly, how is your prayer life?
And since you are on this thread – if Christ wanted all of humankind to respect and protect humankind, since it is and was His Father’s creation – then what do you, as a believer, need to believe about abortion and any other affront against God’s own hand?
Ponder, pray, answer one part at a time.
Again: Recognize sin. Repent. Sin no more.
Peace be with you.
Kel, I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking, or what you mean by “a faith”.
I believe we’ve been discussing faiths. Religions.
Praxedes, you’re correct, I don’t believe in the devil. I take seriously the unity of substance posited in John 1 and Genesis 1. The devil clearly exists as a symbol throughout scripture, but I think it’s mistaken to take the devil as an actual substance somehow opposed to the nature of God.
So… Jesus wasn’t tempted by Satan? Do you believe in the concept of sin?
the Christian faith forbids judging others on the state of their Christianity.
Then how is one to “expel the immoral brother” if one isn’t allowed to judge another on his/her state of Christianity?
There’s room for judgment and communication about temporal, knowable things (shooting heroin is dangerous to your health)
Really? So, then is there room for judgment on the fact that abortion unjustly takes the life of a human being in-utero?
Joyfromillinois, I’m sorry that you feel I haven’t been adequately “completing a thought.” I am engaged in multiple discussions as well as a lot of my own work, but if you feel there’s something I didn’t respond to adequately, let me know what it is and I’ll do my best to indulge you. (As it is, I’m not sure exactly what it is you think I haven’t been dealing with.)
I didn’t respond to your tale of personal struggle because I didn’t see how it was relevant.
As for your seeming self-identification as Jesus, I said that because, from what you’ve been saying, you seem to think it’s your place to say not only “go and sin no more” but “come follow me.” You seem to be claiming some divine understanding of what it is to be a Christian that is superior to the understandings of others of the faith. To not only to engage in debate about moral precepts to but to baldly assert that “anyone who does not agree with me is not a Christian” is to, in a way, place yourself at the doors to heaven, to suppose that you not only have the truth path, but the only true path. Modesty, respect for human limitations, the understanding that even the clearest of God’s commands can be misunderstood and require the intervention of the divine to set things right; these are all important qualities that you may want to consider in your self-reflection.
Kel, are you talking about personal faith? Broadly understood “faiths”? Specific organizations with structure and defined membership?
Satan no more exists than anything exists outside of God.
And are you referring to 1 Corinthians 5:13? Paul says not to associate with those who are exceedingly immoral because of the risk of corruption. He does not say that everyone, by dint of their faith, has the right to judge who will and will not enter heaven, who is and is not a Christian, etc.
Kel, yes, I never said it posed a problem of arrogance to debate the issue of abortion. Merely that it is a problem to declare your position so clearly correct that anyone who disagrees with you cannot possibly believe in and follow Christ.
Kel, are you talking about personal faith? Broadly understood “faiths”? Specific organizations with structure and defined membership?
Satan no more exists than anything exists outside of God.
Andrew, I think what this boils down to is that you do not accept or conform to the teachings of Christ or of the Scriptures. It appears there’s really nothing more I can say. If you do not believe in the existence of Satan, as pointed out in Scripture, then you likely don’t believe in hell, either, and your views would be opposing the teachings of Christ Himself. It does not then surprise me that you would choose to support abortion. If one does not believe the Bible or the teachings of Christ, then one needs to be honest – that person is not likely a Christian.
Kel, my view on evil and Satan is a simple consequence of a theophysical view expressed by St. Augustine. It’s true that, like many things, Augustine did not accept this specific conclusion, but it makes it no less a necessary consequence of his other beliefs. Are you questioning his Christianity along with mine?
As far as I can tell, every bit of scripture can be reconciled with the view that nothing outside of God truly exists.
I’m saying that if Augustine’s teachings conflict with those of Christ (and I don’t know enough about Augustine to know if that’s the case), then they should be thrown out as heresy. Period.
I’m glad for you that you’re confident enough in your faith that there can be only one reasonable interpretation of biblical text that you’re willing, on your own reading of scripture, to question the faith of a Catholic saint. I do not assert such authority from my own interpretation of scripture, and I realize that if you do then there’s probably little point in continuing to discuss anything with you, since you seem to have closed your mind to new perspectives.
I don’t know enough about Augustine’s teachings to question his faith. What I said was that “if” his teachings conflict with those of Christ Himself, then they should be thrown out. I don’t see how that’s unreasonable, nor do I see why I should consider anyone’s perspective – Catholic saint or no – as a valid perspective if it conflicts with the clear teachings of Jesus Christ. If such a “new perspective” contradicts my Lord Himself, then why should I consider it?
