At first I thought your article was a late April fools’ joke, and you would tell that it is not real at the end. Well, you didn’t. I never heard such an amazing description of a local Church anywhere. It is really inspiring and it brings lots of hope. Thanks be to God!

I was going to ask what planet you were from. Wow. It’s sure not like Austin many other places in the country.

I have to say that in my experience it’s kind of like what they say in that baseball movie, The Field of Dreams:  “If you build it, they will come.”  When our newest pastor came in, he instituted more confession times and has done what he could Mass-wise (he’s only one priest, so more than one daily Mass isn’t possible usually) and our parish is growing and there are always people there for confession.

My parish is standing-room-only for Sunday Masses, but the lines for the only scheduled confession (Saturday afternoon) are none too long. Our RCIA is vibrant, we have perpetual Eucharistic adoration, and we recently had a (packed) parish mission where the missionary priest stressed the importance of frequent reconciliation. I hope that people were listening… It’s encouraging to know that good things are happening in areas that are historically anti-Catholic. Our parish church is also in something of an anti-Catholic area. The parish began on the same piece of land in the late 1940’s. This piece of land was bought just outside of town, because they couldn’t get permission to build in town. We have now been annexed. It’s funny, though: We’ve had some unrest and infighting in our parish, and I have heard so much negative about it from Catholics who belong to other local parishes, but we continue to have a dedicated, growing parish family. I think it is the authentic teaching we receive in our parish. Holiness is attractive.

I’m very glad your parish is so vibrant and wish that it were a more universal set of circumstances for all Christian chuches. 
/
However, as a fellow Texan, I was surprised to hear you refer to this as the “Protestant South.”  While there are of course a huge variety of Protestant denominations and churches (one of which I am proudly a member)here, I think that Hispanic Catholicism has an enormous presence, far far more than, say, Mississippi or the Carolinas.  I think perhaps you’re overlooking the social and demographic changes of the last fifty years, in which Mexican-Americans (and “their” church) have come from being in many cases an oppressed, downtrodden minority to a very large, respected and influential segment of Texan society.
/
In short—more Texans of Mexican descent, more respect and support for their traditional church affiliation, more mobility and affluence on their part. (All of which are good changes, I should add, lest I be misunderstood.)

Wanted to add that I didn’t mean to make it sound like the only Catholics in Texas are of Hispanic origin.  (One of the oldest Catholic churches in my town was founded by Czech immigrants.)  Just that the two historically tend to go together, and where you see more of one, you tend to see more of another. 

And that the rest of what you observe about Austin—university town, liberal/secular capital of Texas, home to a large recent influx of hipsters from out of state—is spot on.  Praise God for somewhat surprising church vitality : )

“Austin is a secular, politically liberal university town ... This is not a diocese where you’d expect orthodox Catholicism to stand a chance”

Sigh.

No. It’s *precisely* where you would expect tolerance of different viewpoints and openness to the idea that people can practice or not practice any belief system they want.

The point of the secular state isn’t to suppress religion. It’s to stop religions using the power of the state to suppress *other* religions and belief systems.

I don’t want to get into a “my place is worse than your place” discussion, but the facts are that the three Northern New England states are the most unchurched places in America.  Never-the-less we have a very vibratant parish right here in New Hamshire.  As a matter of fact we have two such parishes in town.  However, unlike you we don’t have ten priests to run in for Holy Week.  We can get four or five for a penetential service during Advent and Lent, but even that is tough sometimes.

“However, unlike you we don’t have ten priests to run in for Holy Week.  We can get four or five for a penetential service during Advent and Lent, but even that is tough sometimes.”

That’s particularly ironic, given that *ninety one* priests in your diocese have been accused of sexual abuse.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbydiocese.html#NH

It’s only six in Austin.

Ms. Fulwiler, thank you for writing this.  I actually split my time between two parishes (mine and my fiance’s), which are like night and day.  My parish is similar to your parish, albeit not as big.  But confession times are regular—Wednesday to Saturday, from 3:30-5:00.  There are about four daily Masses every day of the week.  But it also has to do with the fact that my parish is right in the middle of a downtown area.  My fiance’s is out in the suburbs.  And it has daily Mass, but only once a day, early in the morning.  And Confession times are scant—1 and a half hours every Saturday, except for when there are extra times during Lent.  There is hardly any Eucharistic Adoration outside of Lent, whereas my parish has Eucharistic Adoration every day.  Given that I will be moving to where my fiance lives after we’re married, the thought of all of that makes me feel very sad.  I wonder what it would take for a parish like my fiance’s to grow?

No. It’s *precisely* where you would expect tolerance of different viewpoints and openness to the idea that people can practice or not practice any belief system they want.

Steve, so one might think.  And I’m more than aware of secular friends, for example, who think that religion should have a right to be heard in the public sphere, given that while they are non-believers, they greatly respect religion, feel that it has something to contribute, and at the very least, they truly do believe in freedom of speech and a willingness to openly discuss ideas.  But that view is not widely shared at all.  On most college campuses, it’s pretty common to encounter anti-Catholicism in a pretty casual way, and not just in a virulent way.  Secular liberalism has hardly been friendly to orthodox Catholicism.  Liberal or progressive Catholicism, yes—mainly because it’s the liberal viewpoint with a bit of Catholicism thrown in.  Orthodox Catholicism, which is faithful to the Magisterium, not so much.  All one has to do is read the New York Times to see how much anything Catholic gets sliced, diced, and taken out of context by much of the secular media.  Most liberals are going to get their ideas of Catholicism from publications like the NYT, as opposed to the NCRegister.

It’s to stop religions using the power of the state to suppress *other* religions and belief systems.

Indeed.  So which belief systems and religions are you talking about here?  And aren’t non-religious belief systems also capable of using the power of the state to strong-arm religion?  Depends on who you think falls into the “other” category, and who you think is doing the “suppressing,” doesn’t it?  And furthermore, to what extent does there exist limits on state power in this regard?

Sigh.

Alas, I second that sigh.

Tnx 4 d update Jenny.

“Indeed.  So which belief systems and religions are you talking about here?  And aren’t non-religious belief systems also capable of using the power of the state to strong-arm religion?  Depends on who you think falls into the “other” category, and who you think is doing the “suppressing,” doesn’t it?  And furthermore, to what extent does there exist limits on state power in this regard?”

Name one current example in the US of the state ‘strong-arming’ Catholics.

Simple question: do you believe the state should adopt the Catholic policy on abortion? Do you believe it is the Church’s place even to seek political influence?

That’s the difference. I believe utterly in total religious freedom, freedom to express religious views, freedom *from* religious views, if that’s what someone wants.

So ... I support the right of women to determine if and when they have children, within boundaries as just about represented by current law. But by saying that *I’m not lobbying that it becomes compulsory*. If a couple choose not to use contraception, or never have an abortion under any circumstance whatsoever, I respect that.

Now, the Church lobbies. Catholics lobby. Other likeminded Christians lobby. Abortion laws are changing, not because there’s a broad societal consensus that they should (every single poll of the general population broadly supports Roe v Wade - not that even that should the ultimate decider), but because religious groups target lawmakers with cash and other support. They are lobbying to deny me the right to something. Not a right they ever wanted to exercise, not something that costs them anything at all, they simply want to deny me it.

Anti abortion politics is an extremist, minority position. That is being forced on the rest of us. And it’s a pattern, one that’s also seen in virtually every gay rights issue - it’s not enough for Catholics (or the politically active ones) to not tolerate gay marriage in their community, they want it forbidden in *every* community. 

The ‘secular state’ isn’t any such thing. It’s a *coalition*. It’s the understanding that we’re all in this together, that different people believe different things and that’s fine. That one man’s universal truth is another man’s complete codswallop. And the paradox of that is *that’s great for religions*. One of the very first things the Declaration of Independence did was free Catholics to worship and hold public office. A tolerant, open, liberal place like Austin is great for Catholics.

I am very, very happy for Catholics to decide amongst themselves not to use contraception, if that’s really what they want to do (clue: modern middle class white Catholic families are only slightly larger than non-Catholics). I will not force them to use it. It doesn’t seem to work the other way round - only last week we saw a coalition of religious politicians trying to cut already ridiculously-curtailed funding to Planned Parenthood, for reasons that were flat out lies (John Kyl’s statement, for example).

The line is where you want to impose that ban on others. The secular state takes great pains to accommodate religious feelings. Too much, I think, but like I say, none of us get everything we want.

The great irony, of course, is that a lot of the same people who want to impose their religious values on the rest of us are the ones bleating most about ‘Sharia Law’.

Are we all agreed that this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYCsrhJPIfY&feature=player_embedded

- is utterly terrifying?

A ray of light cannot be hidden in a dark surround..

“A ray of light cannot be hidden in a dark surround.”

Well, if we’re going to quote from Matthew, let’s start with Matthew 6, Verse 6, eh?

What a beautiful testament to the Sacraments! My Parish is the same - we have two Masses a day and confessions are hear 1/2 hr. before each of them and if someone didn’t get in before Mass, Fr. will hear their Confession after Mass. We also have Confessions three times on Sundays - before the 9 a.m. daily Mass, before the Mass of anticipation and after the Mass of anticipation.  I went last night and the lines were long, we had two Priests hearing confessions thru Mass and the Priest who said Mass came back and heard Confessions plus we had one extra Priest. The lines were long, not wrap around the building long, but long and people kept coming in.

When will the bishops and priests of the Church in America learn the old line, if you build it, they will come?

You’d think after years of statistics and results that show how dynamically orthodox bishops, strong catechesis, and ample access to the sacraments correspond to increased vocations, faithful Catholics, and long Confession lines (not to mention packed parishes), bishops would get the picture.  Quite frankly, I’m getting sick of it.  I work for the Church and I am sick of priests and bishops who are too timid to go out and do what is necessary, to preach about sin and call people to conversion, to devote long hours to hearing Confessions.  When will they do their jobs?  When will they stop passing the buck?  It’s sometimes intimidating for me to stand up and teach an unpopular doctrine. I have a family to support and (what, with the meager salary the Church pays) I live paycheck to paycheck.  I can’t afford to lose my job for teaching unpopular things, and yet, I teach those things because I stick my neck out on the line.  Priests and bishops aren’t married, partly for precisely this reason.  If the priests and bishops, who have authority and impunity, who won’t lose their jobs for passing on the teaching of the Church, are too afraid to teach the truth, what do they think we lay teachers and catechists will do?

Bishops.  We’re not the previous generation of Catholics.  We’re ready to follow.  Start to lead.  Tell us what to do.  Call us out on sin.  Ask us to help.  Saving our souls will commend you to God more readily than the sensitivity you showed the parish council on that one difficult issue at Holy Pantsuit parish.

Bishops, if you’re facing conflict with your chancery staff or you think people will oppose you for being diligent in your work and doing what you ought to do, then take it from Christ: the servant is not greater than the Master.  People aren’t going to like it when you do your job right.  Let them deal with it.  You aren’t saving their souls by watering-down the faith, you’re just damning them without warning.

Bishops, if you are afraid that going orthodox will make you lose support, I can assure you that you’ll gain support from other circles, circles you want support from.  I can think of plenty of people in my small mission diocese who would love to support our bishop, but feel their help won’t be wanted because they’ve been turned down again and again for being “too new” or “too orthodox.”

Steve:
“It’s *precisely* where you would expect tolerance of different viewpoints “
Just the same as you’re trolling a Catholic blog and picking apart every other post just to ruffle some feathers. Yeah, that’s tolerance. I get it, you’re not Catholic, you don’t agree with anything the Church teaches. So leave us alone.

> I can think of plenty of people in my small mission diocese
> who would love to support our bishop, but feel their help
> won’t be wanted because they’ve been turned down again and
> again for being “too new” or “too orthodox.”

