Stanek weekend question: Is it acceptable to picket pro-choice politicians outside their church on Sunday morning?
Pro-abortion ideologues are throwing a righteous fit over a pro-life group’s decision to protest a pro-abortion politician outside her church last Sunday with graphic signs. I loved Robin Marty’s headline at RH Reality Check…
… as if ambushing isn’t exactly what is done to preborn babies being aborted?
I also liked this headline a the Shad Plank: “Anti-abortion group targets Sen. Locke at church with brutal ads.” The photos are “brutal,” but the act itself isn’t?
But I digress.
Here’s the story from the pro-choice perspective, by sanctimonious Kerry Dougherty at The Virginian-Pilot, in an commentary entitled “There’s a proper time, place for politics; it isn’t during church.” (Digressing again: Note that in a church setting they complain we’re bringing politics into religion, while in a political setting they complain we’re bringing religion into politics.)
God save us from parlor popes, kitchen-table cardinals and backyard bishops.
Every time a few of these pious finger-pointers appear in public, I’m reminded of the loudmouthed hypocrites that Jesus encountered regularly in Bible stories. You know, the sticklers for the rules who yapped when he healed the sick on the Sabbath and the cranks who sneered when he dined with sinners….
Although it makes no sense in a country that has enshrined religious liberty in its Constitution, these 21st-century stone-throwers are often eager to jump into the political arena right before Election Day to accuse fellow Catholics of not being Catholic enough.
Take the tone-deaf crowd that decided it would be a great idea to wave dead-fetus posters outside St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church in Newport News on Sunday morning.
Please.
They were there for one reason: to blindside and embarrass a parishioner, state Sen. Mamie Locke [pictured right] because of her stand on abortion.
Locke supports abortion rights. They don’t.
This holier-than-thou crowd decided that Locke’s position justified a tasteless attempt to score political points outside a place of worship. Even more outrageous, they dared question whether she is fit to receive communion.
As a Catholic, I find this unspeakably repugnant. The decision to receive communion is a highly personal one. It’s not the business of nosy zealots to decide who’s worthy and who isn’t….
Locke, who’s been active in her parish for more than 20 years, emerged from the building around 11 and came face-to-face with demonstrators holding signs and passing out literature. Locke said she didn’t touch the handouts and she didn’t see anyone else take one, either.
“I was horrified,” she told me Tuesday. “It’s just so inappropriate. At our church we don’t mix politics and religion.”…
Look, if you feel strongly that abortion should be outlawed, work to elect like-minded candidates. Donate money, volunteer your time.
But for the sake of common decency, would you please stay away from candidates’ homes and churches and refrain from commenting on their state of grace?
Unless, of course, you real-ly like being compared to the obnoxious know-it-alls who harassed Jesus and his followers in biblical times.
No surprise, Dougherty engaged in quite a bit of inaccurate theology to finagle getting Jesus to stand against pro-lifers and on the side of a pro-choice politician who has compiled a 100% pro-choice voting record with NARAL.
That aside, do you think it is acceptable to protest pro-abortion politicians outside their churches on Sunday mornings?
[Photos of protest via The Shad Plank; click to enlarge]
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.
Ah, the truth is a sticky thing, isn’t it? If you wouldn’t be willing to let your church members know what you believe, and be proud of those beliefs, then maybe you had better reconsider them, Ms. Locke.
As a Black woman, Ms. Locke should know what abortion means. As a Christian, she ought to know what abortion means. Dr. King preached personhood and equal rights from the pulpit. So sorry she is not smart enought to grasp the parallels.
You can’t stand with Christ and stand with abortionists. The clarity of this is beautiful.
“As a Catholic, I find this unspeakably repugnant. The decision to receive communion is a highly personal one. It’s not the business of nosy zealots to decide who’s worthy and who isn’t….”
I’m not Catholic, so I may be completely wrong about this, but I thought that there WERE rules about who can and cannot receive communion–and people who partake in certain sins without confession cannot. I would think, for the Catholic Church, supporting abortion would be one of those sins.
Yes. Leaders in the church are called to higher standards than those that are not leaders, and the congregation should be holding them accountable. Failing that, the entire body needs to be corrected.
“Pro Choice,” Jill? Don’t you mean “Pro Abortion?” Call it what it is. The sign on the side of the van (rightfully) does.
Time to stop letting people hide behind words that mask what it is. Someone saying they are ”not personally in favor of abortion, but who am I to tell someone else what to do…” and having that kind of statement be ”acceptable” is like replacing the word abortion with “slavery” or “rape” and having that somehow be socially acceptable, too. None of them are.
While I might cringe at this approach (the sign on the van) – it is what it is, and if it is the truth (and is supported by her positions), then so be it. Your comments are also spot on. 100% positive NARAL voting record and receiving communion cannot coexist. I have no issues and do not mean to question communion, for she may repent prior to receiving – but if she then goes out the next day and continues the support, then she has a problem.
How is her parish priest (or local Bishop) not involved? They are the teachers and shepherds for when members go astray.
According to the Catholic church, someone who condones or participates in something like abortion, automatically precludes themselves from being able to receive communion.
One of the things that occurred after WWII is that the people who lived near the concentration camps were made to go through them and see what it was that was going on in there. By the same token, the politician who condones abortion should be made to stand in the room and watch an abortion, hear the machinery and the off-handed remarks, and count each piece of the baby after the grizzly deed.
That being said, an informational, peaceful picket outside of the church of an abortion supporter is not a big deal, except to the one who wants to keep their support a secret. But, then again, the rapist or homosexual pedophile doesn’t want their deed made public, either.
I think in some round about way she compared herself to Christ and his followers? Okay… She really thinks highly of herself.
totally appropriate! The church needs to take a stand against abortion and if one of it’s members is committing a sin then they need to confront it! I think standing outside and showing the results of what this lady supports is totally appropriate. If she is uncomfortale with it then we as prolifers and as Christians have done something right. That said it needs to be done in a respectable manner too. Obviously the truth is this politician backs and supports abortion so there is no other nice way to put it out there. The truth might sting like a killer bee but it needs to be said continually!
I say go for it. Virtually every person who looks at that display is going to come away with a lower opinion of the “pro-life” movement and little else. A few crazies with signs standing outside a church’s doors are not going to achieve their desired goal of ruining the worship experience for the people inside.
I am afraid I disagree with you and most of your posters, it is NOT APPROPRIATE to picket outside a church to make a political point. If a church congregation wants picket outside their church that is one thing, but picketing outside a church to make a political point about a member of the congregation who you disagree with is WRONG. There is a place for political picketing, outside a courthouse or city hall, or legislature, not a church. This lady and her church deserves an apology from everyone who picketed against them.
Yes Joan. I suppose you would think church is all about the “worship experience”. Church is the body of Christ. Church is where we worship Christ, yes, but its also where we learn to be more like him. Church also offers moral accountability to like-minded believers in Christ. Church isn’t about our “experience”. We don’t go to be entertained or to pat ourselves on the back and feel good for the afternoon. Church is about seriously striving to walk with Christ and be a part of His body. Church is where we prepare ourselves to be the bride of Christ. If we are whoring ourselves out to those who have the blood of children on their hands, then how exactly are we preparing to be the bride of Christ?
Someone who calls themselves a Christian and then supports the murder of innocent unborn children is making a mockery of Christ.
Picketing outside the church of a pro-abort politician?
That is a tough question. I guess I would have to say that this is legal… and it is fair to expose the truth anywhere.
On the other hand, we owe some duty of respect to the many private persons who deserve to worship, unmolested by the world.
Picketing at private gatherings certainly makes me uneasy, because it sets a nasty precedent. For example, I don’t want union mobsters or Occupy Wall Street greasers ganging outside my church, just because they don’t like the way my state assemblyman voted on some trivial issue. I don’t like Fred Phelps and his band of nutties disrupting the funerals of fallen servicemen.
So what is the proper thing to do?
If the pro-abort candidate is a Catholic, or under similar apostolic authority, then we should write the candidate’s pastor and/or bishop. It is their duty to keep discipline in their church, and we should respect that. If the bishop fails, we should be very prudent about taking discipline into our own hands,
If the pro-abort candidate is in some sort of Evangelical or non-dom church… their community is responsible for disciplining their own members. It may be necessary to set up some sort of “information picket” to inform the members. If we do this, we should be as respectful as possible.
I get the impression that these informational protesters in Newport News thought carefully through all of these things. Much more carefully than Kerry Dougherty at The Virginian-Pilot did.
No, Joan. The problem is not the messenger here. The problem is with the person who sees the killing of babies as acceptable.
The placard bearers’ goal is not to ruin the worship experience, it is to call out a Christian sister who is in grave error.
How come you and your folk get riled up about a van with pictures of dead babies but the KILLINg of those babies don’t make you bat an eye, except to say “THank goodness we can still do this!!!!”?????
Ummm, @Joan, the “desired effect” was not to ruin the “worship experience.” The desired effect is to shine a light on a very public support of an issue the Catholic Church very vocally opposes – and how a member of that parish apparently is at odds with Catholic teachnig on the subject.
It is the duty of the Church to teach, explain, and (if all else fails) rebuke and even excommunicate those that fail to follow that teaching. The interest here (if done by the Church,specifically) would be nothing less than the salvation of her soul. Excommunication is not “forever” by any means, but it is serious and seeks to help those that fall away, to help them come back. Too many parishes/diocese may have lost sight of this, and might be better served to revisit it (again – only after private discussion and efforts to explain/teach may have failed).
Del, those “private citizens” have a responsibility in this country. The United States is “We the People”. The brutal murder of millions of innocent babies has taken place in this country because private citizens have allowed it, just as German citizens allowed the muder of millions of Jews. No one is exempt from the responsibility of this national atrocity. We must be confronted with the reality of what is happening.
“The desired effect is to shine a light on a very public support of an issue the Catholic Church very vocally opposes – and how a member of that parish apparently is at odds with Catholic teachnig on the subject.”
In that case, shouldn’t the Church’s “vocal opposition” speak for itself? How is it in any way appropriate for a person who isn’t even a member of the parish, much less a member in a position of ecclesiastic authority, to admonish a parishioner publicly?
“Too many parishes/diocese may have lost sight of this, and might be better served to revisit it (again – only after private discussion and efforts to explain/teach may have failed).”
By completely circumventing appropriate internal channels for dealing with the problem? Your solution does not evince much respect for clergical authority if it involves sidestepping them when, in your opinion, they aren’t doing enough to “explain/teach”.
Mark Zanghetti, was protecting Jews during the holocaust a “political point”? NO. Defending innocent human beings from being killed isn’t a “political point”. Its actually a biblical point. THe Bible says Christians are to rescue those being led to slaughter. The Bible is also very clear about God’s high regard for children. This is scriptural, not political. Christ said what we do to the least of these (his brethren) we do to HIM. How very appropriate to call attention to this outside of a church. Its not about politics. Its about shining a light on those who stand for evil.
heavens no. thats the one place we want to see them. maybe one day their hearts and minds will change.
“Someone who calls themselves a Christian and then supports the murder of innocent unborn children is making a mockery of Christ”
So according to your “true” Christian standards, all those pro-choice Protestant churches aren’t truly Christian. But here’s the thing. I don’t believe that they care what the anti-choice inquisitors think.
“It is the duty of the Church to teach, explain, and (if all else fails) rebuke and even excommunicate those that fail to follow that teaching”
Wait a minute. In a discussion of whether the Catholic Adolph Hitler had been formally excommunicated via a Papal pronouncement, you Catholics said that it didn’t matter and that Catholics, out of step with the dogma, excommunicate themselves. Given that a RI bishop issued a statement of excommunication for the Planned Parenthood, I was confused as when I called the Diocese to request a formal excommunication paper for myself, I was told about the “self” excommunication. Certainly, throughout history, the excommunications were done with great fanfare. But so far, no pro-choice Catholic pols have received anything more than a mild rebuke. Anyway, this woman is probably already excommunicated, right?
But Joan is correct. There is nothing more than the site of the “pro-life” sidewalk circus to reaffirm pro-choice convictions and further alienate those, leaning pro-choice, to be even more pro-choice. Go for it. Dr. Tiller was assassinated in a church. Guess when it comes to pro-choice religions, all bets are off!
CC, here is where you show your ignorance. It doesn’t matter what I think. It doesn’t matter what pro-lifers think. The BIBLE is our mirror. The Bible is our light. The Bible is our map. It is the Bible that shows us where our values should be.
So yes, I would say Protestant churches who support abortion are false churches, dead churches, whatever you want to call it. You cannot proclaim to be serving Christ while supporting the interests of Satan. The Bible is clear you cannot serve two masters. Christ loved children. God is clear in His Word that He is the sole Creator of life and that He forms children in the womb and views them as a blessing.
You can tell if a standard is Christian or not by if it conforms to God’s Word. Human opinions don’t matter one bit.
It’s tacky and unacceptable now. At a hypothetical time in the distant future when abortion is considered as unthinkable as segregation, it will retroactively be considered acceptable. It’s a weird phenomenon.
CC, I live and work in an Episcopal community. These folks, some of them whom I love dearly, have made a deal with the devil.
Pro-choice people–we want them in Church. Absolutely. But eventually they will have to choose whom they serve.
As regards to George Tiller, I know intellectually that he was murdered and that it is wrong and that if I am to remain pro-life I need to denounce public executions. So I do. With my mind. But don’t ask me to feel bad about it. All those babies he could have shown mercy towards….
You are right to call out the Catholic Church for its mildness. It’s appalling. But ever since they decided upon the beatification of the Kennedy family, it’s been downhill for preborn rights.
Abortion is not a political issue. It is a humanitarian issue.
Courtnay’s comment brought to mind this thought that I want to share. Yes, ALL people should be in church. All people need Christ. But those (Christians) who are unrepentant in their sin are not to be IN the church. Meaning, they cannot join the church and partake in communion etc.. while thumbing their nose at God’s Word and His standards.
i guess that is where my church is very similar to the Catholic church even though we are “protestant”. In my church, anyone and everyone is welcome and we are a very friendly church. We will give you love and friendship but if you profess Christ and yet refuse to part with obvious sin in your life then you cannot join us, have a say in our leadership, vote in church meetings, take communion with us, be baptized etc… You can sit in our church building and hopefully being under the Word will bring about the conviction of the Holy Spirit, but you cannot join our body. To allow such a Christian to join would be like allowing a tumor into a healthy body. Sin spreads. A little leaven leaveneth the whole loaf.
“Gaylene Kanoyton, chair of the Hampton Democratic Party who attends St. Vincent DePaul with Locke, said the anti-abortion activists were asked to leave so parishioners could continue to enjoy their “wonderful day of worship,” but refused.”
http://articles.dailypress.com/2011-11-02/news/dp-nws-locke-abortion-20111101_1_anti-abortion-activists-targets-church-defiled
I suspect that if ”pro-aborts” refused to leave a protest, outside a church, you folks wouldn’t be too sanguine about it.
BTW, Mamie Locke is still a lector at her church. So far, the protests haven’t had any effect on her standing in the church.
Yes, shedding light on the truth is good. If she can’t handle the truth, maybe she should re-think her position.
You are quite correct on her lack of theological understanding. There is a difference between a run of the mill sinner and a PUBLIC, OBSTINATE sinner. Look up the teachings on that. A public, obstinate and run of the mill sinner both must go to confession. A public, obstinate sinner must also publicly recant their position less they cause scandal in receiving the Eucharist. I you are going to publicly sin and you state that you’re quite proud of it, then be ready to have fingers pointing your way. This was the difference between the woman about to be stoned and those who were about to do the stoning. Christ pointed out there sin.
prolifist, excellent point. There were congregations in Nazi Germany whose response to the cries from the occupants of passing trains (headed to concentration camps) was TO SING THEIR HYMNS LOUDER.
