Do 41% of all New York City pregnancies end in abortions?

posted at 11:36 am on January 7, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Drudge has this headlined, and Twitter is buzzing over the appalling statistic reported by ABC and CBS stations in New York City over the abortion rate in 2009, as determined by the Big Apple’s Health Department.  For the year, New York City reported 214,454 pregnancy outcomes, of which 126.774 were live births and just 407 were spontaneous terminations — miscarriages.  However, 87,273 pregnancy outcomes were abortions (induced terminations), which constituted 41% of all pregnancy outcomes:

New and eye-opening statistics about the rate of abortions in New York City have been released by the Health Department.

It raises questions about the effectiveness of current birth control education.

41% of all New York City pregnancies end in abortion.

The breakdown by ethnicity is, perhaps, even more startling.  Almost 60% of all pregnancy outcomes in NYC for African-American mothers were abortions; among Hispanics, 41.3%.  Asians and whites had relatively low percentages of abortion outcomes (22.7% and 20.4%, respectively).  ABC points out that the overall number is actually an improvement over 1998, when the citywide rate for abortion outcomes was 46%.

But some care should be taken with these numbers. It’s not a measure of pregnancies, but of pregnancy outcomes.  The data does not show the residential status of the mothers at the time of the outcomes, but only that the outcomes took place in New York City.  It is entirely possible that significant numbers of women seeking abortions come to New York City to get them from outside of the city; in fact, it’s probably more likely than not, considering the concentration of abortion services in major metropolitan areas.  Women seeking abortions may go outside their local area even if abortion services are readily available anyway in order to maximize their anonymity through the process.  That trend would seriously skew an “abortion rate” statistic.

Another possibility, although less likely, would be mothers seeking to have their births outside the city.  Those decisions might come earlier in pregnancy for mothers who prefer a less urban life for raising a family.  Even a small trend in that direction would tend to inflate the “abortion rate” in the city, although probably not much.

The headline that 41% of all New York City pregnancies end in abortions is at best iffy, if not inaccurate, as the statistic measures outcomes and do not control for residence.  One fact is certain: 87,000 abortions in New York City in one year is appalling, no matter how it appears in the statistics.

Addendum: As long as we’re talking about accuracy in terms, though, we should note that the Planned Parenthood spokesperson should try for some improvement, too.  She talks about comprehensive sex education as the key to reducing abortions, including abstinence education, but then asserts that “abstinence by itself is proven to be ineffective.”  Actually, abstinence by itself is the only completely effective way to avoid pregnancy.  She means abstinence education, but since we’ve been delivering comprehensive sex education for decades while abortion rates and unmarried pregnancies have skyrocketed, the same can be said for comprehensive sex education as well.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Hate to be harsh, but I’ve got to be pragmatic. I don’t find this that disturbing. We don’t need any more wards of the state.

And how is this any different than the lefties who say abortion is okay because you might be killing off the next Hitler or drug dealer?

It’s a total B.S. argument.

The way to deal with this issue is to HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE. The problem is that we’ve un-stigmatized pre-marital sex and out-of-wedlock births. We’ve stopped holding MEN accountable for fathering children and stopped emphasizing the importance of marriage and having children within that context.

If we encouraged families instead of demonizing them, we wouldn’t need anyone to be a ward of the state.

That being said, I would much rather we took the money that went to Planned Parenthood and a gazillion other wasteful programs and put it toward caring for children instead of aborting them.

Abortion is a grave evil and has no place in any nation. To prefer abortion to providing for others exposes a vacuous hole where your heart and soul should be. Same for any “conservative” who applauds abortion as a means to end welfare. It’s shameful and I — as conservative as I am — will have none of it.

YOU DO NOT PUNISH AN UNBORN CHILD FOR THE IRRESPONSIBILITY OF HIS PARENTS.

englishqueen01 on January 7, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Tigerlilly,

Well if the VATICAN says its so. Who am I to argue.

Magnus on January 7, 2011 at 9:01 PM

Zekecorlain on January 7, 2011 at 7:55 PM

Zeke, Zeke, Zeke. Have you no shame or do you just promote that old dog-won’t-hunt lie out of sheer boredom because you got stuck in your rut in the culture of death?

People here at HA, for the most part, have pretty sharp minds. Do you think for one minute anyone believes the tired, completely disproved LIE that the shocking increases of our tax dollars to pay for the unending ramping up of “sex-ed” (really just child sexualization taught by pervs, both homo and straight) and contraceptive availability have actually decreased std’s and abortions? When the explosion of std’s and abortions track exactly with the glut of contraception and “sex-ed” pushed down our kid’s throats for the past thirty years until the entire society is vomiting??

You’re at the wrong site for that lie, bub. HuffPo is the place for you.

As for any other discussion, we both know where the other stands, and at this point, with all due respect, would not be the best use of time.

tigerlily on January 7, 2011 at 9:11 PM

Well if the VATICAN says its so. Who am I to argue.