And, again, in a tolerant, multifaith, liberal place like Austin, people will be able to shop around and find the religion that suits them best - just as Jennifer found one that perfectly matched her prejudices about women wearing pants and steel boxes in galleries and going to prom and all those other things she’s decided Jesus agrees with her on.

Jennifer’s article constructs it like Catholicism’s a growing movement in the bare wilderness - no, it’s pluralism at work. Catholicism thrives *as part* of a marketplace of ideas.

But the flipside of that is that far, far, far more anti-Jennifers have left the Catholic Church than Jennifers have joined it. There are thirty million ex-Catholics in the USA. If you’re free to practice, you’re free not to. Jennifer has her column because she’s the man that bit a dog, the exception that can be held up like it’s the rule.

The Catholic Church, like the Anglican, is faced with a dilemma to maintain market share - ‘more liberal or more conservative?’. They’ve picked conservative, and clearly some people like that and the upper echelons are dominated by that, but ... well, the Catholics I know are disgusted by much of it, have no desire to defend or support a church that’s so blatantly political and riddled with problems most secular institutions hunt down and destroy.

So, I suspect that Catholicism gets to survive as a rump of ‘true believers’ - ones who look increasingly froth-mouthed in a world where virtually everyone accepts women can work, gay people can kiss and that the mainstream media is merely the messenger.

This is very encouraging news about Austin. I am astonished and joyful. Question for Ericka Evans. Have you ever examined Catholic doctrine? Has anyone invited you to become a Catholic? I extend the invitation even though I do not know you.

As for Steve Jeffers, abortion is not a “Catholic” issue, but it is of the natural moral law and the right to life of every conceived human being. Your argument is totally fallacious: If you are against abortion, then don’t have one. Morality is not determined by personal “choice,” or vote. It is part of the nature of man to see its truth, as one would see the good in the Ten Commandments (excluding only the 3rd, which is not of nature). Morals deal with acts that are right or wrong in and of themselves. Killing a pre-born child is wrong for everyone because the light of the natural law written on our hearts shows us the evil of murder, especially of the defenseless who cannot escape the killers. Would you say the same about slavery as you do abortion? “If you are opposed to slavery, then don’t buy a slave.” What kind of a senseless argument is this? What kind of ignorance would blind one as to what abortion is. Just read what the leading pro-abortion, feminist author, Camille Paglia, has to say about abortion: “I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful,” she wrote in an article for Salon.com. Hey, at least she is intellectually honest.

“ones who look increasingly froth-mouthed in a world where virtually everyone accepts women can work…”
Because the Church says that women can’t work?

So tolerant, Steve, so tolerant. You’re just further proving my experience that liberals are some of the most hypocritical people I know.

@Steve Jeffers

“every single poll of the general population broadly supports Roe v Wade”

Really?

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Scroll through link above.  I find the Gallop poll results most interesting.  In 2001, 41% of respondents considered themselves pro-life.  In 2010, 47% considered themselves pro-life (as compared to 45% pro-choice).

Whatever you wrote about your parish is same as that of Catholic Parishes in Kerala state,India…Iam overwhelmed with joy to hear such a great Catholic faith in USA.God bless U All

“picking apart every other post just to ruffle some feathers.”

No. If you’ve seen some of the threads, I and many other people involved have nice, long discussions where we ask and answer questions.

*Everything* is vibrant in Austin right now. The transvestite homeless people who ran for office? It’s *exactly the same* tolerance that people show her church. Jennifer’s self-narrative is, as ever, ‘the whole world’s just like me’ - that in the barren wilderness of liberalism, Catholicism is blooming and all the youngsters are converting like she did. No. Opposite. In the fertile marketplace of a place that’s secular and liberal, even Catholicism can find a way to be vibrant.

And I only popped up to make two points - (a) while it’s nice to accentuate the positive, it’s disingenuous to suggest the church is vibrant generally and (b) whatever the attitude of lay Catholics, the church hierarchy actively seeks political influence and seeks it *intolerantly* - that is to say they want a Catholic position that is not held by many people in the US (‘no abortion, ever’) to be the law of the land.

Among the disenchanted Catholics I know, I guess most of them are in their thirties, it’s the Church hierarchy and its doubling down on conservative positions and alliance with other conservative individuals and movements that has alienated them. To the point where the Church’s position has evolved from ‘no to female ordination’ to ‘there’s something wrong about women in pantsuits’. And ‘Catholics should not be practicing homosexuals’ to ‘we will join with the Mormons in spending millions trying to swing a referendum on gay marriage’.

If I have labored those points, I apologize. As I say, I’m tolerant, I’m trying to understand, not ruffle. It’s just that sometimes, Jennifer’s posts are from an even more distant parallel universe than normal, and sometimes everyone, whatever they believe, needs someone to come along with a reality check.

Catholicism thrives in Austin *because* it’s a liberal and tolerant place, firmly within that network of tolerance.

Because the majority opinion in society is what makes an argument true and valid.
If you want to have a constructive discussion, try sticking to what the Church ACTUALLY teaches, not silly judgements about what women wear.
Also, so your point is that it’s Austin in general that’s tolerant and not you as a blog troller. Okay. I get it now.

“In 2001, 41% of respondents considered themselves pro-life.”

Yes, but you’ve got to look at the wording of these questions. It’s obvious from that link that how the question is phrased affects the results, because the results vary so much. And the people running the polls know that, and the places that commission them know it.

‘Do you support your tax dollars going to ...’ - a whole bunch of people are always going to clasp their wallets and go ‘NO!’ before they even get to the actual question. ‘Do you consider yourself to be pro-life?’ is a loaded question. ‘Morally acceptable’ is a loaded question. The context of these questions is important. If you ask ‘Do you consider yourself to be religious?’ *then* ask ‘do you think abortion is morally acceptable?’ then you’ve primed people to consider the matter purely as a matter of religious ethics.

It’s hard to come up with a neutral question. If you ask ‘should the law remain ... ’ you will always get more ‘yes’ votes. If you make it personal you’ll get a huge number of yes votes ‘if your daughter was raped and learned she was pregnant, and her health insurance did not cover it, would you approve of her seeking free advice from Planned Parenthood?’.

Plus, you’ve got to break this down demographically. What do the women aged 15-45 think, given that they’re the ones most directly affected?

Very few people think it should be ‘illegal in all circumstances’. Most would agree with a question that ran something like ‘it should be legal but carefully regulated’ (as would I - the devil’s in the detail on that one).

> As for Steve Jeffers, abortion is not a “Catholic” issue,
> but it is of the natural moral law

Would you say that this ‘natural moral law’ is secular in nature? From where would you say this law originated?

> Would you say the same about slavery as you do abortion? “If
> you are opposed to slavery, then don’t buy a slave.”

Yes. If everyone did that, there wouldn’t be slaves. If enough people boycotted products made by slaves, there wouldn’t be slavery.

The Catholic church were admirably against slavery from a very early time. They took the moral lead. But slavery in the rest of the world only ended because of British consumer pressure, which became a ban on the trade, which was enforced by the Royal Navy.

Slavery is an absolute classic example of why you are wrong - the main reason pro-slavery people gave was that slavery was ‘part of the natural order’, that it had always been so, that key figures in the Bible held slaves or condoned slavery.

I know the anti-abortion crowd have got it into their heads that abortion is ‘the new slavery’ but ... no.

Like so many of your readers I was waiting for you to say…. that your story was a flash-back from the 50’s.  THANK YOU for such awesome news.  IT gives ALL your readers hope!!!  I have always said that ‘confession’ should NOT be the best kept secret of the Catholic Chruch!  I returned to the Catholic church after more than 25 years.  Mathew Kelly says… about confession… “THERE IS GENIUS IN CATHOLCISM!”  AMEN!  AMEN! AMEN!
Praise GOD for His Mercy!!!!

@Steve Jeffers
“I know the anti-abortion crowd have got it into their heads that abortion is ‘the new slavery’ but ... no.”
Why not?  Slavery claimed, wrongly, that blacks were somehow not human, and therefore not deserving of human rights.  Abortion claims, wrongly also, that the child in the womb is somehow not human and therefore not deserving of human rights.
Furthermore, the abortion movement, spearheaded by Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, was one of eugenics.  Margaret Sanger’s sole purpose was to eliminate those she considered “human weeds” through abortion.  80% of Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority neighborhoods- abortion supporters should be appalled by this.
Sorry, Steve, but you are on the wrong side of history on this one.

@Steve, Jesus specifically spoke of a narrow road with few on it.  The Church should want to save as many as possible, but in the end, this isn’t about numbers.  The strategy of many people in the Church is to water down the faith, in order to accommodate those who are already cut off from God’s grace, so that they can say, “see how many Catholics there are!” If we follow this strategy, we will end up becoming Unitarians. It’s facade Catholicism. 

Here’s what happens: Fr. Whosit decides that the contracepting, cohabiting couple in pre-Cana needs to be “reached out to,” so he doesn’t challenge them to become better Catholics or to practice the faith.  He doesn’t even warn them about the objective state of mortal sin in which they are living.  He figures that wouldn’t be “nice” (he doesn’t stop to realize that the word “nice” comes from a word meaning “ignorant”).  He treats everyone in his parish like this.  He is nice to them.  He makes it easy to be Christian, except that he isn’t teaching Christians.  They deny dogmas and doctrines of the faith.  They each almost find it easier to believe in their own sinlessness than in the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin.  He falls for the grave error of believing that his success lies in the building up and maintaining of a large parish.  Perhaps this is because of pressure from his bishop.  Most likely, it has something to do with American practicality and business ideals.  In any case, he is ignoring the members of his parish who need to be fed with the meat of faith while he perpetually feeds his parish the milk of faith (if that).  They move on to a different parish, but he doesn’t worry about it.  He’s attracting all sorts of new people, most of whom will be touch-and-go Catholics, not devoted, and not actually attending Mass on a weekly basis, but he doesn’t want to point it out as long as his official paperwork shows that he has a large, successful parish.  He might go out into the stagnant waters of sin to find lost sheep, as any priest should, but he stays there with them.  He never leads them to higher ground away from the storms of error and heresy.  Most of his parishioners are in objectively mortal sin.  The seeds of the Gospel he has sown have landed on poor soil.  His parish will bear little if any fruit.  We see it all the time in dying parishes.

Here’s the alternative: Fr. Whosit is a faithful priest who has the courage to call out his parishioners on sin.  He gently speaks to them first of heaven, to motivate them, and then points out the many obstacles in their lives to God’s grace.  Initially, a number of them are put off, but Fr. Whosit continues lovingly and patiently encouraging them.  He offers to hear Confessions before and even after Mass.  At first, his congregation shrinks a little.  At first, he spends time alone in the Confessional with hardly a penitent.  He continues.  His parishioners start to see his perseverance.  They notice how much he wants them to be saved.  They notice his patience and kindness (not “niceness”).  Fr. Whosit goes out with parishioners.  He dines with them and teaches them in their homes.  He asks if they would be willing to host Bible studies in their homes where He may teach.  He finds them in the darkness of their everyday lives and calls them out.  He leads them home.  He will probably see incredible growth of his flock over a long period of time (people know, even when they fight it, that when we are firm with them, we are firm because we love them).  Even if he doesn’t, even if half his parish abandons him, more of his parishioners will be likely to go to heaven - and so will he - because of his diligence and care in teaching the truth.

Catholicism is not a marketplace of ideas.  There is much room for variation, but there is no room for heresy.  There is no room for poor liturgy.  There is only room for faithfulness.  Those who don’t want to be faithful will not be served by priests who only accommodate them.  They will remain unfaithful, even if they go through the external acts of a Catholic.  They will not be led to heaven by priests who tell them they are not sinners; a priest who tells them they are not sinners lies to them and convinces them that they are in heaven already.

What we need, undeniably, unarguably, is faithful priests endowed with courage.

