I’m a Pro-choice Catholic

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I’m not offended by anyone... ever. From my perspective, truth is an offense, but truth is not an offense to me. I love truth. Anything besides truth is not my concern. As far as force, everyone is free to use all the force they want. Forceful people don’t offend me in the least. I’m dead actually. Hard to be offended when you’re dead.

If you aren’t offended by anyone or something, then do you hold anything sacred?

Nope. I am not in favor of Planned Parenthood. So I don’t wish to protect, cherish, or defend it.

Since you are pro-choice and desire to protect the right to abortion, how could you not defend the providers of abortion? Do you prefer doctors provide the right to abortion?

I think you’re right. If the prayers of the faithful over all these years have not stopped abortion, then I don’t think my words will stop it. I do think my words and prayers can persuade some people not to abort their children, as can the words and prayers of others. The women’s clinic in my town that I talked about supporting keeps statistics and has shown success at counseling mothers not to abort. They do not provide abortions or refer women to abortion clinics. They simply try to dissuade women from aborting. We helped them buy some ultrasound machines that have been useful too.

It’s more effective to close down abortion providers than simply say some words to them. Yet you are opposed to this action because you are pro-choice.

I do not put the individual first in all cases. I have been talking about families and small, voluntary communities here. The family obviously comes before the individual, except in the case of Adam I suppose.

When you argue in the fashion you have been that the state or corporate entities have not right to use coercive force on you then yes, you are arguing for a sort absolutist individualism. Free from being tied down by family, the state and even the Church. In order for your pro-choice position to work that is the only basis on which it can operate. If you consider the life in the womb worth protecting (which you don’t because you oppose the use of coercive force, thus the government cannot get involved to defend life), you can only protect it by exerting force and not tolerating abortion on demand.

Not my logic.

What right does the child have to impose it’s desires on the Mother or the Father? That child is an individual, accountable only to him or herself. Why should we compel men and women to provide for children?

God hates sin, but He tolerates it and brings good from it. I am trying to be like God, which is what He told me to do, to imitate Christ. So I hate abortion and encourage every mother to see it for the murder that it is and hate it too. But I’m not using armed goons to force anything on anyone. I’m also not telling you or your “Christian community” not to use all the force or laws or armed goons you want to accomplish whatever you want. I’m doubtful such methods will produce anything truly Christian in the end, but that’s for you to work out with fear and trembling.

Then you will fail. God didn’t institute governments among men illegitimately. He gave them sanction and Paul reaffirms this. This includes, necessarily the right to use force against those in the community that the community opposes. Say a paedophile, he should receive the death penalty for his crime or be castrated.

Communities cannot be held together by mere persuasion alone, ultimately all law is backed by a gun held by the government for the sake of having order in society. If you don’t support the right for abortion to be anywhere, how are you pro-choice? Will you allow local communities or states to ban abortion? Or will you insist on the right of the individual to have an abortion in said communities? You can’t have both on this.

 

[Oleaster]

If you aren’t offended by anyone or something, then do you hold anything sacred, etc., etc., etc...

I'm literally LOL at this. (No offense. Sincerely. God bless you.) If you are interested, please read my last post (quoted below), or at least the brief discussion of Tolkien's political thought linked in it... and linked here, just for you. Perhaps there is clarity. I'm done with this thread now, or at least with the silly feedback loop part where no one apparently even reads, much less understands, what I write. I have a dog to see about a man.

Thanks. This has been a hilarious exercise in futility. I have laughed a great deal. It’s quite funny to me that someone (not myself) introduced the term “strategy” into this thread, and it has reappeared a time or two, yet no one seems to have grasped my true strategy, which is not political but rhetorical. I’ll explain.

Christians preaching the gospel or sharing the good news of Christ use the godly weapon of persuasion. Christians then become rhetoricians. Good rhetoricians have precise definitions in mind for the words they choose. A good listener or careful reader is generally able to sense the meaning of terms based on context. Poorer listeners or less careful readers are apt to misinterpret. But a good rhetorician can correct misinterpretations by clarifying terms.

Now culture warriors are also rhetoricians, to a point (before they transition towards more forceful tactics). One of their rhetorical methods is to corner the market on a term or phrase that makes their position seem most attractive. The baby murderers (see what I did there?) have latched onto the term “pro-choice.” So...

My rhetorical strategy for this post involved placing “their” term in my title, as bait. Literally clickbait. Once anyone clicked and read, they would presumably recognize that the author, in fact, is not “pro-choice” as the soul destroyers understand the term. My rhetorical strategy thus further involved the tactic of redefinition (Please see Redefinition).

