The Race Card on November 16, 2008 at 11:27 PM

Maybe you missed my point, but that is OK. The intention, however unclear it may have been, was to point out the attempts to divert the subject. The Church has dealt with the wayward priests. They have been prosecuted and many are serving jail time. While this episode in the history of the Church was not good for the image of the Church, it was dealt with appropriately. Condemning the Catholic Church for this is like condemning all Americans because some of us are criminals.

Your attempts to bring this subject up are like saying it doesn’t matter if somebody criticizes a killer for murdering your son because their neighbor was a pervert. While the priest who abused children deserve all the punishment they get (in this life and the next) it is a distraction from the real issue.

The bottom line is that the Catholic Church treats abortion as a mortal sin according to the catechism. It is not forgivable. Therefore it is a higher offense than other things that are mentioned here. After blasphemy against God, it is the highest offense that a person can commit.

Some people bring up contraception as an issue as well. That is not the same because it prevent conception. Since the Church recognizes conception as the moment where a human life is created it is not the same. While it is also against Church doctrine, it is not murder and not a mortal sin.

So you can criticize me for dismissing your straw dog if you choose. I do have the right on these forums to comment whether you appreciate the comments or not. So please explain what you intend to do if I continue to get into your “grits.”

It seems to me that if a Catholic voter voted for Obama knowing that he intends to repeal sign FOCA

sorry, brain cramp!

First of all, you’re quoting the Catechism incorrectly. It is not “formal cooperation in abortion,” it is “formal cooperation in an abortion.” Some examples that come to mind:

- Knowingly and deliberatelyl paying for your wife or daughter’s abortion abortion.
- Encouraging someone to get an abortion.
- Working in an abortionist’s office.

Voting for abortion to simply be legal is not “formal cooperation in an abortion.”

Voting for a candidate who thinks abortion should be legal is not “formal cooperation in an abortion.”

Mark Jaquith on November 17, 2008 at 3:14 PM

I get your point, but I think when it comes to a politician who has the power (through Executive Orders) to render all abortions more readily available, that is cooperating in an abortion (which is a subset of all abortions).

From NARAL’s web site:

Following the Supreme Court’s closely divided and bitter decision upholding the Federal Abortion Ban, it is clear that the right to choose is facing a new level of assault. That’s why the pro-choice community is working to guarantee the right to choose through the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) – a measure that will codify Roe v. Wade and guarantee the right to choose for future generations of women.

It seems to me that if a Catholic voter voted for Obama knowing that he intends to repeal FOCA as soon as he takes office, that voter has cooperated with an/all abortions to the same extent as someone “working in an abortionist’s office.” Both are facilitating the performance of abortions.

anyone who formally cooperates in abortion

First of all, you’re quoting the Catechism incorrectly. It is not “formal cooperation in abortion,” it is “formal cooperation in an abortion.” Some examples that come to mind:

- Knowingly and deliberatelyl paying for your wife or daughter’s abortion abortion.
- Encouraging someone to get an abortion.
- Working in an abortionist’s office.

Voting for abortion to simply be legal is not “formal cooperation in an abortion.”

Voting for a candidate who thinks abortion should be legal is not “formal cooperation in an abortion.”

Every candidate supports the legality of certain types of sin. I didn’t hear either candidate push for making private drunkenness illegal. If you voted for any candidate on the ballot, is your soul in jeopardy for providing “formal cooperation” with the sin of drunkenness? Fornication? Unjust war? The death penalty?

We have to render to God what is God’s and to Caesar what is Caesar’s. In other words, our political judgements don’t have to come from the Bible or the Catechism. It is not our job as Christians to enact Sharia.

Is it liberal or conservative when a church or parish or diocese covers up a sex crime? Here’s a hint. God doesn’t care. The crime and the welfare of the victims should be the focus.

I would not speak for God at that level.

What is certain, there is a big difference between committing a crime, and making a heinious behaviour legal.

