Anna, well great!!! Save your money. You're going to need it. Kind of like the Trapp family. Seriously all the best wishes, and I will continue to try to keep you from your 'logical' heresies!!!
Have you noticed "Victor" posting comments on my blog. And now he's on Crystal, where he refers to you as Saint Anna. The brothers and the girls send their best. See what you have to look ahead to a decade or two away. Jack
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Amazing free predictions
Just a couple of my amazing political predictions. McCain will begin to close the Gap on Obama by Tuesday. Why? They both supported the bailout, but McCain is more grumpy and that fits in with almost a majority of Americans.
Palin will look surprisingly good at the V.P. Debate. The expectations for her are so low, if she doesn't faint, people will say"hey, she not so bad."
By End of this coming week the race will be almost tied again. Within 2 or 3 points EITHER way.
Palin will look surprisingly good at the V.P. Debate. The expectations for her are so low, if she doesn't faint, people will say"hey, she not so bad."
By End of this coming week the race will be almost tied again. Within 2 or 3 points EITHER way.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Sex and Abortion
We, as humans, often exaggerate or tell 'little white lies' with the best of intentions. We tell children if they play with matches they will burn the house down; or we, wisely, say not to talk to 'strangers' becuase they may harm you; we use to tell young boys if they 'played with themselves' they would go blind. And a thousand other examples could be given.
Now they Church as a very long and undisputed history of considering sex a 'bad' or dangerous thing. I am reading a biography of Thomas More, and this acclaimed and intelligent man thought sexual desires and practices were a very strong deterrent to loving God.
I believe the Church has never changed its anti-sex outlook, and as the guarrdian of peoples' morals still regards sex as bad, EXCEPT for the procreation of children. Yes in the last decades it has added the "unitive" principle, but this principle is ONLY active when the possibility of procreation is there. This, of course, involves the Church in some problems: What about the aged, what about the impotent, what about the infertile. And, most important what about the obvious desire of so many humans for the pleasure of sex. Well this can be covered through special arguments, family planning, for example, but the Church places before mankind the very clear dictum that all sex MUST have at least some possibility of producing a offspring. And so we find Aquinas saying that corsorting with a prostitute is superior to masturbation because at least procreation is possible.
It is very clear to me and others that the "right to life movement" is at base a "sex is dangerous" movement, a movement whose end result is to curb sexual activity. And this leads to such fallacies as the basic purpose of all sex is fertilization. Any orgasm outside the vagina is sinful. Indeed any sexual thought must be avoided, if possible. Any sperm penetrating an egg is to create a person.
I think the Church's ultimate goal and position is quite clear. Again, sex is bad outside its procreative aspect. And this is most clearly seen in the fact that ALL decision makers in the Church must be totally devoid of sexual activity and even sexual thoughts, if possible.
The argument put forth is that only by a total rejection of all sexual activity and thought makes one eligible for the closest contact with God.
This standard is not held in any other area of human life. Celibate doctors are no more devoted to their patients than married doctors, and so on through all human activites.
I have written many times about the Church's interest in celibacy. I do back away from one impression I may have made. The Church MAY be sincere in its view that the sexual drive is most dangerous. The celibate idea MAY NOT be simply self-serving to the all celibate masters of the Church.
The issue of abortion is very important. But to use it as a screen to hide a overwhelming belief in the dangers of sex is not acceptable to almost all, including Catholics, and keeps us from making the real case for sexual restraint and responsibility.
Now they Church as a very long and undisputed history of considering sex a 'bad' or dangerous thing. I am reading a biography of Thomas More, and this acclaimed and intelligent man thought sexual desires and practices were a very strong deterrent to loving God.
I believe the Church has never changed its anti-sex outlook, and as the guarrdian of peoples' morals still regards sex as bad, EXCEPT for the procreation of children. Yes in the last decades it has added the "unitive" principle, but this principle is ONLY active when the possibility of procreation is there. This, of course, involves the Church in some problems: What about the aged, what about the impotent, what about the infertile. And, most important what about the obvious desire of so many humans for the pleasure of sex. Well this can be covered through special arguments, family planning, for example, but the Church places before mankind the very clear dictum that all sex MUST have at least some possibility of producing a offspring. And so we find Aquinas saying that corsorting with a prostitute is superior to masturbation because at least procreation is possible.
