Chris Matthews Corners a Bishop
And the Bishop he corners is Bishop Tobin — the one who denied Communion to Patrick Kennedy. Matthews clearly feels strongly about this here — watch this 11 minute segment:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV7xBh5Q8Lc[/youtube]
Matthews clearly takes Bishop Tobin to the woodshed and Tobin is really squirming at the end. Catholic legislators do have to legislate for everyone — not just their Bishops — and they have to live within the laws that are already on the books. It is pretty stupid for Catholic Bishops to rage away at legislators over abortion issues when they selectively punitive, for instance they certainly are not making an example of Rudy Guiliani who is pro-choice or supporters of the death penalty. But most importantly this Bishop’s interference in the legislative process is shown to be real hypocrisy — he is very comfortable punishing legislators for not following his instructions but not so quick to call for sanctions against the women who don’t follow his instructions. What Matthews knows here is that these Bishops are delighted to play their Catholic Teaching Theater with high profile legislators, but they’ll likely destroy the American church with a call for punishing the women who might get an abortion.
It is really a shame that the Catholic Church can’t be more constructive in this conversation, but I suppose that trending back to the tactics of the Spanish Inquisition is in the church’s DNA.
Tags: Catholic Church
Church: We’re going to eat pieces of human flesh and drink sips of human blood tomorrow.
Kennedy: Really? Can I come?
Church: No. We don’t like your beliefs.
Nice job, Chris.
Yes, I’m really not clear what the Catholic Church is trying to accomplish other than pushing a specific political agenda. This balance they’re trying is not working because they’re selectively pushing tenets – anti-same sex marriage and anti-abortion over anti-war and anti-death penalty and they are selecting one party over another. I really think this is causing resentment and possibly a big backlash – especially with women.
The Catholic Church has played games with politics for well over a thousand years with varying amounts of success. They have no intention of stopping now. They want to tell Catholics and for that matter everyone else how to live, what to do and what not to do. No different than the rest of the Christian Far Right. Fortunately they make enemies faster than they make converts.
ive been a little unimpressed with Chris Matthews lately. Nice to see he can still spot and soundly defeat a fraud. Bravo future Senator Matthews
Back in the 1960s, Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans excommunicated some segregationist leaders (including one elected official) for their support of segregation in public and parochial schools. Was Rummel right, or did he cross a line? And had he excommunicated segregationist legislators, would you have argued so vehemently against his actions as you have with Bishop Tobin’s much more mild actions towards Kennedy?
Please offer a principled reason for any differences in your position on the two issues.
UI, as a practicing Catholic, I have noticed that certain factions within the church are splitting on the very issues you mentioned. I keep waiting for Bishop Tobin or any bishop to tell Cardinal Law to refrain from Communion, or Rudy Giuliani, or the bishop in Canada arrested recently for possessing child pornography.
Outside the Catholic arena, I find the pro-life movement very selective. Embryonic stem cells, bad. Abortion, very bad. Death penalty, torture, war, poverty — all life issues to me — nary a word.
This was excellent. The bishop probably wishes he didn’t accept Chris Matthews’ invitation because he got served!
Please offer a principled reason for any differences in your position on the two issues.
How about the fact that you’ve cherry picked your facts in this case? You won’t find it at all principled that I actually noticed that, but there ya go.
The excommunications were because a few individuals organized protests against the Catholic schools that were desegregating — and they were desegregating not just because it was the law, but also because the Archbishop gave that order. This Archbishop had already issued a pastoral letter a decade or so earlier desegregating Churches.
The Archbishop in NO excommunicated a few because they tried to organize a boycott of the Church to protest the desegregation. In this instance, they did defy church teaching as well as the law. In Bishop Tobin’s case –he has not excommunicated anyone. He is just threatening one man by withholding Communion from him because he does uphold the law.
Not that you’ll see the difference between the two.
Oh, come on guys, even for libs like you guys chris’ arguement doesn’t hold water… Chris Matthews argument was that because the Bish because Bishop Thomas Tobin couldn’t delineate the EXACT punishment for abortion–if it were to become illegal–that some how he has no right to voice his opposition to it, or to tax dollars funding it? you’re not that thick, are you? Should Martin Luther King Jr. not have been allowed to voice his opposition to racist unless he first described what the penalty for racism? I’m against child pornography (as I suspect you libs are too), but i don’t know EXACTLY what the penalty should be–5 years? 10 years? 25? life in prison? death penalty?– so I guess chris matthews would tell me (and most of you anti-child porn libs out there) that we should first figure the penalty out before we’re allowed to voice our opposition to it being legal, or to my tax money funding it. what a foolish argument…
plus, that wasn’t an interview, it was just chris venting.
by the way, the bishop’s letter was issued in 2004… funny timing huh? with the obama care abortion issue and all.
Thanks for the correction, though you have to remember that the elected official involved was also trying to use the force of law to force the Catholic schools to stay segregated.
But I am still curious about how you would respond to an excommunication over issues of racism, the death penalty, or just war theory? Would you and your colleagues applaud such an excommunication, or would you be engaged in this same sort of ugly (some might argue anti-Catholic) rhetoric that you are using here. And in answering the question, please remember that the Catholic teaching on abortion is much more definitive and absolute than in any of the areas I suggest.
Personally I don’t care who the church excommunicates because I am not a Catholic. What I object to is the church abandoning its humanitarian mission (which everyone supports) to do partisan politics. The church is not even being consistent in this because it is singling out Democrats (Kennedy) and not Republicans (Giuliani) and pushing some tenets over others. I think I’d have admiration if they were at least somewhat consistent. But they’re not.
UA–What happened to the one, universal church? When did Rome decide that a diocese is a fiefdom, with the leader of the fiefdom selecting the rules he will enforce and the punishment offered?
Whether it be abortion, segregation or un-divorce (known as annulment), the church actually doesn’t have serious rules on political/moral topics that it enforces as “universal.” It has positions. Tobin is using the positions to make up rules, political news and political hay: not as a serious method of creating God’s kingdom on earth. And he’s not the only one. Selebius’ bishop wanted to oust her for taking a public sector job; the (former) bishop of Scranton warned the Vice President not to come home to the St. Pat’s Day Dinner (a big political deal, having NOTHING to do with the church) or….the bishop would LOCK THE CATHEDRAL while Biden was in town. And there were a few “men of the cloth” who were outraged that Ted Kennedy was given the right of Christian burial.
This is all political grandstanding on the part of the church, using brand new “rules” selectively enforcing them.
We can pretend these church arguments make some dogmatic sense; we can question, like Matthews, the logic; but that’s just part of the fun-and-games. This whole thing is political grandstanding, and it’s doing considerable damage to the church while not making one, single point about faith or redemption.
That people here discuss this situation seriously, as if the fundamental practices and kooky superstitious beliefs of the church aren’t enough to dismiss anything that they do out of hand, would be amusing if it weren’t so damning of how little we have progressed from the superstitions of our cave-dwelling ancestors.
I checked my family tree.
The Bishop is not on it.
Thanks for the correction, though you have to remember that the elected official involved was also trying to use the force of law to force the Catholic schools to stay segregated.
Uh, no. There was no elected official — just a judge. One who tried to organize a boycott of the newly — and legally — desegregated Catholic Schools. A boycott that included trying to get white parents who did not withdraw their kids fired from their jobs. One school got burned down as a result. There was nothing about this boycott that was about the force of law — the legal processes had already worked themselves out BEFORE the Archbishop finally desgregated the schools.
But thanks for playing.
And Eymard is a complete idiot, because he can’t even follow the thread of Matthews’ line of questioning or of this thread:
that some how he has no right to voice his opposition to it, or to tax dollars funding it?
No one suggests that he has no right to an opinion. But it isn’t just the Bishop’s opinion that denies Patrick Kennedy Communion, now does it?
No, cassandra, it isn’t the Bishop’s opinion that deny Kennedy communion. It is church teaching that suggests it. In this case, the bishop is mmerely echoing catholic canon law. canon 915 says that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin [promotion and advancement of abortion appies here] are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” The Bishop was letting patrick kennedy know. Now the reason why some catholic individuals focus more on ending abortion vs. banning capital punishing or ending the war (though catholicism says that a sovereign state retains those rights) is this:
in 2008 in the US 37 people were excecuted. That’s the death toll of only 14 minutes of abortions in the US.
Consider that the war has claimed 100,000 lives in all its years. that isn’t even a month of abortion.
I’m against all three, but even if i assumed that the unborned, all the death penalty executions and all the lives claimed by this war were EQUALLY innocent, i’m still looking a 1.2 milliion abortions per year vs. 37 execution by capital punishment, or something like what? 20,000 lives claimed by the war per year? heck, 20,000 is about 5 days of abortion…
No, cassandra, it isn’t the Bishop’s opinion that deny Kennedy communion. It is church teaching that suggests it. In this case, the bishop is mmerely echoing catholic canon law.
You are partly correct. The Church has long been opposed to abortion, but pro-choice politicians had been tolerated and even welcomed until very recently when the Church began its conservative tilt and a re-entry into secular politics.
I can’t lay my hands on it but I believe the explicit mention of pro-choice elected officials was first made in a document by Pope John Paul II and was followed up by other letters and communications by then-Cardinal Ratzinger.
So it’s not like the Kennedys are at odds with 2000 years of canon law.
I have never seen any proof or actual numbers that dont come from a right wing lie machine to support the notion that there are a million abortions per second, or whatever insane number is used to make people upset.