Did she really compare Jesus healing to mutilating children? Oh, excuse me, to ensuring a woman’s right to have her unborn children mutilated? Woe to those that call evil good and good evil.
It is entirely appropriate to let this politician’s fellow worshippers and leaders in the church know what’s behind the words she uses in her work. Problem with most of the church is too many are concerned with pleasing people instead of pleasing God.
RSC,
My use of the term “pro-choice” is purely pragmatic. Note I use it interchangeably with “pro-abortion” or “abortion supporter.” I’ve amended my thinking over the past couple of years on this. Two reasons:
1. There is a greater likelihood abortion supporters will read my posts if I call them “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion,” particularly in the title.
2. There is also a greater likelihood my posts will get higher search engine recognition if I use the term “pro-choice,” which is much more commonly searched than “pro-abortion.”
So these days I use a few different terms for the other side, often in the same piece.
Hope this makes sense to you!
Is there anybody on this board that couldn’t be protested against for something?
Anybody out there without sin?
The difference is, if someone came to my house and picketed me because I was pro-life, I’d welcome it as a follower of Christ! I wouldn’t be offended. I would embrace it and count myself lucky that I’m doing something so right that those who would choose to rip a baby into pieces would picket me for it.
I like church protests about as much as I like home protests, which is not at all. I don’t think it gets any points across or saves any babies.
CC, this woman is one of a long line of Black politicians who have sold their souls for the sake of political expediency, like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. She is not confused, and she knows what the Church teaches about abortion. What she is, is belligerant and in ERROR. She has a made a choice: to get votes and be popular.
If someone protested me for any aspect of my life and showed me where I was in error and in sin, I’d change. Because I loveGod and I don’t want to be in sin. Protecting people who murder their babies and those who perform the murders are in sin. If she doesn’t see this, then she needs to find another club to belong to. The Episcopalians will take her. Shoot, they’ll make her a saint!
EX, you’re missing it, big time. Jesus told the woman caught in the very act of adultery to “go and sin no more”. He never condoned her adultery. So many quote “Judge not lest ye be judged” from Matthew 7 and FAIL TO KEEP READING to where Jesus says you will know a tree by its fruit. The fruit of this politicians’ work is the children pictured above. Many who claim to follow Christ have failed to the tune of 52 million+ dead to call sin what it is. There is Grace for this woman to repent and turn from her death-embracing ways, but sticking ones’ fingers in the ears and ordering people to go away to refrain from ruining the “worship experience” is not repentance!
Open your mouth, judge righteously and defend the rights of the poor and needy (Prov 31:9) There is no more poor and needy than the child targeted by abortion.
klynn – you might be right – I might be missing it big time.
Jesus did say that…is he the one driving the van above and putting up the sign?
I just know that some of my clothes and purchasing choices have probably contributed to child labor. I know that I could have skipped nicer jeans and given money to the poor. I know I’ve sinned plenty in life. I wonder what signs they’d put on the van when I came out of church? How about you Klynn?
Ex-GOP, it depends. Are you for child labor? ; ) You’re comparing apples to oranges. Also, are you a public, obstinate sinner. Do you flaunt your sins for votes?
Jack Borsch, while the desired outcome is to save babies, the more desired outcome is to vote Locke out of office and, I would hope, that her pastor would actually counsel he and not scandalize his own church by allowing her to receive communion. Of course, these things would all lead to babies not being torn to pieces but you have to get to that in a myriad of ways. While I’m sure some would be quite content if this be kept a private “choice” we cannot stany by while children are being killed just so that everyone else can feel good about themselves.
I think those in the van just might be putting politics above God. If they are truly interested in sinful behavior, the Bible discusses how to deal with that. If they are truly interested in simply swaying votes, than picketing at a place of worship seems in bad form.
I massively dislike church protests anyways – that Todd guy who drops by from time to time is involved in them, and I’ve debated with him before – I’m very, very against them – and it isn’t the message, it’s protesting in general. I’d be just as upset if somebody picketed a church and said they aren’t giving enough money to local food shelves, or another cause like that.
Ex, if you know your sin and have repented, then you’ve done what Christ asks for. If someone were really interested in their spiritual health, then they would want to know their sins so they could remedy the situation. Are you with me so far?
Ms. Locke has no desire for repentance. She wants to redefine what sin is. As one of her Christian sisters, she needs to look at those pictures, look at what she is defending and protecting with her power. If you are a Christian, don’t you think God would want us to defend those babies???
I am all for it. Well you should of seen that coming Ex Gop
Courtnay – I just think it is unBiblical.
I believe you are a Christian – do you know the basic steps for dealing with division and sin within a Church?
Yes, I do, and I hear what you’re saying. Perhaps her own parish has failed her in this respect. But you REALLY don’t think that she is unaware that she’s in sin?
It seems, however, that you are holding your disapproval for the van folks rather than the Christians themselves who are perpetuating the sin. And we are not talking about a small matter here. If you really believe that abortion is murder, what EVER would be wrong with calling a Christian brother or sister out for being party to murder????? I think it would be absolutely unChristian if I just looked at her, smiled, and said “Jesus loves you.”
…and yet the Bible doesn’t call for you to do that.
So, do you believe the van people are following the Biblical instructions for dealing with division?
Absolutely appropriate, as abortion is NOT a political issue but a human rights issue. The Church teaches that abortion is intrinsically evil, and parishioners who publicly choose not to adhere to that teaching need to be held accountable.
Ex-GOP – I encourage you to read the following: http://catholicphoenix.com/2011/03/01/yes-catholics-can-judge/
I am not calling what she is doing “division.” She is a party to MURDER, and she is doing it under a cloak of Christianity. There is an urgency here, a call to action. Dietrich Bonhoeffer understood this urgency, so did Dr. King.
I don’t think you really understand the true nature of abortion, Ex. Its absolute horror would make you stand up and shout.
As a Catholic, I feel compelled to weigh in on this question in particular.
First, a point of clarification on Catholic church teaching and reception of the Holy Eucharist. If someone is aware they are in a state of mortal sin, such as voting for legislation to murder innocent babies in the womb, they are not to receive Communion until they have received absolution in the sacrament of confession. If the sinner does not confess a mortal sin or confesses it while fully intending and planning to go out and commit the same sin again, they would not receive the grace necessary to return to Communion–or to go anywhere except hell. If this sounds harsh, the truth often is. But remember that Jesus’ name is also Mercy. Making a good confession–which, by the way is completely confidential–would bring complete forgiveness.
Ms. Dougherty suggests that receiving Holy Communion is a right, and that every recipient is entitled to receive Jesus at any time, no matter what sins they commit. Not only is Communion not a right, it is a serious responsibility to receive Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity. Receiving Him while in a state of mortal sin actually makes the state of the sinner’s soul considerably worse, not better. In addition, regularly receiving the Holy Eucharist while maintaining a 100% pro-abortion voting record causes a serious scandal to the Catholic faithful and perhaps even more so to non-Catholics, who obviously recognize the evil. Over the years as the number of pro-abortion politicians who claim to be “good Catholics” continues to increase, the scandal deepens. For a list of statements made by the US bishops in response to so-called Catholic politicians and abortion, click here.
Sen. Locke’s bishop has a responsibility to intervene and withhold Communion from her, both for the sake of her eternal soul and to repair the scandal. It appears that after 20 years, this has not happened. These pro-life people have intervened to point out the evil of Sen. Locke’s voting record. I applaud their actions.
“The Church teaches that abortion is intrinsically evil, and parishioners who publicly choose not to adhere to that teaching need to be held accountable.”
By who? Some guy standing on the street with a sign? Does he share this power with the parish’s clergy?
We have to hold each other accountable, Joan. It doesn’t matter who’s holding the sign. The truth is the truth. Abortion is murder.
Jill,
As for the use of the term “pro-choice,” I’m sorry, but I still don’t think it’s justified. If we continue to associate dismembering 52 million innocent babies with any kind of “choice,” we’re letting the pro-aborts control the debate. I realize that you want to reach them, but rather than using their terminology and letting them influence people to favor abortion, I suggest you put in some hidden hash tags and stick to more accurate terms on the site. The pro-aborts need to find the truth, but they may miss the point if they come here and see pro-lifers calling it a choice.
One case in point. I’ve been working with a church youth group, Freshman girls who attend a good, pro-life church and school. Yet they think that as long as they don’t have an abortion themselves, it should still be a “choice” for everyone else. It’s the old politician’s argument that it’s possible to be personally pro-life but give others permission to continue killing babies in the womb. Especially since these girls are so young, I think their poorly informed opinions are a direct result of people using the term “pro-choice.” I hope you’ll reconsider and find some other way to optimize people’s searches.
So then what’s the point of even joining a particular church or identifying with any particular branch of Christianity? Apparently everybody everywhere has the same moral standing and ecclesiastical authority to hold everyone else “accountable” for whatever perceived transgressions they have committed, so membership in a given parish is pointless, as they are all more or less interchangeable. Priests and other clergy, of course, could not possibly have any outsized role in the process (because if they did, it stands to reason that displays like this would be an affront to that role and the clergical authority that comes with it). In fact, John Q. Abortion-Protester should just let himself into St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church, make his way to the priest’s side of the confessional, and invite Sen. Locke to confess to him personally, because it’s entirely within his authority to hold her accountable for her complicity with “evil”. Right?
Joan, read the article I linked above. We are commanded, as Christians, to judge the actions of other Christians and hold them accountable.
Same moral standing. Same responsibility to point out sin. But it’s not like we’re making anything up here, joan. It’s not going to be any big suprise to this woman that she is enfranchising evil. She just wants to redefine what evil is. For Chrisitnas, that cannot be negotiated. Like I said, the Episcopalians are waiting, with open arms.
As far as protesting at churches go, I have two words; “Prop 8”.
Wait a minute. In a discussion of whether the Catholic Adolph Hitler had been formally excommunicated via a Papal pronouncement, you Catholics said that it didn’t matter and that Catholics, out of step with the dogma, excommunicate themselves. Given that a RI bishop issued a statement of excommunication for the Planned Parenthood, I was confused as when I called the Diocese to request a formal excommunication paper for myself, I was told about the “self” excommunication. Certainly, throughout history, the excommunications were done with great fanfare. But so far, no pro-choice Catholic pols have received anything more than a mild rebuke. Anyway, this woman is probably already excommunicated, right?
Gee, CC, it’s nice to see you actually learning something about actual Catholic teaching here! What you wrote is pretty accurate, but needs some clarification. The “automatic” (or latae sententiae) excommunication is generated by some specific offenses, such as apostasy, heresy and if I remember right from our Hitler discussion, laying violent hands on the clergy — all of which Hitler did, so he would clearly have been regarded as excommunicated, at least by knowledgeable Catholics. (The fact that you constantly bring up, that Masses were said for his soul, means nothing at all. Mass can actually be said for anyone, Catholic or not, regardless of their ecclesiastical state at death). Another offense for which there is automatic excommunication is directly procuring or participating an abortion, which is why you would have been automatically excommunicated – even apart from your apostasy.
What we are talking about with pro-abortion Catholic is usually something different: the application of Canon 915 in the Church’s code of canon law, which says that people who are publicly known to be in a grave state of sin should be forbidden communion during Mass – because in order to receive, you must not be in a state of mortal sin. This is different from excommunication, or being completely cut off from the Church.
I think some Catholics believe the excommunication for abortion should apply to these politicians – but supporting abortion in law is not exactly the same as having one yourself. Nevertheless, since they are supporting grave evil, they are in grave sin.
For the automatic excommunication for heresy to apply to a pro-abortion Catholic politician, I think they would have to clearly state that they reject the Church’s teaching on abortion. Many so-called “pro-choice” Catholic politicians will skirt this by saying “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I can’t legislate morality for others.” And/or they will point to the fact that they vote for social programs that “reduce the need” for abortion. This doesn’t remove the fact that they are still supporting evil laws.
There are some, such as Nancy Pelosi, who are ripe for excommunication; she has stated in the past that the Church has changed its position on abortion (false), and that certainly leaves room for thinking the teaching is wrong. She was rebuked very sharply by a number of the nation’s bishops for saying this. So is she automatically excommunicated? Hard to say But I think if her bishop had any guts, he’d excommunicate her formally, and remove all doubt. But excommunication, believe it or not, is a medicine of mercy, which actually seeks to bring sinners back to their senses and back to the Church – even sinners like you, CC.
I see two goods:
Her sin will be brought to the attention of those who can help her, both clergy and laypeople.
The other parishioners will know not to vote for her just because she attends their Catholic church.
I think a sign without a bloody fetus would be best for a worship service young children would be attending.
As for Ms Locke, I don’t know whether she is automatically excommunicated or not, since I don’t know of any statements she has made on Church doctrine. But given her political actions, she definitely ought now to be receiving Communion, and allowing her to be a lector is a real scandal.
Actually Joan, we are all sinners. No one should approach the Eucharist with a mortal sin. Can I say that those who publicly promote abortion are in mortal sin? Yep. Not because WE say it but because the Church does. That said, public, obstinate sinners are held to a different standard. Do some research on it. Look up canon 915. Also, according to canon law we have a right and a duty to make our concerns known to our pastors and to the faithful. Of course, we are to approach the pastors first (which has been done with pro-abortion officials). Once that fails, we are allowed to make our concerns known the the faithful. In other words, we are not called to sit on our hands even when it’s our clergy who make mistakes. I would think that if this was a different topic, such as the abuse scandal, that everyone would be jumping to point htat out. We are to guard the Eucharist from abuse. This isn’t just the clergy’s job. This is everyone’s job.
Young Christian Woman…on gory signs. This is an age old argument which ignores the reality of the situation. Gory should never be seen by children, that said, if it’s to save the life of another, it cannot always be avoided. It was way worse for the baby in the picture and it’s way worse for those who will be killed.
Yes, I think it is appropriate for pro-lifers to remind their fellow parishioner that she is not in alignment with Church teaching. Ms. Locke’s public stance on abortion needs to be renounced publicly so that her fellow faithful are not scandalized. Ensuring the faithfulness of the flock is the job of the Pastor and the Bishop specifically. But as St. Paul tells us it is also the job of the laity! I am sure two or three of the faithful have previously gone to speak to Ms. Locke in private in order to bring her back into the flock. And to borrow one of the parables Ms. Dougherty mis-utilised: it is perfectly ok to try to heal the sick (save lives both physically and spiritually) on the Sabbath – that is what Jesus was doing when the Pharisees complained about him!!!!!It was no less than Jesus himself that said it was ok to perform acts of charity (works of spiritual or corporeal acts of mercy) on the Sabbath!!! Aside from helping to save the lives of the unborn these pro-lifers were helping to heal those “Catholics” who are pro-choice. And if Ms. Locke isn’t considered to be “spiritually sick” in the eyes of the Church I don’t know who would be considered “spiritually sick” in the eyes of the Church. Pro-choice people have no shame.
Finally, Ms. Dougherty needs to understand that Jesus sits/sat at the table with sinners; however, he always is/was asking/pleading them to repent of their sins. Jesus want us to be repentant sinners.
Interesting reference to the woman caught in adultery about to be stoned, and Jesus pointing out the sins of her accusers/executioners. This seems to be one of a few biblical texts that pro-abortion people actually know – that and “judge not” – but don’t really understand.
So, let’s break this thing down. The woman had sinned, and was being threatened with knowing, potentially lethal bodily harm by people who most likely had shared in her sin.