It is very clear to me and others that the "right to life movement" is at base a "sex is dangerous" movement, a movement whose end result is to curb sexual activity. And this leads to such fallacies as the basic purpose of all sex is fertilization. Any orgasm outside the vagina is sinful. Indeed any sexual thought must be avoided, if possible. Any sperm penetrating an egg is to create a person.
I think the Church's ultimate goal and position is quite clear. Again, sex is bad outside its procreative aspect. And this is most clearly seen in the fact that ALL decision makers in the Church must be totally devoid of sexual activity and even sexual thoughts, if possible.
The argument put forth is that only by a total rejection of all sexual activity and thought makes one eligible for the closest contact with God.
This standard is not held in any other area of human life. Celibate doctors are no more devoted to their patients than married doctors, and so on through all human activites.
I have written many times about the Church's interest in celibacy. I do back away from one impression I may have made. The Church MAY be sincere in its view that the sexual drive is most dangerous. The celibate idea MAY NOT be simply self-serving to the all celibate masters of the Church.
The issue of abortion is very important. But to use it as a screen to hide a overwhelming belief in the dangers of sex is not acceptable to almost all, including Catholics, and keeps us from making the real case for sexual restraint and responsibility.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Abortion by the numbers.
Maybe a point or two of clarification might be helpful.
Overruling Roe v. Wade would NOT make abortions illegal. Such action would simply return the decision to the states. Those with money would have no problem going to a state where abortions were legal. The poor would go to the "back alley."
The basic hypocrisy of the extreme "pro-lifers" is that they would NOT punish the women who tells the doctor to commit "murder", but only the doctor. The pro-life argument is that the women who have abortions don't know what they are doing. So assume a women with a Ph.d in biology from Harvard has an abortion. Does she not know what she is doing?
McCain, the pro-life candidate, makes exceptions for rape and incest. This is in direct contrast to the Church's teaching. If a woman claimed she was raped he would take her word for it. Really?
Only approximately 10 percent of Americans agree with Church's position (no abortions). No real difference between numbers from Catholics and others.
70 per cent of American favor allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest.
73 percent favor allowing abortion for women's health.
56 percent of Americans favor allowing abortion to help mother's mental health. 28 per cent oppose.
53 percent of Americans favor abortion if fetus has fatal birth defect. 30 per cent oppose.
62 per cent of Americans believe the extreme position on abortion should be compromised.
Is this America or Vatican City?
Oh, yes, I know the majority is not always right. But should a small percent dictate to the whole country?
Overruling Roe v. Wade would NOT make abortions illegal. Such action would simply return the decision to the states. Those with money would have no problem going to a state where abortions were legal. The poor would go to the "back alley."
The basic hypocrisy of the extreme "pro-lifers" is that they would NOT punish the women who tells the doctor to commit "murder", but only the doctor. The pro-life argument is that the women who have abortions don't know what they are doing. So assume a women with a Ph.d in biology from Harvard has an abortion. Does she not know what she is doing?
McCain, the pro-life candidate, makes exceptions for rape and incest. This is in direct contrast to the Church's teaching. If a woman claimed she was raped he would take her word for it. Really?
Only approximately 10 percent of Americans agree with Church's position (no abortions). No real difference between numbers from Catholics and others.
70 per cent of American favor allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest.
73 percent favor allowing abortion for women's health.
56 percent of Americans favor allowing abortion to help mother's mental health. 28 per cent oppose.
53 percent of Americans favor abortion if fetus has fatal birth defect. 30 per cent oppose.
62 per cent of Americans believe the extreme position on abortion should be compromised.
Is this America or Vatican City?
Oh, yes, I know the majority is not always right. But should a small percent dictate to the whole country?