I didn’t literally state my redefinition of the term “pro-choice,” but it should be evident from context that I do not support abortion. I have not committed some “grave error” by “taking the name of evil and applying it to Christ.” A grave error is using rhetoric without understanding rhetoric, which is habitually happening all over these boards.

An irony here results from the fact that the issue of abortion has become such a triggering mechanism for Catholics. Droves of Catholics recently voted for a demagogic reality TV star almost exclusively over the issue of abortion. Hence, whereas I had hoped to catch a wandering child slaughterer or two with my clickbait and provocative introductory paragraph, to try having a meaningful conversation about not clubbing infants to death, and about not clubbing anybody over the head with any laws, sticks, or guns, instead I got a bunch of knee-jerk reactions from Catholics who seem not to have read my post, much less understood it - all trying to label me heretical and compel me to repent. It’s incredibly amusing that this thread devolved into a bunch of pro-life Catholics trying to convince a fellow pro-life Catholic that he is in error and should repent. All because they’re poor readers or poor rhetoricians I suppose?

As for anarchy, the same thing applies. As I said somewhere in this thread in response to someone, Catholics like Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day deliberately took up the term “anarchy” in their writings because of its provocativeness. Dorothy Day defines her anarchism in her autobiography, The Long Loneliness, showing it to fall completely in line with Catholic Social Teaching, incorporating Distributism, Subsidiarity, Voluntarism, Personalism, etc. She cites Chesterton and Belloc. It’s rather like what fellow Catholic J.R.R. Tolkien said, “My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs).”
Quote in context: J.R.R. Tolkien on anarchism
Brief discussion: https://www.libertarianism.org/articles/j-r-r-tolkiens-small-government-politics

For me, Catholic Anarchy is the answer to every political question. It is truly Catholic and truly good. There are Catholic anarchists all over this country today doing all sorts of good work (see Christian anarchism: Catholic Worker Movement). In no way does Catholic Anarchy lead to riots, destruction, or theft, nor even to abortion. But we do see riots, destruction, theft and abortion even in the face of heavy law enforcement. Perhaps the best solution is to apply the heaviest of all law enforcement across the board. We can shoot all criminals. Then literally everyone will be dead. Problem solved.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I'm literally LOL at this. (No offense. Sincerely. God bless you.) If you are interested, please read my last post (quoted below), or at least the brief discussion of Tolkien's political thought linked in it... and linked here, just for you. Perhaps there is clarity. I'm done with this thread now, or at least with the silly feedback loop part where no one apparently even reads, much less understands, what I write. I have a dog to see about a man.

I understand if you're an anarchist. I just don't think being a pro-choice anarchist is wise. This idea that we cannot compel others or violate individual sovereignty necessarily destroys any sort of community or society. Hoppe makes the best argument for an anarchist society but he allows for the possibility of people forcing others out as a means of control over the local community and to protect private property. That is, we may exclude anyone for any reason on our private property. If you are pro-choice in the current state and believe in complete individual sovereignty, there can be no restrictions on anyone for any reason.

At the moment we don't live in an anarchist society and I doubt we ever will. So what would embracing your methods lead to? Is the left or those who are pro-abortion going to leave us alone? No. They will institute more protections for abortion and even seek to fund it. To do what you are suggesting and be politically disinterested in pursuing the pro-life interests in the USA would have lead to a greater development of Roe rather than it's potential destruction right now.

 

[concretecamper]

Since that’s what I want, I encourage everyone not to abort their children, but I don’t insist that an imperial government enforce my views. That makes me pro-choice, I guess

I think it makes one a coward.

 

[pdudgeon]

Like Joe Biden, I’m a pro-choice Catholic. Unlike Joe Biden, I’m not a Democrat. Thus, my reasons for being pro-choice likely differ from his.

Although I’m pro-choice, I don’t support abortion. I think it’s murder. But I hold a different view of government than pro-lifers who would outlaw abortion.

As a Catholic, I subscribe to “the principle of subsidiarity, according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions...’” (CCC #1883). Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

In my view, the primary responsibility for preventing sins and societal ills (including abortion) belongs to individuals and to families. Thus, most of what the U.S. government does is overreach. It’s that simple. If I don’t want mothers to abort their children, then I should teach my daughters about the value of human life, which begins at the moment of conception. If I do a good job, then my daughters shouldn’t abort their children.

I can try to persuade others not to abort their children, but that’s where the Kingdom of Christ ends, at persuasion. The Kingdom of Christ is entirely persuasive, never coercive. The devil’s empire is coercive.

“But you said yourself that abortion is murder. Surely the state is right to outlaw murder?” I grant that God’s law against murder, including abortion, is good. But God’s law is also powerless apart from Him. Witness the billions of murders committed since God gave the law. Witness especially the earthly keepers of God’s law (the Jews) in collusion with the ultimate keepers of man’s law (the Romans) committing the most heinous murder in history (the crucifixion of Christ).