We should all have spiritual leaders like Rev. Wright instead of these Catholic bishops…
Tom S – how many altar boys has Rev. Wright buggered? For that matter, how many deacons in his church have abused the youth in his church? When the Catholic Church can come forward with clean hands, then they can criticize others. Until then, the bishops/cardinals/pope need to keep their noses out of politics.
how many catholic bishops got blasted with fire hoses and attacked by dogs for trying to live like everyone else? if i grew up the way rev wright did, i would hate this country too.
don’t know…how many people killed at Chappaquiddick?…both questions are irrelevant.
no they arent. you hate rev wright because of how he sees and talks about this country. Im tellinr you that you, nor i, have ANY idea what he and millions of other African Americans went really through…. but we have the pictures and accounts. And if i beat you and sprayed you with a fire hose just because you wanted to make as much as me… and i had the full support and funding of the state and federal government behind me, don’t sit there and lie to me and say you wouldn’t hate whatever country that was too.
and chappaquiddick? really? ok. how about hero of segregation Strom Asswipe… his crusade to separate whites and black was such a failure he couldnt even enforce jim crowe on his own crotch…. as long as we’re making fun of dead people.
Eymard is still a complete idiot, and still not following either Matthew’s argument, the arguments of people in this tread or mine. Repeating:
No one suggests that he has no right to an opinion. But it isn’t just the Bishop’s opinion that denies Patrick Kennedy Communion, now does it?
And the reason that people like me keep bringing up the Church’s hypocrisy on the death penalty has everything to do with: 1) their rhetoric on “The Culture of Life”, 2) Thou Shalt Not Kill and 3) Name me all of the people that Bishops are denying Communion to who execute prisoners, who order executions, who do not pardon those about to die. If you call yourself pro-life, you do not get to choose which ones. But then again, you won’t get this, either.
Boy, Tom’s really reaching for that “some Democrat somewhere did something bad excuse” isn’t he? The point of a lot of the commenters here is that the church is being selective in the tenets it is insisting on enforcing.
Cassandra,
Name any politicians that voted for the Iraq War (which has killed many, many humans) that have been denied Communion by the Catholic Church.
And the then Pope was specifically and vocally against the Iraq War. That didn’t mean much to the Christianists who want you to think that they are infallible on this abortion thing.
And I can’t name any politico or otherwise denied Communion for cheerleading or approving of the Iraq War. Perhaps the idiot Eymard knows this. Not holding my breath tho.
Cardinal Ratzinger spent his career carefully parsing papal encyclicals to create the doctrine that abortion was first among moral issues and was not open to interpretation or debate – but that all other moral issues, even if condemned, were ultimately up to the conscience of the individual. That is why you can still be a Catholic if you promote war, capital punishment, or social injustice.
In fact the US bishops publish a fairly liberal platform of social issues that is largely ignored by Catholics.
In my opinion Cardinal Ratzinger’s effort was part of a was a calculated platform designed to lend support to conservative politicians, in particular US Republicans who were forming an alliance with the religious right (i.e., the Reagan coalition).
Cardinal Ratzinger was also the same person who quashed the emerging liberal Catholicism in Central America based on social justic and known as liberation theology.
cassandra, you really to try and use that little brain of yours–however hard that may be.
“I can’t lay my hands on it but I believe the explicit mention of pro-choice elected officials was first made in a document by Pope John Paul II”
gee, maybe because abortion was illegal until recently. I mean, did you expect pope urban II to address pro-choice elected officials during the crusades?
But the church (including the early church writing) have always condemn abortion. It condemns elected officials that promote abortion NOW, because there are such individuals. I did condemn pro-choice elected officials in spain 500 years ago because there weren’t. But i DID condemn abortion–legal or illegal.
this is the issue though. In the case of war and death penalty the church teaches that it’s a case-by-case issue (WWII justified, iran-iraq war, maybe not). therefore, catholics are free to use their own judgement, based on the info of each INDIVIDUAL CASE to make up their minds. If you say was is ALWAYS wrong, then fighting the Nazis would fall under this, but any reasonable person can see that sometimes, though unfortunate, using force is the only way to stop something like Nazi Germany. Since the church doesn’t claim to have the authority to speak definitively on EACH war, with the authority of the magisterium, the church can only give it’s opinion, based on limited info–such as classified information the church (and individual catholics) have no access to.
either way, given that the war, since its beginning has claimed as many lives as 24 DAYS of abortion. Even a fool like yourself can understand while pro-life ppl (including christian churches) are more worried about stopping the killing of 1.2 million per year, than the 37 per year as is in the case with capital punishment in 2008.
I as you: If you had a gun with one bullet and the chance to kill EITHER someone who’s killing 1.2 million humans per year, or someone who’s killing 20 thousand per year, which would you focus your energy on? if you libs were as outraged about a human killed in an abortion clinic as you are about a human killed in afgahnistan you’d get the pro-life vote too.
you libs are the ones who are inconsistent. you cry out because humans are being killed by the war, and then you get pissed at pro lifers because we cry out that humans are being killed in abortion clinits in the US. is the issue a geographical one? i though humans are humans wherever.
by the way, you all should read someone of the early christians–the ones who were closest to the apostles, like ignatious of antioch–because you make it sound like Ratzinger is distorting christian teaching, and liberation theology is where christianity should be. You ain’t gotta like it. You don’t even have to be a theist. But it makes sense to see what the earliest christians though about these things, if you wanna know whether a christian leader is going away from it, or towards it. buy a library card 🙂
oh, and cassadra, it’s “Infallible”–not “in fallible”. they are two different things. Someone who doesn’t even know how to use the word “Infallible” probably has little credibility when talking about catholicism. I bet if it weren’t for google, you’d not be able to tell me much about catholicism.
Infallibility isn’t automatic for the Pope, there is due process… and for the primacy of the abortion issue over all other moral issues – it was Cardinal Ratzinger who ran the process and signed off on the Pope’s infallibility.
And the idiot Eymard still can’t address the point at hand and nor can he keep track of who he is addressing. anon is the one providing much of the Church history here.
But don’t let your complete ignorance of even the basic thread of conversation get in your way here. And let’s not get too far out on spelling errors as long as you can’t spell someone’s name correctly.
Mind you, Bishop Tobin is completely within his rights according to Church law to instruct Kennedy not to receive communion. But he also would have been within his rights to look the other way, as other pastors have done.
And bear in mind, the actual points of Church law that allows Bishop Tobin to do that, was drafted by Cardinal Ratzinger.
Just for contrast, we have Catholic governors who regularly sign death warrants. But that is OK according to the doctrines worked up by Cardinal Ratzinger.
Hell, most Delaware Catholics voted for Obama and I didn’t see any extra long lines at confession the next week.
No anon, it would NOT be ‘OK’ according to ratzinger. In fact, when asked about this very issue, Ratzinger himself had this to say:
[The Catechism of the Catholic Church invokes] “principles which do not exclude absolutely capital punishment but give very severe ‘criteria’ for its moral use. It seems TO ME it would be very difficult to meet the conditions today.” Ratzinger, Sep. 9, 1997.
Here’s the quote from the Catechism that ratzinger aluded to: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means”
The fact is the doctrine is pretty clear:
From Paragraph 56 of Evangelium Vitae:
“It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and OUGHT NOT go to the extreme of executing the offender EXCEPT in cases of absolute necessity: IN OTHER WORDS, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today HOWEVER, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
and the principle that a priest can withhold communion if he knows that the person is–according to catholic moral standard–in grave sin, does NOT come from ratzinger. The practice of restricting communion to Catholics who aren’t in grave–or mortal–sin dates back to the early church. And today it is still in effect. If a catholic has committed a grave or “mortal” sin and hasn’t gone to the sacrament of confession–reconciliation– he can’t partake of it either. that’s for everybody, not just politicians. the difference is that while father may not know that I have committed something the church considers grave, he DOES know that the abortion doctor, or the abortion provider, or the pro-choice politician that voted for some pro choice piece of legislation or whatever HAS INDEED committed something the church considers grave.
I’d like to add that you are very respectful anon.
oh, and i didn’t mean to define infallibility, just to point out that it isn’t “in fallible”, but you’re right. Infallibility isn’t for the pope alone when he speaks ex cathedra–or “from the chair” of peter–but also for the bishops IN UNION with the bishop of Rome, in a setting such as a council. Further, it only applies to faith and Morals, NOT politics. So voting for Obama because he’s pro-choice isn’t a sin per se, especially because I believe most catholics that voted for Obama didn’t vote for him BECAUSE he’s pro choice, but rather IN SPITE of it. they believed he was the best candidate, though, if you ask most catholic voters, they’d prefer if he were pro life.
For those on the Church and it’s leaders being infallible, I give you this – http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/26/world/AP-EU-Ireland-Catholic-Abuse.html?_r=1&hp
Exactly, MJ. Why anybody contributes a penny to, or remains a member of, this evil institution is beyond me.
Alright…
people who believe that the church, or the pope, or the bishops in union with the people are infallible, don’t believe that they are impeccable. Let me try to explain. According to Catholicism, infallibility basically means that God stops the pope, or the bishops in union with the pope in a setting such as a council, from TEACHING (not DOING) something false or wrong–and ONLY in matters of faith and morals. In short, infallibility means you CANNOT teach something false in faith and morals. Impeccability means you CANNOT sin. The church does not now, nor has it ever taught that the pope or the bishops are or ANY CATHOLIC has impeccability. John Paul II went to confession weekly. Any catholic will tell you that a confession is invalid unless the person has sinned. Corruption, hypocrisy, etc have always been inside the church in differing degree and levels of the hierarchy.
So… to bring up cases of a priest, a bishop, or even a pope doing something horrible only proves that they are not impeccable (without sin, to be theologically precise), imperfect, hypocritical people.
I’m not saying that the church is infallible. I’m just saying that the fact that someone in the church–all the way up to and including the pope–screws up, doesn’t disprove infallibility. Neither does YOUR disagreeing with it disprove it–unless of course you yourself are infallible. See, if your disagreeing with the church proves that the church is teaching something false (in matters of faith and morals) , what you’re in essence saying is “the church says ‘A’. I say ‘NOT A’. Because I CANNOT be wrong, the church must be.” Which is arrogant.