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The 'slippery' slope and beyond.
Few things in the world are more irritating to me than the debate between the so called "pro-life" adherents and the "pro-choice" advocates. I say irritating because both sides are being dishonest. They both are using the 'slippery slope' fallacy to "prove" their point. That is, they are assuming a strict necessity of progress from point A to Point Z without offering any proof that all the interceding 'letters' must follow from their start at A. In a practical sense they assume the POSSIBLE final outcome and then try to show how A always leads to B, B to C, and on to their hoped for conclusion. I am dealing here with how the Church plays this fallacy, but am just as critical of the pro-choice extremist who say "It's my body and I can do anything I want with it, including choosing to have an abortion at any time." This is blatant nonsense. No one has the right, except in the most extraordinay and rare circumstances to kill an unborn child 10 minutes before its delivery. But whydo they argue such a fantasy? The 'slippery slope' fallacy. If I can't control my peproductive rights, the Church will 'run in' and say: We will legally control your reproductive rights.
Now the Church is the same. Looking at the current scene over the Nancy Pelosy abortion statement, the hierarchy is in a veritable feeding frenzy, trying to use the Church's vague if not false terminology . The church plays word games either deliberately, as I believe, or out of ignorance. Yes, the bishops were responding directly to the Church's position on abortion, but ALSO trying to slip in some anti-choice arguments.
Let's take the"wisdom" of Cardinal Egan who 'bolsters' his argument against abortion by saying that anyone who does not know a fetus is a person need only look at a sonogram and see the fetus "waving and smiling to us". What? Can the good(bad) Cardinal tell me how or show me a one cell waving and smiling. Sheer nonsense. But you say he was talking about abortion. It makes no difference. His statement, fully in line with his position that this one cell is a person like a two month old baby, makes no sense to the basic argument.
Looking further, I notice our mighty bishops talking about "Human life" (I agree the fertilized egg is human life, but so are my fingernails) "life", "human beings" "human species" "when the human fetus becomes a human being in the strictist sense" (why not at the one cell stage?) and yes, one reference to "person".
From over 50 years debating the abortion issue, I say with some certainty, that all serious discussions from both sides comes down to the idea of "person". This is the term used in science, philosophy, ethics and legal fields to identify what all want to protect. Some Church spokesmen, including Cardinals, like to wax over our guarantee of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, trying to argue that since a fertilized egg is "life" (as is sperm) our founding fathers desired to protect the first fertilized cell. One might ask does that single cell also have the right to "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness?" What does that mean when we say a single cell is a person? Our laws and speech are not simply normative, but descriptive; and nowhere do I find a single cell 'called' a person. Take that back. A handfull of catholic theologians, philosophers, do use "person" to describe that one cell. But the overwhelming evidence of usage is that a single cell is not a person, or for that matter a human being or a child, or a baby.
Now where are we. A few Christian (mainly Catholic) clerics and theologians say the impregnated egg is a person. Almost all others say "no." And I shall show later how even most catholics cannot accept a single cell as a person. These Christian/Catholics (most of them) realize the issue of what is a "person" is a theological/philosophcial question. That is fine, if the cleric, theologian, philosopher or devout Catholic sincerely believes this is a theological/philosophical issue.I think people know what I think on this issue. To the sincere believer in the one cell as person doctrine I say fine. There are arguments to be made. People disagree.
BUT, and this is the thrust of those who reject the 'slippery slope' "arguments" of the pro-life and pro-choice factions, even those who are not using the 'slippery slope' argument intentionally:
WE HAVE HERE A HIGHLY DISPUTED ISSUE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE CHURCH SHOULD ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE ITS THEOLOGICAL POSITION ON THOSE WITH DIFFERENT THEOLOGICAL POSITIONS. I THOUGHT THE CHURCH HAD GONE BEYOND THAT. ENFORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON ANY OF YOUR MEMBERS AS A CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP. DO NOT FORCE ALL TO ACCEPT YOUR POSITION BY LAW.