The trouble with government is twofold. First, its laws are powerless. If God’s laws are powerless apart from Him, then man’s laws are more so. Second, government refuses to accept that its laws are powerless. More precisely, government pretends to have power to enforce its laws.

We know that government’s laws are powerless because it has made laws against speeding, yet writes speeding tickets daily. It has made laws against drunk driving, but arrests drunk drivers daily. It has made laws against murder, but arrests murderers daily. Its laws don’t work, but it claims that without its laws (and more crucially its enforcers), society would suffer more speeding, more drunk driving, more murder.

The test case for government’s argument is virtually nonexistent, because few societies in history have been able to rid themselves entirely of government for long. Government is fond of pointing to war-torn countries in states of “anarchy” as their test case, but such countries are not truly anarchical. Their ongoing wars are almost entirely concerned with establishing some form of government. They are not free from politics. They are engaged in politics at its ultimate level, the level of brute force.

What law “enforcement” mostly does is show up after a crime has been committed (murder, for instance) or during the commission of a crime (especially drunk driving and speeding, occasionally rape and theft though not usually), but always after a crime is initiated. So-called law “enforcement” then has mainly a punitive function, as its penalties supposedly discourage more crime. Again, there is hardly a test case for this. Maybe look at the thirteen colonies after the revolutionary war, just before they got their new government off the ground. Or study Native American tribal organization. There is still a form of government there, but it’s the sort of government that I prefer, which is to say minimal.

One way to get minimal government is to pass few laws. Few laws need few enforcers, administrators, and other bureaucrats. Trust the individual and the family to regulate their lives. Expect criminality to be ever-present. Yet, try to treat criminality persuasively, which is not to say by simply discouraging criminality. But when criminal acts occur, treat the criminal as a human being capable of redemption. Try to persuade the criminal to reform. In extreme cases, some criminals may need killing or lifetime incarceration, but what we have today throughout the world is a universal police state and prison planet. It’s too much. Off the rails. Globalist. Satanic.

This leads back to the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. Littleness. Localness. For more on the subject see Subsidiarity (Catholicism).

Government in general today is too large, especially the US government. It’s tempting to think that when the Founding Fathers formed the government, they envisioned a smaller institution for a smaller population of the thirteen colonies rather than an imperial government reigning over the expansive territory and population of today. But that’s not true. The empire we have today is exactly what the dominant faction envisioned. Hamilton in the Federalist Papers envisions an empire, repeatedly referring to it by name, such as when he writes in Federalist #13, “The entire separation of the States into thirteen unconnected sovereignties is a project too extravagant and too replete with danger to have many advocates. The ideas of men who speculate upon the dismemberment of the empire seem generally turned toward three confederacies - one consisting of the four Northern, another of the four Middle, and a third of the five Southern States.”

Well, I’m for the confederacies that Hamilton was against. Actually, I’m for a division of the empire more along the left/right and libertarian/anarcho/centrist political lines of today - not necessarily separation into distinct nations, but at least a political division similar to what Diocletian did when he split the Roman Empire into East and West to make it more easily governable. We can all remain Americans with a common military to oppose Communist China, Recidivist Imperial Russia, etc. But ultra-leftists can be free to smoke legalized LGBTQ crack rocks in their own safe space version of empire called Libtardia, ultra-righties can be free to shoot bazookas at lawn jockeys on the public square in their version called Magatardia, and those of us who just want to be left alone to mind our own affairs can reside in Central Calmistan.

Anyway, it was not the Federalists but the Antifederalists who supported this concept of small government, which best reflects Catholic subsidiarity. In opposition to “subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies,” Hamilton preferred “union under one government” (Federalist #1). It is precisely this Hamiltonian idea of empire that Abe Lincoln and the Northern army imposed on the South during the so-called Civil War. The lamentable fact that the South had a slave-based economy has muddied the waters.

Consider any other political issue in the same light. Say for instance, that the South supported a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol sales replete with a Volstead Prohibition Enforcement Act. Then the North conquered the Southern States, forcing them to accept alcohol sales. Or suppose that the South supported a law against abortion, while the North was pro-choice. Then the North conquered and forced abortion on the South.

Of course, it’s not entirely clear that alcohol consumption or abortion are good for society. The point is that the conquering force must end up on the political side approved by modernity. So long as this is the result, it makes it difficult for anyone to question the “might makes right” policy of the conquerors. “Oh what? You wanted the South to win so that a bunch of oppressed people couldn’t party with booze or abort the burdensome results of their sexual trysts?” No.