@Steve Jeffers: could you go troll some other site? Or, maybe, spend some time away from your computer?

> Sorry, Steve, but you are on the wrong side of history on this one.

I guess we’ll find out eventually if the forces of history and
the divine will point your way.

One of the many things I’ve learned on this site is that
abortion’s not a subject that can be discussed in this forum
in a way where either side can discuss it in a particularly
useful or enlightening way, so I’m more than happy to
leave it there.

... as for ‘why not’?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-9-2011/deadliest-snatch

Lauren,

If you are still following this - I would not be surprised if you gave up a while ago, the Catholic Culture has an interesting policy:
*To ensure well-meaning comments, only donors are allowed to Sound Off.*
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=795
This might get rid of some of the trolls who have nothing better to do than to try to be awkward.

OK ... I’ve had a number of long, interesting and I think mutually informative discussions on other threads. This is clearly not the case in this one. I’m more than happy to step away from this. I have no interest in being seen as a troll, that’s certainly not my intention.

Jennifer says some very, very odd things at times. I think, from time to time, it’s worth pointing that out. Generally speaking, if an idea is robust it can withstand a little light discussion. Thank you to the people here who gave long and thoughtful replies to my points.

@Steve Jeffers
“abortion’s not a subject that can be discussed in this forum
in a way where either side can discuss it in a particularly
useful or enlightening way, so I’m more than happy to
leave it there.”
How was my argument not useful or enlightening?  Did you already know about Margaret Sanger’s views? Or did you already know that Planned Parenthood, in most cases, parks itself in minority neighborhoods so therefore I was not enlightening?
If you didn’t know this before, is it not useful to know it now?  Doesn’t this information help you to see the pro-life viewpoint a little more (even if you disagree)?
And one could hardly consider “The Daily Show” the final source on… well, anything.

I’m envious as all get out. The Church in our part of Kansas seems to be dying out ( Archdiocease of KC,Ks). I wish we knew why yours was so successful and ours so luke warm. It isn’t the Archbishop’s fault, he inherited a situation where there has been an historically imbedded liberalism. It is something very hard to overcome. I don’t mind priests catching up on their reading in the confessional - as long as they are there and as long as they will stay until the last penitent is finished.
Perhaps it would help if they published in their bulletins that they would indeed stay as long as needed. It is kind of a put off when the published times read 3-4 or something like that. It makes you think they don’t want too many people to show up. I don’t know what ours would do if 50 people suddenly decided to show up.

Steve,

I think I might have been one of those people who had a long, thoughtful conversation with you…?

The fact that you do address each comment, and often thoughtfully, tells me that you’re not really a troll. 

I think you misunderstand Jennifer’s focus. Our Church has been struggling for a long time.  The 60’s and 70’s really did a number on us, and we can’t help but feel thrilled when it’s working the way it’s supposed to.  It’s not so much that the pews are filled as that those that are filling them are actually taking part in the Sacraments.  Eucharistic Adoration, Confession, Mass…this tells us that her Parish is not in name only.  As members of the Church we share in the joy found in the fact that our Faith is hanging on an possibly even growing.

You say it’s because Austin is tolerant and liberal.  Okay.  Fair enough.  Could this also mean that they are liberal enough to actually give the Church a chance?  That they are open minded enough to actually look at what the Church teaches instead of dismissing it out of hand?  I’m in Chicago and there are quite a few thriving parishes here.  Are we more open minded?  Who knows?  Who cares really?  Tolerance, warm weather, free ice cream…the fact remains…Churches are coming to life.  Does it really matter why?

> How was my argument not useful or enlightening?

Because it starts from a premise which I will inevitably
find false - you believe that a fertilized egg is a little
person; with a soul; put there by God. I don’t believe
any of those three things, I think they’re objectively
false; nonsensical and utterly unprovable, in that order.

I understand your position. But there is no compromise
position or place to go with discussion. ‘It’s a person’,
‘no it’s not, not at that stage’. That’s the full
argument. I don’t think an embryo is a person any more than
I think a tree is a book. It could become one. Many, possibly
even most, embryos are naturally aborted in the first few
weeks, before the mother even knew she was pregnant.

I appreciate your sincerity, even if a couple of things are
just repeats of old bullet points. Planned Parenthood deals
with people with nowhere else to go, so yeah there are going to
be more of them in poorer neighborhoods. The idea it’s some
eugenics program because one of the founders was a eugenicist
is probably actionable and a bit like saying the Pope’s Jewish.

But we can’t have a reasonable conversation that starts with
‘did you know you advocate the killing of babies, like a
famous historical eugenicist, and abortion is basically just
racist?’. Such a conversation is going to get heated.

Did you know that abortion is the only medical procedure that’s
more dangerous for the doctor than the patient, because of the
terrorist attacks they suffer?

See? This can’t be discussed reasonably.

Steve,

The idea it’s some
eugenics program because one of the founders was a eugenicist
is probably actionable and a bit like saying the Pope’s Jewish.

Seriously, what did that mean?  Margaret Sanger was not ONE of the founders. She was the only “founder” and she was a eugenicist.

Instead of discussing whether or not an embryo is a human person, perhaps we could start with you telling what a “human person” is, or, if you prefer, what an embryo is?

It’s silly to argue whether or not an embryo is human because it cannot be anything else.  The real argument lies in whether or not this human is protected by the law, or whether or not we put one human (because of it’s development and ability to express itself) over another human being because it happens to be in the right place at the wrong time.

Any other conversation is just skirting the issue.  I know a man, (well actually, he is in Federal Prison now, but I digress), that I have spent hours debating and discussing with, who comes right out and says, of course it’s a human being!  So what?  It’s in a place where it doesn’t belong.  Trust me when I tell you that his belief that the unborn are human beings is not based on religion.  While the man himself is bereft of any morals whatsoever, I can say in all honesty, that I admire his stance.  He isn’t rationalizing.  He doesn’t talk around it.  He doesn’t lie to himself, and therefore us, by saying it isn’t a human being (what else could it be).  He is intellectually honest, calls it what it is, and then says that he still believes a woman has the right to end it’s life.  Because of it’s location.  I detest his conclusion, but I totally respect his forthrightness.

Being pro life is not a religious issue.  I know many an atheist who is as pro life as I am, and we all know Pelosi, so being Catholic is no guarantee that you’ll respect life in all of it’s stages.

I respect Truth.  Wherever it is found.  If Truth can be found in the Catholic Church then that is where you’ll find me.  If it can be found in the gutter, move over and let me in.  You think we are blinded by our Faith, but I tell you that we have our Faith because first we sought Truth.  If you refuse to look, with an open mind, where Truth resides, simply because you have decided beforehand that you reject Truth’s home, then you will spend your life on the outside, looking in and trying to defend your choice to live with deceit.

Pilate asked “What is Truth?”  That was a good first step.  The next is “Where can this Truth be found?”

> Being pro life is not a religious issue.

No, of course not. But the Catholic position is motivated and defined by religion - the argument is that it’s God’s plan, the embryo has a soul, that it’s a sin to murder.

Defining life as ‘something God gave a soul to’, to an atheist, is as silly as saying something alive if a unicorn gave it a magic hat.

I don’t think you are blinded by your faith. I think, though, that the teaching of your church means you have a one-sided, inevitable view of this. Of *course* if God says that and life means that and the church teaches that, then anyone who has an abortion is a murderer. In your position, I’d come to the same conclusion.

An embryo is a bunch of cells. At some stage it develops into a fetus and there’s a case that it’s a human being or inevitably going to become one. It’s unclear *exactly* when that happens, but it’s silly, medically, or at least arbitrary, to say it’s conception, to say that the *moment* one sperm touches an egg, that’s a human being, but a nanosecond before it wasn’t.

Aargh! I’m doing it. I said I wouldn’t. OK, I’m done.

Steve Jeffers… I understand your points.  However, let me expound.  Let’s leave God out of the equation for a moment…. although I confess to being a devout Catholic.
Even in the jungles of deep Africa, (or where ever you profess) where the Christian theology is not preached, the people know the difference from right and wrong.  They know that they should not go to the hut next door and take the food for themselves and then say it’s ok.  They have a natural law or consciousness of what is right and what is wrong.  You must agree I hope?

Likewise, the animals of the earth are ‘programmed’ by their instinct to take whatever they can find and eat it… or die.  At the same time… they pro-create.  The do no wrong… because they are not conscious of what is right and wrong… they act on instinct.  My dog knows he has done something wrong only because his master has trained him using rewards, body language, and punishment to conform.  At the same time, my dog does not abort her babies so she doesn’t have to settle down and build a den or nest; so she can roam freely doing as she pleases.  There are natural laws.

You and I both know and an atheist is proof of the fact that we do not need God to tell us right from wrong.  Since we are smarter, more ‘conscious’ of our selves, and we can make sense and reason with abstract concepts where animals cannot.  I would say that we are somehow.. ‘better’ (for lack of a better term) than the animals.  WE KNOW BETTER… we are MUCH more aware of what is right and what is wrong.  WHY then do we act worse than the animals, rip our children from the womb, and not give them their right to life as our parents did?  The only reason we do allow it is that we—-both men and women—- are SELFISH and see a child as an inconvenience at the time.  This I truly believe, is contrary to our VERY NATURE, NO MATTER IF we abort a child at fertilization (when the dna makes them unique) with the morning after pill or if we do it in the 6th or 8th month.  THE MORAL LAW makes it wrong.  The Federal Law is misguided and selfish, and needs to go!
Don’t you agree?

Boy… we do get off track from the original topic don’t we?!?!  LOL!

@Steve: “An embryo is a bunch of cells. At some stage it develops into a fetus and there’s a case that it’s a human being or inevitably going to become one. It’s unclear *exactly* when that happens, but it’s silly, medically, or at least arbitrary, to say it’s conception, to say that the *moment* one sperm touches an egg, that’s a human being, but a nanosecond before it wasn’t.”

Note: I am using ‘personhood’ interchangeably with the point you consider one to be a ‘human being’, as opposed to a glob of cells with human DNA.

Science cannot determine personhood, so it is also silly, medically, to say it is NOT a person at conception.  What science can say is that before the sperm and egg meet, there is no possibility of either maturing into a full-grown adult; but, once they have met, barring something going wrong, it will inevitably become an adult.  In addition, if you consider conception to be an arbitrary point to claim personhood, at what stage is it no longer arbitrary?  Some argue that it is not a person until self-realization is achieved, therefore we can kill our one-year-olds because they are not people by that definition.  As an atheist, what reason would you have for not allowing that?  I believe anything you suggest will either be a matter of opinion or a different arbitrarily determined point, both of which can be refuted by the simple statement, “Well, I do not believe that, so why should you impose your views on me through the law?”

Steve, you will have to agree that the embryo is not eventually born as a horse, a cow, etc. but as a human being. Therefore it was always human, in nacient form to be sure, all the genetic factors are there, everything which will make it a recognizable human being when fully developed, is there. Even if you argue that it cannot be human since it is not ( according to you ) recogizable as human, you are forced to admit that God ( or probaly ” mother nature ” in your view) invests it with a human soul at some point ( and at what point would you say) and then it is truely human ( though still not fully developed physically). So then the question becomes at what point would you outlaw abortion ( if at all). If you say right up to full maturity at birth, then your arguement is disengenuious since your value system is primary political, in which case there is no arguement that anyone can offer you to demonstrate the rightness of the pro-life view, you await the grace of God.

Anon, I caught you comments on Catholic Answers regarding modesty in dress. Excellent! Keep up the good fight.

GladtobaCatholic. It is the duty of the author of the blog to screen out trolls and keep the discussion on point. Catholic Cluture is an interesting blogg but I would never pay to contribute a comment, nor would I ” register ” to contribute my two cents worth. No blog I have ever seen is so outstanding that one should have to go to that much trouble. Those who have such restrictions just dampen interest.