Abortion facilities, whenever they are open, knowingly subject to potentially lethal bodily harm women, many of whom have, by biblical standards (the kind PP especially hates the most) sinned sexually, encouraged to do so by the abortion cartel; that way, more babies will be unwanted, unwelcome, unprotected by their fathers, and so fall a more ready prey, and the “surplus population” can be more easily, and legally, reduced. What would Jesus do? Try to get the woman out of harm’s way, and tell her to go and sin no more. lest something worse befall her, and encourage the profiteers who really are endangering her life to repent of their own sins. In short, exactly what prolifers generally do outside of abortion mills, and sometimes other venues. Interestingly, the only people I’ve ever heard claim to be without sin in these situations have been the pro-aborts, who for the most part, at least, either deny an absolute moral standard, or are always inventing or spouting pre-fabricated sophistries to justify their violations of it.
Must say it seems rather silly to think that the Christ who drove the money changers out of the temple with a bullwhip would object to the truth of abortion being exposed outside- or, better, INSIDE- a place claiming to represent Him. Just my .02
The conversation has moved elsewhere…but a couple of posts I want to respond to.
Joanna – Two things. First, I’m a Christian, not Catholic. So any argument that goes outside of the Bible to any other “texts” for support – I am naturally skeptical of. Second, yes, a human rights issue -but the sign is political. So maybe your argument in general is different – but in this specific case, how can you say it isn’t political? Heck, it even has a “paid for” disclaimer!
Courtnay – if you feel that abortion is a worse sin than any other, you can Biblically post and back it up. In response to your views – I still have to go back to the Biblical viewpoints of dealing with these issues. Third step – have nothing to do with them. You seem to be rewriting things to how you would like them, which I think is dangerous.
I just don’t agree at all with Christians protesting other churches.
No. Protesters should not be outside churches or private homes for any reason.
I am Catholic. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. Her parishoners need to know. She is a public figure creating scandal.
ex–it’s evil or it’s not.Can we just call it what it is?
I am a Ms-lutheran, former Catholic. Where am I in error?
At St Mary’s catholic church where I attend sunday worship I could go into the rectory and get a sign that says “abortion kills babies” to stand outside the church with. This is not open for debate if you want to be in communion with the Catholic Church. If the pro-choice to kill babies in the womb crowd had their way we wouldn’t counsel people against abortion inside our churches either. They are blinded by the devil.
EGV:
“Is there anybody on this board that couldn’t be protested against for something?
Anybody out there without sin?”
You raise the gold-standard question. No, none of us is without sin. None of us. All of us need to ask for God’s forgiveness and mercy, as ALL sin separates us from God, and all mortal sin will send us to hell.
However, some sins have more of a viral effect on the body of the church than others. Some are simply more caustic and corrosive than others.
When members of the church declare that predation on the weakest and most vulnerable among us are mere “choices”, and protect said predation with the power of their elected office and the act of their will, fully informed, they excommunicate themselves from the body of believers. They have broken ranks with us and are no longer in communion with us, or God.
Yes, EGV, I sin. And I go to confession when I do. When I confess my sin, I make a firm purpose of amendment, ask God’s mercy, and promise to avoid even the near occasion of sin. Then I leave with a plan of action to avoid the sins that would hold me back as a human being here to work out his salvation with fear and trembling.
The proabort Catholic politicians such as Biden, Pelosi, the Cuomo’s, Kennedy’s, do not show any contrition, give no evidence of a firm purpose of amendment, or attempt at avoiding even the near occasion of the sin of protecting abortion with all their might. Not even close.
As a Catholic, all of those ingredients need to be present for one to be considered in communion with the Church. If one does not try, but goes to Church and receives communion fully intending to protect the institution of abortion, then one is a reprobate, savage and cruel. Even Jesus said that those who would harm the little ones would be better off with a millstone tied around their necks and cast into the sea. This from the one who forgave adulterers, whose sins strike at the security of a community, but not nearly as bad as those who champion the option of slaghtering the child of the womb.
Yes, we all sin; but not all of us seek mercy or forgiveness, or even wish to abandon our sin.
Those who revel in their sin of complicity in murder, using it as a selling point in their campaigns, have under church law excommunicated themselves. Bishops and priests who permit their attendance at mass and reception of Holy Communion aid in the destruction of the politician’s soul, and will answer for it before God.
Yes we all sin, but not even you would draw moral equivalence between stealing a toaster and murdering a baby.
Would you?
Ex-GOP wrote, “Is there anybody on this board that couldn’t be protested against for something? Anybody out there without sin?”
The problem, Ex-GOP, is that the people who are doing the sin refuse to acknowledge it as a sin. Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). There will be nobody who goes to hell because he has sinned too much for Jesus to save him; rather, those who go to hell will be there because they refuse to go to Jesus. They don’t need Him. As Gerard Nadal wrote, they don’t repent.
This wrong attitude which I think you are demonstrating inevitably surfaces when attempting to publicly discuss the perversion of homosexuality. However, Jesus Christ never ever excused sin of any kind. Sin by definition is missing the mark of godly behaviour, the kind of life we were meant to live. Jesus Christ died because of our sin. To the woman caught in adultery, He said (after everything else had been said), “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). Her guilt was not in dispute.
Jill Stanek asked, “Do you think it is acceptable to protest pro-abortion politicians outside their churches on Sunday mornings?”
No, I don’t. It is straining out a gnat and ignoring the camel. Any church that slanders her Lord is no longer a true church; it is a false church, a synagogue of Satan. The church itself needs to be protested.
It seems to me that any church that refuses to discipline a member on such a basic point of morality as that of the sanctity of human life is slandering the Lord she claims to worship. In this case that church is St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church. I am already a Protestant, and I regard the Roman Catholic Church as a false church. (It may indeed contain Christians, but they’re endangering their own souls by remaining under heretical teaching.)
As I have stated before, I am a Christian first and a pro-lifer second. I can communicate in all charity with many Romanists on this website because we share the same Judeo-Christian morality. Of course, with churches like St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church, I’m not even sure of that.
Kate wrote:
I’m not Catholic, so I may be completely wrong about this, but I thought that there WERE rules about who can and cannot receive communion–and people who partake in certain sins without confession cannot. I would think, for the Catholic Church, supporting abortion would be one of those sins.
You’re absolutely right: Canon 915 of the Catholic Code of Canon Law (which is binding on all Catholics) forbids such people (who have publicly and steadfastly entrenched themselves in serious sin–such as concrete support/promotion of abortion, which is gravely and intrinsically evil) from receiving Holy Communion, and it also forbids those who distribute Holy Communion from GIVING Holy Communion to them. The fact that a very large number of bishops and priests (to say nothing of lay extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion) are too timid (and/or politically confused and/or sympathetic) to enforce this law is a testimony only to their failure in this regard… and it is a nauseating and heart-rending scandal. No… you’re not mistaken in the least.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P38.HTM
Mark Zanghetti wrote:
I am afraid I disagree with you and most of your posters, it is NOT APPROPRIATE to picket outside a church to make a political point.
Er… leaving the main issue aside for a moment, may I make a correction? This is a MORAL point bing made, not merely a “political” point. The mere fact that politics has co-opted (and has become entangled in) the issue is incidental. Even in the case of highlighting the difference between two political candidates (which certainly involves politics, I’ll admit), the main/core point is MORAL. Slaughtering babies is IMMORAL, not simply “a politically different position which we happen not to like”; this is objective moral FACT we’re handling, here… not simply privatised and provincial political piffle. (Pardon the extreme alliteration, there…)
RSC: “Pro Choice,” Jill? Don’t you mean “Pro Abortion?”
Honestly, that is silly. There are plenty of “pro-lifers” who are okay with killing in some situations. In the context of the abortion debate, they would rather have the life of the unborn continue, however, versus having abortion be a legal choice. They aren’t “women-slavers.” They would be fine if nobody wanted an abortion.
Pro-choicers, too, would be fine if nobody wanted an abortion – and that’s the difference from somebody who would actually be “pro-abortion.”. They are for abortion being a legal choice, in some situations, and that is in the context of the abortion debate.
If you find somebody that is actually “pro-abortion,” then they are as anti-choice as any pro-lifer.
Lawrence R: By the same token, the politician who condones abortion should be made to stand in the room and watch an abortion, hear the machinery and the off-handed remarks, and count each piece of the baby after the grizzly deed.
No offense meant or taken, but I just can’t bear this one.
It’s “grisly.”
No, Doug, equating the words pro-life and pro-abortion is not silly. Pro-choice, however, is a bad label because it’s a silly euphemism. I might well say that I am pro-choice because of more than one personal conviction: (1) that God allows us to rule the world, i.e. make choices for it, and (2) that He tells us His choice is that we do not kill each other.
As God told the Jews, “Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!” (Ez. 18:30b-32) When He had made them a nation, He told them, “This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live” (Deut. 30:19).
Romans 13 tell us that the civil government is God’s minister. It has the power of the sword, which is used to kill. Yes, I’m for capital punishment and for war when they are required. Capital punishment is 100% pro-life, anyway, because the one who takes a life forfeits his own life: that’s the value of human life according to the One in whose image it was made. Anyway, the civil government is a means by which God restrains violence, and while the result is by no means pretty, anarchy is worse. The world before the Flood seemed to have been much worse.
I know you don’t believe in God (or, as I think you’ve said, you don’t know whether He exists, which practically is the same thing). But I do believe in Him, and so you’re basically pro-abortion in my thinking. You would let a mother kill her unborn child if that’s what she wanted to do. You wouldn’t restrain her by threat of punishment to her or the abortionist. That’s what I call pro-abortion.
Jon: No, Doug, equating the words pro-life and pro-abortion is not silly.
I agree, though I don’t think you really mean that. Both would be against choice and rather would have things mandated. I know, I know – “Hitler” – but he was definitely “pro-life” for Aryans as he wanted abortion forbidden, and “pro-abortion” for some others as he wanted abortions to be mandatory. In both cases he was anti-choice, not pro-choice.
____
Pro-choice, however, is a bad label because it’s a silly euphemism.
No it’s not. It means being for abortion being a legal choice. I’d be fine if nobody wanted to have an abortion. I’m still for it being a legal choice, while you are not.
If you see somebody saying that pregnancies “should be ended because… there are too many people on earth,” (for example) then you’ve actually got somebody who is “pro-abortion.”
____
I might well say that I am pro-choice because of more than one personal conviction: (1) that God allows us to rule the world, i.e. make choices for it, and (2) that He tells us His choice is that we do not kill each other.
Not really sure what all you mean, there. Okay, you have your beliefs, but in your mind it’s not a question how God acts, is it? So how could you be for things being one way or the other, there?
Doug wrote, “I agree, though I don’t think you really mean that.”
No, I didn’t! That was a silly mistake of mine. I meant that equating the words pro-choice and pro-abortion is not silly.
Doug asked, “It’s not a question how God acts, is it? So how could you be for things being one way or the other, there?”
As someone who was meant to be godly attempting to communicate with someone else who was meant to be godly, I say that it certainly is a question of how God acts. I’m pro-God’s-choice. However, a label can’t be too long, or else you would have to say that you’re pro-legal-choice-for-expectant-mother. You just want to be differentiated from the more rabid pro-abortionists, but I put you all in the same camp with that horrible word abortion. (To be precise, it is “voluntary” or “forced” abortion as opposed to “spontaneous” abortion, which is miscarriage.)
Doug asked, “in your mind it’s not a question how God acts, is it? So how could you be for things being one way or the other, there?”
Jon: As someone who was meant to be godly attempting to communicate with someone else who was meant to be godly, I say that it certainly is a question of how God acts. I’m pro-God’s-choice.
This is really just you saying you believe what you believe, and hey – we know from the get-go that different people believe different things, have different philosophies, and make different valuations.
You’re saying, “I think this.”
I’m saying let’s leave it up to what the pregnant woman thinks.
____
However, a label can’t be too long, or else you would have to say that you’re pro-legal-choice-for-expectant-mother.
Nah, that’s silly. It’s a given in this argument that pregnant women are the ones who will either continue pregnancies or not. We are either for abortion being a legal choice, or not.
____
You just want to be differentiated from the more rabid pro-abortionists, but I put you all in the same camp with that horrible word abortion. (To be precise, it is “voluntary” or “forced” abortion as opposed to “spontaneous” abortion, which is miscarriage.)
My point is that if you actually have somebody who is “pro-abortion,” then they are not pro-choice. Sure, there are some few individuals who are “for abortion,” per se, but that’s not being pro-choice.
I figure it’s like this; if I can be anti-abortion, you can be pro-abortion.
Jon – when you insult the “Romanists” then you injure the movement. I realize that we don’t agree on your church is the best or mine and may never. That said, rather than insult your faith, we pray and we work together on a common goal as I’m sure many of your church going friends also do. You thinking my Church is the false Church has little to do with the the topic of the conversation. Check the pride at the door.
Doug, what is the content of the “choice” in the context of the abortion debates? What does it mean to be pro-choice when talking about “reproductive rights?” What are the different choices that you see available to the Mother?
Joan, can you somehow distinguish yourself from the other Joan who is very pro-abortion? Its too confusing otherwise.
Also, I don’t think Jon was insulting anyone. You (Catholics) call me a “protestant” which I find mildly insulting since I have not ever protested the Catholic church. But I understand why since I can trace my church’s roots to those who realized the Catholic church had strayed from the Bible and thus protested that error. You follow a Pope in Rome. Does that not make you Romanists? There are American Catholics who are different from Roman Catholics. Why exactly are you offended then? Romanist isn’t used in a derogatory way.
Sydney –
There are many different Rites of the Catholic Church; the Latin (Roman) Rite is only one. Byzantine Catholics, Marionite Catholics, Chalcedean Catholics, etc. are in full communion with the Pope but are not Roman Catholics. So it is technically incorrect to refer to all Catholics as Roman Catholics.
Also, if you (and/or your church) do not submit to the Pope’s authority, you are, by default, protesting his authority – hence, you are Protestant. It’s not an insult, just a description.
Jon – your words make no sense. The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is an intrinsic evil – how is that “heretical”?
Sydney, I’m not even sure that the word Protestant originated with the Roman Catholics. I do protest against the heresies of the Roman Catholic Church. I do regard the pope as an antichrist. He, not Christ, is really the one who unites Roman Catholics, the Romanists.
I believe in one holy, catholic (universal) Church, and she is not Rome. I think she is composed of many Bible-believing, Christ-obeying, God-glorifying, gospel-preaching churches from all over the world. Those in them who do not believe are covenant-breakers or hypocrites and will go to hell. (And, likewise, those who believe but continue in Roman Catholic Churches are weak and foolish but will be saved so long as they continue to cling to Christ.)
JoAnna, I don’t think I said that the Roman Catholic Church as a whole was heretical in its teaching about abortion; in fact, I said that we subscribe to the same Judeo-Christian morality. I was referring to the damning (according to the apostle Paul) Roman Catholic perversion of the true gospel. Look at a post from Jill Stanek a few months ago: there was quite a discussion there about the Roman Catholic mass, which my church’s catechism calls an “accursed idolatry.”
Oops, I had trouble editing my previous comment. I had intended to say that I was referring to such damning (according to the apostle Paul) heresies as the Roman Catholic perversion of the true gospel.
Joan, I try to avoid being needlessly offensive. However, I think my words in the comment which prompted this further explanation were quite relevant and helpful to the question which Jill Stanek posed: “Is it acceptable to picket pro-choice politicians outside their church?”
Doug said, “It’s a given in this argument that pregnant women are the ones who will either continue pregnancies or not.”
No, it’s only a given in your thinking, which is not my thinking. I might argue that since a child belongs just as much to its father as its mother (in my thinking which is not your thinking), he gets to decide. But I don’t argue that because God says that nobody is to kill a human being except the civil government in the course of doing its job properly.
From that perspective, you are pro-abortion. The distinction you make is trivial and silly.
Oops, I had trouble editing my comment again. When I say, “it’s only a given in your thinking,” the “it” I’m referring to is the legal choice an expectant mother currently has to kill her child or not.