I wanted the South to win for the same reason I wanted the Antifederalists to win. I want small, local government with few laws, few enforcers, few administrators, and few other bureaucrats. I want a government localized and responsive enough so that individuals and families can actually influence the debate about laws rather than being dictated to by a distant imperial government substantially controlled by communist/fascist corporations and lobbying groups with little oversight.

Since that’s what I want, I encourage everyone not to abort their children, but I don’t insist that an imperial government enforce my views. That makes me pro-choice, I guess. That’s also why I’m probably a different sort of pro-choice Catholic from Joe Biden. If the “Ruth Sent Me” crowd shows up at my parish, I’ll discourage them from disrupting Mass with their mindless chanting, but I’ll also offer to schedule a meeting to talk with them respectfully about our concerns. They seem particularly concerned about abortion. I’m particularly concerned about tyranny… and I’ve had enough of it… frankly.

I disagree that persuasiveness is the answer to criminality.
A blaring case in point is that of Putin slaying his hundreds, or China, which created Covid, or human trafficking, which panders to using human beings for pleasure, or legalized gambling which does the same thing.
All of these crimes spring from using things and people inappropriately for the purpose of Ill -gotten, personal gain.
When you look at abortion thru that lense, you can easily see the same exact thing happening:
Usury for personal gain.
When God gives life, it is not for man to choose when that life ends.
That is the Creator's privilege, and His alone.
There is no telling this side of Heaven what manner of good that God has given to us, that we have chosen to reject because of the children that we have allowed (and continue to allow) to be aborted.
As you have said, a speed sign does not stop those who wish to speed from doing so. Only revoking driving privileges can stop speeding.
So if we really wish to stop abortion, then we should make abortion a crime with consequences:
Those who choose abortion should be put to death themselves.
And those who perform the abortions should also be put to death.
And those who support abortion should be chosen for the ultimate loss of their own lives as well.
If that were the case, it would be interesting to see how many true supporters of abortion there are left.

 

[pdudgeon]

Thanks. This has been a hilarious exercise in futility. I have laughed a great deal. It’s quite funny to me that someone (not myself) introduced the term “strategy” into this thread, and it has reappeared a time or two, yet no one seems to have grasped my true strategy, which is not political but rhetorical. I’ll explain.

Christians preaching the gospel or sharing the good news of Christ use the godly weapon of persuasion. Christians then become rhetoricians. Good rhetoricians have precise definitions in mind for the words they choose. A good listener or careful reader is generally able to sense the meaning of terms based on context. Poorer listeners or less careful readers are apt to misinterpret. But a good rhetorician can correct misinterpretations by clarifying terms.

Now culture warriors are also rhetoricians, to a point (before they transition towards more forceful tactics). One of their rhetorical methods is to corner the market on a term or phrase that makes their position seem most attractive. The baby murderers (see what I did there?) have latched onto the term “pro-choice.” So...

My rhetorical strategy for this post involved placing “their” term in my title, as bait. Literally clickbait. Once anyone clicked and read, they would presumably recognize that the author, in fact, is not “pro-choice” as the soul destroyers understand the term. My rhetorical strategy thus further involved the tactic of redefinition (Please see Redefinition).

I didn’t literally state my redefinition of the term “pro-choice,” but it should be evident from context that I do not support abortion. I have not committed some “grave error” by “taking the name of evil and applying it to Christ.” A grave error is using rhetoric without understanding rhetoric, which is habitually happening all over these boards.

An irony here results from the fact that the issue of abortion has become such a triggering mechanism for Catholics. Droves of Catholics recently voted for a demagogic reality TV star almost exclusively over the issue of abortion. Hence, whereas I had hoped to catch a wandering child slaughterer or two with my clickbait and provocative introductory paragraph, to try having a meaningful conversation about not clubbing infants to death, and about not clubbing anybody over the head with any laws, sticks, or guns, instead I got a bunch of knee-jerk reactions from Catholics who seem not to have read my post, much less understood it - all trying to label me heretical and compel me to repent. It’s incredibly amusing that this thread devolved into a bunch of pro-life Catholics trying to convince a fellow pro-life Catholic that he is in error and should repent. All because they’re poor readers or poor rhetoricians I suppose?

