The continuation of Skiing Uphill and Boregasm, Zug is 'the little blog that could.'

 My Photo
Name: Ed Waldo
Location: of The West,

I am a fictional construct originally conceived as a pen name for articles in the Los Angeles FREE PRESS at the 2000 Democratic Convention. The plume relating to the nom in question rests in the left hand of Hart Williams, about whom, the less said, the better. Officially "SMEARED" by the Howie Rich Gang . GIT'CHER ZUG SWAG HERE!

Monday, April 23, 2007

Catholic Bashing

"Publish and be damned."
-Duke of Wellington, c.1825

Many Americans have long held that the specter of 'theocracy' is a thing to be devoutly avoided and vehemently opposed-myself among them.

Well, I got news for you: if, as noted a few days ago, the first major "all Catholic" 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court is any sort of harbinger, the United States government is now 1/3 a theocracy. This is worthy of mention in a world where (metaphoric) ink gushes in profusion whenever Angelina Jolie sneezes or Dick Cheney lies.

But, over the weekend, a spike in my readership led me to a cluster of websites, all of which, it seems, were sparked by a "Catholic" blog called "First Things."

Among the insulting and politely ad hominem attacks contained therein lay the implicit accusation that my commentary of last Thursday ("Catholics-5; The Rest of Us-Nothing" see the comments, as well) made me an anti-Catholic 'bigot.' Fine: you be the judge. We'll deal with the bigotry further on. But ....

Perhaps the most insulting formulation of all is the one which is not ever spoken, but only exists, by implication, deep within the recent Catholic formulation that abortion is an horrific sin:

That God thinks we are so stupid that we can't be allowed to control our animal passions (while maintaining, at the same time, that we MUST control our animal passions) and that every pregnancy be brought to term.

And that God prefers children to be seen as punishments, rather than blessings.

And yet that's what we have, when, beneath the smooth veneer of sacramental manners, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus writes:

The Supreme Court and Reasonable Hope
By Richard John Neuhaus
Friday, April 20, 2007, 11:04 AM

I'm not convinced that this week's Supreme Court decision on partial-birth abortion is as good as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says it is, but I certainly hope she is right. She says it is alarming; it reflects manifest hostility to the unlimited abortion license imposed by Roe; it supports judicial deference to the legislative branch; it permits moral and ethical considerations to impinge upon law; it treats sympathetically such traditional notions as a mother's love for her child; and it is a first step toward reversing the abortion regime established by Roe. As I say, I hope she is right, but I expect she may be exaggerating somewhat ....
So, by implication, the "Father" is in favor of the following LEGAL program of our government:

  • Manifest hostility towards abortion

  • Utter judicial deference to congress (who never formulate unconstitutional laws, evidently)

  • The use of extra-Constitutional 'moral and ethical' judgments to influence, negate and control the law,

  • The enshrinement of "motherhood,"

  • The reversal of Roe v. Wade (an almost trivial addition to the monstrous formulation already outlined)
Gee: since I oppose ALL of those "legal" conceptions, does that make me an anti-Catholic bigot? After all, Joseph Bottums' accusations against me (and against Becky at PreEmptive Karma, among others) is fully embraced by Fr. Neuhaus. ("And I am one with Joseph Bottum on the additional points he made yesterday ...")

Bottums wrote:

A “chill wind is blowing from Rome,” announced one leftist site in a blog post titled “Catholics—5; The Rest of Us—Nothing.” The five Catholic justices on the Supreme Court formed—for the first time since Alito joined the Court—the complete majority on a decision. I think that we’re probably going to have to wait for the new fund-raising letters from NARAL and Planned Parenthood before we see the highest pitch of anti-Catholic rhetoric coming out of the Carhart decision. But for those who can’t wait, you can find the first groundswells here, here, here, here, here, and here.
[Note: the third "here" refers to my friend Becky's posting at "PreEmptive Karma"—a posting, by the by, made in the same HOUR that I posted "Catholics 5" and which now contains 75 comments, nearly ALL of which screech about "bigotry" and "bias," even as they speciously pooh-pooh Becky's point as sheerest fiction.]