Committing a crime is the sin on an individual

Obama had the rare distinction of leading the argument against giving medical care, food and drink, solace, and warmth or even human touch to a baby born alive gasping, perhaps whimpering, perhaps hoping for a mother’s touch. Such tiny innocent victims were put in a back room, to be held until their pitiful death by a nurse who dared disobey orders to leave them to die alone.

Obama argued that the law requiring medical attention to babies born alive in late term abortions would be a mistake because it would give those babies rights as human beings.

Hitler legalized mass action against unwarranted human beings who were interfering with progress or othersie contaminating the nation. He is considered the sorse war criminal of his nation

I appreciate any protections afforded unborn children. They are literally the voiceless victims of society’s hedonism and moral depravity. I don’t need a priest to confirm this for me.

The priest acted because it os his role as priest to represent the moral authority of his Church to his parishoners. The priest is the shephard of his flock.Otherwise, his job is to stand aside and hand out bingo catds, maybe say a few things at weddings and funerals.

Since many Catholics belonged to organizations working to elect Obama, it was his real duty to warn them of the consquences of voting for the man who fights for infanticide of the cruelest form.

One must be right with God to participate in Communion at that church.

If a man stomped on a babiy’s skull outside the church and then demanded communion, would the priest be correct to refuse?

Infanticide is not permissible for Catholics, even if it leads to a better health care system and free college.

IMHO the Catholic church took some huge divets in its moral standing in many people’s eyes. You may disagree or defend or minimize that sentiment. God gives you that choice, enjoy.

Not addressed to me, however, the Catholic Church took a huge moral leap in my eyes when it lived up to its own Cathechism. The priest stood with the great martyrs because he would not allow parishioners to take an action, without understanding the moral consequence of that action

The priest had a choice to look the other way, or warn his flock that if they facilitated the greatest proponent of infanticide in the Senate they would fail the requirements of their faith.

Oh yeah. Read my initial comment or stay out of my grits.

The Race Card on November 16, 2008 at 11:27 PM

Is this poster warning the reader of consequences?

[DeathToMediaHacks on November 16, 2008 at 9:06 PM]

I’m not absolutely positive the Church is, on the whole, anti-statist, but I only skimmed. Even so, it doesn’t look good for the statists, or the socialists, either.

Let us know if that’s wrong.

Dusty on November 16, 2008 at 9:55 PM

Well, I finished reading the article, even if you didn’t. some choice excerpts:

“… In apparent contradiction, however, to much of the foregoing argument are the considerations put forward by numerous schools of “Christian Socialism”, both Catholic and non-Catholic. It will be urged that there cannot really be the opposition between Socialism and Christianity that is here suggested, for, as a matter of fact, many excellent and intelligent persons in all countries are at once convinced Christians and ardent Socialists. …

If it be found on examination that the general trend of the Socialist movement, the predominant opinion of the Socialists, the authoritative pronouncements of ecclesiastical and expert Catholic authority all tend to emphasize the philosophical cleavage indicated above, it is probably safe to conclude that those who profess to reconcile the two doctrines are mistaken: either their grasp of the doctrines of Christianity or of Socialism will be found to be imperfect, or else their mental habits will appear to be so lacking in discipline that they are content with the profession of a belief in incompatible principles. ….”

and,

“The trend of the Socialist movement, then, and the deliberate pronouncements and habitual thought of leaders and followers alike, are almost universally found to be antagonistic to Christianity. Moreover, the other side of the question is but a confirmation of this antagonism. For all three popes who have come into contact with modern Socialism, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X, have formally condemned it, both as a general doctrine and with regard to specific points. The bishops and clergy, the lay experts on social and economic questions, the philosophers, the theologians, and practically the whole body of the faithful are unanimous in their acceptance of the condemnation.”