Oh, please. I respectfully ask that you grow up.

I’m so sick and tired of the blatant anti-Catholicism and ignorance of Catholicism that is displayed by conservatives. It makes you no better than liberals.

Catholics believe that the Pope is the authoritative head of the Catholic Church when it comes to matters of faith and morals and that the Catholic Church is the continuous line handed down from the Apostles sent forth by Christ Himself. He continues what Peter started when Christ Himself said Peter was the “rock” on which Christ would build His Church.

This was done to maintain a cohesive and united doctrine with regards to Scripture and Tradition. I note, with relish, that 2,000 years later the central teachings (and teaching body) of the Catholic faith remains unchanged as does Catholic interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. Can’t say the same for Protestantism, with its hundreds of sects, myriad interpretations of the Bible, and nearly daily schisms between already existing denominations.

So I’d say the points go to “the Vatican” on this one.

Scripture clearly says that what Peter (and the Popes who succeeded him) bound and loosed on Earth would be bound and loosed in Heaven. Protected by the Holy Spirit, the Pope is infallible when he teaches on matters of faith and morals.

Therefore, on issues that are part of ages-old Catholic moral teaching — as the prohibitions abortion and contraception have always been — we believe “the Vatican” to be 100% correct.

And until the Lambeth Conference in 1930, just about EVERY Christian denomination at the very least discouraged contraception if not outright prohibited it.

Moreover, in Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI predicted that with a rise in use of contraception, the following would happen:

…a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments

So don’t mock “the Vatican” when it was 100% absolutely proven right on contraception and abortion, as it is 100% absolutely right on condoms and AIDS,

englishqueen01 on January 7, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Contraception leads to abortion. The end.

quiz1 on January 7, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Again, according to you, Up against what the Vatican. I or anything I say to you is wrong because they were proven absolutely right. Therefore I can no longer argue.

Magnus on January 7, 2011 at 9:17 PM

anything I say to you is wrong because they were proven absolutely right.

No. Not everything you say. There is one version of the Truth. Either people acknowledge that truth, or they dwell in falsehoods or half-truths.

I believe other Christian denominations that, for example, have Trinitarian baptism (and a general belief in the Trinity), an anti-abortion view, and a belief in marriage have some of the truths.

I just believe the Catholic Church has the whole and complete truth.

And they have been proven right.

Please — read what was predicted in Humanae Vitae and tell me exactly HOW the Catholic Church was wrong. Tell me on what prediction(s) the Catholic Church failed to accurately foresee what would happen when we removed sex from its proper place (i.e. marriage) and from its proper purpose (i.e. creating life).

ALL of those things have come to fruition. The price we’re paying for it now, and will pay for it in the future, is dear.

But I am sick and tired of every time someone points out — rightly — that Catholicism has a sound grasp on moral issues the termites come scurrying out of the woodwork to mock and belittle.

englishqueen01 on January 7, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Tigerlilly,

Well if the VATICAN says its so. Who am I to argue.

Magnus on January 7, 2011 at 9:01 PM

Magnus, I’m going to assume good will on your part and not that your comment is tinged with prejudice or anti-Catholic bigotry, although one might have to swallow hard to do so.

I specifically ended my previous post to you by saying that I believed the way I did because I was obeying GOD. I said nothing about obeying the Vatican. The Church herself doesn’t make the “rules” regarding faith and morals, but only transmits GOD’S “rules” which are really instructions to His children on how to live so that they will be most happy and joyful in this life and in the next.

I specifically wrote that the Church has some really beautiful teachings on marriage, family life and the dignity of the human person. A mind blowing treasure trove, really. I shared that with you with the thought that you could, or could not, at your discretion, investigate further.

I took the time to answer you thoughtfully and all I got back was a flippant answer, with a strawman attached for good measure. This tells me your mind is closed. Is that your prerogative? Yes. Is that your loss? Maybe. I don’t know and neither will you because those who don’t seek will never find. How do you know what you are missing if you never bother to look in the first place? There is beauty and mystery and unknown riches for the mind and soul that all of us will never receive in this life, myself included, through our own stubborness of will and smallness of heart.

tigerlily on January 7, 2011 at 9:27 PM

englishqueen01 on January 7, 2011 at 9:13 PM

How beautifully and intelligently written! You rocked it, Queenie!

tigerlily on January 7, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Why should surprise people that there are bad consequences from permissive abortion on demand laws? Someday, maybe people will come to realize that the permissiveness with respect to abortion and homosexuality has very bad effect in society.

Phil Byler on January 7, 2011 at 9:36 PM

Margaret Sanger would be proud that Black America what the progressives termed “WEEDS“, is committing suicide.

Bin Laden and the Radical parts of Islam rejoice that America is enjoying it’s cultural suicide (like Europe/Canada). By the year 2025 parts of Europe will have such a large Muslim population they will have effective control of several once free governments in Aborted Europe.