Now the Church is the same. Looking at the current scene over the Nancy Pelosy abortion statement, the hierarchy is in a veritable feeding frenzy, trying to use the Church's vague if not false terminology . The church plays word games either deliberately, as I believe, or out of ignorance. Yes, the bishops were responding directly to the Church's position on abortion, but ALSO trying to slip in some anti-choice arguments.
Let's take the"wisdom" of Cardinal Egan who 'bolsters' his argument against abortion by saying that anyone who does not know a fetus is a person need only look at a sonogram and see the fetus "waving and smiling to us". What? Can the good(bad) Cardinal tell me how or show me a one cell waving and smiling. Sheer nonsense. But you say he was talking about abortion. It makes no difference. His statement, fully in line with his position that this one cell is a person like a two month old baby, makes no sense to the basic argument.
Looking further, I notice our mighty bishops talking about "Human life" (I agree the fertilized egg is human life, but so are my fingernails) "life", "human beings" "human species" "when the human fetus becomes a human being in the strictist sense" (why not at the one cell stage?) and yes, one reference to "person".
From over 50 years debating the abortion issue, I say with some certainty, that all serious discussions from both sides comes down to the idea of "person". This is the term used in science, philosophy, ethics and legal fields to identify what all want to protect. Some Church spokesmen, including Cardinals, like to wax over our guarantee of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, trying to argue that since a fertilized egg is "life" (as is sperm) our founding fathers desired to protect the first fertilized cell. One might ask does that single cell also have the right to "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness?" What does that mean when we say a single cell is a person? Our laws and speech are not simply normative, but descriptive; and nowhere do I find a single cell 'called' a person. Take that back. A handfull of catholic theologians, philosophers, do use "person" to describe that one cell. But the overwhelming evidence of usage is that a single cell is not a person, or for that matter a human being or a child, or a baby.
Now where are we. A few Christian (mainly Catholic) clerics and theologians say the impregnated egg is a person. Almost all others say "no." And I shall show later how even most catholics cannot accept a single cell as a person. These Christian/Catholics (most of them) realize the issue of what is a "person" is a theological/philosophcial question. That is fine, if the cleric, theologian, philosopher or devout Catholic sincerely believes this is a theological/philosophical issue.I think people know what I think on this issue. To the sincere believer in the one cell as person doctrine I say fine. There are arguments to be made. People disagree.
BUT, and this is the thrust of those who reject the 'slippery slope' "arguments" of the pro-life and pro-choice factions, even those who are not using the 'slippery slope' argument intentionally:
WE HAVE HERE A HIGHLY DISPUTED ISSUE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE CHURCH SHOULD ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE ITS THEOLOGICAL POSITION ON THOSE WITH DIFFERENT THEOLOGICAL POSITIONS. I THOUGHT THE CHURCH HAD GONE BEYOND THAT. ENFORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON ANY OF YOUR MEMBERS AS A CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP. DO NOT FORCE ALL TO ACCEPT YOUR POSITION BY LAW.
Friday, September 12, 2008
The Catholic Church, Sex and Family
Anyone who has looked at my blog knows that I very interested in the Catholic Church's position on matters relating to sex from masturbation to abortion. To clear the air a bit, I am Catholic---some may doubt this---, no member of my family, immediate or extended has had an abortion to my knowledge and I know only three families personally that have had abortions for their children. I do not advise abortion; I think it is a poor thing to do.
I am quite aware that the Church finds abortion to be a sin, indeed murder. I do not agree with this position totally.
Although I have blogged and commented on these issues at various times, I want to put together my thought in a brief series of posts.
I believe all recognize that in dicussing an issue, it is legitimate to see if those who speak or write on the issue , have any special interest in the outcome of the discussion. We recognize this in our courts which are dedicated to finding the truth in any case. For example if a person sues, say, the Ford Motor Company for negligence in making a car,it is quite proper and indeed necessary, to take the possibility of 'interest in the outcome' if a Ford company executive is giving testimony. Also his expertise in the matter through knowledge and experience is relevant. And so in a criminal trial, the testimony of the defendant must be matched by his interest in the outcome. Not that in either case, the Ford executive or the criminal defendant, is the testimomy automatically false. It may well be true.