Like I said, I’m glad that you have so much confidence in your own, unique ability to rightly interpret scripture. But since your reaction to views that disagree with you is to dismiss them as incorrect rather than to engage them as possibly offering a new perspective that you had not considered, I see no reason to continue this discussion.
Not a problem, Andrew. But I don’t believe the views we were discussing disagree with *me* but rather with the teachings of Jesus Christ in Scripture. You believe it’s fine to discount the teachings of Christ; I do not. Have a good afternoon.
Nope, they disagree with your interpretation of Christ’s teachings in Scripture, which you seem to think are identical with Christ’s actual teachings in Scripture.
Andrew MacKie-Mason says: March 3, 2011 at 1:33 pm
“Kel, my view on evil and Satan is a simple consequence of a theophysical view expressed by St. Augustine. It’s true that, like many things, Augustine did not accept this specific conclusion, but it makes it no less a necessary consequence of his other beliefs. Are you questioning his Christianity along with mine?”
Are you claiming to understand Augustine better than Augustine himself? LOL!! If you accept Augustine’s arguments but not his conclusions, then you’re either misunderstanding him, or only selectively understanding him, or perhaps even twisting his ideas to fit your own preferences.
“As far as I can tell, every bit of scripture can be reconciled with the view that nothing outside of God truly exists.”
In a sense, you are correct; God, being existence itself, is the source of all created existence. However, He created some beings – angels and men that we know about – with the independent free will to either accept His will or reject it. What we call the devil or demons (among other terms) are angels who used that free will to CHOOSE to oppose God’s will, and by that choice to be outside of God even though God allows them to remain in existence.
That’s fine, Andrew. If you can clearly point out to me where Jesus Christ does not teach Satan as I’ve interpreted it, I’m open to looking into that.
Your interpretation of scriptures, Andrew, makes Christ out to be a lunatic or a liar, who didn’t say to the devil what scriptures claim He said to the devil. So was He delusional and talking to Himself, or are the apostles who recounted that text lying?
If there is no Satan- where did God banish the up-risen demons to- and is He lying about the lake of sulfur, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth?
Why would you want to be a follower of a liar or a lunatic?
There are 34 references to the devil in the New testament alone.
One of my favorite verses: 1 Peter, 5:8
Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith….
This translation is the Ignatious Catholic Study Bible, New Testament.
It appears in the Tuesday night prayer in the Liturgy of the Hours. Every Priest, Nun, Religious and even the laity say these prayers, and no doubt St. Augustine did also. It’s considered the universal prayer of the church, besides the Holy Mass.
The devil is real, and he is seeking the ruin of souls. Don’t be one he catches and devours.
I am a fool for Christ! And I am not ashamed to admit it! :D
Huh, Kel? The fact that he doesn’t teach what you think he does is not going to be found in a passage. The lack of a teaching is going to be in the lack of passages demanding we accept your interpretation. For the detailed argument that Christian teaching actually requires a different view of evil than the one you’re proposing, I’ll refer you to Confessions. But the argument that my understanding is acceptable consists only in it being consistent with scripture. Rather than go through the entire Bible verse by verse, it only makes sense to have you identify the parts of scripture you think I’m ignoring.
Jacqueline, what specific passages are you referring to?
Joyfromillinois, the devil does prove a useful tool of rhetoric and teaching, and personification of temptation plays a role in the Bible. That doesn’t mean that the devil truly exists, merely that he is useful to Peter’s purpose and what he is trying to teach.
The fact that he doesn’t teach what you think he does is not going to be found in a passage. The lack of a teaching is going to be in the lack of passages demanding we accept your interpretation.
Andrew, when Christ was tempted by the devil, or when he taught about hell, for instance – those passages are there for everyone to read. Why don’t you tell me what you believe Christ taught about the devil and hell? What is your interpretation of His teachings on those subjects?
The temptation of Christ uses the devil as a pedagogical tool to personify and convey three of the temptations that often draw humans away from God: caring about personal comfort rather than spiritual fulfillment, seeking temporal power, and demanding personal proof from God.
The debate on the references to hell takes more time than I have right now, as well as more linguistic expertise than I can really offer to do it properly. Suffice it to say that, as far as I can recall right now, every mention of hell by Christ is consistent with a state of non-existence or a simple rhetorical tool to scare listeners into obedience.