YOU TUBE: “MUSLIM DEMOGRAPHICS”.

PappyD61 on January 7, 2011 at 9:38 PM

Addendum: As long as we’re talking about accuracy in terms, though, we should note that the Planned Parenthood spokesperson should try for some improvement, too. She talks about comprehensive sex education as the key to reducing abortions, including abstinence education, but then asserts that “abstinence by itself is proven to be ineffective.”

PLANNED PARENTHOOD is an evil evil MURDER MACHINE.

Margaret Sanger and her Progressive Ilk put the foundation in place to MURDER TENS OF MILLONS of people. Any guesses where Ms. Sanger is tonight?

PappyD61 on January 7, 2011 at 9:42 PM

tigerlily on January 7, 2011 at 6:52 PM

wow. thanks tigerlily. I only knew a little bit about that story, thanks for filling in the gaps for me. I will look for that. take care.++

ted c on January 7, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Again, according to you, Up against what the Vatican. I or anything I say to you is wrong because they were proven absolutely right. Therefore I can no longer argue.

Magnus on January 7, 2011 at 9:17 PM

You’re free to argue. But if we are speaking about the Church’s teaching on contraception, and why it harms, not helps people, and you have never read one word of that teaching, how can you argue effectively? englishqueen quoted an incredibly prophetic statement from Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, published in 1968, regarding the negative consequences of artifical contraception. She linked it; it’s only about a twenty page read, short, as I noted in my previous post.

btw, at the time Humanae Vitae was written, people were told by the elitist leftists of the time that “The Pill” would be the answer to all mankind’s problems and make women top of the heap. NO ONE IN THE WORLD was speaking out for women and families in defending them against the whirlwind about to be reaped, or even thought in these terms about contraception’s true consequences.

Passage from Humanae Vitae:
“a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments”

Fast forward forty-three years. It’s 2011. Was he prophesying, or no? Each phrase is packed with a prediction of incredible suffering that, imo, has more than come to pass.

P.S. You’ve shared some of your experiences in the welfare system and I read them and didn’t dismiss them out of hand because you have more experience in that realm than do I automatically gave you that respect. In the same way, if you don’t have the knowledge or experience of the things that I or englishqueen do, won’t you return the courtesy of not dismissing them out of hand?

P.P.S. You may not have time now (or ever if that’s what you want) to read Humanae Vitae, but maybe if you want to argue against something, take the above paragraph from HV and tell us why you disagree.

tigerlily on January 7, 2011 at 9:55 PM

tigerlily on January 7, 2011 at 6:52 PM

wow. thanks tigerlily. I only knew a little bit about that story, thanks for filling in the gaps for me. I will look for that. take care.++

ted c on January 7, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Glad you saw it. Think about getting that book, “The Wonder of Guadalupe”. It’s an incredible read. Super interesting, easy to read and great scholarship rolled into one. God bless. ++

tigerlily on January 7, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Almost 60% of all pregnancy outcomes in NYC for African-American mothers were abortions

Margaret Sanger called to say “You go, girls!”

holygoat on January 7, 2011 at 10:30 PM

tigerlily and englishqueen01

Well said. To everything you said.

Thank you so much.

God bless both of you and your families.

Elisa on January 7, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Like these 2 ladies said, Humanae Vitae (1968) was prophetic. Amazingly so in retrospect.

Excerpt:

Consequences of Artificial Methods

17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

Elisa on January 7, 2011 at 10:38 PM

There are actually churches that don’t have preachers, just lay people that rotate preaching. Paying a preacher is the ultimate in misplaced religious value. You care so much that you higher someone to practice your religion for you.

Zekecorlain on January 7, 2011 at 8:12 PM

What in the world are you talking about? SERIOUSLY?

I don’t follow Rome if that is what you are talking about. It figures that someone with such a perverse view of Christianity came out of the Roman church…

You got a lot to learn.

Inanemergencydial on January 7, 2011 at 11:05 PM

Elisa on January 7, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Wow. Thanks for the Humanae Vitae excerpt, Elisa. The words are so easily understood and ring with such refreshing truth and such a tender, fatherly concern. We should probably post excerpts once a week or so and invite everyone of good will to discuss. So many deride the Church for Her views while never having read one word of Her teachings. I think if they did, they would start to rethink a few things. The Church is not the enemy any more than God Himself is. Conservatives especially, imo, need to read this stuff, it will really broaden their already considerable horizons.

tigerlily on January 7, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Yes killing unborn babies is not good, however…

Zekecorlain on January 7, 2011 at 5:50 PM

Reading any further was not required. My God. Your comments are just the worst form of liberal hypocrisy and tripe.

hawkdriver on January 8, 2011 at 8:05 AM

Look at the result of their murdering unborn children. They live packed together in small space, dependent on others for their very existence and when govt fails them, ie, cleanup after a snowstorm, rats feast on garbage when govt fails them again.
They are unable to take care of themselves and are morally bankrupt. This is not the way GOD wants us to live our lives. They are the only ones who can make the changes necessary to live Godly lives. Stopping the murder would be a big step forward.

