Still posting my way about the Church and abortion and other issues. I notice as I go to different blogs the anti-abortion commenters advance two arguments. Some attempt to give reasons for the Church's position. Others simply argue against abortion because the Church opposes it. Of course, these in a sense are two different positions.
I think the argument that abortions at all stages after conception constitues murder is extremely weak, and I have given reasons for this here. But going to the second argument---abortion is wrong because the Church says it is raises some questions. The standard argument of this second group when they see that the position of the Church has virtually no support even among Catholics is that the Church is not a "democracy" so the fact that so few Catholics as others agree with the Church on this issue is pointless. But several questions come to mind:
Is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Catholics worth nothing?
Is it fair to say that this great majority of Catholics condone murder?
Why do the leaders of the anti-abortion movement ,who insist that abortion is murder, not see a contradiction in that belief and their general belief that at least the initiators of the murder should not suffer severe legal penalties?
If political figures should be denied communion because they are pro-choice, or, if as some argue these figures have made themselves unworthy of communion because of their stance, should not the near 80 per cent of lay Catholics not be in the same position? Should they be bared from communion?
If the Church is infallible on this issue, as many commenters assume, why did Paul6 give a rather long explanation for his 'ruling'. Is the explanation necessary? Is a person not being somewhat ingenuous when they give reasons for feeling abortion is murder, then trump that by saying, the arguments don't really make any difference ? The Church has spoken and that settles it.
I do not mean these questions to be overly argumentative. But I do feel the Church should have a position of them. Jack
.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Liberal and Conservative: The Issues.
Some like to critisize the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as too simplistic. I think these terms are about as good as we can do to describe the differences in our church today. It is a sprectum, fo course, and probably a majority don't fit exactly in one camp or the other. Accepting this, let me make some observations on the differences.
Three areas seem to be in contention between the two groups: Liturgy, 'social' gospel vs. personal piety, and clericalism vs. the laity. I notice these differences daily on the blogs and in the media. For example, yesterday a came across a new Pew survey dealing with the attitudes of Christian churches in America. It showed to me a rather surprising trend. Catholics seem to be less in step with the 'official' philosophy of their church than most other groups. This promted the Archbishop of Denver to say that the Church needs to 'evangelize' its own members, because , he suggested, a high percentage of Catholics do not understand the teachings of the Church. I see two possible 'takes' on his comment. Maybe he is right. Or maybe the laity know more than the good Archbishop thinks, but find some of the teachings hard to accept. An example of the latter is the Church teaching on contraception. The official Church position on the issue is that the use of contraceptives is a serious sin, a grave violation of the natural law, a violation of God's command etc. Those familiar with this issue point out there is little, if any, distinction between catholics and other church members on this issue---a great majority of all religious people do not accept the catholic position on this issue. Even within the Church hierarchy there is wide differences. As we all know, a commission coming after Vatican 2, a commission made up of clerics recommended the position of the Church be modified. This was turned down by Paul 6.
Beyond this difference in the Church on this issue, is also a division between the hierarchy and the laity . The emphasis of Vatican2 on the role of the laity is obviously not palitable to many in the clergy. On a prominent catholic blog the conservative catholics were incensed over what they called the "anti-clericalism" of church members today. I was told by several of the people on this blog to"stay in my place" and not toy with questioning 'official' church positions. The Church is not a democracy, was a constant refrain, and my duty was to accept what the hierarchy said.
In my own diocese, our nice but very conservative bishop, has announced in a lenghty essay. the responsibility to "adopt a priest." He clearly states that priests are closer to God than lay persons, and we should recognize their unique position. Again, the effort the reassert the supremacy of clerics over the laity.