Jon,
You seem (at least, to my memory) to be rather new here (no offence intended), but: we’ve already had several round-and-round discussions which rapidly became a full-fledged row between Catholic and non-Catholic Christians; and throwing about such comments as “the pope is an anti-Christ” is almost certain to inflame another such eruption. We’ve seen it over and again: one side attacks the other with a tactless and inflammatory comment, the other side replies (with or without rage), but soon the discussion becomes too involved and convoluted for the patience of most commenters who really don’t want to discuss it or hear about it (especially since these types of deep discussion, citations of evidence, etc., make for VERY long comments; thoughtful, non-flaming replies on such topics don’t lend themselves to sound-bytes), or else it dissolves into a mere quarrel and screaming-match. I, for one, have had my fill of those (especially the latter).
If you’d like to thrash out the evidence for Catholicism vs. Protestantism, it may be wiser to take it to another venue (unless Jill is feeling whimsical enough to set up a permanent thread for that sort of thing)… and to keep the inflammatory criticisms out of the regular threads. I, for example, do not object to a civil discussion of the evidences for those positions (quarreling both irritates and wearies me, however); but it might be done best before an audience who isn’t disgusted by witnessing that sort of thing.
Paladin, go back and re-read the comments. Have I gone off-topic, except to reply to someone who took exception to what I said?
I’m quite sure I know what post of Jill you are referring to when you speak of “a full-fledged row between Catholic and non-Catholic Christians.” Hey, I was right on-topic in that post as well as the present one.
Jon, I highly encourage you to visit Catholic.com to learn what the Catholic Church actually teaches as opposed to what you think it teaches. The forums there (forums.catholic.com) are an excellent place for you to show Catholics your interpretation of Scripture. http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com is a good resource too.
My e-mail is jrwahlund at gmail dot com, if you’d like to privately discuss your views via e-mail. I’m a convert to Catholicism and I enjoy having discussions with non-Catholics about my faith. :)
JoAnna, I’m a Christian, and I would encourage you to acknowledge the differences between official Roman Catholic theology and truly Biblical theology. Enough said.
Jon, I’m Christian too. I was raised Protestant and converted to Catholicism as an adult, after intense research and study. There is not a single teaching of Catholicism that is anti-Biblical. If you believe so, it’s because you don’t know or understand Church teaching. I encourage you to avail yourself of the resources I listed above to find out what the Church really teaches instead of what you think it does.
Jon,
Here is one comment I ended with on one of those threads where I had a pleasant back and forth with other commentators. It may be one of the non-biblical topics you are referring to but let me post it and get your take on it if you would so I can possibly better my thinking on this.
Protestants express a hesitancy to invoke assistance of angels and saints during prayer cause scripture says that Jesus alone is the mediator between God and man. Catholics would agree with protestants on that but however a catholic would say that does not exclude invoking angels and saints in the Name of Jesus. Because when invoking angels and saints for assistance ‘in the name of Jesus’ then Jesus is still the mediator of your petition.
Ask yourself why did Jesus give the apostles power to perform miracles here on earth? Why didn’t he just make everybody come directly to him for help? One purpose for Jesus giving the apostles miraculous power is shown to us in the scriptures is when the apostles give glory to God by casting out demons and healing one another and even raising people from the dead in the name of Jesus.
I also look at the example Jesus gives to us at Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan river. John the Baptist tells Jesus that he doesn’t feel worthy enough to baptise him but Jesus insists John baptize him anyway so that all righteousness could be fulfilled. If Jesus could accept blessing and the grace of the Holy Spirit coming upon him through a human vessel then we should also open ourselves up to these graces per his example.
And as far as this thread topic is concerned I dare to say that if you cannot find condemnation of abortion both inside and outside a church then the that church is not guided by the Holy Spirit.
Jon,
I’m afraid this issue is not strictly a function of “on-topic vs. off-topic” (though the topic is “picketing pro-choice politicians”; how, exactly, do you figure that anti-Catholic gibes are on-topic?); it’s a measure of simple fact and history. You, dear fellow, are not likely to listen to any arguments on the pro-Catholic side, and you are not likely (especially with your anti-Catholic screed) to win hearts for your own cause from those who are faithful Catholics, and you’ll simply start a needless quarrel between two parties who are quite able to fight side-by-side in the battle against the Culture of Death.
Again: if you have a taste for thrashing out “Catholic vs. non-Catholic” issues, perhaps another forum (or a privatised thread) might do; otherwise, what is the point? You know, as well as I, that your current efforts will only lead to further ill-will and irritation. I’ve argued this sort of thing many, many times before… and I’ve found that this site is not particularly suited to “Catholic/anti-Catholic cage-matches”. Perhaps you might try Free Republic, or the like, if you truly wish to debate the issues (as opposed simply to throwing anti-Catholic grenades, and ignoring the substance of objections).
Case in point (at the risk of getting personal): there are at least a few faithful Christians on this very forum who find the Catholic/anti-Catholic feud to be a very raw, personal thing which has little joy, and much grief, associated with it; and quite frankly, friend, I find it rather crass of you to rip open such raw wounds, simply because you’re feeling chevalier and heedless in your zeal. If you’re utterly incapable of fighting for the cause of life without engaging in “friendly fire”, then you may need to re-examine your heart (and your thinking), in this matter. There are at least a few friends whom I, at least, would not like to see hurt by your misplaced zeal, and I’d also rather not suffer alienation from some of those same people (whom I respect a great deal) because of a quarrel which need not take place at all. Do stop it, eh? Nothing gained, and a great deal lost, does not make for a wise effort, Jon.
Paladin, I don’t believe I made any gibes. Also, take a good look at the question which is the headline for Jill’s post: “Is it acceptable to picket pro-choice politicians outside their church?” I answered it and only incidentally (but relevantly) referred to my differences with Roman Catholics. You, JoAnna, and Truthseeker are the ones who are turning this thread into a Protestant-Romanist controversy.
Again, here is what I wrote at 8:15 am. It was my first comment that had anything to do with Roman Catholics. My further comments were only written because of replies and (essentially) requests for further discussion.
—beginning of quote—
Jill Stanek asked, “Do you think it is acceptable to protest pro-abortion politicians outside their churches on Sunday mornings?”
No, I don’t. It is straining out a gnat and ignoring the camel. Any church that slanders her Lord is no longer a true church; it is a false church, a synagogue of Satan. The church itself needs to be protested.
It seems to me that any church that refuses to discipline a member on such a basic point of morality as that of the sanctity of human life is slandering the Lord she claims to worship. In this case that church is St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church. I am already a Protestant, and I regard the Roman Catholic Church as a false church. (It may indeed contain Christians, but they’re endangering their own souls by remaining under heretical teaching.)
As I have stated before, I am a Christian first and a pro-lifer second. I can communicate in all charity with many Romanists on this website because we share the same Judeo-Christian morality. Of course, with churches like St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church, I’m not even sure of that.
—end of quote—
AGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Leave the sideshow alone, peeps!
Jesus lovers, Unite!
Go Pack Go!
Jon,
You are full of ‘it’. Your rebuttal failed to mention how your saying that you think the pope is the anti-Christ is relevant to this thread but I digress.
You accuse me of slamming protestants when I did no such thing. If you want to engage in concilliatory dialogue about differences on Christian faith fine. But you don’t even have the honesty to admit ‘you’ brougt it up; not myself or JoAnna. Are you a troll? Or just striking out because of a jealousy or an inferiority complex? Or maybe a deep seeded anger cause your church does not openly speak out against abortion in the pulpit or publicly? Or perhaps you are post abortive yourself?
Back on topic. The Holy Spirit leads people to the church. A priest (or a pro-life life picketer outside of church) needs to balance offending people or turning people away from ‘communion’ with the church with our mission to make Jesus present every place. Love is patient and love is kind. And we are all to be governed by the new commandment of love. If I love my neighbor I want my neighbor in heaven for ever.
Jon,
I’ve said my piece, friend. I ask you to stay on topic AND to avoid anti-Catholic barbs in your commentary (which, even in your very first post, was utterly unnecessary to the point at hand–surely you see that? Delete it, and nothing of substance germane to the topic would be missing…), just as one can walk AND chew gum (or, more appropriately, walk and AVOID spitting at the occasional passer-by). I really don’t see how that could be confusing, or why you’d find it necessary to drop “only one lit match” near a gasoline-rich area. You have more than enough information to make a reasonable and charitable choice, or not. I do hope you choose the former, and that you don’t prove yourself to be some variant of a mere troll (i.e. dropping unnecessary grenades, and then consoling yourself with the [inaccurate] idea that “it was only one”, and/or “the others were only dropped when I was asked for further information”). Enough is enough, sir. The Catholic/non-Catholic battle is not welcome, here (as some of us have found out only by suffering wounds, scars, and some alienations between friends). Leave it alone, and stick with kindness, discretion, and tact.
Truthseeker, read what I wrote. Read it carefully. Nowhere have I accused you of “slamming Protestants.” Indeed, in this thread until now, I have only used your screen name once, and that was to write the following to Paladin, “You, JoAnna, and Truthseeker are the ones who are turning this thread into a Protestant-Romanist controversy.”
Regarding your digression, I did say that I thought the pope was an antichrist. I was responding to Sydney, a fellow Protestant who does not think of herself as a Protestant the reason that I do think of myself as a Protestant. I was also explaining the reason that I do not like to refer to Roman Catholics as Catholics.
Paladin wrote to me, “The Catholic/non-Catholic battle is not welcome, here (as some of us have found out only by suffering wounds, scars, and some alienations between friends). Leave it alone, and stick with kindness, discretion, and tact.”
I would urge you to take your own advice. And I regret nothing in my initial comment, which politely and briefly said what you are confirming by consuming the rest of the thread: that what divides us is much greater than that which unites us. And that’s a big part of my answer to the question which is the question Jill posed in this post on which we are commenting.
JoAnna,
I checked out that link you posted. Now I know what subsidiarity is ;)
“I can communicate in all charity with many Romanists on this website because we share the same Judeo-Christian morality. Of course, with churches like St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church, I’m not even sure of that.”
Jon
I have a few questions for you Jon. What denomination of Christian faith do you practice? Does your pastor preach from the pulpit that abortion is a sin? Does your church take a public stand or at least have a public statement of faith that condemns abortion like the Catholic catechism does? You may want to look inside yourself and see what spirit is guiding your tongue cause your mouth is filled with lies about a Catholic Church that you have very little comprehension of. Your boisterous comments that Roman Catholics follow the pope and not Jesus shows your complete ignorance of our faith combined with a complete willingness to slander fellow Christians (just cause you were talking to another protestant you felt it ok to call the pope an antichrist) and pretend it was not going to be offensive to half the Christians on this board. Do you believe yourself holier than every Roman Catholic who has ever walked the earth or just the pope? Do you believe you are holier than all the popes/leaders of the Roman Catholic church who have ever walked the earth including St. Peter? Do you believe you are holier than Blessed Mother Teresa and that your life is a better Christian example than hers because she followed an antichrist?
Start by making yourself small and not thinking yourself a better Christian than all the saints who ever walked this earth. Don’t think your interpretation of scripture makes you a better follower of Christ than the 2000 plus years of scripture interpretation handed down to us in the catechism of the Catholic Church. If you want to speak honestly about this instead of boasting in yourself then at least look in the Catholic Catechism about the topics you feel are heretical. You will find that EVERY teaching in there references the corresponding scripture and Jesus’ teaching that makes it valid. You may interpret some things differently and may want to refute some of the teachings but at least you will be able to share concilliatory dialogue with other followers of Christ instead of spitting venom at them.
I can communicate in all charity with many Romanists on this website because we share the same Judeo-Christian morality.
Jon, does that mean you have the same Judeo-Chistian morality as a bunch of people who follow an antichrist? You can rest assured then that I don’t share your Judeo-Christian morality cause I would never say my morals followed those of anybody who follows an antichrist. And you can also rest assured that you cannot communicate in all charity with many Romanists on this website.
Really, nobody can be that lost (or full of themselves). Jon must be a troll
(I pray for the unity of the Body of Christ. All of it. I attend a church which is not Roman Catholic. Jon, I do believe you are misinformed about Catholic beliefs, and the more you learn, the more you will respect your Roman (or other Catholic rite) brothers and sisters in Christ. Please find another forum, though, for the debating. I will not be engaged in this matter unless you desire to come to more understanding, not just insult Catholics.)
Doug–pro-choice is a silly term because it does not describe what the choice is.
I am pro-choice on spankings. I am pro-choice on paying taxes. I am pro-choice on lawnmowing. I am pro-choice on hot dog toppings. I am pro-choice on sugary caffeinated beverages. I am pro-choice on clothing.
I am pro-life on abortion.
Pro-choice doesn’t even always mean the same thing. For some of those issues I have a strong personal preference. For others I wish everyone did what I did. For some I don’t care if legislation limits choices. For some things I don’t care what I do, let alone what others do. For some issues I think there are some choices that should be allowed and others that shouldn’t. Pro-choice is a stupid term because it doesn’t tell you what kind of thing is being chosen–unless you are pro-choice on every issue there is. Most people are not pro-choice on rape, murder, arson, or theft.
Doug is pro-choice-to-murder-unborn-children. Clunky. But hard to argue with.
(For the record, I have no issue with Jill’s choice to sometimes use the term “pro-choice.”)
Normally I would have said picketing a pro-abortion politician outside her church is tacky and distasteful… but then I saw how it riled up the abortion fans and I thought, hey! this can’t be all bad.
cc, I’m so sorry that you didn’t get to obtain your precious suitable-for-framing ex-communication keepsake certificate. Poor baby. Maybe they’ll give you one when you get to Purgatory. Joan, I’m so sorry that you think going to church is all about making yourself feel good and having a wonderful-rainbows-and-unicorns religious experience. The rest of us go to Mass not to get something out of it, but to put something INto it. God was kind enough to give us life, the least we can do is set aside an hour a week to pray for our fellow man (during our intercessory prayers) and obey the directive of Jesus Christ himself (do this in memory of me).
Do you know why we have depictions of Jesus crucified? Because faith is not some feel-good self-serving pat on your own back. Faith is work.
Truthseeker, the following piece was my comment on February 20, 2010, at 12:17 pm for the “Weekend question 2/19-21/10” on this website. That question was, “What are your thoughts as pro-life activists becoming more confrontational with churches, maybe your own?” You and Paladin also made comments on the same post.
—beginning of quote—
My grandfather, now deceased, was a pastor. The following is a paragraph from a Mother’s Day sermon that he preached c. 1980 on Psalm 128.
You notice how this song closes? “Yea, thou shalt see thy children’s children, and peace upon Israel“–because man has found his place and because a woman has found her place. Mother’s Day–when mothers are saying, “I want to get rid of my baby.” That’s not an incidental thing. Last year in the United States there were over a million abortions. Since the ruling of the Supreme Court in the United States, there’s been over eight million babies murdered because women said, “We don’t want to be mothers! We have a right to our own bodies! And we can do as we please.” That isn’t where it stopped. That’s even entered into the matter of birth control, entered into the matter of women not at home but out working because we have to keep up with the Jones’s, and we have to keep up with the standard of living which the world has set–not God–the world. So mothers can’t be at home with those olive plants [which] need continual tending. They have to go out working. And the world has introduced that, and the Church bought it.
And the Church is going to pay an awful price, an awful price…
—end of quote—
Truthseeker, here is another comment which I made in the same post. This one I made on February 20, 2010 at 1:41 pm. Remember, the question was similar to the one made here: “What are your thoughts as pro-life activists becoming more confrontational with churches, maybe your own?”