Kissmygrits on January 8, 2011 at 10:21 AM

hmm the vatican set up a system of rules and laws that actively helped child molesters continue in their filthy habits for decades with ZERO accountability. they have not changed anything and still blame the victims. They have paid out million and millions of dollars to their victims dollars that could have helped people but instead go to pay back people who suffered at priests hands. This is not confined to any one country and is a worldwide systemic problem. Since people do not change much it would be easy to assume that this has always been the case inside the catholic church. These pillars of morality are little more than white washed abusers who prey on the the hearts, minds and literal bodies of their faithful. For any of you catholics to try and preach about morality is the height of hypocrisy and little better than muslims preaching about their peaceful religion.
Having spent time with kinds that were mentally and physically abused by their parents and who have been left paralyzed, traumatized, raped, beaten, and starved or even sold into prostitution. Now you want to tell them it was your god’s will that it all happened? Please as it is our foster care system is so underfunded that kids are still left in abusive situations. But at least there is accountability rather than blind faith in religious leaders. The same leaders that take your money and spend it on fancy buildings, jet flights, and living in opulent luxury. Tell me again why the pope wears gold? Is it the same reason that Bishop Long in Atlanta has a private jet, or the dali lama has a mercedes?

Now tell me which of you volunteers for a 5% tax increase to pay for better social services for our foster kids?

@Hawkdriver how many times do I have to tell you I’m not a liberal, I’m just not like you.

Zekecorlain on January 8, 2011 at 10:39 AM

@Kissmygrits I’m assuming that God personally plows your street and does trash service?

Zekecorlain on January 8, 2011 at 10:42 AM

@Zekecorlain Let’s stop beating around the bush.

On a scale of one to ten, ten being the most…

How much do you hate the catholic church?

Inanemergencydial on January 8, 2011 at 10:51 AM

hmm well lets see a priest did try to molest my mom as a girl and a different priest refused last rites for my great grandfather till he was paid $200 and I really dislike child molesters and those that cover for them, but those are just individuals. I dislike the church because i think it teaches lies to children and it’s followers and teaches them to believe in magic rather than the power of people coming together. but I don’t hate it. I do hate apologists for child molesters though, and people who blame the victims for their abuse.

Zekecorlain on January 8, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Zekecorlain on January 8, 2011 at 10:39 AM

I’m not a Catholic-basher, as I have wonderful Christ-centered Catholic inlaws. However, this Christ-centered Protestant woman does not understand the Catholic doctrine of infallibility, even when contained in the arena of faith and morals. The Bible says we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No exceptions, not even Peter and the other disciples. So, IMO, Christian sin is unfortunate and surely mars our testimony in front of a watching world. But it does not defame our faith. It is for the terminal problem of sin that Christ had to come–and every human, whether in Christ or not, is inflicted with the sin-disease. The difference is that those in Christ have their penalty paid.

Grace_is_sufficient on January 8, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Now tell me which of you volunteers for a 5% tax increase to pay for better social services for our foster kids?

Zekecorlain on January 8, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Why is your answer always more government and never more personal responsibility?

darwin on January 8, 2011 at 1:11 PM

I do hate apologists for child molesters though, and people who blame the victims for their abuse.

Zekecorlain on January 8, 2011 at 11:03 AM

What was the percentage of priests involved with molestation? Do you know?

darwin on January 8, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Grace_is_sufficient,

I have recently learned from a neighbor, that many protestants have a very false understanding of what the Church teaches on papal infallibility, among a great many other things. Let me assure you, as I did her, that NO Catholic (that is at all informed) believes the pope does not sin, even Peter. For heaven’s sake, the man denied Christ three times. However, Jesus specifically stated that Peter was the rock upon which He would build His church. Peter was given the authority to bind and loose on earth and in heaven, by Jesus. Would He have done that if the Holy Spirit would allow Peter to be wrong on these things? I don’t think so. The apostles were given the authority to forgive sins. Jesus said, “as the Father sent me, so I send you.” He told Peter specifically to ‘Feed my sheep’. Three times He asked Peter “Do you love me?” and said this, the same number of times that Peter denied Him. Jesus told the apostles to go and teach and “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.” Paul teaches that the Church is the ‘Pillar of Truth.” The apostles went and taught and handed down the Truth to their successors, and so on and on…to the present Church. The early Church understood the primacy of Peter and his successors. Apostolic succession and tradition are very important. It is what unifies the faithful, making us ‘one’, as Christ desires. He even prayed for it. “Make them one as You and I are one, so that the world will believe that You have sent Me.” With a thousand different ‘churches’ and interpretations of Holy Scripture, is it any wonder non-believers don’t take us seriously? Jesus knew this, as He knows everything. He set His church up so it would be united, and it can only be so with a central guiding authority, the pope, successor of Peter, Vicar of Christ on earth. That could not be more clear, to me, anyway. If I ever would have questioned it before, after reading Humanae Vitae, knowing what I know of Pope Paul VI, I would never question it now. Pope Paul VI was not exactily a hard core conservative, or particularly strong orthodox leader, as evidenced by the failure to reign in liturgical abusers, etc…post Vatican II, but he affirmed the Church’s continuous teaching on contraception, at a time when the tide, inside the Church and out, was crashing against him. People were shocked that he didn’t reverse Church teaching, but the thing is, he couldn’t. The Holy Spirit guides the Church, and the Pope, as the earthly head. That was never more clear to me than in reading and understanding the significance of a man like Paul VI’s writing. Jesus said, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” I trust Jesus and His words. “Thou art Peter…”