If you wanna disprove–not dismiss–infallibility, you need to find either a pope speaking ‘ex cathedra’, or an ecumenical council–like trent, or vatican II, etc–breaking the law of non-contradiction (for instance, a council saying “god is trinity” and another one saying “god is not trinity”) Even if you don’t believe in the law of non-contradiction, the church does. If the church breaks it, either one statement is false, or the other, or both. If both are correct, the law of non-contradiction is then false, and because the church says that the law of non-contradiction is true, the church is wrong. It’s a catch 22 sorta thing.
Consider someone who smokes saying “smoking is bad for your health”. The messenger fails at following his own advice. However, smoking IS bad for your health. The message can still be free from error (infallible) even when the messenger lacks integrity to keep it.
Now consider someone how DOES NOT smoke saying “smoking is GOOD for your health”. In this case, the person has the integrity to not smoke, and yet, the message is false. the message–or teaching– remains intact. If something is true, it remains true even if Hitler says it, and if it false, it remains false even if Gandhi says it.
In the issue of child abuse, any priest, bishop, or pope that commits this crime is going against the official TEACHING of the church. So i guess what MJ means to say is that he wishes that these members of the catholic church that abused little kids (at whatever level they may be) had listen to the official TEACHING of the church in regards to child abuse. In fact, the teaching is that sex is reserved for marriage which automatically removes the possibility of a pre-pubescent child having sex if the teaching is followed.
So the problem wasn’t with the OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CHURCH but rather with a bunch of priest, bishops etc who rejected church teaching.
In matthew 23 ,jesus says “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”
It’s like saying you won’t listen to your doctor because he’s overweigh and he smokes. He’s a hypocrite, but the prescription may still be the right one for you.
well, i think the dead horse is tired of it, but it sounds to me like MJ agrees with church teaching… and wishes that members of the church would listen to its official teaching a little more carefully, and maybe next time they won’t go around screwing kids–or letting is go without turning the f**ker to the police.
anyhow, it’s late…hope you all had a happy thanksgiving.
The practice of restricting communion to Catholics who aren’t in grave–or mortal–sin dates back to the early church.
Putting pro-choice politicians in this category was done by Cardinal Ratzinger, using a pair of encyclicals in 1993 and 1995 as a basis. Before then Catholic pro-choice politicians were just fine with the Church. Of course the Church teaching was always opposed to abortion, but kept its nose out of politics.
Veritas Splendor (1993) claimed that the Church was the keeper and the teacher of inviolate moral laws, and provided some moral parsing over different kinds of evil, which laid the basis for the doctrines that capital punishment was tolerable but abortion was not.
Evangelium Vitae (1995) mentioned elected officials specifically, but did not specifically instruct a denial of Communion.
It was Cardinal Ratzinger who used those two documents as a launching point for a series of doctrinal writings more specifically going after pro-choice politicians. Most notable (I’m going from memory here) was the new doctrine that pro-choice politicians should not be honored by Catholic institutions (thus the controversy over naming the Archmere building for Biden, Obama at Notre Dame, etc.)
During the 2004 campaign, Cardinal Ratzinger expressed to the US Bishops that he would really, really like to choose that moment to deny Communion to Kerry and other pro choice politicians. The bishops said “Hell no, we are Americans!” Actually no, they didn’t say that. What they did was issue instructions down the line that each diocese could decide how to instruct its own pro-choice Catholic politicians. It was a very brave stand against Cardinal Ratzinger who was essentially already the Pope at that point.
Infallibillity of the Pope is not automatic. It only applies to certain teachings, and then only after a review and approval. And guess who was in charge of pronouncing those two mid-90s encyclicals infallible? That’s right, Cardinal Ratzinger.
And in the mid 1990s while John Paul II was issuing moral encyclicals and Cardinal Ratzinger was laying down doctrines – do you know what else was happening? The sex abuse scandle was breaking, hard. At that time there were feature articles everywhere about the horrors of the abuse, but the flood of lawsuits and payouts had not yet begun in earnest. I desperately wanted to see an outraged Pope striding through the land, defrocking priests and shutting down seminaries, making fundamental changes, and purging the Church of this evil. But really, by this time the Pope was already feeble, and the only candidate to perform this purge would have been… Cardinal Ratzinger.
But instead of cleaning out the sewers, the Church instead spent its time trying to figure out how to help Republicans win elections. Suddenly abortion and gay marriage and Terry Schiavo became much more important issues.
That’s an excellent response, anon.
anon hits the nail on the head. That’s exactly how I feel. The church is talking about the morality of certain issues yet it is still not facing the horrible abuse scandal in its own ranks. Instead of turning more introspective, the church is turning overtly political.
I’m confused, this should all fit in nicely with the “some are more equal than others” philosophy of our present government.
“the integrity to not smoke’? I like that, since, in the context, it implies that Rep. Kennedy’s position is the one which requires “integrity”, and I believe that is so. 😉
David Neiwert has a thoughtful take on this, including some additional historical context.
sorry aron, maybe your own definition of papal infallibility says that a review is needed, but this isn’t the church’s definition.
Aron,
Vatican II explained that the bishops are infallible when they are in union with the pope:
“Although the INDIVIDUAL bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves AND with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. ” (Lumen Gentium 25).
HOWEVER, it goes on to explains that infallibility is something that the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of ALL the faithful, [this mean, when he addresses all catholics—not individuals—as pope—not as an individual] […], he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, OF THEMSELVES, and NOT from the consent of the Church, are justly held IRREFORMABLE.”
See? In Catholicism, the pope, when in his capacity as the holder of the office of bishop of Rome (not as a individual, over a meal or somthing), addresses “ALL the faithful”, and “he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals,” his definitions “of themselves” and not from “the consent of the church” are still deemed “irredormable”–not subject to reform, final, etc.
again, child abuse, or any other f**k up of the church doesn’t really deal with infallibility. Only in TEACHING, and only in matter of faith and morals.
it’s actually not that trick. consider you have a book that says that 2+2=4. This is an infallible statement. Now consider that someone either doesn’t read the book, or reads but doesn’t follow it, and when asked says that 2+2=5. the reader came up with the wrong answer despite the book, not because of it.
So… Similarly, the church says “do not sexually abuse children”. If a priest, a bishop, or a pope does abuse a kid, he is doing so INSPITE OF what the church told him to do. it’s really an easy concept.
Members of the church abusing kids, neglecting victims, and whatever else is horrible. they should’ve all listen to the church when it says “don’t abuse kids”. Bet you’d agree with me.
Further, a 2001 study by Philip Jenkins found that 0.2% of priests had been proven to be abusers, a rate lower than the national average for men. That’s 0.2% too many, to be sure. However, this is a much better rate than public schools, the boy scouts, doctors, musicians, parents, lawyers, etc. (by the way, all member of categories that don’t require celibacy) In fact, the articles in New York Times show more than $75 million in settlements, and records of hundreds of scout masters being transferred to different councils.
A 1991 survey of high school students indicated that 14% (that’s a lot higher than 0.2%) of students had had sexual interaction with teachers. A 2004 study by the US Department of Education indicated that 10% of US public school students had been targeted for unwanted sexual attention by school employees.
I don’t hear a lot of libs like yourselves showing much indignation over these other institutions.
NCAIDS (National Child Abuse and Neglect Data Systems) in 2005 reports that of all sexual abuse cases:
26.3% were perpetrated by a parent
28.7% were perpetrated by a relative other than a parent
6.2% were by the unmarried partner of a parent
4.9% were by a friend or neighbor
1.8% were by a daycare provider
Be consistent, and be also pissed at the Boy Scout, the public school system, daycares, family physicians, etc. In fact, be MORE upset, because the number of cases, in quantity and percentage is much much higher. Also, have you noticed all the new requirements in catholic churches? All rooms with glass windows, no minors allowed with a single adult, background checks for everyone, and so on. A kid today is safer in a catholic church then in his school, or at a camp, and in many cases at home.
I also think that all priests being labeled something because 0.2% priests is unfair. A higher percentage of doctor, or teaches, or coaches, are sex offender, but i don’t ever hear a liberal saying “the public school is such an evil organization, did you see the number of teachers that are pedophiles?”
Again, anyone–priest, or lay person–that commits this crime needs to go to jail–and probably some metal health help there. But ask yourself, why is it that you think of a pedophile and you automatically think of priests? I’d expect that if the number of priests that abuse kids was higher than that of other lines of work, but this just isn’t so. Why don’t you think of a jazz saxophonist, or a doctor, when you hear the word pedophile?
I haven’t heard people say “I’d never leave my kid alone with his piano teacher–or family physician, or football coach, ballet instructor, nanny, etc” nearly as often as I’ve hear people say they’d never leave their kids alone with a priest. The numbers just don’t add up to explain this behavior.
read this article by Phillip Jenkins, (he wrote a book on the issue that is published by Oxford University Press, if you want to see the stats) and it might help get where I’m coming from:
http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/20020303edjenk03p6.asp
again–just because i know i’ll be accused of it–i’m not justifying it at all. In fact, i think that a child molester should be castrated (surgically), priest or no priest. All i’m saying is I don’t hear you libs bitching and moaning about all these public school teachers that molest kids. The day you guys are equally vocal about ALL cases of child abuse, not just the ones that catholics are involved, i’ll believe that you actually care.
Sounds to me like this attitude less to do with your own indignation with child abuse, and more about you not liking the church, but liking public schools, and sports programs, etc.
The day I hear a liberal say “you think the church has a pedophilia problem? you should see the numbers among teachers! that’s a bigger problems, and far less addressed and dealt with.” i’ll be shocked.
oh, and
“Veritas Splendor (1993) claimed that the Church was the keeper and the teacher of inviolate moral laws [this was clammed LONG BEFORE that. read Irenaeas on lyon is the 100s, second century], and provided some moral parsing over different kinds of evil, which laid the BASIS for the doctrines that capital punishment was tolerable but abortion was not.”
now i’m gonna have to talk about cause and effect.
We say cause AND effect, when we should realy say cause THEN effect so ppl dont make the same mistake you made.
