About those Unthinking, Backwards Catholics

[redleghunter]

About those Unthinking, Backwards Catholics

By Charles J. Chaput

From: First Things

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/10/about-those-unthinking-backwards-catholics
Excerpt:

Back in 2008, in the weeks leading up to the Obama-McCain presidential election, two young men visited me in Denver. They were from Catholics United, a group describing itself as committed to social justice issues. They voiced great concern at the manipulative skill of Catholic agents for the Republican Party. And they hoped my brother bishops and I would resist identifying the Church with single-issue and partisan (read: abortion) politics.

It was an interesting experience. Both men were obvious flacks for the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party—creatures of a political machine, not men of the Church; less concerned with Catholic teaching than with its influence. And presumably (for them) bishops were dumb enough to be used as tools, or at least prevented from helping the other side. Yet these two young men not only equaled but surpassed their Republican cousins in the talents of servile partisan hustling. Thanks to their work, and activists like them, American Catholics helped to elect an administration that has been the most stubbornly unfriendly to religious believers, institutions, concerns and liberty in generations.

I never saw either young man again. The cultural damage done by the current White House has—apparently—made courting America’s bishops unnecessary.

Much more at the link:

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/10/about-those-unthinking-backwards-catholics

 

[Widlast]

Informative. Not surprising that political groups with Catholic in the title are not very "Catholic". Sort of like nations with "Democratic" in their title, they never are.

Frankly I haven't seen a single presidential candidate yet that isn't either pure evil ( a la Hillary), a pompous boor ( Trump ) or dullards and wannabes ( the rest ).

 

[redleghunter]

Informative. Not surprising that political groups with Catholic in the title are not very "Catholic". Sort of like nations with "Democratic" in their title, they never are.

Frankly I haven't seen a single presidential candidate yet that isn't either pure evil ( a la Hillary), a pompous boor ( Trump ) or dullards and wannabes ( the rest ).

You forgot the most dangerous types: pure evil dullard wannabes.

 

[grasping the after wind]

In my experience the mainstream Christian denominations ( which would include Roman Catholic) contain numerous followers that firmly and unwaveringly believe things completely opposite of the publicly stated doctrines and dogma of their denomination. Why such people belong to the denominations they belong to has always been a mystery to me. My suspicion is superstition may play a part in their adherence to a particular denomination. For instance, I am acquainted with more than a few Lutherans that remain Lutheran yet believe in justification by works.

 

[redleghunter]

In my experience the mainstream Christian denominations ( which would include Roman Catholic) contain numerous followers that firmly and unwaveringly believe things completely opposite of the publicly stated doctrines and dogma of their denomination. Why such people belong to the denominations they belong to has always been a mystery to me. My suspicion is superstition may play a part in their adherence to a particular denomination. For instance, I am acquainted with more than a few Lutherans that remain Lutheran yet believe in justification by works.

We see it here. For example, a theme seen here at CF is a professing Christian (fill in any church, denomination (or lack of one), tradition) say they are personally opposed to abortion but others not of their view should have the liberty to abort a human life. This tells me such thinking disregards human life begins at conception and thus killing the developing human life is not murder. Or murder is ok as long as they don't do it.

Since we know by embryology that a distinct human life begins at conception, and every conservative/orthodox/historical church confirms this, then there should be no debate. But there is because of a departure from either Biblical teaching and/or catechism.

 

[J Cord]

Since we know by embryology that a distinct human life begins at conception, and every conservative/orthodox/historical church confirms this, then there should be no debate.

But there is debate on a number of fronts. For instance, if you believe a distinct human life begins at conception, then every time there is a miscarriage there needs to be a police investigation to find out if the woman do something that may have caused the miscarriage, and if so charged with manslaughter or possibly murder. There is a woman's right to control their own body.

I'm guessing science is getting to the point where they can put a fetus into a male body and bring it to birth. When they can, are you going to put your money where your mouth is and offer to have the fetus transplanted into your body to prevent the "murder"?