This site has wonderful explanations of Church Teaching, as well as fantastic documentation of why it teaches as it does, including the words of the early Church fathers. http://www.catholic-defense.com/

pannw on January 8, 2011 at 1:58 PM

What was the percentage of priests involved with molestation? Do you know?

darwin

I take it your more of the “give 10% to a church and have them rape the kids” kind of person? Why are you so willing to believe that helping people doesn’t mean utilizing the structures that we already have in place and making sure we fund them adequately instead of praying about it and passing them off to be indoctrinated and raped in a church? How is it that you trust random strangers wearing black robes but paid government employees that you actually have over site over are suddenly the boogeymen?

Zekecorlain on January 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. writes: “The underlying premise in the arguments pro-abortionists give against fetal personhood is that non-persons can change into persons. They are saying that a living being can undergo a radical, essential change in its nature during its lifetime. But there is a logical problem here. If the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature. This is because if the being naturally initiates the change,
It must be in its nature from the beginning to do so. If it is in its nature to do so, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life. This means that if we are persons with the right to be free from aggression later in life, we are persons even at conception.” “A False Assumption,” Libertarians for Life,

Irenaeus on January 8, 2011 at 2:26 PM

I take it your more of the “give 10% to a church and have them rape the kids” kind of person? Why are you so willing to believe that helping people doesn’t mean utilizing the structures that we already have in place and making sure we fund them adequately instead of praying about it and passing them off to be indoctrinated and raped in a church? How is it that you trust random strangers wearing black robes but paid government employees that you actually have over site over are suddenly the boogeymen?

Zekecorlain on January 8, 2011 at 2:24 PM

I asked you a simple question and instead of answering it you proceeded to give me a glimpse of your rather twisted and hateful psyche.

Also, you have absolutely no idea what kind of person I am … however, I now have a very good idea what kind of person you are.

darwin on January 8, 2011 at 2:58 PM

passing them off to be indoctrinated and raped in a church public school?

Considering the odds as it relates to child abuse, I’d rather put the child in a church instead of a public school any day. Besides, I’d rather “indoctrinate” with truth as opposed to some damned nonsense as well.

Send_Me on January 8, 2011 at 4:39 PM

darwin on January 8, 2011 at 2:58 PM

He no longer confesses in church, but on public comment threads.

What a weirdo.

Inanemergencydial on January 8, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Abortion is a last resort for responsible adults.

It is not supposed to be a bailout mechanism for teensluts. If we’re going to allow it to be such, there ought to be mandatory tube-tying after the second time.

It’s not supposed to be birth control, either! In need of some? Hike your horny self down to the nearest drugstore or Wal-Mart.

There are 1000 better ways to use our nation’s limited medical staff and supplies than on what is mostly a convenience operation for the irresponsible, and of questionable morality to boot.

Dark-Star on January 8, 2011 at 6:14 PM

. . .People were shocked that he didn’t reverse Church teaching, but the thing is, he couldn’t. The Holy Spirit guides the Church, and the Pope, as the earthly head. . . .
pannw on January 8, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Amen to that. Praise be to God.

Elisa on January 8, 2011 at 11:54 PM

. . . However, this Christ-centered Protestant woman does not understand the Catholic doctrine of infallibility, even when contained in the arena of faith and morals. The Bible says we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No exceptions, not even Peter and the other disciples. . . .

Grace_is_sufficient on January 8, 2011 at 11:14 AM

You are talking about impeccability (someone being sinless.) As pawnn has said, no Pope is sinless, including every single one from St. Peter on.

Impeccable and infallible are 2 different things. A Pope can sin and a Pope can make mistakes. (It appears you already know that infallibility is only related to faith and morals and not worldly or scientific things.)

But when a Pope formally makes a statement of truth on faith and morals, defining it for all Christians to believe, his statement is preserved free from error. Infallible. Meaning that the Holy Spirit is speaking through the Church on this topic and further explaining, detailing or defining a Christian truth. Not a new truth, because all public revelation ended with the last Apostle. But the Holy Spirit uses the Sacred Tradition of the Church (the oral Word of God passed down to us from the Apostles) to explain things further, especially when a truth is questioned or challenged.