How can a document writen in 93 be the BASIS for the church permmiting the death penalty if the original text for the catechims of the church was approved by the church in 92 which permits the deqath penalty??? it reads:
“the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the DEATH PENALTY.”
see aron, when we say cause and effect, e really mean cause THEN effect. something–like Veritas Splendor–CANNOT be the BASIS for seomthing that come AFTER IT!! it’s just not possible. I don’t know where you get your history but it just isn’t good history.
HECK, forget the catechism, catholicism has always held that the death penalty is a right of the state–albeit a right that the state should abuse, and as a last resort.
Augustine of Hippo (4 and 5th century), deemed a “doctor of the faith”, for example, asserted that the legal execution of criminals in no way contravenes the commandment “You shall not kill.” you know why? because the commendment in hebrews reads “you shall not kill ‘the innocent'”.
Pope Innocent III (died in 1,216) sanctioned the death penalty so long as it was done “with justice, and not out of hatred; with prudence, and not with precipitation.”
In the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) did the same, but said that “no cleric may decree or pronounce […] carry out […] or be present when such punishment [capital punishment] is carried out.”
Thomas Aquinas, (died in 1274) argued that the state should refrain from using the death penalty except for very grave offenses such as murder and treason, though he agrees with augustine that “A man who, WITHOUT exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder”
check out Cardinal Avery Dulles, “Catholicism and Capital Punishment,” First Things, April 2001. Megivern, James J., The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey. Paulist Press.
I have 2 question for you aron:
1 – How exactly is Veritas Splendor from 1993 the BASIS for a doctrine defined and promulgated by Pope Innocent III, the Fourth Lateran Council, and Thomas Aquinas all roughly 800 years before??? if anything, it is more logical to say that these previous pronouncements could be the bases for the position that the death penalty is permitted in catholicism.
and 2 – Can you think of a council, or a pope throughout the history of the church teaching that the state DOESN’T have the right to impose the death penalty? any at all?
you make it sound as if veritas splendor was the BASIS for a shift in catholic understanding of the matter, but in fact it was just echoing what has been said by virtually all church fathers, church doctors, popes, and councils throughout history.
you cannot claim that a 1993 document is the basis for what Pope Innocent III said centuries earlier anymore that you could claim that it was the basis for what the original text of the catechims said 1 year earlier.
check your history aron.
Sounds to me like this attitude less to do with your own indignation with child abuse, and more about you not liking the church, but liking public schools, and sports programs, etc.
This would be bullshit, right here. There were priests in the Church abusing kids and the Church was working overtime to cover that up. It is the culture of secrecy and unaccountability that is the larger outrage. And the fact the Church has been slow and inconsistent in addressing this mess has not helped them dig their way out of the PR mess that they made. Child abuse is unconscionable in all cases — but there is no way that the Church is somehow being more victimized in dealing with this than others. If the Church wants to stop being the bad guy, they just have to stop being the bad guy.
catholicism has always held that the death penalty is a right of the state–albeit a right that the state should abuse, and as a last resort.
A right of the state used as last resort in an effort to protect its people. That last bit is important to the reason why the last Pope and some American bishops ask for the end to the death penalty. They don’t see the death penalty as protecting anyone, but extending the culture of violence. Respect for the continuum of life also means the lives of grownups too.
Eymard, you are now just slinging generalities. Your faith is strong but your knowledge of the actual events and documents is not strong enough to support your arguments.
I was horrified by Bush’s 2004 visit to Rome in which he asked for Catholic political support, and received it from Cardinal Ratzinger. At that time I researched the encyclicals and CDF documents in past discussions with people smarter than yourself.
Catholics today are being asked to accept the teachings of the Magisterium regarding abortion and their vote. But it is hard to accept the teachings when they have been formulated in living memory by men with documented political agendas.
“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
“The impious presumption of legislators and and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical;…”
Once again, I wish Jefferson was here.
That’s a new one Eymard, accusing us of not caring about cases of child abuse. I find all cases of child abuse repugnant and I guess you weren’t around when we discussed Polanski. You should be ashamed of your accusation.
The truth is that we don’t cover a lot of criminal cases on this blog. Our content is mainly about politics. Stop flailing around and trying to defend the indefensible. The Catholic Church had abuse scandals and they covered them up. That was their first response – to move the problem around and to protect the church over the children. The church hasn’t really apologized adequately or explained these actions so don’t blame us for pointing out the hypocrisy of their claims to care about hypothetical children (anti-abortion) when real, actual children were abused on their watch and weren’t protected.
wow
i’m not defending it… i guess you didn’t read it when i said that anyone one who does that should be castrated “priest or not”. I’m just saying that, since aron was talking about infallibility, this isn’t relevant, since infallibility does not protect members of the church (even the pope) from doing something wrong–from a white lie to murder. it’s a simple point.
you talk a lot about hypocrisy from the other side, and yet you don’t seem to be very vocal when it comes from your arena.
Obama promised “transparancy” and “bi-paqrtisanship”, and yet his administration and liberals in both the house and the senate meeting without inviting the republicans (so much for bi partisanship). Meeting behind closed doors and writing bills that are over 2000 pages long and giving the american people no time to read it–or congress people or senators for that matter– doesn’t sound very transparent. Obama talks about spreading the wealth but if you look at his taxes you’ll see that he doesn’t apply this principle in his own life. When he was in the spot light (in the last few years) he was donating to his favorite programs about 6-5%, and before that he donated around 1% and many years less than that. in 2001 and 2002 when he made more than $250K (since he says that these are the people that should pay more taxes) he paid $1,470 (0.5% in ’01) and $1,050 (0.4% in ’02). Now, don’t you think that a man so stingy should not be telling other people to spread their wealth and he himself doesn’t do it? I mean, if he really believes that “sharing the wealth” is good for society, why didn’t he do it? Reminds of what Margaret Thatcher said: “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY”?
see, when obama says we need to spread the wealth he really means other people’s wealth. it’s the management “we”, get it? like “WE really need to keep the office clean”, or “WE need to make sure that those reports are submited on time”. ‘WE’ really means ‘YOU’. But, hell, talk about hypocrisy! the man makes over a quarter of a million and donates $1,050, and then has the nerve to tell us that WE need to spread the wealth? mean while
Dick Cheney and his wife donated nearly $7 million out of $8,819,006 in ’05, and he wasn’t telling mean to spread my wealth. if he, who walks the walk, would tell me what to do, what gives a stingy man like obama this right?
“A right of the state used as last resort in an effort to protect its people. That last bit is important to the reason why the last Pope and some American bishops ask for the end to the death penalty.”
cassandra is right here. I was just pointing out that saying that this teaching on the death penalty being based on a 1993 document isn’t accurate unless of course somebody sent it back in time to augustine in the 300s. in fact, i can only think of 1 early church father who was against the capital punishment and that was tertulian and even he wasn’t consistent with it.
“it is hard to accept the teachings [on abortion] when they have been formulated in living memory by men with documented political agendas”
come on aron, let’s deal with primary sources. Give three papal encyclicals, or church councils, or church fathers, or church doctors. and if you can’t find three, then i’ll take 2. heck, if you can’t find two, i’ll take one. only one… but if you can’t find one single document from the church that says abortion is permmited, and every domument you find condemns it, it’s hard for you to say that it was formulated by “men with documented political agendas.”
see, the church believes (albiet erroniously perhaps) that to kill a fetus in the womb is the same as killing a 2 month old baby outside the womb. if there were politicians that were promoting the killing of 2 month old babies, would you expect the church to tell people “hey guys, why don’t you go ahead and support that political figure”?
say a politician was promoting slavery. I guess then when
Pope Eugenius IV condemned the portuguese in in the Canary Islands for inslaving the nativies 1454, and gave them 14 days to return them to their original state (which they did) he was overstepping his bounds right? oh, and btw, at penalty of excommunication (which is going much farther than denying communion)
most people think he did the right thing. yet, when the pope does the same thing on the issue of abortion somehow it’s different.
1 – both situations have the pope condenming a practice to be sure, but also the practitioner, AND the government, and member of government (which is what politicians are).
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME A POPE CONDEMNS POLITICAL FIGURES FOR SOMETHING! plus, notice that it isn’t just a condemnation of the practice (i.e. abortion, slavery, etc) but also the practitioner (slave traders, owners, even the ship crew. abortion doctors, clinics, etc)
Albert Einstein said: “Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty.”
I guess this was the church sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong
he admiration that Einstein felt isn’t shared by you.
but i don’t believe it. I believe that if you may say “i’m not really much for popes and stuff, but Pius XII condemnation of the Nazis, or Eugene’s condemnation of slavery is kinda cool.”
I don’t think you’d say “how dare Pius XII tells the german government that it has no right to do that, hasn’t it heard about the wall of separation?”
see, here is the difference. YOU think that slavery, and Nazism were a BIG DEAL and therefore the pope is allowed to condemn it. But abortion isn’t A BIG DEAL and therefore the pope should keep his nose out of it. But this is a matter of opinion. Liberals are consistent when they say “a fetus isn’t a human being therefore it’s ok”. They are right. If it’s not a human being, then it doens’t have HUMAN rights, and it isn’t inHUMAINE to kills fetuses. The church, believes that they are human, and therefore it is inHUMANE to kill them.
In the case of slavery and Nazism there was nothing even close to a consensus on the humanity or personhood of blacks, jews, etc. Many countries turned a blind eye to what happen with slaves and jews. Many people thought that jews were less that people, and blacks were less than people. yet, the church should’ve spoken out against it. many people today think that humans inside the womb are “less than people” and many don’t. Why should the church wait for a on abortion when it didn’t wait for a consensus on Nzism?
in fact, the feeble minded who don’t know the first thing about primary sources and know things that were repeted to them without checking a single historical document condemn Pius XII of NOT GETTING INVOLVED ENOUGH. well, which is it? should the pope get involved or not?
i bet anything that if the pope said nothing about abortion liberals would say “the church says it’s against abortion but it doesn’t really do shit to stop it. I guess it isn’t very serious about it.” the church is damned if it gets involved and damned if it doesn’t.