Well, aside from rejecting the convenient slur "leftist" as characterizing my work and writings, I hurl the charge of bigotry back in the teeth of the anti-woman, anti-secular and anti-human church, the laughably-entitled "Catholic" church:

Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: "The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found" (Scientific American). 2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal

-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000.
We'll pass over the "liberal" portion. Clearly 'catholic' in this case is advertising hype, although it must be recognized that, at over one billion adherents, the Roman church is the largest religious sect in the world-an accomplishment achieved during the tenure of Pope John Paul II. But 'catholic'? Clearly not. A quick drive-by of the more prominent steeples and stupas of your community will put the lie to that claim.

When they lie to you in the title, you have to bring a whole fleet of salt trucks for the rest. This is not to say that I am 'against' Catholicism: but I am against the attempt by the papal office in Rome to meddle in the secular politics of my country.

If that's bigotry, then I'm a bigot.

And this threat is a very real one:

'Catholicism' has become the largest single Christian sect in the USA, claiming a quarter of adherents, and is RISING, due in no small part to the massive influx of immigration from the almost universally Catholic countries of the Americas south of our border. So, this is no small matter.

Then-Cardinal Joey Ratzinger prevailed upon American Catholic clergy to DENY then-presidential candidate (and Catholic) John Kerry communion for his fractured stance on abortion-as a secular officer of a secular Constitution, he was in favor of a woman's "Right to Choose" (an euphemism, itself), but personally against it, as a Catholic.

Coming from the office of the Inquisition (since renamed the kinder, gentler "Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith") this sent a chilling message to the Orthodox. This was nothing new in the papacy of John Paul II. While he was a likable chap, within the mechanism of the Church itself, he was reactionary to the core: John Paul II/Karol Wojitla personally revived the office of the Inquisition, among his other 'accomplishments':

To Catholics, I write to remind them of what each of them knows but seldom acknowledges. Karol Wojtila forced the best minds out of the Catholic Church, or at least to the extreme margins of the Church. Wojtila sanctified the baroque reproductive/sexual bugaboos that infest the Catholic Church while striving to ideologically lobotomize the Catholic clergy and laity ... The record shows that Karol Wojtila was a charming man and a master of international public relations, but he was a political and cultural reactionary to his core.


1. Among Wojtila's first actions as Pope was to attack freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech in Catholic universities. Progressive theology, feminist thought, and "liberation theology" were driven from accepted Catholic discourse. Catholic universities in Europe and North America have lost their best scholars in the humanities and have sunk into being miserable intellectual ghettoes with respect to history, philosophy, theology, and related fields.

2. Wojtila revived and strengthened the Office of the Inquisition under the infamous Cardinal Ratziger. The "Holy Office" was near abolition under the two previous pontiffs, but Wojtila wielded the Inquisition as his special shock troops in a relentless campaign to silence all varieties of opinion other than his own. Repression of thought at the level of the diocese and parish became commonplace again after a blessed reprieve in the 1960s and 1970s.


6. In the United States, Wojtila in 1980 forced Father Robert Drinan, one of the nation's leading elected progressive politicians, to resign from Congress (under penalty of being forced to leave the priesthood). At the same time, Wojtila fostered the alliance of right-wing American Catholic bishops with the "Christian right" on the issues of abortion, women's rights, and homosexuality. In North America and beyond, a double standard has been applied by Wojtila for Catholic clergy involvement in political causes. Advocating for progressive causes has been forbidden as impermissibly "political" while advocacy and alliances against abortion, contraception, and women's rights has been approved as necessary "witnessing" to Catholic values.
I would suggest that you read the whole article. The thrust, continued by Pope Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger, cannot be denied. He was, according to some, the ARCHITECT of John Paul II's "Culture of Life" stance.

[*An interesting side note, before he became pope, Ratzinger was in charge of the pedophile priests scandals. His response? Stonewall:

... in 2001, then-Cardinal Ratzinger signed a letter sent to all bishops, asserting the Church's right to hold secret inquiries and keep the evidence confidential for 10 years after the victims reached adulthood under pain of excommunication.
The same writer makes this point:

And indeed, as far as I know, not one, not a single priestly predator has ever been excommunicated for their crimes.]
Open meddling in the politics of the United States, and the deliberate and conscious suppression of any Catholic voices not his own. American Catholics-the most notoriously free-thinking and papal disobeying-have garnered the new pope's special attention, most especially in the arena of abortion.