As for anarchy, the same thing applies. As I said somewhere in this thread in response to someone, Catholics like Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day deliberately took up the term “anarchy” in their writings because of its provocativeness. Dorothy Day defines her anarchism in her autobiography, The Long Loneliness, showing it to fall completely in line with Catholic Social Teaching, incorporating Distributism, Subsidiarity, Voluntarism, Personalism, etc. She cites Chesterton and Belloc. It’s rather like what fellow Catholic J.R.R. Tolkien said, “My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs).”
Quote in context: J.R.R. Tolkien on anarchism
Brief discussion: https://www.libertarianism.org/articles/j-r-r-tolkiens-small-government-politics

For me, Catholic Anarchy is the answer to every political question. It is truly Catholic and truly good. There are Catholic anarchists all over this country today doing all sorts of good work (see Christian anarchism: Catholic Worker Movement). In no way does Catholic Anarchy lead to riots, destruction, or theft, nor even to abortion. But we do see riots, destruction, theft and abortion even in the face of heavy law enforcement. Perhaps the best solution is to apply the heaviest of all law enforcement across the board. We can shoot all criminals. Then literally everyone will be dead. Problem solved.

I'm very sorry to see that you have apparently chosen to post about a serious subject, with the goal of seeking responses for your personal amusement.
That reminds me of ancient Rome, and the "games" enjoyed by the various emperors.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Thanks. This has been a hilarious exercise in futility. I have laughed a great deal. It’s quite funny to me that someone (not myself) introduced the term “strategy” into this thread, and it has reappeared a time or two, yet no one seems to have grasped my true strategy, which is not political but rhetorical. I’ll explain.

I may have introduced the term strategy because I saw what you were trying to say, and it was not hard to understand because I used to do it myself. Believe it or not, I used to run this place when the original owner of the site, Erwin was in charge.
Christian Forums was originally formed as a Protestant web site, and it was not determined if Catholics should even be allowed to post here let alone have their own forum, but One Bread, One Body was given a place at CF. Erwin had a grand vision that if all Christians got together and talked, we could unify the body of Christ and do much good.
When I came here, I was a Protestant that rebelled against the Catholic Church of my birth. I was sure that I could convince other Catholics to do the same. What happened was that I was shown my error and there was indeed no biblical reason not to be Catholic. I repented and returned to the Church.
There was a forum back then called interdenominational dialogue or IDD where we were free to argue and debate the Bible. I saw many good discussions get shut down by the moderators, so I became a moderator to see what was going on. There was what I thought too much animosity. Discussions that looked like they could become fruitful were shut down because they were viewed to be to heated by the mods. What happened was nothing was discussed
As a new convert to Catholicism on a Protestant website, I thought I could change that. I quickly rose up through the ranks of moderators with the simple strategy, the truth stands on its own. It does not need to be protected or hidden, but put on full display.
For a time it worked, but I was personally unprepared for the sudden acquisition of power
I did not realize that I was only as powerful as the people around me want me to be, and there were those that resented my quick ascent.
The two camps in the Catholic section were the traditionalists and the liberal Catholics or modernists. I thought I could induce discussion by being provocative as you are doing, it would induce discussion, and in the light of day the truth would win out. It did not work out that way, and I thought it was the fault of people that had bad attitudes, so I began to enforce discipline among the Catholics. That didn’t go over well. I know now what a king feels like when facing rebellion, or a captain when facing mutiny. I laugh at myself at how stupid I was.
So many things I wanted to discuss, but instead of debate and discussion, I was just told to shut up we don’t discuss such things. Birth control being one of them
I was lead to the truth of the Faith, by the good posters here at Christian Forums, I learned the truth of the faith by the desire to know. It came from self humiliation and the grace of God. The drama of my rise and fall here at CF, played out in my secular career as well. Rise to power is intoxicating, but also humiliating as public intox is. I love God’s sense of humor. As all this was playing out in my life, a song on the radio came out the verse played everything I felt

It was a wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People couldn't believe what I'd become
Revolutionaries wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be king?

I hear Jerusalem bells a-ringing
Roman cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
I know St. Peter won't call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world


God taught me so much and His mercy is everlasting. When I say you need to repent, it is because I repented. I have removed the log from my eye and can clearly see the splinter in yours.
Your provocative rhetoric has good intentions, but you come off more as Heath Ledger’s the Joker, rather than Jesus. Watch the Dark Knight and listen to the Joker’s reasoning. Sound familiar?
What I have learned is that exposing the errors and faulty positions of others is not funny, and if you are laughing, you are doing it wrong. Jesus wept over Jerusalem, He did not find their hardness of heart funny, nor provoke their sinful thoughts in order to laugh, but it brought Him great sorrow. This is not a game and it is not funny. Souls are falling into hell

I come to you not as a judge or in arrogance, but as a brother. I have never met you, yet I know you. Please brother, consider what you are doing

 

[zippy2006]

Like Joe Biden, I’m a pro-choice Catholic. Unlike Joe Biden, I’m not a Democrat. Thus...

It sounds to me like you're a Libertarian who is trying to leverage some theological considerations to help support that ideology. There are two relevant points: 1) Libertarianism is contrary to Catholic social teaching, and cannot be justified by subsidiarity, and 2) Libertarianism isn't even a recognized political philosophy. Most people grow out of Libertarianism in their teens.