Only in this area is a Pope’s formal STATEMENTS on truth infallible. But everything else he does and says in not infallible and he personally is not impeccable (free from sin.)

The Holy Spirit used fallible and sinful men to write the inerrant Sacred Scriptures (written Word of God) and the Holy Spirit used fallible and sinful men to proclaim the infallible (free from error) Sacred Tradition (oral Word of God).

God used sinful men in His Church from the beginning because those are the only ones around. No other kind. lol

Hope this helps.
Good night and God bless you.

Elisa on January 9, 2011 at 12:12 AM

I once heard the NY Archbishop Dolan quote someone and it went something like this.

It is obvious that the Catholic Church is not of mere human origins. Only a divine institution could have survived 2,000 years of ineptitude and mismanagement.

It is very true. No other government or institution is so old. Only the Catholic Church, both Eastern and Western, united under the Bishop of Rome.

Before G.K. Chesterton converted to Catholicism, he wrote this:

“When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its corner-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward – in a word, a man. Peter. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.”

Elisa on January 9, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Do 41% of all New York City pregnancies end in abortions?

The 87,273 aborted care not about the division of them by the sum of them plus not them.

They would rather be in the group of 126,774 that are not them.

What about their choice?

rukiddingme on January 9, 2011 at 1:32 AM

toliver on January 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM

All aborted will not become wards of the state.

All aborted would rather be wards of the state than dead.

rukiddingme on January 9, 2011 at 1:34 AM

I find 87,273 unfathomable in the world let alone one city in the U.S..
Cindy Munford on January 7, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Yep. I haven’t found a word that describes how I find the 50 million aborted in the US.

rukiddingme on January 9, 2011 at 1:37 AM

This just in: crime rate in 2029 drops again.
/ducks
playblu on January 7, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Good thing you ducked, you would have been hit with this question:

What percent of the aborted would have been involved in crime in 2029?

rukiddingme on January 9, 2011 at 1:39 AM

Dead future Democrats. This is a problem?
SurferDoc on January 7, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Yes, it’s a problem.

Let’s prevent all future Republicans from being aborted.

Since you don’t know who will become future Republicans and who will not, let’s prevent them all from being aborted, irrespective of party affiliation.

rukiddingme on January 9, 2011 at 1:42 AM

I also hate to be harsh, but can we state the obvious? These particular blocks have more of a problem with keeping it in their pants and keeping their legs together.

It is obvious these particular blocks have a problem keeping it in their pants and keeping their legs together, thus abortion is okay?

Am I being purposefully offensive?
Yep.
catmman on January 7, 2011 at 12:13 PM.

You succeeded. Here is your trophy.

rukiddingme on January 9, 2011 at 1:51 AM

unclesmrgol on January 7, 2011 at 12:54 PM

It’s a good idea to get the momentum back on our side.

This allows mothers who chose to call their babies non-human to truly have that “Choice”

I would still like to solve this^.

rukiddingme on January 9, 2011 at 1:53 AM

You, uh-em “Conservatives”, are always complaining about paying for Shanaynay’s 6 children with 6 different daddy’s and Illegal Maria’s anchor babies’ health care and welfare.

You forgot to mention you were tired of Nadya Suleman’s 8 children with 1 ‘daddy’.

I thought you’d welcome this news.

It’s good to know you can think and be wrong at the same time.

See I don’t like abortion, and I don’t quite like paying for children that aren’t mine. But once the children are here I’m willing to deal with it.
Magnus on January 7, 2011 at 3:03 PM

The children are here in the womb. You are not willing to deal with it.

I don’t quite like paying for children that aren’t mine

You don’t quite like paying for children that are not yours.

…but wanted to get subsidized program to at least pay something on insurance for the baby…. Magnus on January 7, 2011 at 5:18 PM

You do quite like having others pay for yours.

rukiddingme on January 9, 2011 at 1:58 AM

Holy cow, I agree with Toliver. Is there a full moon out there tonight?
angryed on January 7, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Yep, it turned both of you into werewolves.

You will be fine in the morning.

rukiddingme on January 9, 2011 at 1:59 AM

Yes killing unborn babies is not good, however
Zekecorlain on January 7, 2011 at 5:50 PM

Killing the unborn is not good. There is no however.

rukiddingme on January 9, 2011 at 2:00 AM

Oh, please. I respectfully ask that you grow up.

I’m so sick and tired of the blatant anti-Catholicism and ignorance of Catholicism that is displayed by conservatives. It makes you no better than liberals.

Catholics believe that the Pope is the authoritative head of the Catholic Church when it comes to matters of faith and morals and that the Catholic Church is the continuous line handed down from the Apostles sent forth by Christ Himself. He continues what Peter started when Christ Himself said Peter was the “rock” on which Christ would build His Church.