ALSO… I still haven’t heard liberal cry out “separation of church and state” due to the letter issued by the bishops saying that they favor universal access to health care. anybody bothered by that?????????????
I guess the rule is: if a religious figure speaks positively on liberals agenda items then it’s ok, but if they speak against it then it’s a breach of the well of separation. kinda arbitrary if you ask me.
by the way, since you say that the church is new at this thing of condemning politicians, you should read about the birth of anglicanism… does excommunicating kings count as going after political figures or is it only for american politicians?
aron should get used to reading primary sources, that way he won’t end up making silly claims like a documment in 1993 being “the basis” for a doctrine that was define by popes, councils, doctors of the faith and church fathers throughout the history of the church.
“aron should get used to reading primary sources, that way he won’t end up making silly claims like a documment in 1993 being “the basis” for a doctrine that was define by popes, councils, doctors of the faith and church fathers throughout the history of the church.”
Not so much “defined”, actually; more like a moving target over the ages. Defined, redefined, defined again, redefined. And never quite in the same place.
As for “excommunicating kings” … YIKES! You’re going back there some, aren’t you? It’s just amazing that no Catholic politician world-wide has done anything to offend the church and its teachings in the past several hundred years! A saintly bunch, no?
Here’s the smoking gun, for those of you who wish to keep going deeper into the weeds on this.
The link above is the letter Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops weeks after Bush visited the Vatican and appealed for political support.
In this letter Cardinal Ratzinger specifically cites the 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae and says:
The US bishops responded by issuing a pastoral letter which left the decision on Communion up to each local bishop. In context, this was an extraordinary act of defiance and a reaffirmation of Catholic support of American values. That letter was “Catholics in Political Life” and is here (sorry, I am at my 2-link limit):
usccb.org/bishops/catholicsinpoliticallife.shtml
And while this was all happening, the sex abuse scandal was simmering along, with lawsuits settled, diocesan bank accounts bleeding dry, and Catholics leaving the pews:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3872499.stm
Hey “mom” since you’re saying that the church’s permittion of the death penalty has been defined, redefined, defined, redefined…etc.
give me one document of the church that says that the death penalty is not a right of the state, and one that says that it IS a right of the states.
by the way, “mom”, I used the birth of the anglican church simply to refute the accusation that the church’s condemnation of political figures is some novalty. But i need not go that far back.
Here, New York Times writing about Pope Pius XII said that he was
“the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all…the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism…he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christmas peace.”
Last I checked the nazis were political authorities, were they not?
Cassandra, explains to me how there’s NO MENTION of the much much higher number (in quantity and percentage) of pedifiles in our public schools, but there’s this focus of the sex scandles in the church?
now, you said it is because this little blog here is more political then it is criminal. Thus your mentioning of Polanski.
But what i don’t get is this. Public schools are funded with tax dollars, and so are these pedophile teachers. Priests are NOT funded with taz dollars.
So let’s see, there is a tax funded institution, with tax funded employees, with a MUCH HIGHER number of depophilia cases. Then there’s another institution that is NOT tax funded, with a much lower number of cases.
How is the institution that is tax funded not political enough to be mention (even when liberals are always asking for MORE MONEY for this institution with a huge number of pedophiles in it) but another institution that get’s not tax dolllars is?
Why should women care the least bit about the pronouncements of an organization that has been discriminating against women for hundreds of years?
Why should we allow its tax-exempt status to continue when it proselytizes endlessly on a subject that ought to be moral but the church approaches as political and legal?
I finally got around to watching the video. Wow – Tweety rocks, sometimes.
Why should we allow its tax-exempt status to continue
The Church is within the letter of the law on tax exemption.
Where do you come up with your “facts” about pedophilia?
The difference, by the way, whatever the actual numbers are, is that the church engaged in years of failure to report crimes to criminal authorities, and in a conspiracy to cover it up. No such thing happened with any other organization. Teachers who molest are brought to justice, not transferred to new districts. Priests who molested were protected rather than brought to justice.
If you can’t understand that — and your execrable spelling indicates you might not — then you’re just the kind of “moralist” the church adores.
“The Church is within the letter of the law on tax exemption.”
Which illustrates how worthless the law is as written.
Currently the tax law prohibits churches from supporting specific candidates. It would truly be interesting if the US passed a law that also prohibited churches from instructing their flock how to vote.
Because the pronouncement that Catholic politicians cannot vote pro-choice has been deemed infallible. And contrary to popular opinion, Rome is very stingy with infalliblity, because the thing is – you can’t change your mind. Once a teaching is infallible, you can’t take it back, or you screw up the whole infallibility doctrine.
So, if there were such a new prohibition on churches, the Catholic Church would automatically have to start paying tax. And Catholic politicians would have to choose between resigning their office, or leaving the Church.
In the long run, Pope John Paul II and Pope Ratzinger/Benedict will be viewed as part of the conservative backlash against the liberal reforms of Vatican II in 1965. This backlash parallels the US conservative movement. John Paul II is like Reagan, while Cardinal Ratzinger worked behind the scenes like a combination of Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales.
The backlash had its roots in the Cold War, and the Church’s desire to regain influence in Eastern Europe and Central/South America.
In the end, the backlash went too far, and while John Paul II remains revered, I believe Pope Benedict will be seen as the Pope who lost the American Church.
The Church is ripe for another liberal reform. And Pope Benedict is 82 years old. Just saying.
So nobody should use the current difficulties and hypocrisies of the Church as an occasion for general Catholic-bashing. The Church is still an enormous potential source of good, even possibly turning its focus back to social justice one day.
What is “general Catholic-bashing”? I have a problem with the church spending more time and effort on political and legal attacks on legalized abortion than on moral suasion. That’s all. And because I disagree with the church on this, I am an ex-Catholic.
The potential for good resides with all churches, not just the Catholic. And until it recognizes the equality of 51% of the world’s population, I will continue to believe that many other churches have delivered more on their potential for good than the Catholic church has.
Geezer:
Why should we allow its tax-exempt status to continue when it proselytizes endlessly on a subject that ought to be moral but the church approaches as political and legal?
I guess for the same reason that you allow Planned Parenthood to hold its tax-exempt status.
The day liberals asks for the tax-exemption of Planned parenthood to be removed based on its involvement on political issues–an involvement that is seen in political contributions, litigation, etc–then i’ll take geezer seriously.
after all, it’s not ONLY that planned parenthood has a tax-exempt status, but they also get tax money, and claim to be a
“nonprofit” organization, even though they made over $100 million in PROFITS last year.
Geezer, do you think planned parenthood should lose their tax-exempt status due to their involvement in political issues?
By the way, the church did not speak as an absolute rule that you can’t vote for a pro-choice candidate. This should be obvious by just considering that if there are ONLY pro-choice candidates to vote for, you would have a choice. Even here not voting influences the outcome of an election as much as voting, for a vote cuts both ways–it’s a vote FOR someone, and against the rest.
You can vote for a pro choice candidate, so long as there is a morraly equivalent issue to justify it.
What the church says is that abortion is never ok, and morally grave, while other political issues are a matter of difference of opinion.
aron brought up Evangelium Vitae that says that “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion…” and that while catholics can desagree–even disagree with the pope–on whether the decision to “wage war” was the right one, or on what exactly should be the “application” of capital punishment (if at all), the same isn’t so on the issue of abortion.
This is not new, The Didache (12, or the teaching of the 12; a document from the end of the 1st century that many considered to be ‘scripture’ and that was even quoted in the liturgy of the mass in the early church) says “do not murder a child by ABORTION or kill a newborn infant.”
it not new that abortion is (1) condemned and (2) viewed as murder.
considering this, it would be a grave sin of ommision for catholic leaders–like john paul ii, or benedict XVI–to sit on their hands and do nothing against something they claim to believe is murder.
If pelosi is right, and it isn’t murder, then the church’s “passion” on this issue is misguided. But it still is consistent, because it believes (albeit wrongly) that it is figgting against the murder of 1.2 million humans per year–it’s “passion” on the issue is conprehensible.
…wait a minute.
Geezer is referred to as Geezer.
Cassandra is referred to as Cassandra or cassandra (sic).
anon is referred to as aron(sic), which I’m assuming is poor eyesite, something I understand.
But I am referred to as “mom” — as if being a mother is being used as a form of sarcasm.
What’s with that, “Eymard”? I thought you were “pro-life.”
This thread has Wilmington High’s Snuky Tate running through my head:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvH-e7i_6EY
“Geezer, do you think planned parenthood should lose their tax-exempt status due to their involvement in political issues?”
Sure. I have no problem with that. But I find it amusing you can’t distinguish the difference between a church and a family planning organization.
sure i can. my only point is that YOU had an issue with the church having a tax-exempt status because the church “approaches [abortion] as political and legal” issue.
Well, so does planned parenthood.
also, geezer said:
“The difference, by the way, whatever the actual numbers are, is that the church engaged in years of failure to report crimes to criminal authorities, and in a conspiracy to cover it up. No such thing happened with any other organization.”
this isn’t so. in fact both the public schools and the boy scouts relocated teachers (and boy scout masters) when someone was molested. So NO, the difference is that you LIKE the public schools and you want more money for it but you dont like the church.
Both the public schools and the boy scouts covered it up. In fact, the articles in New York Times show more than $75 million in settlements, and records of hundreds of scout masters being transferred to different councils!!!
So maybe you should actually read some stats on the issue instead of just repeating what someone said without any sources.
Oh, and progressive mom, i didn’t mean any disrespect. I read it quickly, and only read mom. I think i called anon, ‘aron’ a few times too. my bad.
oh, and progressive mom, eymard is actually my name–weird, i know. i didn’t pick it 🙂
Well, hey, this jewish guy said it best so I’m just gonna copy and paste his article here:
Be Proud of Being Catholic
(Excerpts of an article written by Sam Miller, prominent Cleveland
Jewish businessman — NOT A CATHOLIC)
Why would newspapers carry on a vendetta on one of the most important
institutions that we have today in the United States , namely, the
Catholic Church?