—beginning of quote—
Here’s an excerpt from the sermon “Life to the Full” by Rev. John A. Bouwers at my parents’ church, Immanuel Orthodox Reformed Church, on December 13, 2009:
This afternoon as we come together to the Sixth of the Ten Commandments, we’re not dealing with something irrelevant or unimportant. The life commandment is not insignificant. It is God Himself addressing us about the importance and significance of life. Now it’s funny, in a very sad sort of a way, that today with all of the hype about Copenhagen and the concern for the future of life on this planet, many of the same people that are at the forefront of the concerns of our day are leaders in what we might call a culture of death. There is concern for our planet, there are concerns for the seals, there are concerns for the whales and for the polar bears, and who would suggest that we shouldn’t be concerned about such life? At the very same time, when it comes to the rampant murder of unborn babies or the growing threat and comfort that is to be seen around the world with the so-called euthanization of the elderly or the unimportant or the insignificant, then we have to say, with regard to this sad irony, that the teaching of our day, the thinking of many of our day, is not, “Live and let live,” but, “Live and let die.” It is good therefore that this afternoon we may pick up God’s life commandment, and that we may do so on this particular Lord’s day in the context of beginning to think in these days about the coming of our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. We do well to have to think about such horrors as abortion in the context of also reflecting on how our Saviour Himself took a body and came into the world as a helpless little one: little hands, little feet.
—end of quote—
Truthseeker, you said I have a complete willingness to slander fellow Christians. You said, “Just cause you were talking to another protestant you felt it ok to call the pope an antichrist.” That’s not true. I really believe the pope is an antichrist. That shouldn’t be news to you if you know anything about church history. It’s what my church teaches as a matter of fact. It’s a major reason–though probably not the biggest–that Protestants left the Roman Catholic Church to establish what they consider to be true churches of Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Church.
Why do you feign indignation to find a Protestant who protests the Roman Catholic Church?
I really believe the pope is an antichrist.
It doesn’t surprise me that there are many Popeaphobics (and also many Christaphobics) in our world.
Jon, I am truly curious in learning why you really believe the pope is an antichrist. Could you list your and your church’s reasons for this belief? Or give me a website to read?
As someone who tries to be a faithful Catholic, I love this. The politician here is the one who has made this a public issue, not the protesters. As of a few years ago, people were protesting outside of the Holy Cross Cathedral in Boston on Sunday mornings regarding the sex abuse crimes and cover ups by priests/the hierarchy. I’m glad they are/were there, too. If Mamie Locke’s pastor was doing his job, he would have spoken to her about this already. (Maybe he has, I don’t know.) It’s been a source of anguish over the past few decades to see bishops just kind of sit on their thumbs while politicians who call themselves Catholic do things/support issues that are not consistent with Catholic teaching and then receive Communion. It’s not about “judging” anyone. And it’s not about deeming anyone worthy. None of us is worthy. What we can be, however, is in a state of grace, or not. The Catholic Church teaches that those who give scandal (ie, those who may cause others to sin by their public actions) should not be receiving the Eucharist. And the poster at the top is correct, it started with the Kennedys.
to joan re John Q Abortion-Protester going into the church and hearing confessions: Catholics believe, as many non-Catholic Christians do, in the idea of a universal priesthood. What Catholics accept additionally, however, is the concept of an ordained priesthood. Priests, at their ordination, receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which confers upon them the capability to act “in persona Christi” and (among other things) dispense absolution to penitents in the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession). So, while anyone, eg, JQAP, is free to speak the truth, it doesn’t follow that he has the authority to dispense the sacraments.
Praxedes, I’ve grown up in the Reformed world, though not in the particular denomination which produced the following Web page. Perusing it quickly, I think I would agree with most of it. It speaks of the Antichrist, but prophecy is often murky to peer into, and so I would prefer to merely say that the pope–or, at least, the papacy–is an antichrist.
http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_3.html
Jon wrote, in reply to my comment:
I would urge you to take your own advice.
This is palpable nonsense, friend. When I urge civility, a return to the topic, and a refrain from slamming other faith-traditions with gratuitous barbs (whether your tradition endorses them or not), I was civil (can you say that I was not?), I was quite topic-oriented (i.e. shutting down an inflammatory rabbit-trail which you’re all too happy to perpetuate), and I did not utter so much as a single derogation against your particular denomination/group.
I’ll say again: your comment about the Catholic Church being a “false Church” (followed by even more inflammatory comments) did NOTHING to contribute to the original post’s topic; you could, had you felt an absolute need to say something of the sort, easily have made a general comment about “false Churches” without specifying the alleged “specific guilty parties”. You made a specific reference to the Catholic Church not out of topic-induced relevance, but because YOU WANTED TO DO SO.
You and I believe a great many things, I think, which are not shared here; avoiding needless commentary about that which will cause ill-will (without just cause) is a human skill known as TACT… and you seem not to be implementing it, for some reason. If you expect to be taken seriously at all, fellow (and not written off as a troll), you’ll remedy that lack. I assure you, I’m not alone in my view, here. You are, perhaps (forgive me), too inexperienced with this forum (or perhaps too heedless) to know that inter-denominational squabbles simply aren’t likely to have non-painful endings (with no resolution on the topics themselves), here. If you want to trumpet your group’s specific beliefs (especially those which denigrate other groups), then go elsewhere, or ask Jill to start a thread specifically for that purpose.
(Some commenters–such as Praxedes, Bobby Bambino, and others, including myself–have much more of a stomach for apologetics-based debates; but others have found them to be hurtful, distressing, and discouraging [in the sense that they see “a pro-life house divided”]. Have you never read where St. Paul urges us, even in matters where we are free, not to be selfish? (Romans 15:1-6) Please do so, now that you’ve been warned of the situation, here. Had this forum been filled with those who were “eager for honourable combat” in debate, then I would not be offering this admonition; but that is simply not the case, here.)
As a Catholic, I find this unspeakably repugnant.
I found this part of the article a bit funny.
As a Catholic, I find abortion unspeakably repugnant.
Some folks have made up their minds and do not wish to be informed. So I write this not for them but for curious readers:
On the shore of Galillee, after the resurrection, Jesus sat with the Apostles and he asked one of them a question three time: Peter, do you love me? When Peter answered yes, Jesus told him to feed his sheep and care for his flock.
In the town of Cesarea Phillipi, Jesus told Peter that he was the rock upon which he would build his church.
These passages are in ALL bible translations, no matter where you live, what language you speak, or which Christian church you attend. Jesus was very clear about what he said, he spoke in front of witnesses, and those witnesses passed on the word to next generation.
We have an expression that fits pro-choicers who show up at our church: cafeteria catholics. They think they can pick and choose what they want to believe. “Oh, ‘trinity’ I like that, but ew, respect life? hardly!” It aptly describes politicians like this lady and Nancy Pelosi. They like the cache of calling themselves catholic and politicians like to use that to exploit other catholics, especially those who aren’t properly educated (catechized) about their own faith.
We also see quite frequently on the internet and in our lives that many people go around thinking that Jesus said “don’t be judgemental” and nothing else. They believe he said that, just that, and only that. As if he spent three years going around the countryside saying only one thing. Gosh, the New Testament would be pretty brief if that were the case!
The writings of early Christians are still in print, still published, still available for research. The Catholic Church wasn’t founded by a bunch of secretive and mean old men without names. Do some reading. Do some research. And please, venture outside Wikipedia, please!!
And please, venture outside Wikipedia, please!!
:) I second that notion!
Jon,
You deign the pope to be something he is not cause you fear the truth. We will let your own link and your own response to the following three points be the proof. The following statements come directly from your link that defines an antichrist. I will post them here and challenge you to find me a speech or action where our our current Pope Benedict XVI (PB XVI) has fulfilled these antichrist criteria as taken right from your link. If you cannot provide me answers to the following questions then all may understand you to be a deciever spreading dissention thorughout the Body of Christ.
1) “He claims to be anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and claims to be qualified to do the work in God’s name of redeeming God’s people and renewing the creation.”
To the best of my knowledge the pope does nothing but encourage others to seek Christ for their redemption and never claimed to be able to ‘renew’ creation. You either find me a place where PB XVI encouraged others to seek anything other than Christ for their redemption or bite your forked tongue and stop spreading dissention and deception within the Body of Christ.
2) “The one motivating force in his life is opposition to Jesus Christ, opposition to all that He stands for, and to all that stand for Him.”
To the best of my knowledge the pope does nothing but encourage others to join together in Christ’s mission and support all that Christ stands for and all who stand for him. You either quote me a place where PB XVI told people to oppose Christ and what he stands for or bite your forked tongue so as not to spread unholy dissention and deception within the Body of Christ.
3) “Jesus was God’s choice to establish His kingdom, redeem His people, renew creation; Antichrist is Satan’s choice to establish his kingdom, gather in as many people as he can, and subject all to himself.”
To the best of my knowledge the pope has never tried to gather people together to subject themselves to himself. All he has done is encourage others to join together with him in subjugation to Jesus Christ. You either quote me a place where PB XVI told people to subjugate themselve to himself over Jesus Christ or bite your forked tongue and stop spreading unholy dissention and deception within the Body of Christ.
Jon,
Thank you for answering my question about wether or not your preacher speaks pro-life from the pulpit. Those are beautiful sermons your grandfather who was a pastor. His words seem to me to be filled with the Holy Spirit. And out of respect for the Holy Spirit in your grandfather’s words I will give you the benefit of the doubt in your sincereity here today.
Does your current pastor also speak out daily or weekly about the need for the Body of Christ to struggle against the evil of abortion? For instance; we just finished the 40 Days for Life campaign and our church was involved in picketing etc.
One other thing I need to say. Thank you and God bless all you non-Catholics who I have had the fortune to dialogue with on Jill’s site. Your spirit is uplifting and your love for Christ inspiring to my faith. I know there have been some epic battles but I for one have never felt anything but love for any of you. truthseeker
I think it is great that they point out people’s sin…this is what we are called to do…’get the evil out from among you’….if she doesn’t want to be accountable, don’t claim Christ. We are not to expect anything but sin from non-believers but from a follower of Christ, no matter what ‘religion’, we expect the moral high ground and protection of the ‘needy, who’s blood is precious to Him’. I praise God for those who think outside the box, get courageous and are over themselves, ie. don’t care if people like them, so they can go out and work to care for the needy and Christ did. Christ was assertive and we should be also, in love.
Truthseeker, I gave that Web reference to Praxedes because he asked for it. I don’t have the time now (or want to take the time now, since time is also a matter of priorities) to examine it in detail. Not giving you any answer to your question does not mean I am spreading dissension through the body of Christ, certainly not from my perspective (if the Roman Catholic Church is not a true church) and neither from your yours (since this “discussion” has continued to this length also because you and Paladin insist on continuing it). It takes two to argue.
James, the brother of the Lord, wrote something to the effect that “let not many of you become teachers, knowing that teachers will incur a stricter condemnation.” The pope as head of the Roman Catholic Church–earthly head, you would say–obviously supports official Roman Catholic doctrine, which corrupts the gospel, effectively finding salvation to not only be in Jesus Christ alone. As the apostle Paul said, let such a one be anathema, i.e. accursed. Actually, the pope actually defines and seals such doctrine because he can speak–as Roman Catholics have said–ex cathedra, in which case his words are inerrant and on the same level as the words of Scripture themselves.
There are no grounds in the Scriptures (the Protestant scriptures, not the Roman Catholic expanded version, and I would go to history for that, but not your version of it) for the office of the pope. There is no evidence that the apostle Peter ever went to Rome, and there are other interpretations of Jesus’ words to Peter in the often-quoted passage. I believe in an apostolic Church, but my church obviously does not define apostolicity in the same way yours does. Apostolicity has to do with the teaching of the apostles.
Remnant theology is prominent in the Bible. The Church grows and becomes strong. Satan as an angel of light (Antichrist?) infiltrates her and brings her low, to the point where only a minority believe. They are refined by the Holy Spirit, and the Church flourishes once again. The Protestant-Romanist split was not the first, as I’m sure you know.
Jon,
The problem with your post above is that you are not articulating authentic Catholic teaching, but some strange caricature of it. If you are going to oppose Catholic belief, have the courtesy to oppose what we ACTUALLY believe instead of what you THINK we believe.
Once again, forums.catholic.com is a good place for these discussions.
Truthseeker wrote, “Those are beautiful sermons your grandfather who was a pastor. His words seem to me to be filled with the Holy Spirit. And out of respect for the Holy Spirit in your grandfather’s words I will give you the benefit of the doubt in your sincereity here today.”
Thank you, Truthseeker. That’s very kind of you. He was a more gracious man than I am so far. Because of my current situation in China, I am worshipping with an evangelical fellowship group with which I have some differences (for example, over the sacrement of baptism). I’m happy to say that the fellowship believes the Bible to be the Word of God, having the utmost confidence in it, and their teacher explains it very well. I’ve not been in China long, and I haven’t yet heard a sermon which dealt with abortion, but I’m sure the fellowship knows it is murder. Actually, I think expository preaching is better than thematic preaching; the pastor goes through a longer text in a series of sermons, perhaps even verse by verse, to explain the meaning. Then the Scriptures themselves are more of a determiner of the content of the sermon. Of course, the Sixth Commandment (Protestant numeration) is only one point of morality, and the body of Christ needs instruction in more than morality (which, as you said, is summed up in the law of love).
Jon, Thanks for the webpage. I read through all of it. Because this post has misinformation about the Catholic faith, I respectfully agree to disagree with your (and said post’s) assertion that the pope (or the papacy) is a or the antichrist.
On that note, high-fives to those who have enough guts to protest proabort politicians at their prolife churches. I hope more peaceful protests like this happen in the future.
The Roman Catholic bible is not “expanded” Jon. You do not know your church history. The books that protestants CUT OUT are not extra, they existed all along. What is so awful in the book of Tobit that you can’t stand to read? It is too folksy for you? Not scholarly enough?
What about Wisdom? Too high-falutin’ for you? Too Solomon-ish? Don’t like Wisdom personified as a female? What’s your beef with the other books? You don’t like to see Holofernes get his head lopped off by a girl?
What about Macabees??? Too much action and adventure? It would be difficult for us today to fully understand the first century people without knowing anything about the Macabees. Why did people expect a military leader to emerge as the Messiah? Why were the Sanhedrin so un-impressed with the carpenter’s son? These are questions you ought to be asking yourself.
To refer to those books as “expanded” only undermines your own credibility and it’s a disservice to other Christians not to point it out.
Not giving you any answer to your question does not mean I am spreading dissension through the body of Christ
Oh yes it does. Dissention and deception. You can’t even support the three things you posted as ‘evidence’. Enough said huh? Would you like me to show you quotes from PB XVI or other popes where they actually speak the opposite of what you claim? I would if you are genuinely interested and if I thought it would in any way even mean anything to the way you regard their teachings.
By the way, boys and girls, archeologists have confirmed that the bones beneath the Vatican were indeed Peter’s. That means that when Jesus said his church would be founded on Peter, he spoke both in the sense of Peter as a leader as well as physically. Physically, the buildings that later became the Vatican actually were built on top of Peter’s remains. Not one syllable of God’s word will go unfulfilled, not one letter, apostrophe or yod.
Oh my gosh people! Can we just fight the common enemy and we can slay each other later. I’d love to chime in on the Catholic/Protestant issue but it’s divisive and VERY off topic.
EWTN television and radio also have shows where viewers and listeners can call in and ask questions. If anyone out there is curious and wants a personal answer to some of the issues brought up on this thread, please do check them out and call in. Also there are some excellent websites you can browse through.
One of my recommendations is biblechristiansociety.com (not to be confused with christian bible society, those are two different sites).
It may seem off topic, true, but these kinds of arguments are quite common. I’ve been studying church history as well as biblical archeology for a few years now. I’m confident that anyone who digs for the truth will uncover the answers they seek, but you may find some answers to be different than what you expect or have been lead to believe.