Libertarianism is a non-starter on both theological and natural levels.

 

[zippy2006]

We know that government’s laws are powerless because it has made laws against speeding, yet writes speeding tickets daily.

This is literally the basis of your OP, and it is an atrociously bad argument.

 

[truefiction1]

Like Joe Biden, I’m a pro-choice Catholic. Unlike Joe Biden, I’m not a Democrat. Thus, my reasons for being pro-choice likely differ from his.

Although I’m pro-choice, I don’t support abortion. I think it’s murder. But I hold a different view of government than pro-lifers who would outlaw abortion.

As a Catholic, I subscribe to “the principle of subsidiarity, according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions...’” (CCC #1883). Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

In my view, the primary responsibility for preventing sins and societal ills (including abortion) belongs to individuals and to families. Thus, most of what the U.S. government does is overreach. It’s that simple. If I don’t want mothers to abort their children, then I should teach my daughters about the value of human life, which begins at the moment of conception. If I do a good job, then my daughters shouldn’t abort their children.

I can try to persuade others not to abort their children, but that’s where the Kingdom of Christ ends, at persuasion. The Kingdom of Christ is entirely persuasive, never coercive. The devil’s empire is coercive.

“But you said yourself that abortion is murder. Surely the state is right to outlaw murder?” I grant that God’s law against murder, including abortion, is good. But God’s law is also powerless apart from Him. Witness the billions of murders committed since God gave the law. Witness especially the earthly keepers of God’s law (the Jews) in collusion with the ultimate keepers of man’s law (the Romans) committing the most heinous murder in history (the crucifixion of Christ).

The trouble with government is twofold. First, its laws are powerless. If God’s laws are powerless apart from Him, then man’s laws are more so. Second, government refuses to accept that its laws are powerless. More precisely, government pretends to have power to enforce its laws.

We know that government’s laws are powerless because it has made laws against speeding, yet writes speeding tickets daily. It has made laws against drunk driving, but arrests drunk drivers daily. It has made laws against murder, but arrests murderers daily. Its laws don’t work, but it claims that without its laws (and more crucially its enforcers), society would suffer more speeding, more drunk driving, more murder.

The test case for government’s argument is virtually nonexistent, because few societies in history have been able to rid themselves entirely of government for long. Government is fond of pointing to war-torn countries in states of “anarchy” as their test case, but such countries are not truly anarchical. Their ongoing wars are almost entirely concerned with establishing some form of government. They are not free from politics. They are engaged in politics at its ultimate level, the level of brute force.

What law “enforcement” mostly does is show up after a crime has been committed (murder, for instance) or during the commission of a crime (especially drunk driving and speeding, occasionally rape and theft though not usually), but always after a crime is initiated. So-called law “enforcement” then has mainly a punitive function, as its penalties supposedly discourage more crime. Again, there is hardly a test case for this. Maybe look at the thirteen colonies after the revolutionary war, just before they got their new government off the ground. Or study Native American tribal organization. There is still a form of government there, but it’s the sort of government that I prefer, which is to say minimal.

One way to get minimal government is to pass few laws. Few laws need few enforcers, administrators, and other bureaucrats. Trust the individual and the family to regulate their lives. Expect criminality to be ever-present. Yet, try to treat criminality persuasively, which is not to say by simply discouraging criminality. But when criminal acts occur, treat the criminal as a human being capable of redemption. Try to persuade the criminal to reform. In extreme cases, some criminals may need killing or lifetime incarceration, but what we have today throughout the world is a universal police state and prison planet. It’s too much. Off the rails. Globalist. Satanic.

This leads back to the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. Littleness. Localness. For more on the subject see Subsidiarity (Catholicism).

Government in general today is too large, especially the US government. It’s tempting to think that when the Founding Fathers formed the government, they envisioned a smaller institution for a smaller population of the thirteen colonies rather than an imperial government reigning over the expansive territory and population of today. But that’s not true. The empire we have today is exactly what the dominant faction envisioned. Hamilton in the Federalist Papers envisions an empire, repeatedly referring to it by name, such as when he writes in Federalist #13, “The entire separation of the States into thirteen unconnected sovereignties is a project too extravagant and too replete with danger to have many advocates. The ideas of men who speculate upon the dismemberment of the empire seem generally turned toward three confederacies - one consisting of the four Northern, another of the four Middle, and a third of the five Southern States.”