Do you know — the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students
everyday at the cost to your Church of 10 billion dollars, and a
savings on the other hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion
dollars. Your graduates go on to graduate studies at the rate of 92%,
all at a cost to you. To the rest of the Americans it’s free.
The Church has 230 colleges and universities in the U.S. with an
enrollment of 700,000 students. The Catholic Church has a non-profit
hospital system of 637 hospitals, which account for hospital treatment
of 1 out of every 5 people — not just Catholics — in the United States
today.
But the press is vindictive and trying to totally denigrate in every
way the Catholic Church in this country. They have blamed the disease
of pedophilia on the Catholic Church, which is as irresponsible as
blaming adultery on the institution of marriage.
Let me give you some figures that you as Catholics should know and
remember. For example, 12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed
admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner; 38% acknowledged
other inappropriate sexual contact in a study by the United Methodist
Church, 41.8% of clergywomen reported unwanted sexual behavior; 17%
of laywomen have been sexually harassed. Meanwhile, 1.7% of the
Catholic clergy has been found guilty of pedophilia. 10% of the
Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia. This is not
a Catholic Problem.
A study of American priests showed that most are happy in the
priesthood and find it even better than they had expected, and that
most, if given the choice, would choose to be priests again in face of
all this obnoxious PR the Church has been receiving.
The Catholic Church is bleeding from self-inflicted wounds. The agony
that Catholics have felt and suffered is not necessarily the fault of
the Church. You have been hurt by a small number of wayward priests
that have probably been totally weeded out by now.
Walk with your shoulders high and your head higher. Be a proud member
of the most important non-governmental agency in the United States.
Then remember what Jeremiah said: ‘Stand by the roads, and look and
ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is and walk in it, and
find rest for your souls.’ Be proud to speak up for your faith with
pride and reverence and learn what your Church does for all other
religions.
[back to me]
No institution is perfect. If the church was at any point ‘perfect’ it stopped being perfect the moment i entered it. But there are some good things that the church does, and i think a guy like geezer is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
No I’m not. If you want me to read about the Boy Scouts, post the link. If they engaged in the same kind of criminal conspiracy the church did, then they deserve prosecution too. And “the public schools” are not a worldwide institution; each district is separate from all the others.
As for the notion that 10% of protestant ministers have engaged in pedophilia, I call bullshit.
It’s pretty faint condemnation to say that “no institution is perfect.” This was a fucking lightyear away from perfect. And to defend it by saying others do it, too, is proof positive that the “morality” of this wonderful institution isn’t worth the paper the Bible is written on. Suck the Pope’s dick somewhere else.
“Do you think planned parenthood should lose their tax-exempt status due to their involvement in political issues?”
Planned Parenthood’s lobbying and public information organization is not tax-exempt.
Planned Parenthood’s medical services organization is a tax-exempt charity.
Go Geezer!!!!!
John: Thanks for that important clarification.
I’m guessing you’re old enough to remember the 1960 presidential election, in which JFK had to give a speech to clarify that he wouldn’t be taking orders from the Vatican. Could he credibly say the same thing today?
No, but what skin is that off the GOP’s nose?
If they can handicap American Catholic politicians by putting “abortion” front and center, it’s all win for them, isn’t it? Fascism is the issue here, not religion.
If they can handicap American Catholic politicians by putting “abortion” front and center
You mean *Democratic* Catholic politicians. IOKIYAAR.
There’s one thing you guys are missing. These issues weren’t settled now. The church didn’t wait for the political parties to decide how they think on these issues and then decided to be “conservative”. The church’s opposition to abortion and branding it the killing of a human being precedes it being a political issue. Same with its condemnation of homosexual acts. Euthanasia, human embryonic stem cell research (or any other process that exploits an innocent human life from conception on). The democrats were the ones that took these issues to heart long after the church was opposed to them. I get this vibe from liberals that you think that the church waited for you to say “hey everyone, our party likes legal abortion” and then the church said “well, in that case we don’t like abortions.” But this just isn’t so. The church was opposed to abortion long before artificial contraceptives were even allowed in the US.
What you guys don’t like is opposition. But this should be normal in a democracy. There are institutions that lean towards liberal ideas (like MSNBC, ACLU, ACORN etc) and there are institutions that are more conservative (like the heritage foundation, fox, etc).
I get the sense that liberals attack the institution but don’t deal with the issue. it’s more like “look at this guy, he’s saying climate change may not be man-made. sure he’s getting paid a lot of money to say that”. Meanwhile you don’t realize that al gore can be accused of the same.
you attack the messenger but you don’t deal with the merits of the message. So what if al gore is on his way to becoming a billionaire because of his green agenda? he may be saying the truth.
That’s the level we should deal with. You don’t like the church. I get it. But even e blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.
Obama has been stingy with his money (making over 250k and donating 0.4 percent! check his tax records, they are publics). That doesn’t necessarily mean that his ‘spreading the wealth’ message is totally wrong.
what do you say we deal with the merits of the issues?
Also, I’m a conservative, not because you guys are pro choice and I’m not. Rather because you guys are for big government, controlling more and more of the economy and the everyday life of the American people, and i’m not for it.
Big government is all good so long as you have your guy in charge. Liberals would love big government if obama or pelosi were in charge. But what about big government with Dick Cheney, or sarah palin in charge?? doesn’t seem too smart does it?? the problem with big government is that the people in charge have too much power and you know what they say: “power corrupts. absolute power corrupts absolutely”. One of the things that pissed me off most about bush is that he spent money like a drunken saylor (and i’m not talking about just the war), and made the government bigger–not smaller than when he became president.
Today, if UNICARE, or SIGNA, or BLUE CROSS whatever break a contract with you you take them to court (to the government). This way is you vs. the insurance company, with the government mediating. But if you’re under the public option of the government and they break their contract (not that the government would EVER break a promise..lol) then you take them to court (to the government). In that case it’s YOU vs. the government and the mediator is the government itself!!!! Talk about conflict of interest.
How would you feel if you were taking an insurance company to court and the judge was the president of that company (or worked for that company)????? a 5th grader can see how that’s not gonna look good for you. In the UK the government broke all sorts of contracts with its citizens on their national health care. do you think that taking the government to court is much of an option? where do you go when the government breaks a contract? to the government? and if they say “f u. we don’t care” then what? to the UN?? when something like this happens:
Headline: Lung patients ‘condemned to death as NHS withdraws their too expensive drugs’ – Jenny Hope, March 24, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK!!!!)]
Women in labour turned away by maternity units – John Carvel, March 21, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]
Cancer patients ‘betrayed’ by NHS – Sarah-Kate Templeton, June 1, 2008 [The Times]
NHS scandal: dying cancer victim was FORCED TO PAY[!!!!] – Sarah-Kate Templeton, June 1, 2008 [The Times]
I Can give you hundreds upon hundreds of article on how the NHS broke their contracts. where the ‘f’ can they go? to the effing queen?? think about it. And Canada put forth similar problems.
Consider this: if you had a company, and you told the IRS that you gave millions of dollars to so-and-so, or such and such company, or you spent is in such-and-such place and it turned out that these places didn’t exist you’d be in trouble, and have to account for it. If you don’t account for it you’re responsible for it. You may end up in prison! That’s tax evasion, or money laundry, or fraud, depending…
Yet the government says that:
$34 million in stimulus money has been spent in Arizona’s 86th congressional district in a project for the Navajo Housing authority, which is actually located in the 1st congressional district!!!
In Oklahoma, recovery.gov lists more than $19 million in spending — and 15 jobs created — in yet more congressional districts that don’t exist.
In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created — in nonexistent districts.
In Connecticut’s 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.
$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
$8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
$1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands.
$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico’s 99th congressional district.
That’s nearly 200 million to places that don’t exist, and YOUR white house refuses to make corrections. If a private company did that it would be under investigation, but since it’s the government they can get away with it. See why conservatives would like a smaller government?
If you think that there’s impunity in the private sector, you should see how much fraud there is in the government. Obama himself says he can free up $500 BILLION to pay for an expanded middle-class health care entitlement by eliminating waste and fraud in Medicare.
that’s a lot of fraud don’t you think??? ever hear about someone going to jail because of it??? pure impunity!
I was born in brazil and didn’t leave it until i was 18, so i’m pretty familiar with governmental fraud. Rarely do you hear of a senator going to jail for fraud, and yet everyone knows it’s going on the same way obama knows that there’s fraud i the government. His own administration lost $200 million to places that don’t exist. They might as well say they sent it to captain Hook in Never land–makes no difference. The fact that they can get away with losing 200 mil of your money and not even care to double check is insulting.
so much for transparency and elliminading fraud.
If you had trusted President Bush with your money and he couldn’t account for 200 mil you’d be pissed!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/30/family-guy-mocks-chris-ma_n_373360.html go chris go
Notice how Eymard spins all these allegations w/o citation?
Probably the most earnest and possibly the most clueless of the trolls.
So now he’s gone from specific defense of the church to the easier-to-recite Beck/Limbaugh/Palin bullshit.
Dear Moron: This government, the one you want to mediate after you’re been thoroughly fucked by the private sector: Do you really not understand that if they can buy the whole system, as they have, your chances of prevailing in court — if you can even get your complaint heard there — are not so hot.
The British system is not one anybody in the USA is advocating — nobody I know on the wildest-eyed edge of the left wants to put doctors on the government payroll. Since we insist on leaving the morally bankrupt health insurance industry intact, our best bet would be to emulate Germany’s system. Look it up.
Consider this, too: Every other industrialized country in the world has a government that manages to keep its people about as healthy as us at about half the cost we currently spend. Are you really suggesting that the USA — I assume that, as a con, you consider it the greatest country on earth — is more inept than all those other countries? What a patriot.
I love it when we get a troll who can’t admit defeat and can’t let go. They inevitably fall back on the equivalent of the Chewbacca defense.