I often tell people who have a deep bias against the Catholic Church to go ahead and explore Orthodox faith (such as Greek or Syriac for example). Historically, we started out as one single Church. Go tell an Orthodox bishop that ‘apostolic’ is relative and you can define it as you like, and see how far you get with that.
The notion that any man can decide for himself what is true and not, what is right and wrong is how we ended up in a world with millions of tiny children dead through elective abortion.
I prayed to the Lord on this catholic/protestant dialogue and here is what he said to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcU5ENgutpE&feature=related
Ack! Here comes the debate on what defines good church music! LOL!
I wish they would do it more often at Catholic churches! Possibly EVERY Catholic has a parishioner who has blood on their hands. Expose them – expose them all.
I am Catholic.
Actually, Ninek, the Bible early on only included those books at the local councils. There were church fathers in various writings- major ones at that- which then even as of the fourth and fifth centuries excluded those books from canon. Athanasius and Jerome, for example.
My answer to question: no.
Punisher, why not?
Actually, Ninek, the Bible early on only included those books at the local councils. There were church fathers in various writings- major ones at that- which then even as of the fourth and fifth centuries excluded those books from canon. Athanasius and Jerome, for example.
Punisher, which books in particular are you referring to. Just because they may not have been included in some of the early books does not mean they are not recognized as being canonical.
“Therefore guard against profitless grumbling,
and from calumny* withhold your tongues;
For a stealthy utterance will not go unpunished,
and a lying mouth destroys the soul.
Wisdom 1:11
Oh, it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen;
My father, he was Orange and me mother, she was green!
My father was an Ulster man, proud Protestant was he.
My mother was a Catholic girl, from County Cork was she.
They were married in two churches, lived happily enough,
Until the day that I was born and things got rather tough.
Oh, it is the biggest mixup that you have ever seen;
My father, he was Orange, and me mother, she was Green!
Baptized by Father Riley, I was rushed away by car,
To be made a little Orangeman, my father’s shining star.
I was christened “David Anthony,” but still, inspite of that,
To me father, I was William, while my mother called me Pat.
Oh, it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen;
My father, he was Orange, and me mother, she was Green.
With Mother every Sunday, to Mass I’d proudly stroll.
Then after that, the Orange lodge would try to save my soul.
For both sides tried to claim me, but I was smart because
I’d play the flute or play the harp, depending where I was.
Oh, it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen;
My father, he was Orange, and me mother, she was Green.
Now when I’d sing those rebel songs, much to me mother’s joy,
Me father would jump up and say, “Look here would you me boy.
That’s quite enough of that lot”, he’d then toss me a coin
And he’d have me sing the Orange Flute or the Heroes of The Boyne.
Sure, it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen;
My father, he was Orange, and me mother, she was Green!
One day me Ma’s relations came round to visit me.
Just as my father’s kinfolk were all sitting down to tea.
We tried to smooth things over, but they all began to fight.
And me, being strictly neutral, I bashed everyone in sight.
Oh, it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen;
My father, he was Orange, and me mother, she was Green.
My parents never could agree about my type of school.
My learning was all done at home, that’s why I’m such a fool.
They’ve both passed on, God rest ’em, but left me caught between
That awful color problem of the Orange and the Green.
Oh, it is the biggest mix-up that you have ever seen;
My father, he was Orange, and me mother, she was green!
These books have always been recognized (incuding by Jerome) to be the Word of God (inspired by the Holy Spirit). The reason they were the subject of scrutiny is that for posterity’s sake the Holy See translated the entirety of scripture to Latin in the fourth century. The seven books of the Old Testament that some fail to include in their Bible are books that were translated from (originally written in) Greek. All the other 39 books of the Old Testament that are in common in everybody’s Bible were translated from (originally written in) Hebrew.
“archeologists have confirmed that the bones beneath the Vatican were indeed Peter’s” – really? They traced DNA from the bones back through his family’s bloodline did they?
I would have thought that all archeologists can confirm is that there are some bones of a certain age in a certain spot which fits with certain accounts of what may have happened in a certain place at a certain time. The rest is obscurities, variables and fables.
Lovely voice you have there jtm :-)
I would have thought that all archeologists can confirm is that there are some bones of a certain age in a certain spot which fits with certain accounts of what may have happened in a certain place at a certain time.
Reality,
Does your brain hurt a lot when you think?
Not at all tru75%eeker, sticking with facts, truths, logic, reason, evidence, rationality and realities helps the thought processes work quite smoothly. I think pain might occur if I was trying to convince the world that one of many ethereal entities with supposed supernatural powers was the one and only truth.
Are you intimating that you have any real, empirical, testable evidence that some bones found beneath the vatican are in fact the bones of Peter and that Peter is indeed who he is claimed to be and did what is claimed of him?
Truth seeker,
You are way wrong to claim the church always have those books as part of canon. Not even New Advent would agree with you on that.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
The full realization of this truth came slowly, at least in the Orient, where there are indications that in certain quarters the spell of Palestinian-Jewish tradition was not fully cast off for some time. St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament. While maintaining the familiar arrangement of the Septuagint, he says that he verified his catalogue by inquiry among Jews; Jewry by that time had everywhere discarded the Alexandrian books, and Melito’s Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther. It should be noticed, however, that the document to which this catalogue was prefixed is capable of being understood as having an anti-Jewish polemical purpose, in which case Melito’s restricted canon is explicable on another ground. St. Irenæus, always a witness of the first rank, on account of his broad acquaintance with ecclesiastical tradition, vouches that Baruch was deemed on the same footing as Jeremias, and that the narratives of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon were ascribed to Daniel. The Alexandrian tradition is represented by the weighty authority of Origen. Influenced, doubtless, by the Alexandrian-Jewish usage of acknowledging in practice the extra writings as sacred while theoretically holding to the narrower Canon of Palestine, his catalogue of the Old Testament Scriptures contains only the protocanonical books, though it follows the order of the Septuagint. Nevertheless Origen employs all the deuterocanonicals as Divine Scriptures, and in his letter of Julius Africanus defends the sacredness of Tobias, Judith, and the fragments of Daniel, at the same time implicitly asserting the autonomy of the Church in fixing the Canon (see references in Cornely). In his Hexaplar edition of the Old Testament all the deuteros find a place. The sixth-century Biblical manuscript known as the “Codex Claromontanus” contains a catalogue to which both Harnack and Zahn assign an Alexandrian origin, about contemporary with Origen. At any rate it dates from the period under examination and comprises all the deuterocanonical books, with IV Machabees besides. St. Hippolytus (d. 236) may fairly be considered as representing the primitive Roman tradition. He comments on the Susanna chapter, often quotes Wisdom as the work of Solomon, and employs as Sacred Scripture Baruch and the Machabees. For the West African Church the larger canon has two strong witnesses in Tertullian and St. Cyprian. All the deuteros except Tobias, Judith, and the addition to Esther, are biblically used in the works of these Fathers. (With regard to the employment of apocryphal writings in this age see under APOCRYPHA.)
More:
In this period the position of the deuterocanonical literature is no longer as secure as in the primitive age. The doubts which arose should be attributed largely to a reaction against the apocryphal or pseudo-Biblical writings with which the East especially had been flooded by heretical and other writers. Negatively, the situation became possible through the absence of any Apostolic or ecclesiastical definition of the Canon. The definite and inalterable determination of the sacred sources, like that of all Catholic doctrines, was in the Divine economy left to gradually work itself out under the stimulus of questions and opposition. Alexandria, with its elastic Scriptures, had from the beginning been a congenial field for apocryphal literature, and St. Athanasius, the vigilant pastor of that flock, to protect it against the pernicious influence, drew up a catalogue of books with the values to be attached to each. First, the strict canon and authoritative source of truth is the Jewish Old Testament, Esther excepted. Besides, there are certain books which the Fathers had appointed to be read to catechumens for edification and instruction; these are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Esther, Judith, Tobias, the Didache, or Doctrine of the Apostles, the Shepherd of Hermas. All others are apocrypha and the inventions of heretics (Festal Epistle for 367). Following the precedent of Origen and the Alexandrian tradition, the saintly doctor recognized no other formal canon of the Old Testament than the Hebrew one; but also, faithful to the same tradition, he practically admitted the deutero books to a Scriptural dignity, as is evident from his general usage. At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.
The influence of Origen’s and Athanasius’s restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them “ecclesiastical” books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books. In appreciating his attitude we must remember that Jerome lived long in Palestine, in an environment where everything outside the Jewish Canon was suspect, and that, moreover, he had an excessive veneration for the Hebrew text, the Hebraica veritas as he called it. In his famous “Prologus Galeatus”, or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith are not on the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine. An analysis of Jerome’s expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the “confirmation of the doctrine of the Church“, to borrow Jerome’s phrase.
Early church father writings on the issue:
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocryphapart2.html
Melito
Melito, to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour, and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou in thy yearning after God, esteemeth these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I came East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.
Origen
It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two…The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: Genesis…Exodus…Leviticus…Numbers…Deuteronomy…Jesus, the son of Nave…Judges and Ruth…the first and second of Kings…the third and fourth of Kings…the Chronicles, the First and the Second in one…Esdras, First and Second in one…the book of Psalms…the Proverbs of Solomon…Ecclesiastes.. the Song of Songs…Isaiah…Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one…Daniel…Ezekiel…Job…Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees..
Jerome
The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth, Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call Thorath, that is law.
The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, who among them is called Joshua the son of Nun. Next in the series is Spohtim,that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is, Kings, which is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel, which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah, the sixth Jeremiah, the seventh Ezekiel, the eighth is the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called among the Jews Thare Asra.
To the third class belong the Hariographa, of which the first book begins with Job, the second with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise in one volume of Psalms; the third is Solomon, in three books, Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth, Ecclesiastes, that is Coeleth, the Song of Songs, which they denote by the title Sir Assirim; the sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dabre Aiamim, that is, Words of Days, which we may more expressively call a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history, the book that amongst us is called First and Second Chronicles; the eighth, Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books; the ninth is Esther.
And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four book of the old law. And these the Apocalypse of John represents by the twenty-four elders, who adore the Lamb, and with downcast looks offer their crowns, while in their presence stand the four living creatures with eyes before and behind, that is, looking to the past and the future, and with unwearied voice crying, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who wast, and art, and art to come.
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a ‘helmeted’ introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which finally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style. Seeing that all this is so, I beseech you, my reader, not to think that my labors are in any sense intended to disparage the old translators. For the service of the tabernacle of God each one offers what he can; some gold and silver and precious stones, others linen and blue and purple and scarlet; we shall do well if we offer skins and goats hair (NPNF2, Vol. 6, St. Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome’s Works, The Books of Samuel and Kings, pp. 489?490).
Additional comments from Jerome: ‘These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way…Genesis … Exodus … Leviticus … Numbers … Deuteronomy … Job … Jesus the son of Nave … Judges … Ruth … Samuel … The third and fourth books of Kings … The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea … Joel … Amos … Obadiah … Jonah … Micah … Nahum … Habakkuk … Zephaniah … Haggai … Zechariah … Malachi … Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel … Jeremiah also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres (Lamentations)… David…sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) … Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal (Song of Songs) … Esther … Ezra and Nehemiah.
You see how, carried away by my love of the scriptures, I have exceeded the limits of a letter…The New Testament I will briefly deal with. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John … The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle – that to the Hebrews – is not generally counted in with the others) … The Acts of the Apostles … The apostles James, Peter, John and Jude have published seven epistles … The apocalypse of John…
I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else (NPNF2, Vol. 6, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-10).
Tell you what, Punisher – I’ll read your content if you read mine:
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/10/protestantism-and-early-church-fathers.html
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/07/answering-nine-arguments-about.html
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/03/can-protestants-rely-upon-jewish.html
If we’re going to appeal to St Jerome to try and argue that the Deuterocancnical books are not part of scripture, are we also in agreement with him when he staunchly defends the perpetual virginity of Mary against Helvidius by answering nearly every objection that is given even today back in circa AD 380? http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/helvidiu.htm
You missed my point. I was responding to claim those books have always been part of canon. I simply pointed out from historical evidence that such a claim is untenable. Jerome’s writings be it on this or perpetual virginity of Mary, like it or not depending which position you are on on the issues are what we call historical evidence or primary source.
Punisher,
You missed my point. These books from their time of creation were ALWAYS inspired by the Holy Spirit. They did not BECOME inspired by the Holy Spirit on a later day of your choosing. They have NEVER BEEN deemed otherwise. That is my point.
Not at all tru75%eeker.
‘Reality”,
Are you certain your brain may not have hurt at certain times in certain spots based upon certain thoughts that occured at certain times? I can’t be certain but sticking with facts, truths, logic, reason, evidence, rationality and realities it would certainly be possible one of those certain times may have occurred when you thought for certain that the US only supplies 25% of the NATO military/defense budget.
I didn’t miss your point highlighted by the fact you did claim Jerome never rejected those books. You earlier stated that those books have always been recognized as canon. Now you are shifting argument to say it was inspired from the time of creation. Two different arguments. Even if it is true that those books were canon from creation doesn’t mean those books were always recognized as such.
I think we can all agree that I missed teh point by shooting off a “reply” post in haste, haha…
The quotes showed at times those books were not seen as canon.
Your last post was just simply begging the question then trying to make history conform to that.
I agree that whatever is canon is determined from creation even before written.
But that has nothing to do with whether or not this person or that person or the church of this period of that held to such.
And I didn’t argue that canon is determined by the church at temporary point. I argued that the church at some points in history didn’t see it as canon handed down from God.
You missed my point.
Punisher, I may have confused canonical to mean “written by God (inspired by the Holy Spirit)”. Does canonocal mean something other than that then that the book is the Word of God? If so then my mistake and sorry for any point of confusion.
The last post was to truth seeker.
I have a great idea. Let’s all Christians unite and work together to end abortion! Not to say that we don’t want the help of non Christians too. But we as Christians need unity in our house so we can be effective outside of it.
“f a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.”
Matt 3:24
Some Guy: I figure it’s like this; if I can be anti-abortion, you can be pro-abortion.
Sure, and both are anti-choice. Pro-choice is different.
Tyler: Doug, what is the content of the “choice” in the context of the abortion debates? What does it mean to be pro-choice when talking about “reproductive rights?” What are the different choices that you see available to the Mother?
The choice of abortion being legal or not. Being pro-choice is being for it to be legal. The pregnant woman can continue the pregnancy, or not. She can have an abortion, or not.
Jon: However, a label can’t be too long, or else you would have to say that you’re pro-legal-choice-for-expectant-mother.
Doug: “Nah, that’s silly. It’s a given in this argument that pregnant women are the ones who will either continue pregnancies or not. We are either for abortion being a legal choice, or not.”
No, it’s only a given in your thinking, which is not my thinking.
Oh come on – women are the ones who get pregnant. And pro-lifers are not for abortion being a legal choice, while pro-choicers are.
___
I might argue that since a child belongs just as much to its father as its mother (in my thinking which is not your thinking), he gets to decide.
Sure, you could, but that in no way negates anything I’ve said. It’s a separate, though interesting argument.
____
But I don’t argue that because God says that nobody is to kill a human being except the civil government in the course of doing its job properly.
Your opinion – which cannot be proven to be anything more than imaginary. Governments doing their job properly don’t take away liberty from people on the basis of such.
____
From that perspective, you are pro-abortion. The distinction you make is trivial and silly.
Nonsense. I’m not “for tattoos” – I’d rather have people not get them, versus get them. Yet I wouldn’t have it be illegal for people to get them. Being for the legality of a thing is not the same as being for the thing, necessarily. Being for abortion being legal is not the same thing as being “for abortion,” per se.
Young Christian Woman: Doug–pro-choice is a silly term because it does not describe what the choice is.