I will have more to say on the issues I have mentioned in this post in the days ahead and kook forward to any comments pro or con. Jack
Three areas seem to be in contention between the two groups: Liturgy, 'social' gospel vs. personal piety, and clericalism vs. the laity. I notice these differences daily on the blogs and in the media. For example, yesterday a came across a new Pew survey dealing with the attitudes of Christian churches in America. It showed to me a rather surprising trend. Catholics seem to be less in step with the 'official' philosophy of their church than most other groups. This promted the Archbishop of Denver to say that the Church needs to 'evangelize' its own members, because , he suggested, a high percentage of Catholics do not understand the teachings of the Church. I see two possible 'takes' on his comment. Maybe he is right. Or maybe the laity know more than the good Archbishop thinks, but find some of the teachings hard to accept. An example of the latter is the Church teaching on contraception. The official Church position on the issue is that the use of contraceptives is a serious sin, a grave violation of the natural law, a violation of God's command etc. Those familiar with this issue point out there is little, if any, distinction between catholics and other church members on this issue---a great majority of all religious people do not accept the catholic position on this issue. Even within the Church hierarchy there is wide differences. As we all know, a commission coming after Vatican 2, a commission made up of clerics recommended the position of the Church be modified. This was turned down by Paul 6.
Beyond this difference in the Church on this issue, is also a division between the hierarchy and the laity . The emphasis of Vatican2 on the role of the laity is obviously not palitable to many in the clergy. On a prominent catholic blog the conservative catholics were incensed over what they called the "anti-clericalism" of church members today. I was told by several of the people on this blog to"stay in my place" and not toy with questioning 'official' church positions. The Church is not a democracy, was a constant refrain, and my duty was to accept what the hierarchy said.
In my own diocese, our nice but very conservative bishop, has announced in a lenghty essay. the responsibility to "adopt a priest." He clearly states that priests are closer to God than lay persons, and we should recognize their unique position. Again, the effort the reassert the supremacy of clerics over the laity.
I will have more to say on the issues I have mentioned in this post in the days ahead and kook forward to any comments pro or con. Jack
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
I suspend, Part 2
Having no luck finding the difference between "evil" and "intrinsic evil" other than a confused definition by Aquinas which really says nothing---'we seek what is good.' Oh?
In the abortion argument we have two unreasonable extremes. One extreme says a women can do anything she wants with her body, including killing a fetus seconds before it is born. Reasonable people, I believe, regard this as nonsense. The other extreme is saying that one cell caused by sexual intercourse is a "person," "child," "infant," "human being," etc. That some religious people would argue the latter, is not convincing for most. Both sides like to fudge a bit. The totally pro-abortion person , to start with, needs to contend that a fetus my be killed at any time. The total anti=abortion defender needs to argue that the one cell is just as fully a person as a 5 year old. Both are equally absurd positions and are rejected by all common sense. A fetus is not just "my body." One cell is not a person etc.
Now, some religious bodies state that one cell is a person. The catholic church so teaches, but its members like members of other religions do not accept this extreme. Our vocabulary which is descriptive not proscriptive never refers to a cell as a person. As I will post later the church is forced to this position because of its belief in the demeaning nature of sex as such, which it clearly teaches, but tries to cover with 'sugary' words.
I accept neither of the extremes written about above. I have no personal stake in this argument. No relative of mine, no family member I know of has ever evn thought of abortion as a way to prevent the birth of a child. My saying this, of course, carries no probitive weight. I say it totry and draw the discussion back to what I wrote above---both sides must defend their position starting with the extremes above.
Both sides play the "slippery slope" game. If I admit anything except the argument in it's purest form it will become a slippery slope to conceeding my point. Logical nonsense, but used by both groups.
In the abortion argument we have two unreasonable extremes. One extreme says a women can do anything she wants with her body, including killing a fetus seconds before it is born. Reasonable people, I believe, regard this as nonsense. The other extreme is saying that one cell caused by sexual intercourse is a "person," "child," "infant," "human being," etc. That some religious people would argue the latter, is not convincing for most. Both sides like to fudge a bit. The totally pro-abortion person , to start with, needs to contend that a fetus my be killed at any time. The total anti=abortion defender needs to argue that the one cell is just as fully a person as a 5 year old. Both are equally absurd positions and are rejected by all common sense. A fetus is not just "my body." One cell is not a person etc.