Father Frank Pavone's extreme actions were personally endorsed by John Paul II, and one of Benedict XVI's first actions was giving Pavone's "Priests for Life" a special dispensation-cutting them loose from priestly responsibilities to engage in full-time anti-abortion work, and to get involved in politics, as I reported here.

Their first political act was to have been a "Terri Schiavo" style initiative in Nebraska, but a lack of enough signatures stopped the effort-until 2008. Here's some pictures of his January 2006 trip to Nebraska, by a WEIRD coincidence, EXACTLY as they were setting up the state for the "Schiavo" initiative ballot petition and signature drive.

[*Now go to http://www.cuf.org/news/index.asp and look at the the 'official' photo of the new pope, and please TELL ME whether you think that this face was created by a lifetime of charity and Christian love, or by something else. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, or, "Alas, after a certain age every man is responsible for his face." - Albert Camus]

So, mentioning any of this is "anti-Catholic"?

Indeed, one of the best examples of the "new" Catholicism is Fr. Richard John Neuhaus himself, whose blog initially attacked me (and Becky, and four other bloggers).

According to his Rightweb profile:

"Father Richard," as he is known to President George W. Bush and many others, is a Catholic priest and the president of the neoconservative-aligned Institute on Religion and Public Life (IRPL). He has been a leading figure for decades in what some observers view as a conservative, Catholic-driven culture war against progressive and mainstream Protestant churches. Neuhaus has also been a close, if unofficial, adviser to the George W. Bush administration. Described by an administration official in a 2005 Time magazine article as having "a fair amount of under-the-radar influence" on policies ranging from stem cell research to cloning, Neuhaus has apparently had a significant impact on Bush's thinking. The president once said that the priest "helps me articulate these [religious] things" (Time, February 7, 2005; Andrew Weaver, "Neocon Catholics Target Mainline Protestants," MediaTransparency, August 11, 2006).

He is a "political" priest, given a political appointment. Wikipedia notes:

Neuhaus supported the mainline (ELCA) wing of American Lutheranism before converting to Catholicism on September 8, 1990. A year later, he was ordained a priest by John Cardinal O'Connor. He was a commentator for the Catholic television network EWTN during the funeral of Pope John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict XVI.

He promotes ecumenical dialogue and social conservatism. Along with Charles Colson, he edited Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission. This ecumenical manifesto sparked much debate; some Catholics and evangelicals claimed that Neuhaus and Colson had compromised major doctrines to promote a neoconservative agenda and unfairly demanded that both branches of Christianity stop trying to convert the other's members.
Ordination ONE year after converting? One can safely conclude that's less doctrinal than political.

An example of both Neuhaus' doctrinal fanaticism and his politesse can be found in his essay "Is Mormonism Christian?"

Neuhaus makes the clear distinction:

For missionary and public relations purposes, the LDS may present Mormonism as an "add-on," a kind of Christianity-plus, but that is not the official narrative and doctrine.

A closer parallel might be with Islam. Islam is a derivative of Judaism, and Christianity. Like Joseph Smith, Muhammad in the seventh century claimed new revelations and produced in the Qur'an a "corrected" version of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, presumably by divine dictation. Few dispute that Islam is a new and another religion, and Muslims do not claim to be Christian, although they profess a deep devotion to Jesus. Like Joseph Smith and his followers, they do claim to be the true children of Abraham. Christians in dialogue with Islam understand it to be an interreligious, not an ecumenical, dialogue. Ecumenical dialogue is dialogue between Christians. Dialogue with Mormons who represent official LDS teaching is interreligious dialogue.
But he's slick enough to recognize that he's talking to Mormon readers, and adds this conclusion:

As for the rest of us, we owe to Mormon Americans respect for their human dignity, protection of their religious freedom, readiness for friendship, openness to honest dialogue, and an eagerness to join hands in social and cultural tasks that advance the common good. That, perhaps, is work enough, at least for the time being.
But, perhaps, only a fool would ignore the clear implications: If you're working with us, you're our buddies ... until we don't need you anymore. Then, watch out!

But he is happy, through his lackey, Joseph Bottums (editor of Neuhaus' magazine First Things), to attack me, and other bloggers. We must be quite a threat.

This neatly parallels Fr. Frank Pavone's willingness to work with the most extreme of anti-abortion fanatics (see the Village Voice article cited above).