So, Andrew, what you are saying – correct me if I’m wrong, please – is that the temptation of Christ was merely symbolic? Or do you believe it actually occurred, but merely that what should have been referenced was “the flesh” tempting him, as opposed to “the devil?”
And Christ’s mentioning of hell was basically a scare tactic?
ok then Andrew – on what authority do you treat Christ’s personal tempation from the devil? It says nowhere that he is a ‘pedagogical tool to personify and convey three temptations…”
If you think that Christ’s temptation was not real, why even think Christ is not real? Why bother? Since you are self-identified Christian, why even doubt Christ and His Book? If it’s all just hocus-pocus – why be a believer?
I believe and believe deeply because I have had a personal encounter with Christ - devout Christians usually have a personal relationship with Him and know He exists.
If He exists, and His Word is faithful, why would you not believe that Evil exists? If Evil exists, and certain actions are evil, why would you not avoid those actions and do good actions instead?
Remember – you are on a pro-life site, arguing for pro-choice (and whether you realize it or not, arguing the pro-abortion side).
no more rabbit holes. We are all made in the image and likeness of God. As a Christian, taht also means Christ. IF you are His creation and He has brought you forth in His image, why would you stand by allowing the decimation of His creation?
If truly He is your Lord, and you are living for Him, why would you champion the opposite of what He wishes? Why would you not follow Him? After all He said – enter by the narrow gate.
Following others who say evil does not exist is the way to NOT follow Christ. He said of the lukewarm – either be hot or cold, lukewarm i will spit from my mouth.
Also He reminded us there will be plenty of people who will say “Lord, Lord” and He will say – I never knew you.
So you basically have a choice (here is a pro-choice one for you) – are you choosing Christ or not? Fully or not? Love Him or not? and then you decide whether you are on the right road. Or not.
No rhetoric there. Just a straight choice.
Kel, I don’t claim to know the historical truth of the events detailed in the bible. But I believe that the story is included as a lesson about temptation. Nor do I say that it “should” say something other than the devil. For all I know, the inclusion of the devil makes the story more compelling to some, and thus more effective. The book’s purpose is to bring people to the faith; it need not say the same thing to each one.
I also didn’t say that hell is merely a scare tactic. I said it is described as a form of existence, rather than non-existence, in order to speak to the listeners.
Joyfromillinois, on the authority of the way the text speaks to me. That’s what faith is. I claim no authority to say that my interpretation of scripture is more correct than yours, and I would only ever challenge an interpretation as “false” if it is not consistent.
You say that my interpretation leads to the conclusion that the entire bible must be rejected. I don’t know why. I think that one can read past the surface without destroying the text. But if that doesn’t work for you, I’m not going to force you to accept.
I don’t believe I said there was no such thing as an evil action.
Joy, you seem adverse to actually discussing anything in detail: every comment, it seems, has to be an attempt to make your entire case. That’s no way to actually make any progress.
Kel, I don’t claim to know the historical truth of the events detailed in the bible. But I believe that the story is included as a lesson about temptation. Nor do I say that it “should” say something other than the devil. For all I know, the inclusion of the devil makes the story more compelling to some, and thus more effective. The book’s purpose is to bring people to the faith; it need not say the same thing to each one.
Do you believe that Jesus was actually tempted and resisted that temptation? Do you believe He was without sin? Do you consider the Gospels to be “stories” or eyewitness accounts of the events at that time?
I also didn’t say that hell is merely a scare tactic. I said it is described as a form of existence, rather than non-existence, in order to speak to the listeners.
You said Christ’s mentioning of hell may have been used as a tool to “scare listeners into obedience.” What did you mean by this?
Why do you believe Christ mentioned Gehenna, comparing hell to a place like that – a place of burning – when He could have simply referenced Sheol – the grave?
Andrew MacKie-Mason says: March 3, 2011 at 1:33 pm
“Kel, my view on evil and Satan is a simple consequence of a theophysical view expressed by St. Augustine. It’s true that, like many things, Augustine did not accept this specific conclusion, but it makes it no less a necessary consequence of his other beliefs. Are you questioning his Christianity along with mine?”
Are you claiming to understand Augustine better than Augustine himself? LOL!! If you accept Augustine’s arguments but not his conclusions, then you’re either misunderstanding him, or only selectively understanding him, or perhaps even twisting his ideas to fit your own preferences.
“As far as I can tell, every bit of scripture can be reconciled with the view that nothing outside of God truly exists.”