In the context of the abortion debate, the silliness, if anything, is to pretend that it’s not understood that it’s the legal choice of abortion.
Plenty of pro-lifers are for the death penalty, for it being legal to kill in self-defense in cases of home invasion, etc. There too, it would be silly, in the context of the abortion debate, to say they are not “pro-life.”
The choice of abortion being legal or not.
If you are in favor of a “choice” being legal, then obviously you feel that the “choice” of killing a child is at the the very least morally neutral. Therefore, you are “pro-killing-children-as-a-morally-legitimate-choice” – in other words, you are pro-abortion.
I didn’t miss your point highlighted by the fact you did claim Jerome never rejected those books.
Again, “the canon of Sacred Scripture is the list of books recognized by the church as inspired by the Holy Spirit”; so you did miss my point or you simply disagree. Cause Jerome never ‘rejected’ those books. He always deemed them to be written directly at the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
JoAnna: If you are in favor of a “choice” being legal, then obviously you feel that the “choice” of killing a child is at the the very least morally neutral.
Of course not. Why would you assume that? First of all, you are spinning things your own way, i.e. “child” is subjective and is hardly a meaningful debate point.
Second, the “unborn baby” (if you wish) is not the only consideration. There is the pregnant woman to consider, as well. Thus, an abortion need not be “neutral.”
A person might have a range of feelings about abortion and still feel that society does not have a good enough reason to take away the liberty that women now have.
____
Therefore, you are “pro-killing-children-as-a-morally-legitimate-choice” – in other words, you are pro-abortion.
Wrong. Are you “pro-slavery” since you want the pregnant woman’s will subverted to your own, just as the masters did with the slaves? The question is whether we have abortion as a legal choice or not.
Doug – it is an objective fact that an zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. is a child. It is the human offspring of two biological parents. I say again, if you favor an alleged legal “right” for a parent to kill their offspring, then you consider that choice to be a legitimate choice to make.
If you regularly vote for laws which are personally morally repugnant to your own sensibilities, I question your logic and the ability of your conscience to function.
Are you “pro-slavery” since you want the pregnant woman’s will subverted to your own, just as the masters did with the slaves? The question is whether we have abortion as a legal choice or not.
By that logic, Doug, you must be in favor of all murder. For example, if you feel it should be a crime for a woman to kill her husband in lieu of a messy, expensive divorce, then obviously you want that woman’s will subverted to your own. If you feel it should be a crime for a woman to smother her newborn seconds after birth, then you want that woman’s will subverted to your own. And so on.
Punisher,
I think you may be getting thrown cause you are looking only at Jerome’s writings about books that he translated from Hebrew and disregarding the ones he translated from Greek.
I found this on somebody’s facebook page while I was researching and seems to sum things up about the biblical differences pretty accurately
We know that Jesus and the apostles read the Septuagint. The original Scriptures were written in Hebrew. By the time of Christ, the Jews had been scattered among the nations, and most Jews could no longer speak Hebrew. The Scriptures were then translated into Greek. The books of the Septaguint were included in the Greek compilation of Jewish Scripture. There are phrases used in the Greek translation that differ from the Hebrew. The Gospels use the Greek phrases, suggesting that Jesus and the apostles were reading the Greek compilation, containing the books of the Septaguint. A fairly lengthy list of the differences between the Greek & Hebrew translations can be found here:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html
No I didn’t miss your point. You bait and switch. You first claim I miss your point on grounds that canon comes from creation so it doesn’t natter what folks then say since it was around to dismiss quotes I presented from back then.
If I refer to what Jerome wrote then your post show I didn’t miss the point since you claim Jerome held to your view and I cited him to show otherwise.
Merely asserting your canon had always been accepted then saying I can’t cite folks like Jerome otherwise only to claim them for yourself is not proof of anything other then you talking in circles and wanting it both ways where their quotes is irrelevant to the issue yet you can claim them for your views.
If you claim them for your views then is laughable that you play the trump card I missed the point in citing them to show otherwise.
All you got so far is to say I cant quote them since canon has been before creation so it doesn’t matter what they say.
Yet then claim them for your view when it suits you to claim the church had always accepted your view!!!!
And not deal with what they say.
In other words I didn’t miss the point at all. You move the goalposts back and forth so to not to deal with what they actually said.
Again see New Advent article which is indeed Catholic. It admitted Melito, Jerome, Athanasius and many church fathers didn’t include those books in canon and that there was real disagreement in early church on if they belonged.
JoAnna: Doug – it is an objective fact that an zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. is a child. It is the human offspring of two biological parents. I say again, if you favor an alleged legal “right” for a parent to kill their offspring, then you consider that choice to be a legitimate choice to make.
I do consider it a legitimate choice to make. If the pregnancy is unwanted, I don’t think society has a good enough reason to make laws against ending it. (That’s generalizing, as I’m okay with restrictions on abortion late in gestation, but as for when the overwhelming majority of abortions are done, then yeah, I’m okay with people choosing to have abortions). That’s not the same thing as wanting people to do it, though. I’d rather that nobody wanted to have an abortion.
No, “child” is not objectively applicable to the unborn. It’s a subjective deal. It’s just as correct to say that “child” means from birth to a later time, and not before. Anyway, the abortion debate isn’t (hopefully, anyway) people stomping their feet and saying, “IS a baby,” and “IS NOT a baby,” etc. Nobody gets anywhere that way, and it really isn’t the physical nature of the unborn that is at argument.
____
If you regularly vote for laws which are personally morally repugnant to your own sensibilities, I question your logic and the ability of your conscience to function.
I don’t, so you can rest assured that all is well. ;)
____
“Are you “pro-slavery” since you want the pregnant woman’s will subverted to your own, just as the masters did with the slaves? The question is whether we have abortion as a legal choice or not.”
By that logic, Doug, you must be in favor of all murder.
Heh – my point was and is that it’s not really logical. There is a difference between being “for a thing” and “wanting a thing” versus not thinking it should be illegal for some others to choose it, as with eating at McDonalds more than three times a day, tattoos, piercings, getting their tongues split, etc. Hey – I’m not saying it should be illegal, but there’s no way I’m advocating that, nor that I even see it as “neutral.”
If somebody is truly “pro-abortion,” then they are as anti-choice as any pro-lifer. Of course you’re not really a “woman-slaver,” and of course there can be a difference between being “for something” and feeling that society doesn’t have a good enough reason to outlaw it.
____
For example, if you feel it should be a crime for a woman to kill her husband in lieu of a messy, expensive divorce, then obviously you want that woman’s will subverted to your own. If you feel it should be a crime for a woman to smother her newborn seconds after birth, then you want that woman’s will subverted to your own. And so on.
For the most part, I’m cool with the laws that society has. My point was that you’re a pro-lifer, not a woman-slaver, just as there’s a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. To have to pretend otherwise is a weak position for an argument.
Punisher – one of the links I posted above addresses that issue: http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/10/protestantism-and-early-church-fathers.html
Doug –
I do consider it a legitimate choice to make.
If you feel abortion is a legitimate choice, you are indeed pro-abortion. If it’s a perfectly legitimate choice, why oppose that particular descriptor?
No, “child” is not objectively applicable to the unborn.
The dictionary disagrees with you.
just as there’s a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion
Except that there’s not. I think you see pro-abortion as the position “pregnancy should be outlawed and every single pregnant woman should be forced to have an abortion.” But that’s not it at all; that would be “pro-forced-abortion”. Pro-abortion is simply, “Abortion is a morally legitimate option.” It’s the belief that it’s perfectly acceptable to kill an unborn child for arbitrary reasons.
Punisher,
Do I have to copy and paste from your own posts for you?
You perceive I moved the goal posts but I did not. AndI clarified this for you by stating my understanding on the canon is that; ““the canon of Sacred Scripture is the list of books recognized by the church as inspired by the Holy Spirit”. Are you saying that you come from the camp that dismisses some of these books not because the were not inspired by the Holy Spirit but rather because they lack verification of Jewish antiquity? Because nowhere in your posts did you provide any evidence that Jerome or any of the other doctors of the church ever denied these books were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Nowhere in my posts was evidence provided that any of the doctors of the church ever denied those books as part of canon?
You are in total denial with that claim.
Your own church cite, New Advent, states: “Melito’s Canon consists exclusively of the protocanonicals minus Esther.”
Furthermore, it states (on Athansius): “Following the precedent of Origen and the Alexandrian tradition, the saintly doctor recognized no other formal canon of the Old Testament than the Hebrew one; but also, faithful to the same tradition, he practically admitted the deutero books to a Scriptural dignity, as is evident from his general usage.”
Your own church site also disagreed with you on Jerome saying he strongly doubted the canon status of those books but only saw them as useful as Scriptures for instruction at best (but without the Scriptural status): ”
An analysis of Jerome’s expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the “confirmation of the doctrine of the Church“, to borrow Jerome’s phrase.
More from your own New Advent/Catholic Encyclopedia:
The influence of Origen’s and Athanasius’s restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them “ecclesiastical” books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books.
Your own church site states the doubt as to if those books belong to canon was widespread in the church back then as well:
St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha.
And I never claim those books in your view became canon at later date from their creation. That is strawman on your part.
My point was that your claim that there was never denial of canonocity is your problem with history. Not even the New Advent, no much Catholic the site is, would agree with you on that.
“you thought for certain that the US only supplies 25% of the NATO military/defense budget” – well hardly just ‘thought’ so tru75%eeker, since I provided three links from the copious quantities of evidence which supports that figure. While you provided what, the same statement from one person? Over and over again. That’s gotta hurt your brain.
Nowhere in my posts was evidence provided that any of the doctors of the church ever denied those books as part of canon?
You are in total denial with that claim.
Notice how you procedded to post new info and none of your previous posts. ;)
Oh really? That proves then you didn’t even read the old info I posted originally for you to claim I did not provide any evidence that any of the church fathers denied those books as part of canon.
The so-called “new info” was direct quote from one of previous info I posted, from New Advent article in posts at 6:42 and 6:45 AM.
So since you did not read the posts obviously (since you didn’t know that those were quotes from previous posts citing the New Advent source) how do you know I did not provide any evidence?
Cutting and pasting, that’s what I see.
Jon obviously never read Tobit or Wisdom to see what was in it. He thought that it had some relevance to his notion that the Pope is an anti-christ.
Sadder still, when I see all that website cutting and pasting, it proves to me that you didn’t read the books either. We just used Wisdom in our liturgical readings on Sunday. Try reading it itself instead of a website about it.
If Jon had actually read them, he’d know that bringing up the Apocrypha was completely irrelevant to an argument he tried to make but couldn’t even defend. Not only that, if you can’t own your words and rationalize your own ideas, why bother? If this is where the information superhighway leads, then I’m getting off at the next exit.
Back to the real discussion at hand:
I would not protest the person at his own church.
Time and place for everything.
Ninek,
I do think that those boards ought to be read as useful for instruction but in terms of canon? Not quite. But it is one of those issues I can see why folks differ from me and I think on this both sides got valid points in appealing to early church since both views existed back then on this.
Jerome in the year A.D. 402 defended the deuteroncanoical additions to the book of Daniel:
As a Hebrew scholar Jerome did view the deuterocanoical texts with suspicion. In his fromative years he offered honest debate as to their authenticity. He did however come to accept them as part of the canonical texts as can be attested to in his letter above and many other writings. To say that he ‘rejected’ them is false. He did question their authenticity as was his job as prescribed to him by the pope but he did not ‘reject’ them. If you seek the truth then you would admit that he came to ‘accept’ them as part of the canon. ;)
Your problem is with the New Advent site (which is Catholic) then, since it says he strongly doubted it but at times wrote stuff like you cited there.
And that’s not the only writing he had on subject, In his list of canon, he excluded those books from the list.
And your quote only prove additions to one book.
Never claimed Jerome’s canon is exactly same as mine.
Just saying your claim no church father ever deny those books as part of canon is arguing both with history and even with Catholic scholars.
Or you want to claim New Advent is anti-Catholic source and unreliable?
Punisher,
You are free to believe whatever you like. But you should not misuse the writings of St. Jerome and his duty to scritinize texts and point out possible objections that would be raised as meaning he ‘rejected’ them. Even though it is ‘ok’ for you to reject them; it is not ‘ok’ to misrepresent St. Jerome’s conclusions as stated in the letter above.
btw- here are lots of cool letters to and from St Jerome. The church has fought great battles against heretics to preserve the canon.
So you are accusing the New Advent site of misrepresenting Jerome also? New Advent does agree with you that those books belong in canon as the faith of the church yet see Jerome relegate those books to less than canon, even when he quoted them or supported them in bits and parts.
You misrepresented history and facts in claiming no church father ever deny those books belong to canon. New Advent listed a bunch that did.
And I guess you think New Advent is lying when it said:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus.
And what is provided from New Advent is the Catholic Encyclopedia article, too. So want to accuse that of misrepresenting Jerome, too?
More from New Advent/Catholic Encyclopedia article:
The canon of the Old Testament from the middle of the fifth to the close of the seventh century
This period exhibits a curious exchange of opinions between the West and the East, while ecclesiastical usage remained unchanged, at least in the Latin Church. During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity.
It is an encyclopedia. If the part you are referring to is not marked ‘Imprimatur’ then take it to be opinion. It is possible show portions of somebody’s writings and present as the truth but at the same time spin falsehoods about the person who wrote them. Any parts that do not say ‘Imprimatur’ on the footnote I would tend to view with greater skepticism.
Like Ninek said. Read some of Jerome’s letters yourself. You will not be disappointed. He often spoke himself about how his writings were used by others to justify heretical positions. He was a warrior for the truth.
You have got to be kidding me. Sad when the best you got is trash one of the most known and reputable Catholic sources.
The Catholic deposit of faith has so many richer sources than an encyclopedia. Today I read several of Jerome’s letters back and forth to people and it was enlightening. All you have done this entire thread is cut and paste from an encyclopedia. Do you really base your Catholic beliefs on an encyclopedia?
I don’t deny that Jerome, having been appointed by the pope to review the entire trove of scripture, at a time did profess and write openly about reservations to the canonical status of those writings. But as he grew in his analysis of those writings he came to profess them as canonical. And to deny that he later came to view them as canonical and only misrepresent him as having ‘rejected’ them is perjurous to the saint and all the work he did. Are you unable to grasp that he could have grown to accept them in his later years of study?
Punisher, I do give you credit for at least looking at a Catholic encyclopedia and not using wikipedia as your deposit of faith. ;)
If you are truly interested in what St. Jerome thought and not just what reinforces your opinions then here is a link to many of his letters. You can read them for yourself.
http://www.synaxis.org/cf/volume29/
:)
“Mark Zanghetti says:
November 5, 2011 at 11:30 am
I am afraid I disagree with you and most of your posters, it is NOT APPROPRIATE to picket outside a church to make a political point. If a church congregation wants picket outside their church that is one thing, but picketing outside a church to make a political point about a member of the congregation who you disagree with is WRONG. There is a place for political picketing, outside a courthouse or city hall, or legislature, not a church. This lady and her church deserves an apology from everyone who picketed against them.”
The problem with your statement is that, for one, this is not a “political statement”. Abortion is not a political issue. It is a God issue. We are all created in the spiritual image of God, you and I included. Politics has no place in that equation. We do not belong to the state.
Secondly, when someone professes to be a believer in God, which they do by their attendance to a church then, logically, one would believe that they adhere to His laws and precepts. God is very clear that mankind is not to shed innocent blood.
This woman cannot be brought to repentance if she is never made to confront her sin. Now, only God can actually bring her to repentance. However, we are often used as His instrument to effect or begin that process.
Her church is culpable for not calling her to task on the abomination she performs/commits.
Lawrence, I totally agree with you. Not a political issue, but a spiritual one and a humanitarian one.