 

[redleghunter]

But there is debate on a number of fronts. For instance, if you believe a distinct human life begins at conception, then every time there is a miscarriage there needs to be a police investigation to find out if the woman do something that may have caused the miscarriage, and if so charged with manslaughter or possibly murder. There is a woman's right to control their own body.

That seems to be a prevalent pro abortion rights assertion. I always ask how many women were investigated for miscarriages before Roe? Texas had the most conservative abortion laws before Roe v. Wade. No such 'road side check' of gynecologists making spot checks of pregnant women.

I'm guessing science is getting to the point where they can put a fetus into a male body and bring it to birth. When they can, are you going to put your money where your mouth is and offer to have the fetus transplanted into your body to prevent the "murder"?

Such 'science' is Frankenstein science. It goes against nature to do so.

As with gun ownership, adults and those who make adult decisions should take responsibility for their individual actions. Such is even supported by secular Libertarians.

 

[J Cord]

That seems to be a prevalent pro abortion rights assertion. I always ask how many women were investigated for miscarriages before Roe?

So because manslaughter and murder weren't properly prosecuted before, it shouldn't be now?

Texas had the most conservative abortion laws before Roe v. Wade. No such 'road side check' of gynecologists making spot checks of pregnant women.

Again, so because manslaughter and murder weren't properly prosecuted before, it shouldn't be now?

Such 'science' is Frankenstein science. It goes against nature to do so.

LOL, provide the link to a reputable source supporting this assertion please.

As with gun ownership, adults and those who make adult decisions should take responsibility for their individual actions. Such is even supported by secular Libertarians.

So in other words, even if you were in a position to prevent murder, you would watch it happen without doing a thing about it. Or more succinctly, you support the "Do as I say, not as I do" school of philosophy.

 

[Archivist]

Such 'science' is Frankenstein science. It goes against nature to do so.

Although strictly speaking a delivery via c-section also goes against nature.

 

[redleghunter]

So because manslaughter and murder weren't properly prosecuted before, it shouldn't be now?

Very clever response. However, the laws before Roe focused on the abortion providers. I don't see why that would not be the case again. If Roe is overturned, you would also see a focus on laws restricting abortifacient drugs.

Again, so because manslaughter and murder weren't properly prosecuted before, it shouldn't be now?

Again, the focus was on the abortion providers.

LOL, provide the link to a reputable source supporting this assertion please.

LOL, men don't have babies. I learned that quite early in life. Transferring a human fetus from a woman to a man would not only be against your own Church catechism but also nature's law.

So in other words, even if you were in a position to prevent murder, you would watch it happen without doing a thing about it. Or more succinctly, you support the "Do as I say, not as I do" school of philosophy.

Ah, but you changed the subject and conditions sir. If I witness my neighbor slamming his wife's head with a shovel, and then taking her in a car to bury her miles away, I am witnessing murder and must report such a murder. Or in the case of abortion illegal, If a woman held a knife to her own body to harm herself and/or her child, I am compelled as a Christian to protect her and the child. Just as I would if someone was holding a knife to an infant to do harm.[/QUOTE]

 

[redleghunter]

Although strictly speaking a delivery via c-section also goes against nature.

Men having babies artificially by inserting women's body parts...

Women having babies by C-section

Such is not in the same ballpark. Well actually, not even the same sport.

 

[Archivist]

Men having babies artificially by inserting women's body parts...

Women having babies by C-section

Such is not in the same ballpark. Well actually, not even the same sport.

You misseed my point--a c-section still "goes against nature." It is not the natural way to give birth.

 

[redleghunter]

You misseed my point--a c-section still "goes against nature." It is not the natural way to give birth.

Perhaps I missed your point kind sir.

However, a woman receiving modern a birthing technique is still a woman giving birth. It is her organs at work.

Yet, I do not believe the good bishop was getting on about the subject you bring up.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I'm sort of curious where the imperative to deliver a baby "naturally" comes from since it seems to be an arbitrary criterion.

When it comes to abortion, if someone says "I oppose abortion but..." you can generally assume they support abortion.

 

[Archivist]

Perhaps I missed your point kind sir.