This was done to maintain a cohesive and united doctrine with regards to Scripture and Tradition. I note, with relish, that 2,000 years later the central teachings (and teaching body) of the Catholic faith remains unchanged as does Catholic interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. Can’t say the same for Protestantism, with its hundreds of sects, myriad interpretations of the Bible, and nearly daily schisms between already existing denominations.

So I’d say the points go to “the Vatican” on this one.

Scripture clearly says that what Peter (and the Popes who succeeded him) bound and loosed on Earth would be bound and loosed in Heaven. Protected by the Holy Spirit, the Pope is infallible when he teaches on matters of faith and morals.

Therefore, on issues that are part of ages-old Catholic moral teaching — as the prohibitions abortion and contraception have always been — we believe “the Vatican” to be 100% correct.

And until the Lambeth Conference in 1930, just about EVERY Christian denomination at the very least discouraged contraception if not outright prohibited it.

Moreover, in Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI predicted that with a rise in use of contraception, the following would happen:

…a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments

So don’t mock “the Vatican” when it was 100% absolutely proven right on contraception and abortion, as it is 100% absolutely right on condoms and AIDS,

englishqueen01 on January 7, 2011 at 9:13 PM

RCs like you believe that the RCC has some kind of God-given authority with which to declare that all efforts at contraception, except for NFP, are sinful; Protestants like me don’t believe that, however – we believe the RCC’s position is extreme, overly religious, and dopey.

Isn’t it wonderful how it’s perfectly ok with the RCC for it to condemn those who consciously reject its “authority”, but it’s not equally ok with the RCC for those who consciously reject its “authority” to condemn it for condemning them because they aren’t willing to buy what the RCC is selling? ‘We can, and will, fairly and legitimately criticize you when we believe you’re wrong, but if you criticize us when you believe we’re wrong, we can, and will, fairly and legitimately cry out that you are bigoted against our Church!’

That’s quite a nice self-righteous, anti-Protestant racket the RCC has set up for itself there, isn’t it? It makes the RCC no better than the Left. Why, it almost sounds cultish!

Bizarro No. 1 on January 9, 2011 at 6:42 AM

Abortion is a last resort for responsible adults.

Abortion is the last resort of the irresponsible, irrespective of age.

It is not supposed to be a bailout mechanism for teensluts.

It is also not supposed to be a bailout mechanism for studs.

If we’re going to allow it to be such, there ought to be mandatory tube-tying after the second time.

Let’s do the medical procedure that sterilizes the respective studs at the same time.

It’s not supposed to be birth control, either!

Agreed, so what is it supposed to be?

In need of some?

No, I had my fill last night. That’s why I was posting so late.

Hike your horny self down to the nearest drugstore or Wal-Mart.

My wife goes to these places. I was unaware she could get some there.

She can no longer go to these places.

There are 1000 better ways to use our nation’s limited medical staff and supplies…

I fully support Planned Parenthood becoming an adoption agency instead of an abortion agency.

than on what is mostly a convenience operation for the irresponsible, and of questionable morality to boot.
Dark-Star on January 8, 2011 at 6:14 PM

About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective.

rukiddingme on January 9, 2011 at 12:28 PM

We can, and will, fairly and legitimately criticize you when we believe you’re wrong, but if you criticize us when you believe we’re wrong, we can, and will, fairly and legitimately cry out that you are bigoted against our Church!’

When those arguments are rooted in bigotry, yes.

Because this is the difference is this: For me, at least, I *know* what I am arguing against (Protestantism) and why it’s inaccurate. My arguments are not based in rumor, or stereotype, or superficial digs at the flaws of Protestants.

Which, for the record, are starting to come back to the supposedly “dopey” teachings on birth control. See the Quiverfull movement, for example. Or this group, which is Protestant. Or this book.

You are perfectly free to disagree with the Catholic Church. We’re free to think you’re wrong. The only way we’ll know for sure is at the end of time.

However, that being said, just as Protestants are free to believe in sola scriptura or sola fide, Catholics are FREE to believe and preach in the authority of the Pope. Goodness knows the Bible has lots of evidence to support the latter.

But you have an obligation to understand *what* and *why* the Catholic Church teaches what it does in its fullness before you criticize it.

And THAT’S what I have a problem with. The mocking tone, the complete lack of intellect, the ignorance of Catholicism.

englishqueen01 on January 9, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on January 9, 2011 at 6:42 AM

The Church (and I agree) says that some who criticize or differ with the Church simply have a difference of opinion and, we believe, they are wrong and that all truth is important. Others are bigoted or ignorant or anti-Catholic. I don’t know you well enough to know to which category you belong.

If following the Word of God makes some call me “cultish,” I can live with that. “A rose by any other name . . .” is still the faith of my Lord Jesus Christ handed down from the Apostles.