Now I believe the Catholic Church has a definite interest in the outcome of discussion about sex in general. This interest in the outcome must be weighed in shaping one's beliefs.
I believe all would agree that the Church had an anti-sex position for many centuries. Sex was primarily or only for procreation. But I will leave that history aside and concentrate on its position today, or in the last few decades.
These considerations need to be looked at in determining the Church's teaching or disciplines in these matters.
One. All significant decision makers in the Church are celibates.
Two. All significant decisions makers in the church are pledged to repress or sublimate all sexual feelings.
Three. The Church clearly teaches that a celibate life makes it easier to serve and know God.
Four. No significant decision makers in the Church (with a few exceptions) know of or have experienced the special bond of husband and wife.
Five. No significant decision maker in the Church has experienced the special bond existing between parents who, through their actions, have created a child.
I believe these factors must be kept in mind when evaluating the doctrines and disciplines promulgated by these decision makers. I believe to ignore them is the height of unreason.Again, I do say these factors do not, of themselves, automatically make the Church's position wrong.
I am quite aware that the Church finds abortion to be a sin, indeed murder. I do not agree with this position totally.
Although I have blogged and commented on these issues at various times, I want to put together my thought in a brief series of posts.
I believe all recognize that in dicussing an issue, it is legitimate to see if those who speak or write on the issue , have any special interest in the outcome of the discussion. We recognize this in our courts which are dedicated to finding the truth in any case. For example if a person sues, say, the Ford Motor Company for negligence in making a car,it is quite proper and indeed necessary, to take the possibility of 'interest in the outcome' if a Ford company executive is giving testimony. Also his expertise in the matter through knowledge and experience is relevant. And so in a criminal trial, the testimony of the defendant must be matched by his interest in the outcome. Not that in either case, the Ford executive or the criminal defendant, is the testimomy automatically false. It may well be true.
Now I believe the Catholic Church has a definite interest in the outcome of discussion about sex in general. This interest in the outcome must be weighed in shaping one's beliefs.
I believe all would agree that the Church had an anti-sex position for many centuries. Sex was primarily or only for procreation. But I will leave that history aside and concentrate on its position today, or in the last few decades.
These considerations need to be looked at in determining the Church's teaching or disciplines in these matters.
One. All significant decision makers in the Church are celibates.
Two. All significant decisions makers in the church are pledged to repress or sublimate all sexual feelings.
Three. The Church clearly teaches that a celibate life makes it easier to serve and know God.
Four. No significant decision makers in the Church (with a few exceptions) know of or have experienced the special bond of husband and wife.
Five. No significant decision maker in the Church has experienced the special bond existing between parents who, through their actions, have created a child.
I believe these factors must be kept in mind when evaluating the doctrines and disciplines promulgated by these decision makers. I believe to ignore them is the height of unreason.Again, I do say these factors do not, of themselves, automatically make the Church's position wrong.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Return of Dusty Rhodes.
Some of you oldsters or movie fans may recall the 1957 movie "A Face In The Crowd."
A fast summary: The setting of the film is late 1950 when television is replacing radio as the means of mass communication. The main character is Dusty Rhodes, a coarse and abusive man who others find has acolloquial on air charm which quickly endures him to his predominantly rural listeners. From a little town in Arkansas, his popularity leads him to Memphis, then to a prime time show in NYC. He soon becomes a national phenomenon, some suggesting he might someday run for President of the U. S., and he becomes a national political figure. However, he is exposed as a fraud and loses his TV show. But his advisor says 'you'll be back but it won't be quite as fancy.'