All of which leads to a few inexorable conclusions:

First, that the "culture of life" is actually anti-life: children are viewed as a punishment from God, which the Church must enforce by WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY, and

Secondly, that ANY MEANS NECESSARY is the ruling agenda.

So, if I note that the Roman decree has been faithfully adhered to by the five Catholic jurists of the Supreme Court, in rationalizing a complete about-face (just as politely shielded with legalisms and euphemisms as Neuhaus' statement on Mormon apostasy), then I am merely noting that the sun rises in the morning and sets at night.

I do not claim that Pope Benedict XVI ORDERED the jurists to vote in their peculiar manner and that they obeyed, but the connection cannot be said to be merest coincidence.

It is irrefutable that: The Vatican has attempted to interfere in US politics over the issue of abortion. Both directly and indirectly.

That the selection of Samuel Alito, Jr. and John Roberts to the Supreme Court was undertaken in consultation with Catholic representatives, such as Fr. Neuhaus.

That the outcry against the "Catholic" Supreme Court decision was muted at best, and almost non-existent (proof: that they would have to dig ME up as the prime exponent of "anti-Catholic" bias).

That a sect with 25% of all United States Christians claiming "bias" and "bigotry" and anti-Catholic witch-hunting cannot be operating from a rational base, but, rather, is playing the equivalent of the "race card," so famously invoked in the O.J. Simpson trial.

WERE there a strong anti-Catholic strain in American politics, HOWLS would have been heard when Ronald Reagan established a diplomatic mission at the Vatican on January 10, 1984.

Yes, the US maintained diplomatic relations from 1797 to 1870, because the Papal states were legitimate STATES. When they lost their land, we ceased our relations, unwilling to, essentially, have diplomatic relations with a Church. In 1984, Reagan overturned this ancient American precedent and thought.

Similarly, Bush's remarks at the 2001 dedication of the "Pope John Paul II Cultural Center Dedication* and his "visit" to the Pope in March 2002 fly in the face of American (Protestant) tradition and an unwillingness to intermingle church and state politics in an avowedly SECULAR nation.

It is, politically, every bit the abomination that Bush's appearance in uniform was: a deliberate sneer at a cherished political tradition -- that no president since Washington has ever donned military garb, to remind all and sundry that the "Commander-in Chief" is ALWAYS a civilian, and that the military is always under civilian authority. And we've had more than our share of generals in the presidency: it was under President Ulysses S. Grant that diplomatic ties to the newly-landless papal state were dissolved.

[* "The pope reminds us that, while freedom defines our nation, responsibility must define our lives. He challenges to live up to our aspirations. To be a fair and just society, where all are welcomed, all are valued, and all are protected. And he's never more eloquent than when he speaks for the culture of life."]
The charge that these moral authoritarians who brook NO dissent, who believe that a secular nation is merely misguided and MUST adopt Catholic dogma ... the charge that THEY are being oppressed is laughable on the face of it.

I cheerfully fling the charges of 'bigotry' and 'bias' laid out here-and elsewhere-back in their collective teeth.

If you're on the side of the angels, why adopt the tactics of the Opposition?

And how come the "Vicar of Christ" has a face that belies that eponymous allegiance so disturbingly?

Were this Catholic bashing, I would have prominently mentioned that Ratzinger had once been a member of the Hitler Youth-a charge neatly explained away in a thousand pro-papal articles. I do not dispute their arguments.

No: the only bashing here is coming FROM Catholics, not from my quarter.


Postscript: Here's a smattering of blogs that are calling for my head over " Catholics -5; The rest of us - Nothing":

Let 'em know what YOU think.


ed waldo said...

Congratulations, David B.!

Only ONE other poster has ever been deleted from this blog, and he/she was soliciting sexual performance for hire. David B. decided to assert, without thought, his non-thought abortion bumper sticker. Sorry: thoughtful comments, no matter how nasty are accepted. Propaganda -- especially VICIOUS propaganda -- is unwelcome.

April 24, 2007 5:11 AM  
Anonymous said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 24, 2007 9:09 AM  
Todd Mitchell said...

Ed/Hart: thanks for the shoutout over at Dem Daily. I would say the reaction by the hard-core Cattlicks would prove the adage about where there's smoke, there's fire.