Okay, since this thread is NOT really the healthcare debate, I won’t go there.
But I can respond, Eymard, to some of this “you people believe in big government” stuff, as applies to abortion funding.
It may very well be the position of the Pope and his branch of the Catholic Church, that abortion is murder. However, it is not MY position. I am a US voter, and he is not. The people who elected Representative Kennedy are US voters, and the Pope STILL is not. If Bishop Tobin would like to register as an agent of a foreign government, and be clear that his job is lobbying the US government for his foreign government, he is free to do so, and lose the tax advantages granted by ME, (because I’m a taxpayer, see? ) and FILL his days with telling people how they should vote, that’s swell. I come from the greatest democracy in the world, and I’m all about people speaking their truth in the marketplace of ideas.
But nobody gets the right to impose their doctrinal position on the beginning of personhood on MY government, because that violates my Constitution and my heritage. And NOBODY gets to CREATE a giant arm of government to monitor the private behavior of consenting adults, or the private relationship between a woman and her healthcare provider and then CHARGE me to support it.
Personally, I’m willing, right now, to completely decertify religious marriage. If you want the advantages of being married, pay a judge. If you want wandwaving in addition, strike up the band, why should I care.
THAT, son, is small government, about which you seem to know nothing. When we “trusted President Bush” with our money, he promptly ran up bills shooting at strangers which we’ll NEVER untangle. If I found his losses had only amounted to 200 million, I’d turn cartwheels, I assure you.
Go ahead, girl!
“It may very well be the position of the Pope and his branch of the Catholic Church, that abortion is murder. However, it is not MY position. I am a US voter, and he is not.”
Right. the pope isn’t an american citizen. he doesn’t get to vote. I, however, am a citizen and i do get to vote. I may be your position that a baby in the womb isn’t human–despite the fact that it has human DNA, distinct from the mother’s–but this is a democracy. People get to vote on their views, even when they are as ridiculous as saying that a separate living being with human DNA isn’t human.
and on big government, if i remember correctly, after the fall of berlin wall people were mostly running WEST towards evel-ass capitalism and free market. Don’t really remember a lot of people running east, do you?
our corporate tax is higher than communist china!
If you like big government keep on supporting legislations that put more and more power in the hands of politicians… but pray hard that someone bush doesn’t get elected. You see, big government with term limits means the opposition can in theory take over… and then you get a guy like bush with even MORE power than bush had.
brooke:
THAT, son, is small government, about which you seem to know nothing. When we “trusted President Bush” with our money, he promptly ran up bills shooting at strangers which we’ll NEVER untangle. If I found his losses had only amounted to 200 million, I’d turn cartwheels, I assure you.
I agree. He was a fool! Fiscally conservative my ass. That doesn’t justify more spending. I don’t know a lot of liberals (why of obama) that have spent as much as bush has. the difference is that it was accounted for though. He spent a lot of money, but NOT on districts that don’t exist. he spent a lot on the war. The war did exist, and troops REALLY were sent oversees.
progressive mom:
Not so much “defined”, actually; more like a moving target over the ages. Defined, redefined, defined again, redefined. And never quite in the same place.
I’m still waiting on some encyclicals or church councils that did this “Defined, redefined, defined again, redefined.”
In fact, forget the “Defined, redefined, defined again, redefined”. just give me one single “defined, redefined.” and i’ll be happy.
say on coulcil that allows capital punishment, and the other that doesn’t. or one encyclicals that allows the punishment to be carried out by individuals (rather than by the state), and another that says the opposite.
one little “Defined, redefined” is all i’m asking.
Brooke:
But I can respond, Eymard, to some of this “you people believe in big government” stuff, AS APPLIED to abortion funding.
quite the opposite. in fact, my exact words were:
Also, I’m a conservative, NOT BECAUSE you guys are pro choice and I’m not. RATHER because you guys are for big government, controlling more and more of the economy and the everyday life of the American people, and i’m not for it.
in other words. it isn’t the life issue that makes me conservative. I was conservative in brazil where both liberals AND conservatives were pro life (that isn’t the case any longer though).
the whole point that i was making was that despite the life or choice issue, i don’t like big government. see? a little text comprehention goes a long way.
brooke:
“The people who elected Representative Kennedy are US voters, and the Pope STILL is not.”
yes, but again, i do vote. And it would be all good if it wasnt for the fact that, even though he is not a representative of my state, his decisions do affect me. See, the constitution made it so that power that weren’t given to the federal government by the constitution (or forbidden to it by it) were to fall to the hands of the states and the people of each states. it’s the 10th ammendment i believe.
well, if this were being followed then fine. But all these senator and congressmen and congresswoman are making decisions for all of us.
for instance, a senator for texas may vote against something that you liberal like in your state. Why should someone from texas have the power to influence something that dictates what you do on your own state?? similarly, pelosi makes a decision that affects texas. Now she may be following the wishes of the people that voted for her (which is her job), but i don’t live in california, and i did not vote for her. Yet, her decisions affect me. Same with patrick kennedy. it cuts both ways.
Consider this: suppose that the conservatives take back majority in the house and senate, and they pass a bunch of pro-life legislation. Now, it may be that your representatives voted against it, but they were out numbered. So they legislation is imposed on the entire country. This isn’t constitutional. same thing with some liberal agenda items that the constitution doesn’t give the federal government the power to do.
for instance, where in the constitution does it say that the federal government can compell people to buy health insurance (or to buy anything else for that matter?). Now you may say, “we’re compell to buy car insurance”. Yes, but it’s a state thing, you see. that is constitutional. Since the constitution doesn’t say anything about the federal government forcing people to buy CAR insurance, according to the 10th ammendment, this decision falls on the states.
If you think the constitution needs to change, there’s a process for that too. but as it is today, there’s no constitutionality to forcing people to buy health insurance.
Now, maybe california likes the idea, and oklahoma doesn’t. The constitutional thing to do would be to let each state decide.
BUT, since this is being ignored, and kennedy’s decisions affect the WHOLE COUNTRY, it conserns everyone.
brooke:
But nobody gets the right to impose their doctrinal position on the beginning of personhood on MY government, because that violates my Constitution and my heritage. And NOBODY gets to CREATE a giant arm of government to monitor the private behavior of consenting adults, or the private relationship between a woman and her healthcare provider and then CHARGE me to support it.
i’ll take these, one at the time.
first “But nobody gets the right to impose their doctrinal position on the beginning of personhood on MY government, because that violates my Constitution and my heritage.”
that actually is totally right! couldn’t agree more! But you see, the reason why it violates the constitution is because since the constitution says NOTHING about any branch of the FEDERAL government having the power to decide on “the beginning of personhood”, the 10th ammendment says that the states should be the ones deciding, not the supreme court.
Further, that all depends on how you define “all men”, in “all men are created equal”. Now, we now it’s not to be taken narrowly because “all men” implies women, and children too. Now, it’s all about the standard used for definition. IF you use the genetic standard–i.e. distinct set of human DNA–then ‘fetuses’ are included. SO, if you use the DNA standard, then it becomes a constitutional matter. Why? because it IS within the powers of the federal government to protect “all men”–whatever that means.
IF IT MEANS, BEINGS WITH DISTICT SET OF HUMAN DNA, THEN IT MEANS HUMAN FETUSES.
the declaration of independence says that humans have “unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”.
see? it’s all about how you define “all men”. most standards, aside from DNA, are arbitrary. age? gender? skin color? ethinicity?
take the nazis, they went for ethinicity…did go too well.
the KKK goes for skin color…not a good standard.
if life is HUMAN right, the standard should be “well, is it human?” if it is HUMAN, it has HUMAN RIGHTS (one of which is the right to life).
Now, people used to say that balck people didn’t share the same personhood as a white person. If they had access to DNA information (and had chosen this as the standard). in the fast, a lot of really messed up stuff would’ve been avoided if they had used the DNA standard (which is recent i know)
brooke:
“And NOBODY gets to CREATE a giant arm of government to monitor the private behavior of consenting adults, or the private relationship between a woman and her healthcare provider and then CHARGE me to support it.
first “And NOBODY gets to CREATE a giant arm of government to monitor the private behavior of consenting adults.”
I guess that’ll depend on the behaviour of these adults. If you mean sexually, i agree. but then you’d have to be ok with incest too. I guess necrophilia doens’t really apply because i’m assuming you mean living adults.
But if you mean ANY behaviour at all, you must be off your meds. Suppose two consenting adults want to watch child pornography in the privacy of their home. should that be allowed? what if they wanna skin a cat? allowed? shit, you can’t even start a fire in the privacy of your home–even though you own the damn thing.
In short, you CANNOT do criminal behaviour in the “privacy” of your home. it remains criminal.
what i think you mean to say is, “i don’t think sexual shit should be criminalized”. If that’s it, i agree. So long as it’s two consenting adults, i don’t think we need the “sex” police knocking on people’s door trying to see if they are having gay sex.
As for an “arm of government to monitor the private behavior of … private relationship between a woman and her healthcare provider and then CHARGE me to support it.”
THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HEALTHCARE REFORM IS ABOUT. and arm of the government getting between doctor and pacient, telling your doctor what procedures, medicines, etc we can prescribe to you! and the kicked is that they will “charge [you] to support it.”
Don’t be silly brooke, the government charges up to support many programs we don’t like. when we pay taxes they get the whole thing and deligate to several different programs, etc. I don’t think that there’s a single person in this country that can honestly say “i approve 100% of how my tax money is used.” these programs are “created” all the time, and people who like it pay for it as much as people who dislike it. Planned parenthood gets my tax dollars whether i like it or not. The war got yours whether you like it or not.
But i know what you mean. you mean, you don’t want an arm of the government telling you that you can’t have an abortion. But the question isnt that, really. because the south didn’t want an arm of the government telling them how to run they business in the should, and they used the same arguments you do. They said, basically, that blacks are not “people” like they are. They are either less than human, or it they are human, they sure aren’t “persons” and therefore, they shouldn’t have the same rights that real “persons” have. You say that either human fetuses aren’t “human” or if they are, they sure aren’t “persons” like you are, and thus shouldn’t get the same rights that “real” people get.