In a sense, you are correct; God, being existence itself, is the source of all created existence. However, He created some beings – angels and men that we know about – with the independent free will to either accept His will or reject it. What we call the devil or demons (among other terms) are angels who used that free will to CHOOSE to oppose God’s will, and by that choice to be outside of God even though God allows them to remain in existence.
scragsma, I just pulled your comment out of the spam folder where it was in limbo! :D Thanks for this comment, especially the last paragraph, which is also my understanding of free will.
Kel, the historical accuracy of the Bible is, in my opinion, irrelevant. It exists for a purpose, and that purpose can be served whether or not it is literal truth. And even if it does consist of eyewitness accounts, it can only be based on flawed human perception and selective reporting.
I said that Christ’s mentions of hell were consistent either with a concept of non-existence versus eternal life or with a rhetorical tool to scare the listeners into obedience. The meaning seems pretty clear. Jesus wasn’t merely a fountainhead of truth. He was a teacher, meant to correct human imperfection as much as possible and lead as many people as possible to God. Since the real truth of God’s creation is incomprehensible to human minds, it makes sense to suppose that Jesus would speak in a way most likely to resonate with the listeners of his day and lead them as close as possible to the correct path.
Kel, you may find the critical examination of writers to be “LOL!!”-worthy, but it’s actually common among those who take deep engagement with thinkers seriously. Everyone has inconsistent beliefs, and every system has contradictions. To say that some of Augustine’s arguments lead to conclusions that he did not accept is not to “misunderstand” or “selectively understand” or “twist his ideas”, it is merely to engage with him on a deep level and pull all the meaning from his writing as possible, not merely to skim the top and accept every assertion at face value.
Scragsma, the ability to act against the will of God (and thus act “evilly”) is not the same as the existence of evil as an actual object, or the existence of the devil as a being actually on the same level as God or capable of challenging God. If people here are merely asserting the existence of a temporal being who has chosen to not follow God, then that can be reconciled with the unity of divine substance. However, like anything else, the devil only actually exists insofar as he shares in the substance that is God.
Jesus wasn’t merely a fountainhead of truth. He was a teacher, meant to correct human imperfection as much as possible and lead as many people as possible to God.
Is Jesus Christ God incarnate, Andrew? Is Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and the only way we can gain access to the Father?
I believe so, yes. That doesn’t mean that every word he says is literal, simplistic truth.
How about “thou shalt not kill?” I think that’s simplistic enough.
So, Andrew, do you think Jesus would be pleased with, say, a woman caught in adultery aborting her child who was a product of that adultery?
We’re all aware that Jesus taught in parables. However, the “simplistic truths” in those parables, at least He seemed to think, His disciples should have understood. And for the times they didn’t understand, He explained.
If you believe the eyewitness accounts to be sketchy, Andrew, then how can you believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God? How can you believe He actually said any of what He was reported to have said?
Andrew – I think it’s getting tough to understand where you are and what you are trying to say. We truly want to engage you, but we can only do so based on what you have said, and being that some of the earlier comments are, well, earlier – unless someone goes back to review, ponder and re-work, some of the earlier items/intonations may get lost. Also – I have come in and out of the discussion because I can’t be on the computer all the time…
So do I understand that you do believe that: people can act in evil ways, but there is no devil? Also, you believe in Jesus, but reject ‘simplistic truths’ – which we can certainly delve into what ‘simplistic’ means. That you have read the bible, but do not believe in its literalness (I assume in most cases). I’m not sure in your regarding hell – either is exists or it’s a rhetorical tool to scare the masses into obedience or ? And that you believe Jesus to be the incarnate Son of God. And I sort of reading things correctly? And honestly – I’m not sure where you were going regarding St. Augustine…
In regards to the devil, he not only appears in 1 Peter but in many other areas of the New and Old Testament (I just happened to pick a favorite verse of mine). So as much as you discussed that Peter was using the reference to the Devil to make a point — what happens to other verses that point out the devil? He appears in various points in the bible – in the NT alone – Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, Corinthians, James, 1 John, Jude & Revelations.
Do I believe the Devil exists? Yes. Do I believe he is cunning? Yes. Desiring the ruin of souls? Undoubtedly. In fact one of the ways he grabs souls is that he helps people not believe in sin. If all is relative, and there is no Truth, then all is equal, and there is no real bad nor real good. So if he helps people to deny his existence, then he can reign and pull people into the things that are not of God. He eventually has people not recognize evil, sin, and even ultimate goodness which is God Himself. If there is no ultimate Truth, then there is no rule by which to go by. Anything goes.