Well, I’m for the confederacies that Hamilton was against. Actually, I’m for a division of the empire more along the left/right and libertarian/anarcho/centrist political lines of today - not necessarily separation into distinct nations, but at least a political division similar to what Diocletian did when he split the Roman Empire into East and West to make it more easily governable. We can all remain Americans with a common military to oppose Communist China, Recidivist Imperial Russia, etc. But ultra-leftists can be free to smoke legalized LGBTQ crack rocks in their own safe space version of empire called Libtardia, ultra-righties can be free to shoot bazookas at lawn jockeys on the public square in their version called Magatardia, and those of us who just want to be left alone to mind our own affairs can reside in Central Calmistan.

Anyway, it was not the Federalists but the Antifederalists who supported this concept of small government, which best reflects Catholic subsidiarity. In opposition to “subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies,” Hamilton preferred “union under one government” (Federalist #1). It is precisely this Hamiltonian idea of empire that Abe Lincoln and the Northern army imposed on the South during the so-called Civil War. The lamentable fact that the South had a slave-based economy has muddied the waters.

Consider any other political issue in the same light. Say for instance, that the South supported a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol sales replete with a Volstead Prohibition Enforcement Act. Then the North conquered the Southern States, forcing them to accept alcohol sales. Or suppose that the South supported a law against abortion, while the North was pro-choice. Then the North conquered and forced abortion on the South.

Of course, it’s not entirely clear that alcohol consumption or abortion are good for society. The point is that the conquering force must end up on the political side approved by modernity. So long as this is the result, it makes it difficult for anyone to question the “might makes right” policy of the conquerors. “Oh what? You wanted the South to win so that a bunch of oppressed people couldn’t party with booze or abort the burdensome results of their sexual trysts?” No.

I wanted the South to win for the same reason I wanted the Antifederalists to win. I want small, local government with few laws, few enforcers, few administrators, and few other bureaucrats. I want a government localized and responsive enough so that individuals and families can actually influence the debate about laws rather than being dictated to by a distant imperial government substantially controlled by communist/fascist corporations and lobbying groups with little oversight.

Since that’s what I want, I encourage everyone not to abort their children, but I don’t insist that an imperial government enforce my views. That makes me pro-choice, I guess. That’s also why I’m probably a different sort of pro-choice Catholic from Joe Biden. If the “Ruth Sent Me” crowd shows up at my parish, I’ll discourage them from disrupting Mass with their mindless chanting, but I’ll also offer to schedule a meeting to talk with them respectfully about our concerns. They seem particularly concerned about abortion. I’m particularly concerned about tyranny… and I’ve had enough of it… frankly.

A tremendous amount of careful thought and reflection has gone into the construction of your viewpoint, I see. And this ought to be respected. However, It is not at all permissible for Orthodox Christian peoples to permit abortions to be committed even by strangers (unbelievers) who are in our midst (community/society). This is because abortion, in nearly all cases, is no different than (because of the underlying motives for it in most cases) the sacrifice of a child to demonic beings, and is therefore clearly forbidden in the Word of God:

"The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Say to the people of Israel, Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. I myself will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make my sanctuary unclean and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do at all close their eyes to that man when he gives one of his children to Molech, and do not put him to death, then I will set my face against that man and against his clan and will cut them off from among their people, him and all who follow him in whoring after Molech. (Leviticus 20:1-5)

So, we are not to allow others to sacrifice their unborn sons and daughters to any idols. That's what they are doing even if they don't believe in idols. Because though they may not believe in them consciously, they still have them, and when they murder on account of them they are to be punished for having broken God's holy law. Thus, Christians will continue to inform their governments on what laws need to exist and be upheld with regards to abortion. This especially goes for Christians who serve in government seats.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I may have introduced the term strategy because I saw what you were trying to say, and it was not hard to understand because I used to do it myself. Believe it or not, I used to run this place when the original owner of the site, Erwin was in charge.
Christian Forums was originally formed as a Protestant web site, and it was not determined if Catholics should even be allowed to post here let alone have their own forum, but One Bread, One Body was given a place at CF. Erwin had a grand vision that if all Christians got together and talked, we could unify the body of Christ and do much good.
When I came here, I was a Protestant that rebelled against the Catholic Church of my birth. I was sure that I could convince other Catholics to do the same. What happened was that I was shown my error and there was indeed no biblical reason not to be Catholic. I repented and returned to the Church.
There was a forum back then called interdenominational dialogue or IDD where we were free to argue and debate the Bible. I saw many good discussions get shut down by the moderators, so I became a moderator to see what was going on. There was what I thought too much animosity. Discussions that looked like they could become fruitful were shut down because they were viewed to be to heated by the mods. What happened was nothing was discussed
As a new convert to Catholicism on a Protestant website, I thought I could change that. I quickly rose up through the ranks of moderators with the simple strategy, the truth stands on its own. It does not need to be protected or hidden, but put on full display.
For a time it worked, but I was personally unprepared for the sudden acquisition of power
I did not realize that I was only as powerful as the people around me want me to be, and there were those that resented my quick ascent.
The two camps in the Catholic section were the traditionalists and the liberal Catholics or modernists. I thought I could induce discussion by being provocative as you are doing, it would induce discussion, and in the light of day the truth would win out. It did not work out that way, and I thought it was the fault of people that had bad attitudes, so I began to enforce discipline among the Catholics. That didn’t go over well. I know now what a king feels like when facing rebellion, or a captain when facing mutiny. I laugh at myself at how stupid I was.
So many things I wanted to discuss, but instead of debate and discussion, I was just told to shut up we don’t discuss such things. Birth control being one of them
I was lead to the truth of the Faith, by the good posters here at Christian Forums, I learned the truth of the faith by the desire to know. It came from self humiliation and the grace of God. The drama of my rise and fall here at CF, played out in my secular career as well. Rise to power is intoxicating, but also humiliating as public intox is. I love God’s sense of humor. As all this was playing out in my life, a song on the radio came out the verse played everything I felt