And lastly, the concluding paragraph:

To sum up, in the words of a capable anonymous writer in “The Quarterly Review”, Socialism has for “its philosophical basis, pure materialism; its religious basis is pure negation; its ethical basis the theory that society makes the individuals of which it is composed, not the individuals society, and that therefore the structure of society determines individual conduct, which involves moral irresponsibility; its economic basis is the theory that labour is the sole producer, and that capital is the surplus value over bare subsistence produced by labour and stolen by capitalists; its juristic basis is the right of labour to the whole product; its historical basis is the industrial revolution, that is the change from small and handicraft methods of production to large and mechanical ones, and the warfare of classes; its political basis is democracy. . . . It may be noted that some of these [bases] have already been abandoned and are in ruins, others are beginning to shake; and as this process advances the defenders are compelled to retreat and take up fresh positions. Thus the form of the doctrine changes and undergoes modification, though all cling still to the central principle, which is the substitution of public for private ownership”.

There are in my mind more damning excerpts but after reading this and barring what I placed in bold, above, I cannot fathom how anyone could call themselves a Catholic Democrat, considering the state of the Party. It would be like hanging out in Hell in the belief that by doing so, they could make it heaven, if they said it was so often enough.

We don’t need another schism, we’ve already had one, thankyouverymuch. If you don’t like the rules, leave. No one is forcing anyone to be Catholic. And there are plenty of “less restrictive” religions out there ready and waiting to take a former Catholic’s time, money and whatever else it is they call faith.

Rock. Peter. Unbroken line. 2000 years. Beat that. Plllpppttt.

Also, as a matter of fact, two or more human beings can, and do, inhabit one body. This is what we are talking about above regarding twinning. Furthermore, the woman and her single baby, in cases that do not include twinning, are inhabiting one body, although the baby is a temporary inhabitant of mother’s body.

William2006 on November 17, 2008 at 12:38 AM

My only focus is on MZ twins and the first few days after conception. As you indicate there is only one zygote prior to twinning. What is the definition of person or individual life where that zygote could be identified as multiple people? Certainly, it is potentially multiple people but a day or two after conception it is something different than twins in their third trimester who have separate physical bodies. Very different, also, than a baby and mother where the baby is a distinct organism inside the mother.

Anyone passing Logic 101 would have a firmer view on this matter. Aw, heck, why beat around the bush, everyone not in the “not to decide is to decide” camp will have a “firmer” view than Laughlin.

“… They may be wrong or misinformed, and it may be obvious that they are wrong, but my only point is that their sin is not that they disagree with the Church on values, but that they’re making the wrong evaluation/decision based on those values.

And I can see why they’d be offended that the Church is calling a calculation that is based on the same values a sin. ….”

[tneloms on November 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM]

Well, for one, that is why Fr Newman forewarned them, so they would prioritize their values properly and not make the wrong evaluation/decision. Because, in the end, what you are implying, since all (Catholics) are presumed to be “basing” their evaluations/decisions on the same values and yet choose differently, then the prioritization is wrong for some.

Now, be aware, the Church hardly ever intervenes so assertively, strenuously and narrowly in the general tumult of decision-making by it’s members. It is exceptional.

“… In such a case, if the Church happens to take a side, is it okay for them to call those who disagree with them sinners? I can see why it might be, but I’m curious what you think. ….”

No, not if they disagree, but, yes, if they act in concert with that disagreement.

This, unfortunately, has been the kind of double-talk that leads people to believe that abortion is compatible with the Catholic faith…

Sounds like another weak-kneed Church official, someone who has lost his focus on the Gospel. The Church does not offer a smorgasbord where you get to pick and choose what you like and dislike. Abortion is wrong.

This, unfortunately, has been the kind of double-talk that leads people to believe that abortion is compatible with the Catholic faith…

Sounds like another weak-kneed Church official, someone who has lost his focus on the Gospel. The Church does not offer a smorgaborg

Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.

This fellow needs tutoring. I think Pope Benedict has a firmer view on this matter.

Kudos to Newman and shame on Loughlin!