> In addition, if you consider conception to be an arbitrary
> point to claim personhood, at what stage is it no longer
> arbitrary?

It depends entirely on your definition of either ‘life’ or
‘personhood’, and those are not easily defined. As I say,
the Catholic position, using *its* definitions, makes
sense.

If I put one stone on the ground, it’s not a ‘pile’. Put
another stone next to it, it’s still not a pile. At some
point, if I add enough stones, it’s a pile. There is no
magic number where it suddenly becomes a pile, though.

Take gods and souls out of it and look at what’s there,
then at the moment of conception, what’s there is the
head of a sperm stuck in an egg. Even if the sperm
fertilized the egg, there’s a very good chance it would
lead to a baby at that point.

Steve,

An embryo is a bunch of cells. At some stage it develops into a fetus and there’s a case that it’s a human being or inevitably going to become one. It’s unclear *exactly* when that happens, but it’s silly, medically, or at least arbitrary, to say it’s conception, to say that the *moment* one sperm touches an egg, that’s a human being, but a nanosecond before it wasn’t.

I had a long conversation with you on another post and rarely brought God into it.  Right?  So let’s flesh this out in secular terms, if possible.  Okay?

An embryo is a bunch of cells. Absolutely.  But so am I.  So are you.  So is every living thing.

An embryo is just a less developed “bunch of cells”.  But what are those cells programmed as.  Not to become, but as.  If we look at an acorn, we can say that it is programmed to “become” an oak tree.  But once it “sprouts’ it ceases to be an acorn and instead is a tree.  A very, very young, barely recognizable tree, but a tree nonetheless.  The DNA in that acorn could not cause it to become an elephant or a maple tree.  It must become an oak.

Similarly (there is a difference, as human beings require two “acorns” if you will) an egg and a sperm, each have the code for making a human being.  A human egg and a human sperm cannot make an aardvark or a sweet potato.  The egg and the sperm, at the moment of conception, cease to be an egg and a sperm and become something else.  It’s seems scientifically unsound to claim that there is a “third” thing, an in between “thing”.  It becomes a human being, albeit, very young and virtually unrecognizable, at the moment of conception.  Before conception it wasn’t a human being.  After conception it was.  What you are claiming is that there is another point in gestation, where it isn’t a human being and then it is, except there is no event to preclude that change in status.

You said, that you believe it is arbitrary to say that it becomes a human person at conception, yet you claim that later on, it will become a human person, only you don’t know when.  I submit that you don’t know “when”, because any time you choose would truly be arbitrary since there is no “event” that takes place after conception, except the passage of time, that changes the embryo in any significant way.  Medically speaking, the significant “event” happened at conception. 

Therefore, it is not an arbitrary “moment” in time when we afford the status of “human” to an embryo, but a scientifically based “moment”.

Surely, you understand that what is created at conception is human. (If it is created BY two humans) and surely you understand that it is alive by the scientific definition of life.  Therefore, it cannot be anything BUT Human Life.

So the question is not, when does it become human, because as I pointed out, it cannot be anything else, but when does this human acquire enough value in “others” eyes, that it’s life is considered “protected”.

Do I personally, believe that God is responsible for that life coming to be…for ALL life coming to be?  Of course.  But as a secularist, you must be able to see that placing values on lives, depending on their age, development, health, mental capacity…is a dangerous and slippery slope.  It is indeed what allowed us to treat other human beings as slaves, and Hitler to kill millions of Jews. It is what allowed Stalin to murder millions and what allows us to destroy billions of unborn lives every year.  The slaves, Jews, unborn do not change.  They remain what they are, regardless of outside influence.  They are objective beings.  What changes, is our subjective views of them.  It is our perceptions of reality that allow us to dismiss certain groups of people as less valuable.  WE are making value judgments.  But those that are being judged are objectively static.  Either all human life is to be protected, or none is.  Because once you start making value judgments on human life, you open the door to being one of those who are deemed valueless.

> They have a natural law or consciousness of what is
> right and what is wrong.  You must agree I hope?

People have a sense of right and wrong. But that does
not perfectly align with modern Catholic teaching. That
deviation is not explained by saying that Catholic
teaching is perfect and any deviation from it is some
sort of malformation of that sense of right and wrong.

This is simple enough to demonstrate - is homosexuality
‘wrong’? Should women dress modestly? Should women
preserve their virginity until marriage? Is the death
penalty wrong? Does the leader of our community derive
his powers from God? If one man has two loaves and another
has none, in what circumstances should the first man
give his loaf to the second?

Where I think you’re right - this is an ethical issue. This
is something that it’s important to discuss and regulate
and think about. But no one who has an abortion thinks it’s
like weeding the lawn. There is a *potential* human life
at stake. It is a momentous choice. To my tastes, the
Catholic discomfort with contraception trivializes this choice
far more.

As for ‘convenience’ ... no. There’s this idea that abortion’s
‘convenient’ or some sort of lifestyle choice. No. It’s what
women choose as a last resort, or in extreme circumstances.

I think it’s very easy, barely even debatable, that some
abortions are justified. If the fetus is so damaged that
it will die soon after birth, it seems particularly
cruel to force the mother to carry it to term. I think,
yes, that any pregnancy where the mother is at risk, the
patient and her family should have the right to choose
the mother.

‘Economic’ reasons are weaker, but that’s an argument
against poverty (or for contraception), not against abortion.
And ‘we don’t have enough money’ is not some trivial thing. When
women have abortions ‘for economic reasons’, they’re not doing it
so they can spend their money on haircuts and iPads instead. They’re
doing it because they don’t think they can feed or clothe or care
for a child.

I think, as with death, that there are quality of life issues,
not just quantity of life ones. Medical science has advanced
to the point where we can keep extremely old people alive
but in comas for many years. Or prolong the life of a person
suffering a terrible disease. Do I think death should be
*compulsory* for those people? Absolutely not. Who should
decide, some politician? No. The person or his family. But
I think that giving that choice is that humane, life-affirming
thing to do.

I don’t ‘like’ abortion. I’m in a position where I doubt
I’d ever want my wife to have one, barring an extreme
medical emergency. Do I think it’s ‘wrong?’. No. Do I
think it’s ‘right’? No. Some things don’t just get sorted
easily into one or the other category, and i think pretending
they do trivializes the issue.

But the alternative to legal abortion
is not ‘no abortions’, as is obvious from how it was in
Eire until recently. It’s unregulated, dangerous
abortions for the poor, charter flights to the UK for
the middle class. So any discussion of this has to look at
what would happen if we got our way.

OK ... this is the fourth time I’ve said I’ll stop. This isn’t
even the topic of this thread. That’s my position. I’m not
going to persuade you to adopt it, nor vice versa. I hope
I’ve at least explained it.

Steve,

I think, though, that the teaching of your church means you have a one-sided, inevitable view of this.

I believe I have said this before, but it bears repeating and I will probably do it again in the future…

Abortion is not wrong because the Catholic Church says so.  The Catholic Church says so, because abortion is wrong.

I do not belong to the Catholic Church because it creates Truth.  I belong to the Catholic Church because it contains Truth. 

A thing is not True because the Catholic Church says it is True.  She says it is True, because it IS True.  If it were any other way, I would not be a Catholic.  The Church does NOT create Truth.  She recognizes it, and then embraces it.  The Truth is there for every man to see, and the CC does not hold any special ability to recognize it.  You can draw the same conclusions, provided discovering the Truth is your primary goal.  I was Pro Life long before I came back to the Church.  LONG before.  I am pro life, not because my Church tells me I must be so, but because I recognize reality and accept it without rationalizations.  This I believe, is why Jennifer is celebrating.  Because her church is filled with people who seem to be seeking the Truth, and are willing to accept it no matter where they find it.  Three cheers for the liberal thought process!  An open mind allows in the light.

Steve Jeffers, don’t stop now this is good discussion!  ?  You have some real good points.  The only reason I left God out of the picture is that an atheist does not believe in God.  I agree that the Catholic position is the most accurate in addressing issues like this.  After all, when speaking of the Natural Law, God wrote it on the hearts of all men.  In essence, it is the moral law and free choice.
However, your thought that Abortion is not a matter of convenience is almost unbelievable.  Over 98% of the people who have an abortion ARE a matter of convenience.  I too, struggle and know each time the life of a mother is in danger that she and her family should have the right to make a decision to abort a baby.  Some have chosen not to abort, and beat the odds.  That takes great faith and great courage.  I would never look down on a person who wished to save her own life.  Steve, statistics show that abortion is just the laziest form of contraception, and done purely for convenience.  Google and check it out.  I know it is shocking.  The abortions done to save the mother are less than .5%.
Should abortion laws be repealed, I do not think in this day and age, that abortion in the event of verifiable risk to the mother should or would NOT be wrong. I would hope that if the laws were repealed that there should be those provisions. 
My wife and I had a child born with HLHS, in short only three chambers of the heart.  Sadly, he did not survive after several surgeries.  I don’t think that I could have let my next child be aborted if we knew she had that defect.  Most children born with this heart defect have been allowed to die naturally within a few days.  We chose to try to beat the odds with today’s technology.  My son died a horrible death. Sometimes I struggle with technology; it is both blessing and curse.  For me, each situation must be taken one at a time; because I have seen, kids BEAT the odds.  Every one conceived has the right to life and if they are born like my son, they should have the right… and do… to die with dignity. Be warned, once the decision to save a life is made… you are in it to the end…. Moreover, we made that decision and he died a truly horrible death.  I do sleep at night now, because I know we did our best.  I am grateful for God’s mercy in that once he got bad he did not suffer long.

Your church is flourishing in Austin because the Catholics there do not take it for granted like here in western New York and throughout the northeast.  You had to work hard to be where you are at.  Here in the northeast the church was accepted generations ago especially in the urban areas.  Catholics were spoiled but at the same time were anxious to be accepted by the materialistic society and that is why the church suffers in the northeast.  In the Diocese of Buffalo the largest religous group are Catholics followed by non practicing Catholics.

One of the saddest things I’ve seen was when I was looking for a church to attend in Virginia Beach when I was visiting. One church I looked at only offered confession once a month for an hour (!). The church I finally ended up going to (because it was closest) didn’t have kneelers; people remained sitting during all the parts where you would be kneeling. The Church still has a lot of work to do in Southern Baptist Virginia…

I am a lifelong Catholic New Englander and I find anti Catholicism is flourishing here, especially among bitter lapsed Catholics.  It has become PC.  I live in Maine now and I find many “tolerant” liberals very anti catholic.  However, my church is full most of the time. When I travel, i find daily Mass well attended almost wherever I go.  you’d never know any of this from the media. The Maine newspapers are very anti Catholic, the latest a complete smear job on the diocese’s major spokesperson—concerning his role in the pro traditional marriage campaign last year.  I have to say though that I actually think of moving South to find a place that is less anti Catholic!

Steve Jeffers@ If you are going to troll Catholic websites to bring your own personal take on the religious wars vs secular humanism at least get your facts straight! Especially on Abortion! Planned Parenthood! Christians of all denominations leaving their churches! Your diatribe here is riddled with false statistics and sarcasm. If you truly believe that people should be as free and as un-opinionated as you say then what in the duce do you think you are doing here on this blog? At least go read afew of the polls you claim to have seen and when and if you come back recite them accurately For starters the polls indicate that more Americans are anti-abortion than the reverse…Planned Parenthood does more abortions than any other agency in the USA..why using your philosophy should ANY tax $$$ be given to support this? And don’t tell us that they are not…that would just be a lie! You claim you wish to support women’s choice! Great! I and many other Americans wish to support both the woman ( by not lying to her about what abortion actually involves) AND her unborn child who cannot speak for themselves. And as far as Roe vs Wade..most lawyers, even those supporting abortion itself, will tell you it is just plain bad law! Nine men sitting on a bench gave us that! whose job was to interpret, not make laws! In states where a referendum has occured, where the people decide what laws they want passed, abortion is defeated in most instances. Murdering a whole class of people is what the Nazi’s in WWII advocated. This country at one time decided that it was ok to lynch a whole class of people because of their skin color and considered inferiority. You have many, many opinions about alot of things. But I find little brotherly love for true justice in anything you say! What you bring here to this blog is one thing only…an inveterate hatred for all things Catholic! Go troll somewhere else!