It was a wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People couldn't believe what I'd become
Revolutionaries wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be king?

I hear Jerusalem bells a-ringing
Roman cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
I know St. Peter won't call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world


God taught me so much and His mercy is everlasting. When I say you need to repent, it is because I repented. I have removed the log from my eye and can clearly see the splinter in yours.
Your provocative rhetoric has good intentions, but you come off more as Heath Ledger’s the Joker, rather than Jesus. Watch the Dark Knight and listen to the Joker’s reasoning. Sound familiar?
What I have learned is that exposing the errors and faulty positions of others is not funny, and if you are laughing, you are doing it wrong. Jesus wept over Jerusalem, He did not find their hardness of heart funny, nor provoke their sinful thoughts in order to laugh, but it brought Him great sorrow. This is not a game and it is not funny. Souls are falling into hell

I come to you not as a judge or in arrogance, but as a brother. I have never met you, yet I know you. Please brother, consider what you are doing

O I C.
I returned to see you Catholic and was like [how do I know him, I do remember his name?] I then thought I just can't recall if we got on or not and I couldn't recall if you were ever anything BUT Catholic.... my recall was so vague. You said you were a moderator [during my tenure of moderator for 3 years I vaguely recall] Ahhhh, it's kinda coming back to me.
More than likely we had some discussions in GT. Because your name stands out.
Probably I just stepped over your posts, as I often did if I felt it was not going to be fruitful. Indeed you are so correct there are wonderful Catholic members in here [and were] so astute.
The whole Erwin thing, I do recall. I just didn't let too much bother me.. I would walk away if I felt I ought.
Then I did leave for years. Going through some heavy stuff.

CF was iron on iron for me.
I actually appreciated GT. Only because returning to the Church, knowing opposition existed, I wondered why. And then to school I went in GT.
Fascinating to learn polarized thinking, and that led me to curiously seek the answers and I ended up staying up late at night studying history of the Church.
Reading the fathers. Learning apologetics and how it all worked. Which led my Deacon to send me to Lay Ecclesiastical Classes where I learned Jewish culture and history in ancient times. What scriptures meant and also dived into Koine Greek.

Oh the memories.

I am so glad the Lord inspired your graces to understand the Church.
Congrats and that's wonderful!

 

[WarriorAngel]

A tremendous amount of careful thought and reflection has gone into the construction of your viewpoint, I see. And this ought to be respected. However, It is not at all permissible for Orthodox Christian peoples to permit abortions to be committed even by strangers (unbelievers) who are in our midst (community/society). This is because abortion, in nearly all cases, is no different than (because of the underlying motives for it in most cases) the sacrifice of a child to demonic beings, and is therefore clearly forbidden in the Word of God:

"The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Say to the people of Israel, Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. I myself will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make my sanctuary unclean and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do at all close their eyes to that man when he gives one of his children to Molech, and do not put him to death, then I will set my face against that man and against his clan and will cut them off from among their people, him and all who follow him in whoring after Molech. (Leviticus 20:1-5)

So, we are not to allow others to sacrifice their unborn sons and daughters to any idols. That's what they are doing even if they don't believe in idols. Because though they may not believe in them consciously, they still have them, and when they murder on account of them they are to be punished for having broken God's holy law. Thus, Christians will continue to inform their governments on what laws need to exist and be upheld with regards to abortion. This especially goes for Christians who serve in government seats.

The idol of money.
The abortionists and the folks who don't 'want' the inconvenience of raising another child.
Not all who had abortions could remain hard hearted.
And indeed it is hard hearted ....