PS
I have mailed a donation to Newman and a letter condemning Laughlin’s emasculated flimsy response.

“Fact: It is a scientific fact that normally a human being’s life begins sexually (man and woman, with sperm penetrating the zona pellucida of the woman’s oocyte), in vivo (inside the mother’s body) at conception-fertilization and continues until death. Also a fact, monozygotic twinning, triplets, etc., occurs in living human beings, hence, human beings do also begin their lives as twins, triplets, etc., asexually (without sperm and oocyte), in vivo (inside mother’s womb).

William2006 on November 16, 2008 at 6:55 PM

“unclesmrgol” said:

Twinning requires conception to have occurred also. It is not asexual in origin. Other than that, agree with what you say.

unclesmrgol on November 16, 2008 at 7:15 PM

“unclesmrgol,”

There are more than one form of twinning.

1) Monozygotic Twinning is the which results from one, single, human embryonic zygote. It occurs (in vivo) when, during cell division during the early stage of the embryonic stage (embryonic stage extends from from conception-fertilization till the end of the eighth week, Post Fertilization (PF)), some cells might separate from the embryo. If they have the ability, or are totipotent, having the ability to become any type cell, to make up any type of tissue, to make up any type of organ, to make up any system in the human body, they also might have the ability to become another, new human embryo.

In this case, there is no union of sperm with oocyte, or sexual reproduction, which is why it is referred to as asexual reproduction, because it is not produced sexually like the original embryo was.

True, the original oocyte was produced sexually, via the union of the genetic material of the father, via his sperm, penetrating zona pellucida of the woman’s ooctye, but since this process is different and does not require sperm and oocyte, it is asexual reproduction, not sexual reproduction.

Fraternal twinning is different from monozygotic twinning.

In cases in which the mother releases more than one oocyte into the fallopian tube during one menstrual cycle, and also, at the same time, the case in which more than one sperm from the father reaches each of these oocytes, penetrating the zona pellucida of each oocyte, resulting in new human beings, we don’t have monozygotic twinning. We have multiple zygotes.

These multiple zygotes will not be identical like monozygotic twinning produces (identical twins, triplets, etc.)

In some cases these fraternal twins, resulting from different zygotes, can be born several days, and occasionally a week or more apart.

Nevertheless, in Human Embryology, father’s sperm penetrating the oocyte of mother is sexual reproduction, in vivo, whereas monozygotic twinning, in vivo, is asexual reproduction.

In my post above, explaining monozygotic twinning, etc., I accidentally used the word “Fetal Period” when I intended to use the term “embryonic period.”

Here is the paragraph in which I placed the wrogn word “Fetal.”

“By the end of the Fetal Period (Conception-Fertilization till the end of the eighth week, PF) baby has all her major organs formed, and she will continue to mature and develop throughout her time inside the womb, through the fetal stage, and even beyond birth, into adulthood.”

William2006 on November 17, 2008 at 12:38 AM

Here is the corrected paragraph, using the proper term “embryonic period,” which extends from conception-fertilization, till the end of the eight week, Post Fertilization, in place of the term “Fetal period.”

“By the end of the Embryonic Period (Conception-Fertilization till the end of the eighth week, PF) baby has all her major organs formed, and she will continue to mature and develop throughout her time inside the womb, through the fetal stage, and even beyond birth, into adulthood.”

William

In case of twins, two children are murdered.

JonRoss on November 16, 2008 at 7:49 PM

With the MZ twins there is only one zygote, only one body. It is indistinguishable from a zygote that produces one baby. I understand how it is potentially 2 people but don’t see how it is two people a day after conception, unless two people can simultaneously inhabit a single body.

dedalus on November 16, 2008 at 8:43 PM

dedalus,

That is not how it works. I’ll explain.

In Human Embryology, the in vivo (inside mother’s body) developmental stages of the human being are divided into two main parts, clinically speaking.