> I find little brotherly love for true justice in anything you say!
> What you bring here to this blog is one thing only…an inveterate
> hatred

Read what you just wrote and tell me I wrote anything demonstrating anything like the foam-mouthed anger you did.

You start from the position I’m an undemocratic racist baby killer who’s a Nazi and slave owner. What can I say but ‘no, I’m not’?

Here’s the difference: I don’t want to impose my ethicial position on everyone, regardless of their ethical beliefs. I do try to listen to the other side - although I’ve realized that the anti-choice movement has no interest in returning that courtesy, and seems particularly prone to extremism and absolutist positions.

I am not Catholic. I don’t believe in your God, I don’t believe in the soul. If I’m looking for guidance on child welfare, I would not look to the modern Vatican, to put it mildly.

I am not forcing you to have abortions or use contraception. Do your ‘tax dollars’ go to fund women’s health care? Shockingly little of it by any standard. The Catholic position on life is admirable. The stand against the death penalty is admirable. So ... why is it only an issue of ‘tax dollars’ when it comes to abortions, not executions?  Or military spending? The US army bought six billion bullets last year, using ‘taxpayer’s money’. Does that make baby Jesus smile?

The version of abortion that the ‘pro life’ movement pushes is a misogynistic conspiracy theory pushed by people who’ve always hated women, who have always literally blamed them for all the evil in the world, and who have always marginalized them and kept them away from any form of power or authority. The world has moved on.

Every single place in the world where women have choices about when and where to have children, they have decided to have fewer children, later. They’ve chosen to get an education and a job first. And that and only that, my friend, is what terrifies the scared, reactionary old men that run your religion, and it’s nothing to do with Jesus or God or souls or child welfare. It’s only when that started happening that the church suddenly made abortion a huge political issue. Find the bit in the Bible that talks about abortion. It’s a big book with plenty in it. God found the time to tell you whether you can eat a squirrel or not, but not to mention the legal rights of embryos.

@Steven Jeffers

Your ethics say it is wrong to try to prevent women from killing the fetuses in them.  Your ethics seem to say that it is right for tax dollars to go fund women’s “health” care.  In supporting those things, the laws that support them, and trying to defeat or dissuade our efforts, you ARE trying to force your ethical position on us as much as we are on you.

As for your other comments concerning the pro-life movement’s version of abortion being ‘a misogynistic conspiracy theory’ and the Catholic Church’s ‘hate’ of women, what more can we say but “No, it isn’t” and “No, we don’t”?  Your worldview looks through a lens that makes those things seem that way to you, so it is not worth going into details to defend them because you seem incapable of escaping your own worldview, despite your ‘openness’ to hearing other sides.  You may very well accuse me of the same thing, and so be it.  But at least try not to be hypocritical about it, accusing us of things that you yourself are guilty of.

RE: Posted by mk on Thursday, Apr 21, 2011 7:52 AM (EDT):

AMEN!

Steve..I am happy you came back to this Catholic blog once more as you have shown to all the world exactly the point I was making. No where have I called you any of the names you claim nor said the things you state.
Your distortion of my words once more expresses your hate for all things Catholic ( your “little bone of graciousness” about admiration for the Church’s position on capital punishment is hypocritical flattery)You seem to have a talent and penchant for distorting truth and preaching the line of falsity of those who neither respect nor know the Catholic faith. Why come to this website except to “set us all straight”!! The bit in the Bible about abortion? Have you ever tried to read any of it? You might know then afew of the answers to your questions ( I will ignore your silly implications that God cares more about eating squirrels than He does about the killing of infants in their mother’s wombs). In the NT
Jesus had plenty to say about those who mis-treat His little ones ( yes, we could include ALL those who abuse children..but also those who rip apart their bodies in the womb..aka abortion!) His commandment THOU SHALT NOT KILL could not be more explicit! Abortion terminates the life of the unborn as even the abortionist has to admit! Like Dennis, I am not going to argue with you as it would not be profitable for ” your heart is hardened and your ears are closed and your tongue full of the lies of Satan”!  Nor would I encourage you to “stick around” what is a Catholic website since you only wish to denounce our Church and its Founder, Jesus Christ. Believe me…we have heard it all before!! You bring nothing new to the table. Again go peddle your trashy version of ” truth and reason ” elsewhere. It does not “sell” here! I will leave you with these words of the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen to ponder: Truth is Truth even if no one believes it; and error is error even if everyone believes it”! You are free to decide which side of Truth you wish to be on ..but no one here is buying what you are selling!

“His commandment THOU SHALT NOT KILL could not be more explicit!”

Well, yes, obviously it could. It could be ‘and that includes unborn children’. I’m not ‘distorting’ what’s in the Bible. The Bible says nothing. If you beat a woman and cause her to miscarry, your family should pay a fine. The Biblical belief is consistently that you are alive, and let your soul in, when you take your first breath. That’s not a ‘distortion’, either.

“No where have I called you any of the names you claim”

Except when you said:

‘Murdering a whole class of people is what the Nazi’s in WWII advocated. This country at one time decided that it was ok to lynch a whole class of people because of their skin color and considered inferiority.’

Please have the courtesy to understand your own viewpoint, even if you don’t understand mine.

As I say, this is a fruitless argument. We’re starting from two radically different points of view. You think that God is poised over every copulating couple ready to staple a ghost to any egg that gets fertilized and in that exact instant it becomes a little human being. I can’t argue with that, anymore than I could argue with someone that says you’re only a human being if Gandalf writes your name in a special little book.

If you want to believe it, as I said at the beginning of this thread, believe away. I’m not stopping you from practicing your most cherished beliefs. The problem is when you attempt to impose these crazy, crazy Iron Age beliefs on the rest of us. 

Meanwhile in other ‘Texas religious people news’ ...
http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/bill-nye-bood-in-texas-for

I know which side of that one I’m on, and I’m happy to stay there.

“The Biblical belief is consistently that you are alive, and let your soul in, when you take your first breath.”

Judges 16:17, Psalm 51:6, Isaiah 49:1, Jeremiah 20:17, Hosea 12:3, all speak to life and being existing in the womb.

“I can’t argue with that, anymore than I could argue with someone that says you’re only a human being if Gandalf writes your name in a special little book.”

Just as I cannot argue with someone who has nothing but their own (or a group’s) opinion that we should not impose opinions and beliefs on others.

“I’m not stopping you from practicing your most cherished beliefs. The problem is when you attempt to impose these crazy, crazy Iron Age beliefs on the rest of us.”

As before, you are contradicting yourself.  Our most cherished beliefs include the sanctity of life, which involves the defending of innocent life in all its stages, from conception to natural death.  In saying that we should not attempt to change laws in order to impose these beliefs on others, you are trying to impose your crazy, crazy personal beliefs on us.

“Just as I cannot argue with someone who has nothing but their own (or a group’s) opinion that we should not impose opinions and beliefs on others ... In saying that we should not attempt to change laws in order to impose these beliefs on others, you are trying to impose your crazy, crazy personal beliefs on us.”

Right. Now we’re getting somewhere. You’re stating, categorically, that what you’re attempting to impose your views on the rest of us. That you know we don’t share those beliefs, many don’t even buy the basic premises of the argument, but it doesn’t matter.

That you call my belief that people should be tolerant of others beliefs ‘crazy’ says it all. When America, and every other country that has, adopted a tolerant attitude to religious diversity Catholics benefited tremendously. We all did. This is the paradox - you denounce the very freedoms that allow you to practice your religion. You say that me being happy that you have religious freedom is *equivalent* to your belief that women should have no say in what happens to them. I’d be offended if that even approached coherency.

I find it very difficult to explain this except in religious terms. If you have fallen down the rabbit hole of believing in God, and so in moral absolutes, in black and white, good and evil, in pinned down answers about things which are plainly more nuanced and arbitrary and dependent on context ... well, I’m sure that’s very comforting, but life is plainly not like that.

Simple question: if I have a cherished belief, and it clashes with one of your cherished beliefs, how should we decide what happens next? Who should pick? Doesn’t matter what the belief is. As trivial or as serious as you like. My belief is that people can wear hats if they want to. Your religion believes that people should never wear hats. What happens next? Who gets to pick? If you tell me you don’t want to wear a hat, I shrug and say ‘fine’. What would you do if I told you I would like to wear a hat?

“Judges 16:17, Psalm 51:6, Isaiah 49:1, Jeremiah 20:17, Hosea 12:3, all speak to life and being existing in the womb.”

1. Oh come on, that’s a stretch. ‘God knew you before you formed in the womb’ - that’s an argument for God’s omniscience, not that a newly-fertilized egg is the legal equivalent of an adult woman. If nothing else it’s an argument that life begins *before* conception.

2. So you accept the scientific authority of the Bible in all matters? The moon *does* emit light?

3. So you accept the legal authority of the Bible in all matters?

4. Find the bit in the Bible about abortion. Abortion was practiced in Biblical times. There are civil laws about it in the Roman Empire. There are whole sections of the Bible that are nothing *but* laws, and go into great detail about legal technicalities. I’m being serious about the squirrel. The Bible tells you whether you can eat a squirrel, but does not mention abortion once. Why not? ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ ... OK, but plenty of people kill in the Bible on the direct orders of God. It’s clearly not an absolute position.

W

Steve,

With all due respect, the bible doesn’t specifically say that we shouldn’t beat old ladies over the head with hammers or boil children in chicken fat, but I’m pretty sure we shouldn’t.  It is understood that life is life is life and barring a grave reason (such as a Hitler or Osama) taking the life of another is verboten.  Period.

But a belief in God is not necessary to reason out the rightness or wrongness of abortion.

Either we respect and protect ALL life, or we don’t.  If we do, then the unborn are part of the picture.  If we don’t, then everyone and anyone is in danger of being the “new” unborn.

One does not need to believe in God to know that Hitler was wrong for killing Jews, Catholics, gypsies, etc.  One does not need to believe in God to know that slavery (owning another human being) is wrong.

You claim that we adhere to a black and white view of the world.  Our authority, you claim, is God.  So be it.  But we DO have an authority to look to.  In your view, the only authority is emotion.  What a person “feels”.  I would rather falsely believe that there are absolutes and have a reasoned, logical view of morality, than leave it up to the ever changing, fickle emotions of each individual.  Freedom is one thing.  License is another.  Even if the only authority you recognize is a legal one, at least you are not leaving life and death matters up to the whims of the individual.

You can’t even play baseball without agreed upon rules.  Even the most abstract of artists, must have a working knowledge of the “rules” of art.  You are not free to paint like Picasso until you have first mastered the skills required to paint like Da Vinci. You can’t break the rules, till you know the rules.

Two Biblical quotes worth considering are Matthew 6:7 and John 3: 16-21!
Perhaps in the light of these quotes we should stop responding to the iodiocy, to say nothing of the hatred of all things Christian and particularly Catholic of those whose only purpose in coming to this website is to promote their version of the darkness! I am done “casting pearls before swine” and allowing “dogs to trample on the Truth”!! and
I would encourage the Sons and Daughters of the Light to do the same!Remember the example of Jesus who remained silent when Pilate asked Him “What is truth?” as he was staring Truth right in the face! Pilate was not interested in Truth..only in his own political future. Those who come here to this website to spread their trashy version of truth and reason deserve the same treatment!