Shame used to serve a proper function in our society. Now, because of political correctness, even within our churches, anything goes.
But I say it plain: shame on her.
“I do consider it a legitimate choice to make.”
JoAnna: If you feel abortion is a legitimate choice, you are indeed pro-abortion. If it’s a perfectly legitimate choice, why oppose that particular descriptor?
Because you are pretending there is no difference in actually favoring a thing, versus just not wanting it to be illegal for others to choose it.
____
“No, “child” is not objectively applicable to the unborn.”
The dictionary disagrees with you.
Nope. The dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. “A young person especially between infancy and youth ” certainly is just as valid a meaning as the one you may choose. I’m not saying that it’s “absolutely incorrect” to call the unborn “babies” or “children” – there are enough people that can and do use the word like that. The point is that it’s a subjective thing.
___
“My point was that you’re a pro-lifer, not a woman-slaver, just as there’s a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. To have to pretend otherwise is a weak position for an argument.”
Except that there’s not. I think you see pro-abortion as the position “pregnancy should be outlawed and every single pregnant woman should be forced to have an abortion.” But that’s not it at all; that would be “pro-forced-abortion”. Pro-abortion is simply, “Abortion is a morally legitimate option.” It’s the belief that it’s perfectly acceptable to kill an unborn child for arbitrary reasons.
Wrong – because you’re putting your own spin on it by saying “children,” all the while attributing the belief to me and others, to start with. Being for legal abortion is not the same as being “for abortion,” per se. Saying that all pregnancies should be aborted is certainly more extreme than just saying “abortion is good,” but both are going beyond what pro-choice is.
Because you are pretending there is no difference in actually favoring a thing, versus just not wanting it to be illegal for others to choose it.
I see your point, but the key difference is that abortion is a violation of fundamental human rights. I don’t see how anyone could favor that as a mere choice, however distasteful it may be to them, personally. It goes back to my example about infanticide – should a government pass a law saying infanticide is legal for those who choose to utilize it, even if it’s not “favored” by the majority of the population? No, because it is a violation of that baby’s fundamental human rights. Abortion is no different.
I’m not saying that it’s “absolutely incorrect” to call the unborn “babies” or “children” – there are enough people that can and do use the word like that. The point is that it’s a subjective thing.
It’s not subjective, it’s descriptive. Child = human offspring = zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant. They’re all interchangeable. The only difference in the latter terms is that they describe a particular stage of development of a human child.
Wrong – because you’re putting your own spin on it by saying “children,” all the while attributing the belief to me and others, to start with. Being for legal abortion is not the same as being “for abortion,” per se. Saying that all pregnancies should be aborted is certainly more extreme than just saying “abortion is good,” but both are going beyond what pro-choice is.
Regarding “children,” see my comments about descriptors, above. It’s not spin, it’s fact. Being for legal abortion = being for what you believe is a legitimate choice for women to make. The choice, here, is whether or not to kill an embryo or fetus. If you support the choice for a woman to kill her own unborn offspring, you support abortion, because you recognize it as a morally legitimate choice and even a “right” that she is entitled to, when it is actually the violation of another’s rights.
JoAnna: I see your point, but the key difference is that abortion is a violation of fundamental human rights. I don’t see how anyone could favor that as a mere choice, however distasteful it may be to them, personally. It goes back to my example about infanticide – should a government pass a law saying infanticide is legal for those who choose to utilize it, even if it’s not “favored” by the majority of the population? No, because it is a violation of that baby’s fundamental human rights. Abortion is no different.
There are no “fundamental human rights.” It’s a question of the status that society deems to be present. Should a law be passed saying infanticide is okay? No significant amount of sentiment is for that.
___
It’s not subjective, it’s descriptive. Child = human offspring = zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant. They’re all interchangeable. The only difference in the latter terms is that they describe a particular stage of development of a human child.
Yes it is subjective. There is the usage that you are going with, and there’s also the usage that means “after birth up to a later point in time.” It’s just as valid to say “not a child” and “not a baby” prior to birth as it is to say they apply from conception or from a point in gestation. The usage is up to the individual.
I’d agree that “child” = human offspring, but even if we bypass the awkwardness of the fact that the unborn have not yet sprung off, that would not necessarily mean that all human offspring are “children.” My parents are adults, but that doesn’t mean that all adults are parents, nor even that all parents are adults.
“Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus” – those are medically correct terms, objectively so, different from “baby” and “child.”
____
Being for legal abortion = being for what you believe is a legitimate choice for women to make. The choice, here, is whether or not to kill an embryo or fetus. If you support the choice for a woman to kill her own unborn offspring, you support abortion, because you recognize it as a morally legitimate choice and even a “right” that she is entitled to, when it is actually the violation of another’s rights.
Being for abortion being a legal choice is not the same thing as being “for abortion,” necessarily. You may not like abortion, but that does not mean that it is a violation of another’s rights.
There are no “fundamental human rights.”
What is your source for this assertion? According to the Declaration of Independence, there are fundamental human rights: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The usage is up to the individual.
That’s ridiculous. By your logic, I could call you Hubert instead of Doug if I disagree that your name is Doug. I could say the sky is green because, in my opinion, “green” is a better word than “blue” to describe the color of the sky. And so on. Words have an objective meaning, however much pro-abortion activists would like to play semantics to pretend that abortion does not kill a human child.
I’d agree that “child” = human offspring, but even if we bypass the awkwardness of the fact that the unborn have not yet sprung off, that would not necessarily mean that all human offspring are “children.”
Once again, Hubert, you’re playing word games. The definition of “offspring” does not contain a condition that a child must be a born child to be considered the offspring of its parents. It’s pretty bizarre, when you think about it. You’re basically saying that the child in my womb right now, at 35 weeks gestation, is not yet my offspring because s/he hasn’t been born. However, s/he currently has all the necessary characteristics to meet the definition of offspring as linked above.
My parents are adults, but that doesn’t mean that all adults are parents, nor even that all parents are adults.
Bad analogy. All children are offspring. All offspring are children of their parents. Age has nothing to do with it. My four children will be my children forever. My two miscarried children are also my children even though they died at twelve weeks and 6 weeks gestation, respectively. The fact that they were never born does not change the fact that they are my offspring and my children, albeit deceased.
“Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus” – those are medically correct terms, objectively so, different from “baby” and “child.”
That’s like saying that a spontaneous abortion is completely different from a miscarriage when there is no difference. My miscarriages are termed spontaneous abortions in my medical records, but it doesn’t change the essence of what they were — the natural death of my children in my womb.
Being for abortion being a legal choice is not the same thing as being “for abortion,” necessarily. You may not like abortion, but that does not mean that it is a violation of another’s rights.
Hubert, the whole reason I’m against abortion is precisely because it is a violation of another’s rights. I cannot support the violation of another’s fundamental right to life, nor can I ever support the “choice” to commit that violation. If you support the choice as a legitimate one, then you see the action as legitimate also.
“There are no “fundamental human rights.”
JoAnna: What is your source for this assertion? According to the Declaration of Independence, there are fundamental human rights: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
That was language chosen by a group of guys who were telling King George to screw off and leave them alone. It’s an idea that some people subscribe to, sure, but it’s certainly not “fundamental.” In practice it was really only land-owning men at the time who were really “created equal.” What we are talking about is attributed status, and a good bit of the abortion debate is what status do we deem the unborn to have.
____
The usage is up to the individual.
That’s ridiculous. By your logic, I could call you Hubert instead of Doug if I disagree that your name is Doug. I could say the sky is green because, in my opinion, “green” is a better word than “blue” to describe the color of the sky. And so on. Words have an objective meaning, however much pro-abortion activists would like to play semantics to pretend that abortion does not kill a human child.
You are confusing the objective with the subjective. There are many words where more than one usage is correct, and where it does not have to be only one way. Colors are part of the electromagnetic spectrum, physical reality, a much different thing.
____
I’d agree that “child” = human offspring, but even if we bypass the awkwardness of the fact that the unborn have not yet sprung off, that would not necessarily mean that all human offspring are “children.”
Once again, Hubert, you’re playing word games. The definition of “offspring” does not contain a condition that a child must be a born child to be considered the offspring of its parents.
That definition doesn’t say that it includes the unborn. If there are “word games” being played, it’s on your part, as you’re trying to work it backwards, i.e. even if we accept that “All A are B,” that does not necessarily mean that “All B are A,” yet you’re asserting that it is so.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child The first definition given there is “a person between birth and full growth.” And then from the World English Dictionary: “a boy or girl between birth and puberty.” I am saying it’s correct (obviously) to use the word that way. It’s certainly just as correct as the usage you are choosing to go with.
___
It’s pretty bizarre, when you think about it. You’re basically saying that the child in my womb right now, at 35 weeks gestation, is not yet my offspring because s/he hasn’t been born. However, s/he currently has all the necessary characteristics to meet the definition of offspring as linked above.
Good grief, no, I am not saying that. “Offspring” for the unborn is awkward, since the unborn have not yet sprung off. However, even if we accept that, I made no pronouncements about “offspring.” The point all along is that “child” and “baby” can be applied to the unborn, or not applied; neither way being “objectively wrong.” Saying “the unborn are babies” is not any meaningful argument in the context of the abortion debate, and neither is “the unborn are not babies.” If we say that “child” means from birth to a later stage, then all children are still offspring; nothing is wrong, there.
____
“My parents are adults, but that doesn’t mean that all adults are parents, nor even that all parents are adults.”
Bad analogy. All children are offspring. All offspring are children of their parents. Age has nothing to do with it. My four children will be my children forever. My two miscarried children are also my children even though they died at twelve weeks and 6 weeks gestation, respectively. The fact that they were never born does not change the fact that they are my offspring and my children, albeit deceased.
Yes, all children are offspring. But again, that would not necessarily mean that all offspring are children. Age certainly has something to do with it. Just as it’s correct to say that “child” is between birth and a later stage, so can we say that “all minors are offspring,” but not all “offspring are minors.” Sure, your kids are will be your descendants forever – there are different senses of the word “children” (of course) but there is also a time when “too old to be a child” applies. You are saying “my way has to be correct,” while the truth is maybe, maybe not – it’s a subjective thing.
____
“Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus” – those are medically correct terms, objectively so, different from “baby” and “child.”
That’s like saying that a spontaneous abortion is completely different from a miscarriage when there is no difference. My miscarriages are termed spontaneous abortions in my medical records, but it doesn’t change the essence of what they were — the natural death of my children in my womb.
You’re mixing objective fact – yes, the unborn die in a miscarriage – with subjective terminology, i.e. “children.”
____
“Being for abortion being a legal choice is not the same thing as being “for abortion,” necessarily. You may not like abortion, but that does not mean that it is a violation of another’s rights.”
Hubert, the whole reason I’m against abortion is precisely because it is a violation of another’s rights. I cannot support the violation of another’s fundamental right to life, nor can I ever support the “choice” to commit that violation. If you support the choice as a legitimate one, then you see the action as legitimate also.
The fact is that we don’t attribute personhood and full rights to the unborn, and that is what has you dissatisfied with the situation. There’s nothing “fundamental” going on, it’s just that you think things should be different. Hey, that’s fine – we all have opinions and many share yours, there. But this is not about anything fundamental or “inherent.”
You still are approaching things as if there’s no difference between thinking that society does not have a good enough reason to outlaw a thing, and actually being “for the thing” itself. Well, there can be a difference, and often, there is.
Doug : “There are no “fundamental human rights.” It’s a question of the status that society deems to be present. Should a law be passed saying infanticide is okay? No significant amount of sentiment is for that.”
Of all the really dumb things you said in that post, this one caught my attention the most, mainly because this “thought” process is so dangerous. I mean, I hate to go to the obvious place, but ignoring abortion entirely, this “status that society deems to be present” mentality prevented women from voting, supported slavery, racist laws, sanctioned murder, etc etc. Do you really agree that all that exists is the majority rule for a society?
While you are at it, do you care to explain exactly why majority rule has any meaning? Why, exactly, is it the case that the majority has final say on matters regarding anything.
Oh okay, I HAVE to comment on this one:
Doug : “My parents are adults, but that doesn’t mean that all adults are parents, nor even that all parents are adults.”
What does this have to do with the definition of “child?” Child is defined as progeny. If you are produced by another biologically, you are his/her/its child. The quoted sentence is as irrelevant, and stupid, as if I said “Well, I mean not all cheese sandwiches are delicious, so I guess you could say that some bachelors are married.”
By the way, if you knew anything about the biology, you would understand that the blastocyst did indeed “spring off,” not that it matters to the definition. It first springs off, then it attaches to the mother, then springs off again. So, unless you think a nursing baby has not “sprung off” for good and is therefore not a child, you have to admit that a zygote did at one point spring off and is now an offspring.
Doug : “There are no “fundamental human rights.” It’s a question of the status that society deems to be present. Should a law be passed saying infanticide is okay? No significant amount of sentiment is for that.”
Oliver: Of all the really dumb things you said in that post, this one caught my attention the most, mainly because this “thought” process is so dangerous. I mean, I hate to go to the obvious place, but ignoring abortion entirely, this “status that society deems to be present” mentality prevented women from voting, supported slavery, racist laws, sanctioned murder, etc etc. Do you really agree that all that exists is the majority rule for a society?
Oliver, if there is “dumb” here, it’s you presuming about majority rule. If there is sufficient opinion for a law, or for status to be deemed present, then it will be. Might be a majority, might not. It’s not “dangerous thinking,” it’s just the way things really are.
____
While you are at it, do you care to explain exactly why majority rule has any meaning? Why, exactly, is it the case that the majority has final say on matters regarding anything.
It doesn’t always have final say, but I imagine it comes from the idea that the greater number of people should determine things, rather than the lesser number. A society is basically a group of people with things in common, and the larger the collective “we” that is of one mind, the better, from a “democratic” standpoint.
____
Oh okay, I HAVE to comment on this one:
Doug : “My parents are adults, but that doesn’t mean that all adults are parents, nor even that all parents are adults.”
What does this have to do with the definition of “child?” Child is defined as progeny. If you are produced by another biologically, you are his/her/its child. The quoted sentence is as irrelevant, and stupid, as if I said “Well, I mean not all cheese sandwiches are delicious, so I guess you could say that some bachelors are married.”
Oh please. The point is that if we say that “All A are B,” it does not necessarily follow that “All B are A.” Basic logic. If we accept that progeny, descendants, and even “offspring” apply to the unborn, that would not necessarily mean that “child” applies to the unborn. That the primary definition for “child” in many dictionaries is to the effect of being “between birth and a later time,” is in line with that. “Child” would still be progeny, etc., but the unborn would not be “children” just like they’re not “minors.”
____
By the way, if you knew anything about the biology, you would understand that the blastocyst did indeed “spring off,” not that it matters to the definition. It first springs off, then it attaches to the mother, then springs off again. So, unless you think a nursing baby has not “sprung off” for good and is therefore not a child, you have to admit that a zygote did at one point spring off and is now an offspring.
Well, I do know how that works – we’ve talked about it recently right here on Jill’s site. It’s just always seemed awkward to me to have the unborn be “offspring” when the springing-off of birth (which is where the original word came from) hasn’t yet occurred. You’re right that it doesn’t matter for the definition, which I accept as applying to the unborn.
Serious issue. How serious? Eternally. Bought my prolife midwife wife a book by an old granny midwife who was a Christian. One story she told was how she was called to visit another granny midwife who was about to die. This dying woman had aborted many babies. As she died unrepetentant she was screaming and asking for help to stop the demons who had come to drag her down to hell. Forever. But it was too late. Give people a chance to change before it is too late. We as a people are in bad shape due to all of the innocent blood that has been shed and few have spoken up. As Jonathan Edwards wrote so long ago it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.