1) The embryonic stage, which begins at conception-fertilization and continues until the end of the eighth week, Post Fertilization (PF)

2) The fetal stage, which begins at the ninth week, Post Fertilization, and continues till term (approximately 40 weeks, PF) or birth.

To point out the context of the terms being clinical terms for reference, and for developmental stages, in vivo, please remember that some babies are born earlier than others. By developmental age one born at 35 weeks, is younger than another baby who is born at 38 weeks, PF, yet the older baby, who is still inside the womb, is considered a “fetus” while the baby born earlier, at 35 weeks, is no longer called a fetus.

In other words, “fetus” is a human baby who is still inside the womb, even though he or she is a human being, and even more developed than another baby who has just been born a few weeks earlier than he or she is. Embryo and Fetus are merely clinical reference terms used while baby is still inside the womb. At birth it is unusual for someone to tell a mother “Keep pushing. You’re almost there! I can see your fetus now. Your fetus’s head is out. All you have to do is push your fetus’ shoulders through and then you can hold your fetus.”

Baby does not “become a human being” suddenly because they are no longer labeled a “fetus.”

During the embryonic stage of development, we witness a rapid division of cells and rapid development of the new person, with such mile markers appearing quickly such as the immediate development taking place in the neurological system, the clear distinction between the rostrum and the caudal regions, and the appearance and detection of the heartbeat, occurring as early as 18 to 21 days, PF. Of course, in the case of some systems, such as reproductive systems, neurological systems, etc., development does not end or achieve completion until as late as adulthood.

By the end of the Fetal Period (Conception-Fertilization till the end of the eighth week, PF) baby has all her major organs formed, and she will continue to mature and develop throughout her time inside the womb, through the fetal stage, and even beyond birth, into adulthood.

During cell division, sometimes some cells might separate from the rest of the embryo. When this happens, if the cells still have the ability to do so, if they are totipotent, meaning they have the ability to become any cell, for any tissue, for any organ, for any system in the human body, they can also have the ability to also become another, second embryo, another living human organism, another person. This is asexual reproduction, for it does not require a sperm and oocyte to meet in order for this second, third, or other individual to begin his or her life.

In other words it is not necessarily that the new single celled human embryonic zygote is a twin. The twinning may take place a bit later as the cells are dividing.

As a point of fact, monozygotic twinning, using one zygote which resulted from sexual relations, using sperm and oocyte, should be differentiated from fraternal twinning, which employs sexual intercourse using more than one sperm and more than one oocyte, and results in more than one zygote.

In twinning resulting from multiple zygotes, a woman might have released more than one oocyte during her menstrual cycle. If these oocytes are available inside the fallopian tube when sperm reach them, and if a different sperm reaches each oocyte, on a one to one basis, then there can be multiple zygotes, each different from the other.

Monozygotic twinning results in identical twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc., from one, single human embryonic zygote which resulted from one sperm meeting one oocyte, whereas fraternal twinning, resulting from different sperm meeting different oocytes, more than one oocyte in one cycle. These fraternal twins are not identical twins, triplets, etc., as monozygotic twins are. Of course, I am referring to in vivo sexual and asexual reproduction, not ex vivo reproduction in this case.

Does that help clear it up for you?

Also, as a matter of fact, two or more human beings can, and do, inhabit one body. This is what we are talking about above regarding twinning. Furthermore, the woman and her single baby, in cases that do not include twinning, are inhabiting one body, although the baby is a temporary inhabitant of mother’s body.

One real issue in the political arena regarding contraception refers to the right of people and private institutions not to be compelled to act in ways that contravene their religious beliefs. For example as a catholic I would not support a candidate who promises to force private store owners to sell contraceptives.

neuquenguy on November 16, 2008 at 10:47 PM

Thanks. Always appreciate your thoughts. Agree on the point about private store owners.

BTW, you are wrong about the use of effect vs affect.

You’re talking about the verb. I used the noun:

they believe that neither candidate will have much of an effect

The noun “affect” means something completely different; the noun “effect” is correct here.