@Steve
“You’re stating, categorically, that what you’re attempting to impose your views on the rest of us. That you know we don’t share those beliefs, many don’t even buy the basic premises of the argument, but it doesn’t matter.”

Yes, just as I would fight to end the slaughter of Jews in Germany even though the government and members of the Nazis do not share my beliefs or even buy the basic premises of the argument.  And, just like you are trying to do to us (you keep ignoring that point).

“That you call my belief that people should be tolerant of others beliefs ‘crazy’ says it all.”

Putting words in my mouth, huh?  I never indicated which of your personal beliefs I find crazy.  The paradox is that you seem to think that being tolerant of others is better than not being tolerant, but if you are a consistent atheist, you have no objective grounds for saying it is better.  If I had the personal belief that I should be able to rape women, would you be tolerant of that?  If not, why not?  You have nothing but your personal opinion that we should not do it to fall back on.

“You say that me being happy that you have religious freedom is *equivalent* to your belief that women should have no say in what happens to them.”

Coming from YOUR worldview, yes.  You have no objective basis of determining what is right and wrong, so there is no morality except that determined by personal choice.  Hence, your decision to be happy for religious freedom or unhappy if women had no say in what happens to them are equal because they both have the same foundation, your opinion.

“If you have fallen down the rabbit hole of believing in God, and so in moral absolutes, in black and white, good and evil, in pinned down answers about things which are plainly more nuanced and arbitrary and dependent on context ... well, I’m sure that’s very comforting, but life is plainly not like that.”

If you do not believe in God, then there is not only no moral black and white, but there is not even any gray.  Yet, life is plainly not like that.

“What would you do if I told you I would like to wear a hat?”

We reside in a democracy, so if I had the cherished belief that you should not wear a hat, then I would try to go through the appropriate means to keep you from wearing a hat.  The funny thing is, while wearing a hat is a non-issue, for you, the right to have an abortion and the right to wear a hat are equivalent ‘moral’ issues.  That is, unless you believe in something outside of ourselves that determines the seriousness of moral issues?  Claiming anything simply man-made is simply refuted by ‘I disagree.’

“1. Oh come on, that’s a stretch. ‘God knew you before you formed in the womb’”

Why did you address only one of the verses?

“2. So you accept the scientific authority of the Bible in all matters? The moon *does* emit light?
3. So you accept the legal authority of the Bible in all matters?”

If you understood the Catholic faith, you would know that Jesus gave the Church the authority to interpret Scripture and its meaning.  The Church claims the Bible is not a scientific textbook, so the answer is ‘No’ to question 2.  For question 3, I accept the Church’s interpretation of the Bible as a ‘legal’ authority in all matters regarding faith and morals.

“4. Find the bit in the Bible about abortion.”

Don’t need to.  I can find where Christ made Peter the head of the Church, promised it would be led into all truth, and that this authority has been passed down throughout time.  So I trust what the Church says regarding the issue of abortion, knowing that it has the correct interpretation of Scripture.

@ThirstforTruth

I am responding not for Steve Jeffers’ sake, though I obviously would be happy if it ended up showing him the error of his thinking.  I am doing it for those who have never heard some of these arguments before, and may feel intimidated by atheists because of inexperience in dealing with those who do not believe in God.  I will soon stop being part of this discussion because I feel I have gotten the point across to the other believers who may be reading.

The funny thing is, while wearing a hat is a non-issue, for you, the right to have an abortion and the right to wear a hat are equivalent ‘moral’ issues.

That is the crux of the problem right there.  There is a pathological drive in this world to be our own boss.  No one is gonna tell ME what to do.  Thus, it appears that the only truly immoral action is the one where I am told what I can and cannot do by another.  Wearing a hat/the killing of an unborn child by his own mother…these are equal not because the actions themselves are wrong, but because they break the only moral code the secular world seems to be willing to recognize…that of total personal autonomy.  Which of course is an illusion.  Like it or not, we are all in this together and our actions affect one another.  I do not have the right to do whatever I want.  I simply don’t.  Wearing or not wearing a hat is not a moral dilemma.  Killing your child is not only a moral dilemma, but a greater moral dilemma than whether or not I have the right to do anything that I want. 

The right to life is not a right given to us by the government.  It IS a right that the government is obligated to protect.  Even the men who defined this right in the constitution acknowledge that they are not the arbiters of that right.  The right exists irrespective of mans determination to recognize it.  It is not ours to grant, it is not ours to take away.

If the right to life is not recognized as the greatest of rights, then no other right can stand.

> “4. Find the bit in the Bible about abortion.”
>Don’t need to.  I can find where Christ made Peter the head of the
>Church, promised it would be led into all truth, and that this authority >has been passed down throughout time. 

And ... bingo. It’s not in the Bible. It’s a modern preoccupation of the current leaders of the church. Which is all I’ve been arguing.

“One does not need to believe in God to know that slavery (owning another human being) is wrong.”

Ephesians 6:5 - Jesus disagreed. Which, of course, was cited for centuries by pro-slavery people as justification. The Catholic church was extremely anti-slavery for many centuries. But it is very specifically the opposite of what Jesus said.

I think I’m coming to understand that there’s a specific religious mindset - I’m generalizing, of course. That a sense of purpose, a sense of objective values, a sense that there’s always one set answer is valuable. But the corollary of that is that what the answer *is* doesn’t matter that much. And corollary of *that* is that the ‘right answer’ can change. So the Church can declare (in the Catechism of 1869) that Papal Infallibility is a Protestant lie and is heresy, but then in 1870 the Pope can declare himself to be infallible and there’s just no problem. If God is true and the Church is true, then whatever the Bible or Church says is true, even if it’s contradictory.

If you take ‘God is truth’ as axiomatic and ‘The Church knows God’ as axiomatic ... well, yes, you’re right. But ... OK. When I tell a lie, I feel an itch. When I feel I’m being lied to, I feel that itch. When your priest tells you there are moral absolutes, and clearly raping kids is about the most wrong you can be, and then he’s hauled off by the police for raping kids twenty years ago, and the church says that was a different time ... don’t you feel that itch? When they say that the Church didn’t do anything wrong, it was all from outside, that the Church was invaded by demons and homosexuals and secular humanism? No itch? When the Pope, who used to be in the Hitler Youth, blames ‘secular humanists’ for Nazism ... no itch?

Look, I’m sorry if I’m rubbing people up the wrong way. But, seriously, an atheist on a Catholic website asking questions about what people believe is not a big problem in the scheme of things.

> Wearing or not wearing a hat is not a moral dilemma.

Clearly I was not equating the two in moral terms.

OK ... I think I understand your point of view. Please try to understand mine:

Yes, ‘tolerance of differing views’ is a dogmatic belief I hold in the same way ‘abortion is wrong’ is a dogmatic belief you hold.

Here’s the difference: I don’t seek to impose my views on others. I don’t even seek to impose *tolerance* on you. If you want to be intolerant, I tolerate that, I simply ask you to note that, as Jennifer’s found, the paradox is that your particular brand of intolerance does better in a liberal environment than a monocratic one, ultimately even when your faction appoints the monocrat. If you think, as one commentator seems to, that Catholics are ‘the most hated’ or ‘most persecuted’ people in America ... well, buy a dictionary and read a newspaper.

You seek to impose your views on abortion on me. I do not seek to impose my views on abortion on you. I do not think Catholic (or Muslim or Mormon or evangelical) doctors should be forced to perform abortions (or think that this bizarre scenario would ever even be possible in anything like America). I just ask that people who *decide differently* have that decision respected.

I appreciate that you sincerely believe it and think that God has told you this is true. Believe me when I say that I hold my beliefs just as strongly all the more for them being my beliefs and not some priests’ current interpretation of what one of the gods believes. That it’s faintly ridiculous to have the courage of *someone else’s* convictions. 

“Killing your child is not only a moral dilemma, but a greater moral dilemma than whether or not I have the right to do anything that I want.”

It’s not a dilemma for you, though, is it? This is, again, my point. You want to impose *your* answer. You need to invoke God, and say, wait, this isn’t my opinion, it’s God’s ... but other Christian denominations say different things. The Catholic church has said different things. It celebrated, canonized in fact, people who performed abortions in the past.

Read Jennifer’s *ridiculous* post on modern art. It’s the same process at work - she can’t just dislike an ugly painting, she needs to know that God hates it, too. This is your personal opinion, dressed up as some cosmic truth, then in a feedback loop - ‘it feels right to me’ / ‘it’s the natural law’ / ‘it feels right to me because it’s the natural law’. Look ... I think some paintings are ugly. I admit it. I don’t need to create a cosmic conspiracy theory. More to the point - if someone else loves a picture I find ugly, more power to them. They’ve found beauty where I didn’t. Great. Celebrate that. Please tell me what you like about it. Jennifer didn’t try to find it beautiful, she sought a universal demonstration that her opinion was right. That is an uglier thing than any ugly artwork.

There *isn’t* one clear cut ‘right answer’ to whether abortion is always wrong. There *isn’t* one clear cut ‘moment’ where something that isn’t a person becomes a person. There isn’t one ‘right answer’ to ‘should I save the mother or the child?’ or ‘is it fair to bring a child into this family situation?’. If these things were inarguable, we wouldn’t be arguing. And the situation changes - as science progresses, abortion law should change.

My utopia would be for abortion to be on demand but that no one ever felt the need to demand it. That every fetus was healthy and that every mother had the resources to ensure the child was raised in a loving environment that allowed them to reach their potential.

Which is wonderful, but not the world we live in. Pretending it’s easy only insults the issue.

Steve…got an itch??? Get some Gold Bond! That has as much chance of resolving what itches you as all the futile attempts put forth here by people of good will.  Why do I say that? Because there are two kinds of seekers…one is genuine in attempting to arrive at the Truth of Reality, open to learning and not eaten up by anger and skepticism. The other kind is not really looking or seeking the Face of Truth but just ventng their cynicism and trying to be Lord above all…their own arrogant god. For example, you assume the Sola Scriptura stance( if it’s not in the Bible it just isn’t so) and yet in the next sentence you deny the authority of the Bible. All the rest of your rant is just about that logical and is nonsense. Those who insist on “doing battle with you” at this stage of your journey are tilting at wind-mills and being a bit vain in their attempts.
Even Jesus did not try to argue with those Jews who murmured at his Bread of Life discourse in John 6 nor did he run after them. Jesus died for all but not all will accept him as their Savior. It is sad but true. The Christian response to the Steves of this world is to do more penance and pray and fast. At some level Steve knows this but he is not ready or able to respond to this inner voice. God bless him and let him be on his way!

“is genuine in attempting to arrive at the Truth of Reality, open to learning and not eaten up by anger and skepticism.”

What do you think the appropriate response is to the fact that ten percent of Catholic priests are complicit in child abuse? ‘Anger and skepticism’ or ‘hey, Jesus left St Peter a key, so who are we to argue?’.

Do you not even see the disparity between ‘there are moral absolutes, good and evil’ and ‘hey, child abuse happens and ten percent’s not so bad and it’s all media persecution’?

> For example, you assume the Sola Scriptura stance( if it’s not in the
> Bible it just isn’t so) and yet in the next sentence you deny the
> authority of the Bible.

*I* deny the authority of the Bible. There’s nothing illogical about asking a *Catholic* to find Scripture that justifies their ethical position. And I understand the implications of the apostolic tradition, (and how what’s in the Bible and what isn’t is broadly irrelevant to Church teaching). My point is that if you read modern Catholic discussion, you’d think that the subject of abortion came up in the Bible at least once. It doesn’t. You’d think that the Church has maintained a constant hard line against it since the earliest times. It hasn’t.