Now, some religious bodies state that one cell is a person. The catholic church so teaches, but its members like members of other religions do not accept this extreme. Our vocabulary which is descriptive not proscriptive never refers to a cell as a person. As I will post later the church is forced to this position because of its belief in the demeaning nature of sex as such, which it clearly teaches, but tries to cover with 'sugary' words.
I accept neither of the extremes written about above. I have no personal stake in this argument. No relative of mine, no family member I know of has ever evn thought of abortion as a way to prevent the birth of a child. My saying this, of course, carries no probitive weight. I say it totry and draw the discussion back to what I wrote above---both sides must defend their position starting with the extremes above.
Both sides play the "slippery slope" game. If I admit anything except the argument in it's purest form it will become a slippery slope to conceeding my point. Logical nonsense, but used by both groups.
Monday, June 9, 2008
I suspend.
As we come to the end of the presidential primary season, the expression "my campaign is in suspension" has become a recurring mantra. Romney, Huckabee, and Clinton at one time or another have had their campaigns "in suspersion." I have not posted here in some time, but I have continued to search for opinions on aspects of Catholicism, and placed comments on several blogs without , in most cases, getting any response. Now obviously the blogs I have commented on may find my questions not worth answering. True, to a degree, maybe. But I also suspect my questions are found difficult by some to answer. As a result I have placed my Catholicism "in suspension." Now don't get me wrong. The Church little cares or will remember what one individual thinks. But for my sake, here goes.
I posted the following question on 4 blogs and ask which is the better Christian, "A" or "B"
"A" runs a child sex ring.
Forces his employees to work 14 hours a day.
Offers no health insurance to his employees.
Dumps toxic waste into a river used for recreational purposes.
BUT is active in the pro-life movement.
"B" runs a home for homeless children.
Limits employees to 40 hours a week.
Offers free comprehensive health care to his employees.
BUT believes Roe v. Wade was a good decision.
Of course, I was trying to make a point. I got two answers and was STUNNED by both!! The first answer from a very liberal blogger was, in essence, 'well, I don't like to judge other Catholics but I would assume "B" was the better Christian." Assume!!! My heavens!! The second answer from a very conservative Catholic was 'they are equally bad.'
What is going on here? Am I going crazy or have these other two Catholics become blinded by a one issue Church as many see it. Where is human reason? Do these two, only two, I realize, represent Catholic thinking. BTW, the other two blogs just ignored the question. Well, I guess they thought it was of no importance.
Now, I am going to be on this topic for some time. Should you stop by, you might leave a one letter or more answer.
I posted the following question on 4 blogs and ask which is the better Christian, "A" or "B"
"A" runs a child sex ring.
Forces his employees to work 14 hours a day.
Offers no health insurance to his employees.
Dumps toxic waste into a river used for recreational purposes.
BUT is active in the pro-life movement.
"B" runs a home for homeless children.
Limits employees to 40 hours a week.
Offers free comprehensive health care to his employees.
BUT believes Roe v. Wade was a good decision.
Of course, I was trying to make a point. I got two answers and was STUNNED by both!! The first answer from a very liberal blogger was, in essence, 'well, I don't like to judge other Catholics but I would assume "B" was the better Christian." Assume!!! My heavens!! The second answer from a very conservative Catholic was 'they are equally bad.'
What is going on here? Am I going crazy or have these other two Catholics become blinded by a one issue Church as many see it. Where is human reason? Do these two, only two, I realize, represent Catholic thinking. BTW, the other two blogs just ignored the question. Well, I guess they thought it was of no importance.
Now, I am going to be on this topic for some time. Should you stop by, you might leave a one letter or more answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)