Both Benedict and John Paul II have been clear about their opposition to war in Iraq as well.

DeathToMediaHacks on November 16, 2008 at 8:48 PM

Yes, they have, but they have also indicated that this is another case for the informed conscience.

In other words, I can be a good Catholic and support the Iraqi war. I have, using a well informed conscience, determined that Saddam Hussein and his regime were unjust aggressors, and needed to be stopped. The war was carried out with regard for innocent life. Hence, in my mind, the Iraq War was a Just War.

I would apply the same reasoning to Darfur, as Mr. Obama once indicated he would. When one stands by and allows evil to transpire, one is evil too.

That said, here is the interesting portion of the Catechism of the Catholic Church with respect to the death penalty.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

Which is one reason why I am, like you, deathtomediahacks, opposed to the death penalty. Once the state has immobilized the person and neutralized their ability to do evil, under Catholic teaching (which I honor) there is no need for the death penalty. As an example, once Saddam Hussein had been captured and imprisoned, there was no need to kill him. Note that this does not preclude a resort to deadly force per the first paragraph, if that is the only way to stop an evil in progress.

In this country, where we pride ourselves on the quality of our justice, there is still the possibility of mistake, even with regard to a capital crime. Execution prevents justice in those cases, and I’d rather err and keep the person “on ice” and then have to pay them some large sum of money for their lost years, rather than to take all of their years away from them and later find that the state had done so unjustly.

I find it interesting that you are belaboring a point that was created by the liberal influence on the Catholic Church. So what you ar4e saying is that the Church should be condemned for its liberal abuses. But now when the conservatives try to clean up the Church, we should not understand that and hold them responsible.

Yeah, right.

Hawthorne on November 16, 2008 at 7:12 PM

I am sorry that you are so challenged in your application of simple logic. You statement really does not speak to any points or considerations I raised. But I’ll respond thusly:

I find it interesting that you think one comment and one reply are belaboring. I also find it interesting that you too seek to minimize sex crimes under Church authority.

Is it liberal or conservative when a church or parish or diocese covers up a sex crime? Here’s a hint. God doesn’t care. The crime and the welfare of the victims should be the focus.

I appreciate any protections afforded unborn children. They are literally the voiceless victims of society’s hedonism and moral depravity. I don’t need a priest to confirm this for me.

IMHO the Catholic church took some huge divets in its moral standing in many people’s eyes. You may disagree or defend or minimize that sentiment. God gives you that choice, enjoy.

Oh yeah. Read my initial comment or stay out of my grits.

Dusty on November 16, 2008 at 6:03 PM

If I can summarize what you’re saying, it’s that there is no doubt that Obama is far worse for the pro-life cause than McCain or any pro-life candidate, and that this is probably true of any pro-choice or Democrat candidate. And that this difference outweighs any other differences on foreign or social policy. And you’re probably right. It’s hard for me to say what I think for sure because I don’t share the fundamental Catholic value.

But there are some Catholics who agree fully with the Church on abortion and voted for Obama. They would disagree with your claims that Obama is clearly worse overall given the Church’s values. They may be wrong or misinformed, and it may be obvious that they are wrong, but my only point is that their sin is not that they disagree with the Church on values, but that they’re making the wrong evaluation/decision based on those values.

And I can see why they’d be offended that the Church is calling a calculation that is based on the same values a sin. But I can also see why both you and the Church see the benefit of calling it a sin — both for practical purposes and because accidentally committing a sin is still committing a sin.

Finally, just out of curiosity: I accept your explanation on the specific issue with respect to Obama and Democrats in general. What about my hypothetical, though? There’s always a history, it’s not always clear what effect a policy will have in the future. Obviously there are many cases where experts will argue each side, or where experts will say they just don’t know. In such a case, if the Church happens to take a side, is it okay for them to call those who disagree with them sinners? I can see why it might be, but I’m curious what you think.