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.

Question

Back in the 1940's Paul Blanchard wrote a book entitled "American Freedom and Catholic Power." The thesis of the book was that the Catholic Church did not believe other religions had a right to exist, but when Catholics were not in a majority they would allow other religions to exist and propagate their views, until the Church gained sufficient power. He cited endless sources to this effect on the grounds that "error has no right to exist."

Now I am not interested in a detailed discussion of Blanchard's book, but it did come to mind as I have traveled catholic blogdom and the writings of Wiegel, Novak, etc. There position seems to be that the U S is a tradionally christian country, catholicism is the most 'informed' and best christian religion, ergo, the U S should should model its laws to conform to catholic teachings and that laws which do not reflect catholic teaching are not laws that catholics should follow.

I have stated this boldly because, even if this overstes Wiegel etc position, blogdom is aflame with this argument. One bloger insisting that the goal of the Church is to make this a "catholic country." This, of course, centers around the abortion issue. Wiegel claimes that any politician who does not support pro life views(anti-sex views) has severed his relationship with the church. And this applies to judges as well i,e. their decisions should not be based on the constitution and laws and the interpretation of such, but on catholic moral views. This would, of course, amount to the total corruption of our democratic system.

These bloggers and Wiegel etc suggest that all catholic social teaching, except on abortion, are not binding, but that the pro-life position is the only binding catholic social teaching. In addition Wiegel claims that mainline protestant religions should not be considered seriously,but only "evangelicals" with pro-life positions, not associated with mainline religions should be considered. In fact the Catholic Church can be aligned politically with the most anti-catholic churches, provided these churches support right to life. Methodist, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians,e,tc. who have a favorable opinion of catholicism are not to be respected because they are not pro-life enough.

I have stated before that our church, as far as many adherents are concerned, is simply a branch of the pro-life movement. I have seen a few catholics argue the "proportionality" view, but considering that all social teaching of the church have no finality except on the abortion issue proportionality has no meaning. I might add that Wiegel and Company have open scorn for the American bishops who they apparently see as weak sisters in the face of aborrent views.

Any views on this subject will be appreciated. Jack

Creeps

Just got back from a trip to Bedlam. Boy, if your faith isn't shaken by the 'far right' catholics, you're stronger than I am. How many times have I been told to "submit" to the magesterium, which I define as any in the catholic world supporting your view. Or at least that's the way the crazies define it. Joe Cecil once told me that , with its long history, and the billions of words written by clergy, you could support about any position. How true!!

The hightlight of my tour was to "Insidecatholic.com". This site starts off real nice till you find out it's stocked with "converts", "reverts" and ,well ........ I was going to say a word starting with "P", but I'lll just be nice and say creeps. The guy who runs it is a Repubican hack named Deal Hudson. I just found about him yesterday. Dismissed from Fordham for apparently having sex with a 19 year old after getting her drunk. Even dismissed by Bush-Chaney, and that should tell you something!! Really 'hot' for Hagee even if Hagee hates catholics as he does. (Now Hagee and Hudson have made up to get a few extra votes in November.} Oh, and also Hudson has been married at least 3 times, probably 4!!!. And this creep lectures on FAMILY VALUES.!! The favorite theme of some of these weirdos is to attack the USCCB. Apparently the bishops are not Republican enough and no part of the "magisterium."

You know, it's funny. A lifetime of defending catholicism, but I didn't know what was out there. In my blogging I met some real catholics, even though several of your liberal bloggers are a bit pompous.But I didn't know sexual creeps were out there. Ya, I defend a young man who had some "experiences" but not a teacher preying on teen agers. And I've met one person who fully deserves the appellation "Christian"and we often disagree.
Does the Church have no dogma except "right to life." According to these weirdos that is all the Church is about. No creed, no love, no caring for others: Just the right to life canard and the Republican party.

GREAT TO BE HOME

A bit disappointed

About three years ago I began to look into blogging. At first I had no blog myself but made comments on other blogs. The purpose of my blogging was two fold. First, my wife, my daughter, my two grandsons were all catholic. Second, my wife and I were helping a young man who had been abused in some ways. He, through my wife, was leaning to catholicism. The first blogs I tried were 'traditional' catholic blogs. This was unreal. Then I added the word "liberal" to my search and came on a Joe Cecil. Mr. Cecil allowed all kinds of opinions to be expressed and I engaged in several very lengthly discussion. I was very pleased. There were some catholics out there, liberal and conservative, who could hear differing points of view.

Later I found some other blogs that "appeared" to be open to differing points of view. But then I found out. These moderate/liberal blogs were , in their way, just as closed minded as the traditional catholic blogs. Each of these blogs had a small network of "friends" they called them who always basically agreed with the blogmaster. On ocassion they might differ on who was the greatest blues singer etc. But on religion they were hand-in hand. If you dared disagree the whole group would circle the wagons to defend their "friends." Several of them got into politics and then they really went wild if you did not follow their line letter by letter.