But if human fetuses are human, you don’t get a say, anymore than plantation owners got a say.
afterall, if fetuses are human beings, even you wouldn’t be in favor of abortions. many of which are done past the development of the nervous systema, which means that the ‘fetus’ actually feels pain. plus, after the bone is calcified, suction doens’t work, so the fetus has to be desmembered and so on, and “anesthesia-free”.
that’s some crual shit. even if you say that a human fetus is worth as much as an animal, like a cat, or a pig or something, that’s pretty screwed up.
But, if it’s actually human, it’s not just screwed up, it’s killing a human. shit, even rapist get to confront their accuser before being put to death.
Eymard, first, spellcheck is your friend.
Second, I do indeed say that fetuses are not people, and therefore not protected by the Constitution. DNA is not protected by the Constitution. My hairbrush is full of human DNA but it doesn’t have the vote, and never will. So, dispensed with that.
Third, I do not know where the quaint state’s rights argument is coming from, but I’ll address it. The Civil War effectively settled the issue of whether states were entitled to enact laws contrary to federal law. They aren’t.
brooke. perhaps my spelling isn’t best. maybe it’s because english is my third language. wonder how your portuguese spelling is.
brooke:
“I do indeed say that fetuses are not people, and therefore not protected by the Constitution. DNA is not protected by the Constitution. My hairbrush is full of human DNA but it doesn’t have the vote, and never will. So, dispensed with that.”
“My hairbrush is full of human DNA but it doesn’t have the vote,”??? wow, now ladies and gentlemen, even you libs don’t think this is a good argument, do you? wow, where to begin?
for starters, 5 year-olds don’t vote, and yet are indeed protected by the constitution, so voting or not voting is a foolish point. There were times in this country when women didn’t vote. did that make women non-person?? didn’t think so.
as for your hairbruch… well, gee, let’s see. a dead person (registred voter and all) has human DNA, doesn’t he/she? what’s the difference between someone putting a bullet though a dead man’s head and through a living man’s head? maybe one is murder and the other is not…??
SOOOOOO…. Lest we miss the forest by the trees, your hairbrush isn’t alive. there’s no cell division, growth, etc.
But that’s not it, the real issue is that (amazing it’d even have to point this out) the human DNA on your brush is a contamination! the DNA isn’t ‘of’ the brush, but rather ‘on’ the brush. spit on your car and all the sudden it’s got human DNA too. come on! it’s YOUR DNA because you are human!!, because DNA is something that LIVING things have. heck, by following your logic, if you have a dog and he/she sheds, then your carpet is canine…lol
alright, alright. soooo, your hairbrush isn’t human (even though is has your hair ‘on’ it.
a human fetus, unlike your brush, has its own human DNA. has a human heart, human fingers, human legs, etc. In fact, a not because human fetus has nothing in it NOT human. and it’s DNA isn’t someone’s hair that fell on it, or the mother’s blood contaminating it, but rather its OWN human DNA, DIFFERENT from the mother’s DNA. see the difference?
not the father’s DNA, not the mother’S DNA but it’s own DNA. In fact, it’s the same DNA that will be there one that ‘fetus’ is born–doesn’t change.
alright, so that was foolish, but as j.k. chesterton says “Even a bad shot is dignified when he [or she] accepts a duel.”
My spelling is awful. That’s why I recommended “spellcheck” rather than a reeducation camp. 😀
Fetuses are not people. There, I said it again.
You say, “IF you use the genetic standard–i.e. distinct set of human DNA–then ‘fetuses’ are included”
and I respond, “I do NOT use a genetic standard, and no one else does, either.” I use (as you point out in your last post) a “live person” standard. If a fetus requires another human being to support it, it is not an individual person. It is a fetus. On the other hand, identical twins, despite sharing DNA, are TWO people, once they are born. If someone’s DNA changes over time (which it does) it doesn’t make them ANOTHER person. It makes them the same person, with slightly changed DNA. You see?
“DNA standard”. lol.
Brooke:
“Third, I do not know where the quaint state’s rights argument is coming from, but I’ll address it. The Civil War effectively settled the issue of whether states were entitled to enact laws contrary to federal law. They aren’t.”
Now here’s where you–unbeknownst to you– actually PROVE my point on the autonomy of state vs. the power granted to the federal government by the constitution. I’ll tell you “the quaint state’s rights argument is coming from.”
the 10th ammendment does NOT say that ALL POWERS are given to the state. Rather it says that ONLY the powers that AREN’T given to the federal government, or AREN’T prohibited by the constitution to the states–the “leftovers” if you will—are given to the state. For instance, states can’t declare war, right? Why is that? Well, because the power to declare war is given to the federal government, and the states are forbidden to do so. the 10th amendment doesn’t grant states powers UNLESS they are not given to the federal government, or forbidden to the states by the constitution. It’s not that tricky, really.
But how does the civil war fit in????
Well, one of the powers of the federal government is to protect “all men”, right? Well, the southern states were saying that the had their autonomy when it comes to owning slaves because of the 10th amendment. That would be the case IF and ONLY IF blacks weren’t human! Because, if blacks ARE human, then the power to protect the “inalienable rights” of “all men” DOES belong to the federal government.
The states were being unconstitutional because since the right to ‘liberty’ IS a constitutional right, and the power to “to secure these rights” is given to the government, the states had no choice but to treat black people as what they are—human.
In short, the right to give or take away a human’s “inalienable rights” isn’t a ‘leftover’ right, and thus it does NOT fall under the umbrella of the 10th amendment.
Now, it is only because the federal government saw blacks are humans, and therefore part of the “all people”, that the states had not autonomy on the matter.
This is where the issue of the autonomy of the states come in.
1 – IF fetuses aren’t part of the “all men” by virtue of being human, THEN what to do with fetuses IS VERY MUCH SO a leftover power. Thus, Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional because it tramples on the 10th amendment.
In this case, the decision need to fall on the shoulders of the states.
2 – IF fetuses ARE indeed part of the “all men” by virtue of being human, THEN Roe v. wade is still unconstitutional because it tramples on the ‘life’ and ‘liberty’ of a human group that is part of ‘all men.’
In this case—as it was in the civil war—the states have NO SAY, because the power to protect ‘all men’ is not a leftover, and thus the 10th amendment does NOT grant it to the states.
It’s a catch 22
So, Brooke, when you say “I do indeed SAY that fetuses are not people”, you’re really saying nothing. The southerners that were in favor of slavery would “say” that blacks weren’t people, and that didn’t really make it so now, did it? In fact, thank you for bringing the civil war up, because the civil war is a great example of the kind of abuse and exploitation that happens when you say that a human isn’t a person with rights.
Human DNA is the most definitive way to prove that something is or was human.
So…. Here’s the thinking process.
1 – fetuses grow (I don’t think libs have gone as far as to deny that yet).
Tennis shoes DON’T grow. I mean, when was the last time you picked up you favorite mug and noticed it was 3 inches taller? The difference is that living things grow. Trees grow, and dogs grow, but sidewalks don’t grow.
Sooooooo, a fetus is a living thing. So much for the “when does live begin?” question.
2 – Now, DNA determines DEFINITIVELY what ‘type’ of thing, living things are (or were). You may even remember Oliver the “humanzee,” who walked like upright and there was this huge movement to treat him better because many suspected that he had 47 chromosomes (putting him between humans and chimps). How did they settle it? In 1996 his DNA was tested to reveal 48 chromosomes like any other chimpanzee.
sooooo…. If there’s a living thing that has turkey DNA, it sure as hell ISN’T a dog, or a cat, or a human, or your hairbrush.
A human fetus IS a living human. ‘Living’ proved by its cell division. ‘human’ proved by its DNA. Plus, it’s a difference set of DNA from the parents, so you can scientifically say that a human fetus, is a “distinct living human” because it isn’t part of the mother (like her liver, which has her own DNA), but rather the fetus is its OWN human, alive, and with its OWN set of Human DNA.
Now, I do have one question for you brooke. Suppose we were talking about the personhood for blacks instead of fetuses. You said “blacks have human rights just like I do”, and I said “well, I don’t think so.” What would you use to prove that blacks are human—as much human as whites, asians, etc?
You would appeal to “well, they are human because they have human DNA”, would you?
If not DNA, then what? How would you determine definitively that Asians are as humans as Hispanics?
Love to hear of what standards
Psst… has anyone else stopped reading Eymard’s long ass comments, or is it just me?
I stopped reading Eymard’s drivel because Eymard isn’t even reading his own drivel.
I know. But I’m wild about the Constitution, and a fan of science. got baited. *blush*
I tuned out Eymard a long time ago. It was pretty much unproductive after the first two or three comments. But that’s me – I just tend to read past the trolls. It’s a mental health thing.
fair enough, you’re right, they’ve been long. so i’ll make it short.
I’m really trying to get your position, “from the horse’s mouth” so to speak. Mean no disrespect.
So brooke:
ok, so your criteria is IF something ALIVE, has human DNA, BUT “requires another human being to support it, [then] it is not an individual person.”
ok, i think i got it.
First, where did this difference between “living human” and “living person” come from? certainly not the constitution.
Second, a one month-old baby requires another human being to support it or else it dies. Does that mean that it isn’t a “living person”? after all, it certainly doesn’t fit the “living person” criteria you put forth.
Or what about some guy in a coma? He requires not only other people to feed him, but help breathing and so on… I guess this human WAS a “living person” but since the coma, he is no longer a “living person”–just a living “thing” with human DNA.
Who knows? if he comes out of the come, we’ll let him be a “living person” again.
Question: So is a fetus a “living human” but not a “living person”? I’m really trying to understand because it sounds arbitrary.
And, brooke, identical twins do NOT share identical DNAs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html?_r=1
But libs don’t like science, so why bother. You might as well say “i like abortion no matter what science says”.