Reading your initial post was like reading my own...we were merely speculating about the role Catholicism played in the decision. But the reactions...yikes. One guy even wrote in comments over there "well, you don't see conservatives going off on the Jew justices and their love of abortion" or something like that. What a qualified defense.

Keep up the good work, and nice to find your blog. I actually cross posted that abortion post from my own blog...which *really* set off the Catholics when they clicked over and saw the name of my blog is "Article of Faith".


April 24, 2007 9:35 AM  
ed waldo said...

Congratulations AGAIN to David B. who STILL doesn't get it. I will retain the 'thoughtful' portion of his post:

"...at least allow people to disagree with you, as I did, in a polite manner."

Nope. There was nothing polite about your raw assertion. It was just a rude bumper sticker.

"You'll find that you can't always delete people's disagreements with you. If you do, you choose disqualify yourself from thoughtful debate."

I will also note that you don't get to post your bumper stickers here. There are a thousand bumpers out there to slap it on, but you don't get to post it here.

And I don't buy the suddenly "thoughtful" appeal, any more than I buy the "you're censoring me" appeal. Doing the SAME thing and adding multiple weasel wiggles doesn't alter the original intent.

Not a whit.

The fact remains that you can't blandly post a mindless slogan and then post it again, claiming that it's any less a slogan than it was the first time.

We are not debating abortion here. Take it outside. For the past three years, I sat in the snow, in the 100 degree+ heat, in the shade, and then, when they cut down the tree, in the sun, protecting women's right to choose from mindless fanatics, with bumper stickers and brochures like the one you posted.

And I silently endured that crap for three years. I put my money where my mouth is. How many unwanted children have YOU adopted?

Imn sum: I don't have to listen to that mindless shite here. The entire rhetorical universe is yours, but not here. Got it? Not H-E-R-E.

April 24, 2007 9:58 AM  
ed waldo said...

Thanks, Todd.

The over-the-top reaction has been well, OVER THE TOP.

The same thing at Preemptive Karma, where a full-scale flame war erupted, with, I will note, that poster "elm" who commented several times on YOUR crossposted blog.

And they WON. They got their way. They got their "justices" and the justices voted the Right way, and they're apoplectic?

Talk about your "sore winners"!

And Namasté -- literally -- right back at'cha. Thanks again.

April 24, 2007 10:55 AM  
Anonymous said...

"We are not debating abortion here. "

You said that abortion was a secular issue. I disagreed.

"All people are equal, but some are more equal than others."

BTW, 'Shite' is an ethnic sect, not a dirty word.

April 24, 2007 2:11 PM  
Anonymous said...

let's see if you will dare to suggest that Pope John Paul II's teaching on this is 'VICIOUS':

"Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition [regarding abortion] is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops -- who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine -- I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. (Evangelium Vitae, § 62) "

April 24, 2007 2:22 PM  
ed waldo said...

Well, anonymous, at least you're thinking. But simply posting John Paul II's words is NOT an argument, nor is there any requirement to respond.

I made several cogent points in this posting, and you have, thus far, failed to respond to ANY of them. But ....

Sadly, as pointed out elsewhere, John Paul II is utterly wrong ... on Catholic dogma! For fourteen centuries, the three trimester prescription of Roe v. Wade was Catholic dogma (until 1869). It was originally formulated by St. Augustine, and, by JP2's OWN WORDS, the "unchanging" is a lie.

"is unchanged and unchangeable." versus 14 centuries of its opposite? Please.

Here, from the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER, which is slanted to put the Church in the most favorable light*, an article noting the frequent reversals and changes of course of this "unchangable" doctrine!

[* Note how several centuries mysteriously vanish from the narrative.]

Quod Erat Demonstrandum. (Sorry.)

All right: let's be charitable, it was utterly incorrect. Feel better?

Instead of offering debate, you argue with a characterization (taking a word out of context to pretend a minor rhetorical victory), and thence to argue with the word "shite." (Mistaking it for the more correct "Shi'ite.")

See definition 4, dumbass. (Or here if you like.)

I would hope that you would not require that I prove that "dumbass" is a term in common parlance, as well.

April 24, 2007 4:19 PM  
Thomas Shawn said...