But I must be honest. I became catholic on the theory that latitude of belief was acccepted in the church as I thought I saw in these blogs. But a surprise. These "lileral/moderate blogs",again, were just as, if not more, dogmatic than the traditional catholic blogs. They were arrogant, dishonest, and expected to be treated as mini-gods or at least mini-popes. They were infallible in their friends eyes.

I'll probably hang around the Church for a while to help my family and the young man. And since I am officially on the rolls I will continue to comment here and elsewhere on Church matters. Jack

Ends and Means

My wife and I have a mild continuing disagreement as to whether the TV 'preachers'---Roberts, Hinn, etc---are dishonest, just looking for money or are telling 'fibs' about their direct meetings with Jesus to further a higher goal--saving souls. I support the latter (because I don't think they are clever enough to figure out and act out such a scheme as my wife believes). My wife supports 'they're just crooks' school.

As Catholics we have somewhat the same problem. The Catholic teaching on abortion is really nothing but an attack on human sex. As we know the Church leaders and fathers have had many opinions on when life begins and when do a few cells become a person. Now given that it is quite clear that the church regards sex as somewhat demeaning (compared to celibacy and virginity), rather than engage in thoughtful discussion, it became simpler to argue that all sex must have as its main goal procreation. Therefore human life, personhood, begins with the uniting of egg and sperm. In reality few Catholics really believe this as I have pointed out before. But like Roberts and Hinn etc. we(The Church) will teach this as a caution against sexual activity. The end justifies the means.

This sophistry, or little fib, was brought again to my attention when our state passed a law requiring an ultrasound test within one hour of an abortion and that the results be shown to the women seeking an abortion. It is not clear whether the women's eyes must be taped open if she does not want to look. The leader of the state's anti-abortion movement praised the bill saying abortion is not the answer to rape. So I 13 year old girld raped by her drunken father must have her life further ruined by being forced to carry to term this pregnancy. Somehow this smacks of the New England witch trials.

Some 40 years ago I engaged in a debate on the radio with this same anti-abortion leader and ask him if ,under his logic, any women or child having an abortion should be considered engaging in a criminal act. His answer was punish the doctor. Incredible hypocricy!!! 4 decades later, I have heard no answer. BTW it is revealing to look at the video of the Libertyville, Ill. picketing of an abortion clinic to see that the most strident anti-abortion supporters have never thought of this question.

But my purpose here is not to get into the technicalities of life and personhood. Americans, including the great majority of catholics, reject the Church's teaching on abortion. My argument is simple: The Church says sexual activity is inferior to celibacy or virginity. Sex is basically for procreation and is not justified without this possibility. And as a result, the Church must argue that one cell or two cells are a child. But the people,including most Catholics, know better:An acorn is not a tree.

The all male church

Any one who reads this blog know that I believe the root cause of almost all catholic problems lies in the church's anti-sex attitude despite efforts to cover this up. Like millions of others I watched B16's arrival today. It seemed almost surreal. Two Bush women and one Bush whitehouse aide. Everyone else-----MALE. Certainly they could have found a good nun someplace to at least get a second or two on TV.

To make matters worse commentary was supplied on the two networks I saw by two of the worst catholics in American in my opinion. You couldn't tell whether George Wiege or riverboat gamblerBennett were analizing the Pope's arrival or making Republican political speeches.

Just a thought or two. Be back soon. Jack

Many catholics, I'm afraid, are taken in by the church's repeated appeal to "Natural Law" It sounds very impressive----"natural" and "Law"----what more could you want. I am sure the heirarchy is quite confident that the laity in general has no idea what natural law is. Natural law is a very complicated subject. Basically today the church uses it to oppose any type of contraception, or "artificial" contraception by claiming "natural law" clearly shows that the main purpose of sexual activity is procreation. Now to go from sexual intercourse can , in limited circumstances, "create" a baby to that is the basic function of such activity is similar to arguing 'tornados' in some instances cause damage thus the "purpose" of tornados is to damage property.

It is interesting to note, as I have before, that the great "natural law" philosopher of the church, Aquinas, believed rape and masturbation are at least equal because the former at least had the possibility of procreation. Aqunas was brilliant, but starting with a fase premise supposedly from "natural law" that the main purpose of sex is procreation---he comes up with an obvious absurdity.

What "natural law" says sex is primarily for procreation? Any particular act of intercourse has a very, very low possibility of fertilization. Out of 8 reasons for sex a survey showed that pregnancy was the number 8 motivator. Also it should be noted that the papal commission set up to review contraception, came back with a recommendation that the church's position be modified but Paul6 turned it down.

Our Church does nothing but lose respect with its attitudes on sex. What our church might acheive if it could get off its sex phobia!! Jack