..“tolerance of differing views” is called moral relativism…and is a “hedging your bets” kind of attitude towards truth. It is totally without philosophical basis or support in reality. What appears to be a good turns out to be evil because it denies truth. It is a kind of ” live and let live ” attitude which “works” for awhile until one comes up against the reality of life in this imperfect world. Right and wrong exist in the physical world as well as the moral world. The both/and… will eventually hit the wall of the either/or… and one is EITHER right OR wrong! You can bet on it! Moral truth when evaded and replaced by “tolerance” has its consequences just as physical laws do. If you throw something up in the air, eventually it will come back down. It will not continue to go up.( assuming normal circumstances )Its path is predictable. Moral truth also has certain predictable consequences. This is what Pope Paul VI was getting at in his encyclical Humanae Vitae. He predicted certain consequences would follow, as night the day, if we ignored the moral truths and consequences about artificial contraceptives. I don’t think he mentioned the recently discovered consequence of huge amounts of powerful hormones being excreted into our water sources by artificially contracepting women, but nonetheless the other predictions he made have come to fruition. In general we have suceeded in not only NOT replacing outselves, but also in further upsetting the balances through-out nature, and, even within our political structures.  And this is just one instance of what happens where truth is ignored and we try being our own god while also adopting the ” anything goes attitude” of tolerance. It is only in the recent centuries that tolerance is considered to be virtuous. Charity towards all has become confused by this modern “virtue” called tolerance, as have so many things, the further we get away from the Center of All that is Real.  “Tolerance of differing views” is a charade and a ruse…a putting off what should be done today by facing issues squarely and honestly, and instead leaving it up to tomorrow to be solved. Thus we here in America today are facing serious crisis which the past several decades have refused to address by “tolerating” the irresponsibility of not facing the reality of the economic, moral and social issues of our culture. How much longer this Nation survives this “catastrophe ” called tolerance depends upon how much longer we deny the reality of truth..and continue to go the way of the disaster of “political correctness”...an aphorism of the “virtue” of tolerance!

“..What do you think the appropriate response should be to the fact that 10% of Catholic priests have been complicit in child abuse…’?

Once more you have your “facts” wrong Steve…( you just cant’t sit at your computer and make numbers up to support your skewed views)and way over-stated the facts ( it is less than 4% over a 70 yr period of time)
Of course one abused child is one too many but statistically more children are abused by (l) live in partners of opposite sex (2)family members (3) school personnel than Catholic clergy or religious. For some
“strange reason” this is way under reported in the secular media but the numbers are out there for all to see..including abuse rates among the other denominations. But of course for your purposes only the Catholic priest seems to register in your brain! What else would you be doing at a Catholic website? Yes you are free to roam the internet..and it just so
happens that we are the “lucky ones” to receive all your vitriole and anger.

“there is nothing illogical asking a Catholic to find scripture that supports their ethical views”...

Nothing except: (1) you would not accept this biblical authority so it becomes, like most of your rant, an exercise in futility..(2)also your ignorance of all things Catholic even inspite of having been told we are not of the Sola Scriptura philosophy.

Steve…you are right!!!!!!!!!!!! You are just itching…for an argument!
Like a dog with a bone…you want to keep going over the same old, same old. I hope you get a life…a real one…maybe even a Christian one..
but not gonna happen along the road you are on now and you are getting to be a bit annoying and boring!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why don’t you take up knitting!!! or re-finishing furniture. Something that doesn’t involve so many of your personal nemesis! Or the internet! At least stop treating the Catholic Church like a debate society!!! We got “no debate”..we got the Truth…and you can take it ...or leave it! Au revoir and bonne chance mes amis!!!!!!!!!!!
!

Steve,
It’s not a dilemma for you, though, is it? This is, again, my point. You want to impose *your* answer. You need to invoke God, and say, wait, this isn’t my opinion, it’s God’s

I have not, and in fact have gone out of my way NOT to, invoked God once in this conversation.

But let’s put that aside.

Do you use the same reasoning when drawing the conclusion that rape is wrong?  Are you not being intolerant and imposing your views on another when you slap the term “illegal” on the act of rape?

This is why the difference between the hat and the abortion must be understood.  You are against rape because you recognize that it is wrong.  Therefore, no matter how another would feel, you would hold your ground and fight to impose your will on all prospective rapists?  Am I right?  We have already determined that at the moment of conception, all but the most deluded, agree that “life” has begun.  We also know that in the case of HUMAN conception, it is HUMAN life.  Therefore there can be no real argument as to whether or not we are taking a human life.  There can only be an argument over whether or not taking that human life is JUSTIFIED.  No invocation of God is necessary.  Either taking innocent human life is ALWAYS wrong, or it isn’t.  If it is then abortion is wrong.  If it is not, then abortion can be viewed as right but you are left defending your position that only SOME lives in SOME circumstances may be taken.  And that is where opinion comes in.  It will be an arbitrary determination at best and a diabolical one at worst.

As for the 1869 catechism claiming that the Pope is not infallible…you really need to cite your sources when making these types of outlandish claims.  They don’t further your cause, and make me doubt a whole lot of the other stuff you are saying…just a thought.

Steve is a blatherskite…and loves to indulge himself in specious arguments! He is NOT interested in truth or the Christian faith but
comes at us…with half-truths and lies about the Catholic Church.
It is all sophistry!...and don’t fall for it. Defense of truth and
the Church with this guy is a waste of your time! Walk away!and go
read John 6: 35-59 and Matthew 7:6. Take your cue from these martyred
Apostles who do not speak with “forked tongue”!

You’d think that the Church has maintained a constant hard line against it since the earliest times. It hasn’t.

Oh Steve!  Of course it has.  Look, having been the odd man out in these types of discussions I understand that it’s hard to separate one commenter from the next and it is all too easy lose your cool.  But you really, really, really have to be careful when you make these sorts of statements. It undermines your argument!  We, Catholics, do NOT adhere, and never have adhered, to Sola Scriptura.  Ever.  That is the Protestant Church, and Sola Scriptura is only one of MANY theological differences we have.  We believe that the Truth can be found in Sacred Tradition, the Scriptures, the Magesterium, in addition to REASON.

Scripture doesn’t say one word about killing Jews.  Yet we all agree that this is wrong.  The topic as such is now pervasive in conversation BECAUSE of Hitler.  He brought it to the forefront.  I doubt that the apostles were looking into the future and planning for Hitlers Holocaust.  Therefore you won’t find “And woe to all Germans who take it upon themselves to exterminate the Jewish Race”.  But it can be REASONED from other things that Scripture has said that ALL life is to be considered sacred.  There is no need to list the 4 billion various types of people in the world.  Likewise, people were killing a million and a half of their unborn a year in Jesus’ time so it wasn’t exactly front page news.  It is now.  And using REASON it is easy to deduce that abortion is wrong based on the principle that says ALL murder is wrong. 

C’mon.  You’re too smart for these reindeer games.

Btw.  I only brought the bible into it, because you did.  I hope that’s the last time I have to do so.  I agree with you, that expecting you to agree with our beliefs simply because the bible says so, is ludicrous.  But as I have said a thousand times, Reality does not change.  Truth does not change.  While the bible might give us revealed Truth, one can easily come to know Truth without ever reading one word of the bible.

>As for the 1869 catechism claiming that the Pope is not infallible…you
>really need to cite your sources when making these types of outlandish
>claims.  They don’t further your cause, and make me doubt a whole lot
>of the other stuff you are saying…just a thought.

Well, OK.

Keenan’s Catechism of 1869:

“Q. Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible? A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of Catholic faith.”

Keenan’s Catechism of 1896:

“Q: Is the Pope infallible? A: Yes, the Pope is infallible. Q: But some Catholics, before the Vatican Council, denied the infallibility of the Pope, which was impugned by this very Catechism. A: Yes, they did so under the usual reservation, insofar as they then could grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her future definitions, thus implicitly accepting the dogma.”

Source? Well, Google ‘Keenan Catechism 1869’. For example:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4fwQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=Keenan’s+Catechism+in+the+1869+edition,+asked+the+question,+Must+not+Catholics+believe+the+pope+in+himself+to+be+infallible?+The+answer+was,+This+is+a+Protestant+invention;+it+is+no+article+of+Catholic+faith.”&source=bl&ots=VuTVqukkSl&sig=UFLOxJUPQsGC2orYYcfQIVO4PKM&hl=en&ei=23vCTYi-Isaftwfwi7XXBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f;=false

If anyone thinks Keenan must have been a rogue priest/possessed by the devil/a secular humanist double agent, Google ‘Stephen Keenan Catholic’.

Atheists often argue, unfairly I think, that the difference between a man of faith and an ordinary man is that faith makes it impossible to change your mind in the face of new evidence, that their immediate reaction is defensive, rather than inquisitive. In that light, I’d be interested in your thoughts.

> We have already determined that at the moment of conception, all but
> the most deluded, agree that “life” has begun.

No we haven’t. My position is that there’s no one moment we can point to and say ‘not a person, not a person ... a person’. Any more than, with modern medicine, the traditional methods of deciding when they die are outdated - we can survive our ‘last breath’ or our heart stopping. Our bodies can survive brain death, now, with life support.

These things are *difficult* and they are *definitional*. Under the Catholic definition, it’s conception. But that definition is circular, not scientific. Conception is the point at which you become a human being, therefore you’re a human being from conception.

As I say, I’ve learned that there’s little common ground here. This is an area where our worldviews are so different that they’re practically alien to each other. Which is fine, I’m not trying to bring you round to my position, I’m trying to articulate it. My broader point is that I’m very happy for you to hold the position you do, icky and weird though I find it, I become unhappy when you tell me that your viewpoint insists that I adopt your viewpoint.

Steve,
That was WAY too much stuff to read to get a handle on what exactly was being said.  I can tell you this much…the question as phrased “Is the pope PERSONALLY infallible?”  WOULD be answered “no”.  He is only considered infallible on issues of faith and morals and there have only been a handful of infallible statements made in the last 2,000 years.  I listed them recently, and there were no more than 10 or so. 

The reason that his infallibility was made doctrine, is precisely because it was being called into question.  All of the Pope’s infallible statements were in response to challenges at the time.  My understanding is that things were accepted, then challenged, when challenged, stated infallibly. 

Asking me to make a statement about one quote (that can no longer be found in the book quoted) in a very long treatise by an anti catholic, is like asking me to define the constitution after reading one line of it, taken out of context.  I just don’t have enough information, and I am no historian.  I’ll keep looking and see if someone, somewhere, hasn’t answered these assertions, but on the face of it, I’d say that the word “personally” in personally infallible, is key.  I could be wrong, but that’s my impression at first glance.

Here is what the Keenan Catechism says:

Q. What was the last General Council?
  A. The Council of the Vatican, held at Rome, December 8, 1869.
  Q. How many ecclesiastical dignitaries attended it?
  A. Forty-nine cardinals and 694 patriarchs, archbishops and bishops from all parts of the world.
  Q. What dogma was defined in this Council?
  A. The dogma of Papal Infallibility; that the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals, is possessed of that infallibility with which our Redeemer endowed the church.

[pg. 171]

  Q. When does the Pope speak ex cathedra?
  A. The Pope speaks ex cathedra, when in his character of Universal Master and Pastor of all Christians, by his sovereign and apostolic authority, he defines some doctrine regarding faith or morals for the whole Catholic Church.
  Q. Whence comes it that the Pope cannot teach error in place truth?
  A. He is infallible: because God assists him, because the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of all truth, aids him according to the promise made to Peter, and in him, to his successors.
  Q. Were the decrees of the Vatican Council accepted by the bishops of the Catholic Church?
  A. With wonderful unanimity, not one bishop in the whole world refused to accept them.