Well, he is back. In a dress and glasses and, yes not as a presidential aspirate, but as a candidate for Vice-President.
s
A fast summary: The setting of the film is late 1950 when television is replacing radio as the means of mass communication. The main character is Dusty Rhodes, a coarse and abusive man who others find has acolloquial on air charm which quickly endures him to his predominantly rural listeners. From a little town in Arkansas, his popularity leads him to Memphis, then to a prime time show in NYC. He soon becomes a national phenomenon, some suggesting he might someday run for President of the U. S., and he becomes a national political figure. However, he is exposed as a fraud and loses his TV show. But his advisor says 'you'll be back but it won't be quite as fancy.'
Well, he is back. In a dress and glasses and, yes not as a presidential aspirate, but as a candidate for Vice-President.
s
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Pride before.............fall
Gee, I hate to boast, and I know I am sinning....BUT
There are many political blogs on the 'net, but I have to say so far I have been "amazing."
First blogger to say Republicans know how to play 'win' politics, when everbody was in Obama will landslide it mode.
First to hit almost exact figures on convention bounces.
First anybody to point out the "meaning" of Palin. See Liam's blog.
Yes I am ashamed of myself for my 'pride', but just trying to help the folks out there. And no one is perfect. Jack
There are many political blogs on the 'net, but I have to say so far I have been "amazing."
First blogger to say Republicans know how to play 'win' politics, when everbody was in Obama will landslide it mode.
First to hit almost exact figures on convention bounces.
First anybody to point out the "meaning" of Palin. See Liam's blog.
Yes I am ashamed of myself for my 'pride', but just trying to help the folks out there. And no one is perfect. Jack
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Another great prediction
On the site "538" I said BEFORE the Republican convention that by next week after the Repub. Convention the polls would show a tie or Obama up by no more than 2. Wanted to get this in on my blog before Palin speech. Jack
Monday, September 1, 2008
Sick, sick, sick.
I think some who look at my blog wonder why I am Catholic. I am proud to be a member of this Church, BUT am extremely upset over two things: Its increasing 'clericalism' and its sick--yes sick--attitude on sexual matters. Let me deal with the sick sex syndrome in this post, and return later to the clericalism.
Let's take the Palin girl's pregnancy. We should be sorry for her. But the Church screams 'no sex and possible pregnancy' outside marriage. Now, I agree. Maybe for reasons slightly different than the Church, but still sexual intercourse should be confined to marriage.
And, as we all know, the Church gets way out of shape on abortion. I personally oppose abortion, but do not consider very early abortion murder. But, never mind, I do oppose abortion.
Now why is the Church sick? Miss Palin at the age of 17 became pregnant. I CAN FIND NO CHURCH OFFICIAL critisizing her in any way. Not even wicked old Archbishop Chaput. Indeed they will probably praise her. After all she didn't have an abortion!!
So my advice to teen age catholic girls. Get pregnant before you marry. But carry the child to term. The Church will lavish you with praise, and your name will much more likely to be put up for sainthood than the poor girl who remained a virgin until married. Sick, sick, sick, of course. But just check the Republican convention with its cadre of Catholic "right to lifers." I hope you get the point. I'm waiting for some Catholic prelate to announce this as the best chance of sainthood!!! Jack
Let's take the Palin girl's pregnancy. We should be sorry for her. But the Church screams 'no sex and possible pregnancy' outside marriage. Now, I agree. Maybe for reasons slightly different than the Church, but still sexual intercourse should be confined to marriage.
And, as we all know, the Church gets way out of shape on abortion. I personally oppose abortion, but do not consider very early abortion murder. But, never mind, I do oppose abortion.
Now why is the Church sick? Miss Palin at the age of 17 became pregnant. I CAN FIND NO CHURCH OFFICIAL critisizing her in any way. Not even wicked old Archbishop Chaput. Indeed they will probably praise her. After all she didn't have an abortion!!
So my advice to teen age catholic girls. Get pregnant before you marry. But carry the child to term. The Church will lavish you with praise, and your name will much more likely to be put up for sainthood than the poor girl who remained a virgin until married. Sick, sick, sick, of course. But just check the Republican convention with its cadre of Catholic "right to lifers." I hope you get the point. I'm waiting for some Catholic prelate to announce this as the best chance of sainthood!!! Jack
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)