What does this have to do with abortion? If all action is neutral, there is not good or ultimate evil, then abortion is just another option among options. This is especially so when one is trying to bring about some sort of other good. So if we do not recognize God, don’t recognize sin, don’t recognize humans as being in His likeness, and there is no judgment and no hell, then all actions have limited consequences, instead of eternal consequences. And if Jesus is Son of God, but without absolute standards and teachings, then His teaching is not as forceful or encompassing as if He had absolute standards and teachings.
Personally – He can forgive anything, even the sin of abortion… if the repentant sinner repents and resolves not to sin again.
But if one has no recourse to Jesus, and one views His standards weak, optional and also believes there is no devil or responsibility for one’s own sin, then everything, even the sin of abortion, appears to have limited consequence.
But for believers who are really serious about His teachings and following Him, that does not ring true.
Jacqueline, I’m not sure I understand your point.
Kel, no, I do not believe that such an action would be in line with Jesus’ teaching. I also don’t see how that contradicts anything else I’ve said.
In my opinion, to suppose that men can ever fully understood the truth of God is crazy. See, eg, Job. Jesus taught and said what needed to be heard in order to help set people back on the road. And, by the way, if faith in Jesus were based only on belief in the complete historical accuracy of the Bible, then that faith would be extremely shaky indeed.
Joyfromillinois, I’m sorry that it’s difficult to keep up with the conversation and remember where it’s been. I understand that not everyone has time to debate constantly, and indeed that’s why I’ve only been on every few days. But if you actually want to engage in a discussion like this, one in which you and others are challenging an entire theological structure of belief, then you’re going to have to be willing to keep track of and read through every comment. If I could fully explain my faith in a single comment to people who are intent on tearing it down, I would be a better man than Christ. If you’re not willing to do that, feel free to back out. Don’t worry, I won’t take it as you admitting that you don’t have a monopoly on the Christian faith, if that’s what you’re worried about.
As to your attempt to synthesize my position, it’s generally accurate except in the following ways:
* I don’t reject simplistic truths, I reject the idea that we must take every part of the Bible as simplistic truth.
* I accept that Jesus is the Son of God, inasmuch as we realize that that’s a human attempt to identify a relationship that we cannot truly comprehend.
My only point with regard to Augustine is that his theory of the unity of substance seems to place him in a category of people that some here have unilaterally declared to be wrong. I merely meant to suggest that those people might want to consider examining other views (and their own) a little more closely before declaring the belief of a Catholic saint to be un-Christian.
On the devil: I have no desire to attempt to cram an entire theological argument on the existence of the devil into the comment section of this blog post. To do so wouldn’t do the seriousness of the debate seriously, and would seem almost impious. If you want to discuss whatever passages you think most strongly point to the existence of a being capable of coexisting with God but not of God (because that is the only proposition against which I am arguing), I’m happy to do that. If you want to trade biblical interpretation essays on the devil, I’m also happy to do that. But I won’t cram a topic into a smaller space than it deserves, and attempt to deal with every instance of the word “devil” in the Bible.
“Do I believe the Devil exists? Yes. Do I believe he is cunning? Yes. Desiring the ruin of souls? Undoubtedly. In fact one of the ways he grabs souls is that he helps people not believe in sin. If all is relative, and there is no Truth, then all is equal, and there is no real bad nor real good. So if he helps people to deny his existence, then he can reign and pull people into the things that are not of God. He eventually has people not recognize evil, sin, and even ultimate goodness which is God Himself. If there is no ultimate Truth, then there is no rule by which to go by. Anything goes.”
That’s a perfectly reasonable belief, but I don’t know why you keep repeating it, or things similar to it. I’ve never suggested that you’re incorrect or un-Christian for holding that belief.
“But if one has no recourse to Jesus, and one views His standards weak, optional and also believes there is no devil or responsibility for one’s own sin, then everything, even the sin of abortion, appears to have limited consequence.”
I don’t believe that we can only attain moral goodness through fear of the consequence of sin. But if you need that fear of consequence, perhaps that is why God has told you what he has told you.
I love this part here:
“But respect for fetal life also requires that men and women take every step possible not to create fetuses they will have to abort….”
If you do not have sex, no possible way to make a baby. If one does not want the responsibility, avoid the act. If it does happen, please take responsibility and either take care of the child yourself (not killing it) or allow for someone else to do so (adoption). The child created in the womb will die eventually, just as the mother will, if pro-choicers are so worried about choice, then please allow for the child to choose to kill itself rather than allowing the mother to do so. If the fetus continues to grow and survive within the womb, somehow I think that this human (DNA proves it) wants to live and is “choosing” to live.