"Here, from the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER, which is slanted to put the Church in the most favorable light"

The National Catholic Reporter is the rag of the Kerry/Kennedy/Pelosi pro-abort cafeteria Catholics.

They have no credibility and no offical standing in the Church. They are dope dealers who serve the leftists who don't have the guts to quit a church they disagree whole heartedly.

April 26, 2007 3:47 PM  
Anonymous said...

"But simply posting John Paul II's words is NOT an argument, nor is there any requirement to respond. "

I didn't pretend is was an argument. I am merely putting forth the truth: that the church has ALWAYS opposed the deliberate taking of innocent human life.

"For fourteen centuries, the three trimester prescription of Roe v. Wade was Catholic dogma (until 1869). It was originally formulated by St. Augustine,"

evidence? Furthermore, Saint augustine's OPINION's were NOT infallible. He formed his OPINION with sparse scientific evidnence. He never said that taking the life of the fetus was right. He was speculating about WHEN the embryo was human, not even if abortion was licit. He neve said that it was. As Catholics, you and I are morally bound to obey the Infallible teaching (the only infallible statement by the church concerning abortion)of Pope John Paul II. You can't skirt the truth anymore.

BTW, I've tried to answer you posts, but I don't follow some of your 'logic.'

P.S. Saint Thomas Aquinas was referred to by his classmates as the 'dumb ox.' I consider myself in good company.

April 26, 2007 6:06 PM  
Anonymous said...

BTW, if you think that you're getting the truth from NCR, well, I pity you.

April 26, 2007 6:10 PM  
ed waldo said...

Wow, both Thomas Shawn and what may or may not be "David B." are upset about the CATHOLIC REPORTER?

Who CARES? While I merely offered the most "pro-Catholic" source I could quickly find, the historical fact offered is not disputed by either (rude) commenter (or, if you like: "common 'tater".)

The Church held the position they now unselfsconsciously rail against for 14 centuries. Fact.

NO refutation is offered. (Does being a fanatic freeze your brain?)

I must say, it's good to know that both of you "gentlemen" are such profound Catholics that you feel free to bash St. Augustine. You're Cardinals, at least, right?

(And Augustine is obviously in line for de-saintification, as well, on your say-so's, yes?)

Anony-Mouse (sic) scribbles:

"As Catholics, you and I are morally bound to obey the Infallible teaching (the only infallible statement by the church concerning abortion) of Pope John Paul II. You can't skirt the truth anymore."


Well, I proved he ain't infallible. And you didn't refute the argument at all. Hell, you didn't even TRY. I guess that one outburst of "thinking" was just too much for your poor, taxed brain, eh?

And, while it's pretty clear that I'm NOT a Catholic, you maunder that I must submit to his "infallible" teaching.

Nope. (Although your speciousness DOES approach the "Argumentum Baculum" in this case)

Damn strange definition of "infallible." Kind of like your implicit definitions of "debate," "reason," and "logic."

As far as my statement concluding with "dumbass," I'd say you've BOTH made a pretty strong argument in favor of my use of the characterization, and your classifications coinciding with it.

Slinging the identical ad hominem (technically Ad hominem circumstantial) at a Catholic magazine as an "argument" is just specious drivel, Mr. Shawn and Mr. Mouse.



April 27, 2007 6:01 AM  
anonymous said...

One. Last. THING.

Fromt the article you cite:

"St. Augustine wrote in the fourth century that abortion could be viewed as murder only if the fetus was judged a “fully formed” human. That stage of development, “hominization,” occurred for Augustine some time after conception -- 40 days for males and 80 days for females. St. Thomas Aquinas, the 13th-century Dominican theologian, likewise held that “infusion” of the human soul took place between 40 and 80 days after conception, following the biological views of the Greek philosopher Aristotle. "

Where did you come up with the lie that Augustine said that the baby wasn't human past THREE months, or that he said it could be killed? He was using ARISTOTLE's idea, which isn't factual.

"The interruption of a pregnancy prior to this point was for Augustine, Aquinas and those who followed them, Johnstone said, a particularly grave [as in a MORTAL SIN] form of birth control rather than abortion."

Augustine never said that it was either moral or allowable. You are lying throught your teeth.