Sorry for the long copy and paste but I didn’t know how else to do this…you’d never have found it if I only put up the link to the whole book.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/catechism.htm

Here is a list of the infallible statements made by Pope’s (Ex Cathedra) to date:

Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

  * “Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
  * Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
  * Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
  * Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
  * Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
  * Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
  * Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

While this is admittedly NOT a complete list, it is close.  As you can see, there were very few infallible statements made over the last 2,000 years….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Steve,

“Person” is a legal term.  I purposely did not use that definition.  I said “LIFE” begins at conception.  Then I said we could argue about how much value that life has, but that no one in the scientific world argues that it is LIFE.  Given that this life is HUMAN it is reasonable to call it Human Life.  What that means in terms of value is a whole other argument.  But logically speaking it can be called nothing else but Human Life.  You can disagree, but then you’d be in the company of flat earthers and holocaust deniers.  It is fact, not opinion.

I said

> Do you not even see the disparity between ‘there are moral absolutes,
> good and evil’ and ‘hey, child abuse happens and ten percent’s not so
> bad and it’s all media persecution’?

Thirstfortruth then instantly replied.

> statistically more children are abused by (l) live in partners of
> opposite sex (2)family members (3) school personnel than Catholic
> clergy or religious. For some “strange reason” this is way under
> reported in the secular media but the numbers are out there for all
> to see..including abuse rates among the other denominations.

So, I guess the answer is no, he at least can’t see it.

The Church position on moral absolutes is ‘they exist, there’s good and evil, no excuses’ and their position on child abuse by priests is ‘it’s hardly a problem, you have to understand things were different then, it’s all the fault of the media’.

ThirstforTruth has absorbed the party line and is able to recite it and no doubt thinks that will earn him a slightly better seat when he gets to Heaven, but he’s not spotted the central contradiction.

Why do I kick up a fuss about this? Why *don’t* you? This is a crisis for the Church, it’s bankrupted a number of American dioceses, and while child abuse isn’t exclusive to Catholic priests, the scale of it and the scale of the cover up is staggering. More to the point ... the real victims here are not ‘priests’ or ‘the Church’. It’s *your kids*. 

I know that many Catholics are extremely troubled, that many have left the Church. And I understand how difficult it must be. It must be like finding out a family member has done something like that, and I can see how it would divide loyalties. But circling the wagons and defending these guys? Deciding it’s purely an *external* problem when it’s the definition of an internal one and can only be solved by seeing that? Deciding that the moral authority of the Church hasn’t taken a hit? Deciding that the guy in charge who allowed this to spiral out of control was a saint? I don’t understand that at all.

I’m not a Catholic, it wasn’t my kids, why do I care? Really? You have to ask that question? You have to assume I’m motivated by hatred of the Church?

I don’t hate the church and I certainly don’t hate Catholics or individual Catholics. Some of the things Catholics say baffle me, though. And ‘oh, that child abuse stuff isn’t that bad, just the media persecuting us’ is top of the list, and yes for someone who tells me that to go on and lecture me on moral truths, and being told that as an atheist I can’t possibly see what’s right and wrong, does stick in the craw a bit.

> I’d say that the word “personally” in personally infallible, is key. 
> I could be wrong, but that’s my impression at first glance.

OK. Look. Two different editions of the same book, both with the Imprimatur, ask:

“Q. Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible? A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of Catholic faith.”

and

“Q: Is the Pope infallible? A: Yes, the Pope is infallible.”

I appreciate you probably don’t have copies of both the 1869 and 1896 editions of Keenan’s Catechism in front of you, and I appreciate that the catechism isn’t itself infallible. But if you can track them down, it’s the same question with opposite answers, depending on the version.

I understand the limits of papal infallibility, and that it’s rarely applied. But the Church hedges its bets a lot on what’s infallible and what isn’t. I was amazed that there wasn’t a list of infallible statements at the Vatican and they’ve had to be assembled by other scholars.

The Church certainly proclaims that what they’re saying is Truth, and that Truth is eternal. The whole basis of the Church v moral relativist argument is that they hold eternal truths whereas we poor atheists have to make it up as we go along. But the Church position hasn’t just flipped over the years, there have clearly been conscious efforts to cover up the flipping - St Brigid of Kildare’s ‘miraculous abortion’ came up in conversation earlier and is a great example of how the source is wonderful and reliable apart from the unreliable bits.

I stress that I think changing your opinion over time is healthy. It’s denying that’s what you’ve done that’s unhealthy.

I’ve asked a very simple question on this board before, and not got an answer. If someone wants to ask their priest or feels they can speak with authority, I would love to know the answer:

‘Does the Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of 22 May 1994 represent infallible doctrine?’

As I understand it, the Church position is that the letter isn’t infallible but what it says is. If someone would care to explain how that’s possible and not just having your cake and eating it too, I’d really like to know. At heart, what I want to know is ‘is it infallible doctrine that women can never be ordained?’. It ought to be a one word answer.

If it’s unclear what *is* infallible, or it’s possible to make a fallible declaration of infallibility ... well, that just makes the whole thing silly, doesn’t it? It’s infallible until the exact moment it’s inconvenient.

Steve,
Why *don’t* you? This is a crisis for the Church, it’s bankrupted a number of American dioceses, and while child abuse isn’t exclusive to Catholic priests, the scale of it and the scale of the cover up is staggering. More to the point ... the real victims here are not ‘priests’ or ‘the Church’. It’s *your kids*.

I couldn’t agree more.  We’ve talked about this in depth on another post.

What you are not hearing is that we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.  NO CATHOLIC would ever try to defend what those priests did (for whatever reason) or what the Bishops who covered it up did (for whatever reason).  What we are defending is not the Church with a small “c”, but the Church with a capital “C”.  With a small “c”, the church is as subject to sin and error as every other man.  I don’t throw out the police department because of a few rogue cops, or the government because of a few bad politicians.  Nor do I throw out the Church because of a few bad priests.  If you can show me a Church teaching that says molesting children is okay, then you’d have a point.  It is the fact that these men went AGAINST Church teaching that has you upset, as well it should.  But you wouldn’t be calling them hypocritical if you didn’t first understand that molesting children is NOT Church teaching.  We KNOW what’s right.  We KNOW what’s wrong.  But like all humans we don’t always FOLLOW what we KNOW.  I am not a hypocrite because I claim to know right from wrong.  Those priests and bishops are most definitely hypocrites because they PREACH right from wrong and then do the opposite.  Hypocrite means “To Act” or “pretend”.  These priests most certainly did “pretend”.  You are right that the first and most important victims are the kids.  But the Church was also hurt, and so was every member in it.  So were no Christians who were confused by the contradiction in teaching and action.  Finally, so were the priests who committed these acts.  This behavior created a world of hurt and we will be feeling the repercussions for a long, long time.  But what would you have us do?  Say AHA!  Hypocrites!  I’m leaving the Church???  Do I leave my children when they disappoint?  My husband?  How can you ask me to leave what God instituted?  That would make me the same type of hypocrite.  I have made a promise and I will honor that promise unless and until I come to believe that God is an illusion.  So far nothing has caused me to believe this, and MUCH has caused me to believe the opposite.

But see Steve, it really isn’t two different answers.  Is the Pope infallible?  Yes.  And no.  The first question is phrased in such a way that it could be misunderstood.  The Pope IN HIMSELF is NOT infallible.  No way.  It’s not even “HIM” that is infallible.  It is the Holy Spirit that is infallible.  When, and ONLY WHEN the Holy Spirit is speaking through the Pope, is he considered infallible.  It’s like those poll questions.  It all depends on how you ask it.  Are you pro life is very different than should there be limitations on abortion.  Is the Pope infallible IN HIMSELF is a very different question than “Is the Pope infallible”.  The answer to the first is emphatically “NO”.  The answer to the second is less emphatically “YES” because it must be accompanied by the caveat “When and only when he is speaking Ex Cathedra”.  From the chair, as Moses spoke.  At all other times the pope is as subject to error as the next guy.  Well, in theory anyway, as the last popes have been HIGHLY educated men and are probably better able to make more trustworthy statements.  But infallible statements?  No. Not as HIMSELF.

Yes. It is infallible doctrine that women cannot be ordained.  But NOT because the Pope said so.  That’s why you are confused by whether or not it is an infallible statement.  Jesus is the one who made that decision.  The Pope is just reiterating it. 

There is a host of theological reasons why it cannot be so, but the simplest is that Jesus did not ordain women.  Period.  What God has said, no man can unsay. (And by say, I don’t mean “say with words”.)

“What God has said, no man can unsay.”

Thank you for the answer, which is as clear and unambiguous as I could have wished for.

It’s also exactly what an Anglican would have said forty years ago, and there are now women Anglican priests. Is there *any* wriggle room for this in Catholic doctrine that would allow female ordination? I’m forty, I doubt it would happen in my lifetime, but I wouldn’t rule it out. But are you saying it’s an *eternal* truth?

What happens if the Vatican changes its position? It’s clearly *possible* they could, but would the new Pope be a heretic? Would John Paul II have been wrong? Or can something be infallibly true in 1994, but not in, say, 2494? Would it be a dealbreaker, in and of itself, that would cause you to doubt Catholicism? One theologian on another board told me it would render Catholicism false, and as a result theism would be false. In other words, if a single woman priest is ever ordained, God never existed and it was always all lies. Seems a bit extreme to me. But is it something Catholics agree with: one ‘female ordination = Catholicism false’?

lol…I had the feeling you’d ask me that.  Here’s what I can say…keeping in mind that I am no theologian…

The Church is a living thing.  It changes.  Only dead things remain static.  However, there are what we call changeable laws and unchangeable laws.  Priests in the Roman Rite do not marry at this time.  But that is a discipline not a doctrine.  It is a changeable law.  In the Eastern Rite they do marry.

Women priests, or lack thereof, are an unchangeable law.  This means that man did not institute this law therefore man cannot change this law.

The reason I believe that guy said that then he would believe the Church was a lie is not the ordination of women, but the promise that the Holy Spirit would protect and guide the Church forever.  If women were ordained, it would mean that the Holy Spirit was not really protecting the Church, which would mean that the Holy Spirit (God) was a liar or did not exist.  Either scenario would mean that the Catholic Church is not what we believed it was.  Does this make sense?

For two thousand years, heretics have tried to bring the Church to her knees and have been unsuccessful.  We believe this is because and only because of the work of the Holy Spirit.  Every time one of these heresies has arisen, the Church has stood firm and the heretics have left, often starting their own Church…Luther, Anglicans, Orthodox and all 30,000 protestant denominations.  But none of them have been able to budge the Church.  See?  So when you say the Anglicans have “changed” their minds, this is because they have already left the True Church and are not under the protection of the Holy Spirit, no matter what they might claim.  Of course they don’t believe this, but what they believe does not change what “IS”.  As you have seen, many, many, many of the Anglican Priests (and Lutheran ministers for that matter) are leaving their churches and coming home to the Catholic Church.  That should tell you something about where the Truth lies.  Those other churches, we believe, are under the authority of men, were created by men, to give men temporal satisfaction…this is why they change with the wind.  They are trying to satisfy themselves.  This is not what the Catholic Church does, and why she appears to be so backward to many secularists.  I’m not asking you to agree with this assessment, just to understand why there is a difference between what the Anglican Church does and what the Catholic Church does.  The Anglican Church started because a man did not like the “backward” rules of the C.C. and became his own pope.  We see this attitude in every protestant church today.

So would I leave?  I can’t say.  I’d have to look really carefully at what was happening and I might find myself trusting that it would rectify itself eventually…hopefully sooner than later.  But it would cause me great sadness and serious doubt.  That’s the most honest answer I can give you…

Thank you for that thoughtful answer.

:)

Mrs. Fulwiler,

I am a student at the University of Texas in Austin and attend St. Mary’s, the cathedral of the diocese of Austin. I had not known you were a resident of Austin. Which Parish do you attend? Have you been to St. Mary’s? It is very beautiful. We invite you to attend the Extraordinary form of the Latin Mass on Sunday at 3:30pm.

Sincerely,
Ryan Haecker