However, a woman receiving modern a birthing technique is still a woman giving birth. It is her organs at work.

Yet, I do not believe the good bishop was getting on about the subject you bring up.

But a c-section is not natural. An no, I never claimed that anyone else had commented on c-sections. However, you were the one who said that a man shouldn't carry a fetus to term because it wasn't "natural", so if we are going to eliminate any delivery that isn't "natural" then we should also eliminate birth by c-section.

 

[Root of Jesse]

About those Unthinking, Backwards Catholics

By Charles J. Chaput

From: First Things

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/10/about-those-unthinking-backwards-catholics
Excerpt:

Back in 2008, in the weeks leading up to the Obama-McCain presidential election, two young men visited me in Denver. They were from Catholics United, a group describing itself as committed to social justice issues. They voiced great concern at the manipulative skill of Catholic agents for the Republican Party. And they hoped my brother bishops and I would resist identifying the Church with single-issue and partisan (read: abortion) politics.

It was an interesting experience. Both men were obvious flacks for the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party—creatures of a political machine, not men of the Church; less concerned with Catholic teaching than with its influence. And presumably (for them) bishops were dumb enough to be used as tools, or at least prevented from helping the other side. Yet these two young men not only equaled but surpassed their Republican cousins in the talents of servile partisan hustling. Thanks to their work, and activists like them, American Catholics helped to elect an administration that has been the most stubbornly unfriendly to religious believers, institutions, concerns and liberty in generations.

I never saw either young man again. The cultural damage done by the current White House has—apparently—made courting America’s bishops unnecessary.

Much more at the link:

https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/10/about-those-unthinking-backwards-catholics

Thank you so much for posting this. Catholics are, literally, bleeding edge when it comes to the modern world. See Humanae Vitae, for example. Predicted the proliferation of abortion, STD's, divorce and so on. Very far-ahead of its time.

 

[Root of Jesse]

But there is debate on a number of fronts. For instance, if you believe a distinct human life begins at conception, then every time there is a miscarriage there needs to be a police investigation to find out if the woman do something that may have caused the miscarriage, and if so charged with manslaughter or possibly murder. There is a woman's right to control their own body.

I'm guessing science is getting to the point where they can put a fetus into a male body and bring it to birth. When they can, are you going to put your money where your mouth is and offer to have the fetus transplanted into your body to prevent the "murder"?

Regarding your last, just because we might have the ability to do something doesn't make it right. IVF, for example. Completely wrong, on so many fronts.

Look, you cannot be pro-abortion and remain a true Catholic. And there is no grey area. You're either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. If you're against it, you're against it for everyone. And what's all this about making abortion available, but rare...no such luck.

 

[J Cord]

Men having babies artificially by inserting women's body parts...

Women having babies by C-section

Such is not in the same ballpark. Well actually, not even the same sport.

Well, if we're going natural, hospitals certainly aren't natural. Neither are the various medicines and treatments provided therein.

So, if only "natural" childbirth will do, then every woman must have her baby out in nature, without any non-natural assistance. And it better be natural to her area, because flying in natural products from another area isn't "natural" either.

And no doctors. Medical school is definitely not natural, nor are the instruments doctors use.

 

[J Cord]

Regarding your last, just because we might have the ability to do something doesn't make it right. IVF, for example. Completely wrong, on so many fronts.

Look, you cannot be pro-abortion and remain a true Catholic. And there is no grey area. You're either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. If you're against it, you're against it for everyone. And what's all this about making abortion available, but rare...no such luck.

I'm pro women's choice. And I'm a real Catholic. And I'm pretty sure CF rules forbid you from questioning my faith.

 

[JackRT]

Such 'science' is Frankenstein science. It goes against nature to do so.

Do you mean like:

"If God had decreed from all eternity that a certain person should die of smallpox, it would be a frightful sin to avoid and annul that decree by the trick of vaccination."
--- Timothy Dwight, Congregationalist minister and President of Yale University from 1795 to 1817.

The "against Nature" agument is not always very persuasive.