"According to Redemptorist Fr. Brian Johnstone, a bioethics expert at Rome’s prestigious Alphonsian Academy, the lone situation in which the removal of a fetus may be tolerated by official Catholic teaching is if the mother urgently requires a life-or-death procedure with the unwanted consequence of ending her pregnancy. in 1869, Pope Pius IX sidestepped the hominization debate and declared that the fetus, “although not ensouled, is directed to the forming of man. Therefore, its ejection is anticipated homicide"

"[Abortion] at any stage of pregnancy.. incurs excommunication. Johnstone stressed that there was never any question of whether terminating a pregnancy was sinful, but rather what kind of sin it was in the early stages -- homicide or something else. Hence it would be inaccurate to say that the church ever “permitted” abortion. Canon 1329 specifies that accomplices to an act that triggers a latae sententiae excommunication are also subject to the same penalty if “without their assistance, the crime would not have been committed.”"

The excommunication was extended to the ENTIRE pregnancy. The Church didn't change her rules, science changed its own.

So much for you argument. Read what you cite. please.

April 27, 2007 3:21 PM  
ed waldo said...

Fascinating. First, you claim that the article cited isn't legitimate. Then, evidently, having had your mother read the article to you, you attempt to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The current (and long-time) litany is that abortion should be safe, legal and RARE. Which is the same thing as the church looking the other way on the issue as a minor question of sin.

Our current cultural prescription is, in practical terms (a concept that seems to challenge your powers of comprehension to the utmost) identical.

Now, as for attempting to refute Aristotle, and your gratuituous citations of Aquinas and your bold decision to reinstate Augustine (after having formerly excommunicated him, ex post facto), frankly, this debate has descended from the ridiculous to the pathetic.

I am not going to attempt to argue with a True Believer, since when proven demonstrably and irrefutably WRONG, you merely shift your arguments AS IF what you had formerly maintained was false was now true, and what was formerly true is now false.

Having dropped all other arguments, you now seize on narrow distinctions (and cite a work you had formerly spurned as prima fascie false), and cast aspersions on Aristotle -- a few centuries PAST the point where this argument held any water in any meaningful or contemporary sense.

This is so pathetic that even your sneering conclusion "So much for you (sic) argument," is merely the maraschino cherry atop an ice cream sundae of lies, mendacity and evasion.

Your ruling archdemon would be, in this case, Astaroth, but you might want to check your Malleus Maleficarum

April 28, 2007 5:50 AM  
Anonymous said...

NCR is anti-Catholic. The man who was quoted wasn't. They merely let him have speak his bit, so to speak.

"The current (and long-time) litany is that abortion should be safe, legal and RARE."

Hart, You KNOW that the Church doesn't look the other in regards to abortion. You can plug your ears all you want, it doesn't change the truth.

"Now, as for attempting to refute Aristotle,"

Aristotle wasn't al-knowing, and neither are you.

"and your gratuituous citations of Aquinas"
The truth hurts, doesn't it? What I don't get is your attempt to put a square peg in a round hole. If you disagree with the Church's teaching on abortion, you are free to think otherwise.

" and your bold decision to reinstate Augustine (after having formerly excommunicated him, ex post facto),"

I only said the truth: the Augustine didn't have all scientific knowledge at his disposal. That's the truth.

"frankly, this debate has descended from the ridiculous to the pathetic."

Indeed. On your side.

"Having dropped all other arguments, you now seize on narrow distinctions "

You didn't disprove the other arguments. I didn't drop them. you ignored my answers. OTOH, you have abandoned one argument after another.

You despise the Church's leader, followers, and teachings. Yet you try (unsuccessfully) to prove your unfounded claims that the Catholic Church doesn't 100% condemn abortion as the greatest evil one man can do to another. I find it interesting that, while you deny Church's authority on moral issues, you feel the need to justify your position before the Church. I will not dignify your ad hominem attacks upon me with any further reading or responses to your hateful drivel. Now go comfort yourself with the lie that I'm fleeing from your awesome wisdom, knowledge, and charity.

May 1, 2007 3:59 PM  
ed waldo said...

Anonymous, Sir:

You are a loon.

A stone, fucking loon.

Minds like yours created the last Dark Ages, just as minds like yours will create the next one.

I stand with Hypatia of Alexandria, as I am certain that you stand with her murderers, which leaves us at an impenetrable and ultimate impasse.

And no, you cannot have the last word.

May 4, 2007 10:33 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home