He who hears you, hears me, and the person who rejects you rejects me.” (Luke 10:16)

“the house of God, the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth.”
(1 Timothy 3:15)

The New Testament has passages forbidding “sorcery” amongst sins of the flesh and immorality. Actually the original Greek word they translate as “sorcery” is “pharmakeia.” The pagans and occultist of that day had potions and drugs that were spermicides to prevent pregnancy and others that caused spontaneous abortions.

And of course Genesis talks of the sin of Onan, who “spilled his sperm.”

The early Christians and all Christians up until a hundred years ago agreed with today’s Catholic position on artificial birth control. So it’s hard for me to see how someone would call it “extreme, overly religious and dopey.” You may have a different opinion or you may not believe the Bible or earliest Christians, but “extreme, overly religious or “dopey?” I don’t think that can be supported.

The FACT is that Humanae Vitae in 1968 prophetically foretold the evil consequences of societal acceptance of artificial birth control.

Excerpt:
marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. . . . and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation . . a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.”

The FACT is that there was less promiscuity and infidelity when there was a risk of pregnancy.

The FACT is that when the link between sexual love and the possibility of procreation and family (which necessitates committed relationships) is severed by society, it leads to recreational sex and increased homosexuality and modern scientific toying with life.

The FACT is that like prophets of old, the Catholic Church was the lone voice of opposition and was mocked and criticized in some circles for it, for the Church became a “sign of contradiction.”

The FACT is that the Catholic position was the position of all Christians up until a hundred years ago and that birth control became widespread in the US because Christian denominations said it was OK.

The FACT is that increased use of artificial birth control leads to increased abortions. Because people rely on methods that can never be 100%, even if practiced correctly without error, and when they fail (as they often enough do) there are more unwanted pregnancies which statistics and surveys tell us lead to more abortions.

Rather than decreasing abortions, the widespread use of artificial birth control, especially by our youth, increases the number of abortions. FACT.

Elisa on January 9, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Elisa on January 9, 2011 at 6:44 PM

+10000

Excellent comment, excellent post.

englishqueen01 on January 9, 2011 at 7:34 PM

But you have an obligation to understand *what* and *why* the Catholic Church teaches what it does in its fullness before you criticize it.

And THAT’S what I have a problem with. The mocking tone, the complete lack of intellect, the ignorance of Catholicism.

englishqueen01 on January 9, 2011 at 6:32 PM

What do you say to non-RCs who have looked at RC dogma, and have come to the conclusion that the RCC is a cult? How could/should such a person respect the RCC the way you want? Do you believe it’s wrong for people who aren’t ignorant of a religion’s teachings to mock those teachings if they find them ludicrous, even if they are taking care to not personally attack that religion’s believers?

Bizarro No. 1 on January 9, 2011 at 7:46 PM

What do you say to non-RCs who have looked at RC dogma, and have come to the conclusion that the RCC is a cult? How could/should such a person respect the RCC the way you want? Do you believe it’s wrong for people who aren’t ignorant of a religion’s teachings to mock those teachings if they find them ludicrous, even if they are taking care to not personally attack that religion’s believers?

Well, you have yet to prove your assertions at all. I’ve seen nothing in any of your comments that proves you know anything about Catholicism. Calling it a “cult,” for example, doesn’t help.

And since I do not separate myself from my faith, attacking my faith is a personal attack on me. Always will be.

englishqueen01 on January 9, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Well, you have yet to prove your assertions at all. I’ve seen nothing in any of your comments that proves you know anything about Catholicism. Calling it a “cult,” for example, doesn’t help.

And since I do not separate myself from my faith, attacking my faith is a personal attack on me. Always will be.

englishqueen01 on January 9, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Since I am aware that the RCC considers the use of condoms to be sinful even if you are using one with your spouse, it proves I know more than you are giving me credit for. And, I know a heck of a lot more about the RCC than that – it’s not like it doesn’t publicize its dogma for all the world to see! LOL

Do you know what ad hominem means, and what its significance is? You are making my argument for me here – how can someone rationally attack the RCC without offending people like you who take the impersonal personally when it comes to the RCC? Answer: you can’t.

You aren’t leaving room for a distinction between a person’s beliefs and her/his self, which means you’ve put yourself in a privileged class that finds itself above fair criticism in regards to the RCC. That explains why you took Magnus’ innocuous comment about the Vatican as a disrespectful, immature one even though it wasn’t.

Because of your defense mechanism which interprets both intellectual and emotional arguments as emotional ones, there’s no good reason for someone to debate/disagree with you about the RCC, as you’ll only feel attacked.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 10, 2011 at 7:09 PM

The Church (and I agree) says that some who criticize or differ with the Church simply have a difference of opinion and, we believe, they are wrong and that all truth is important. Others are bigoted or ignorant or anti-Catholic. I don’t know you well enough to know to which category you belong.

If following the Word of God makes some call me “cultish,” I can live with that. “A rose by any other name . . .” is still the faith of my Lord Jesus Christ handed down from the Apostles.

Elisa on January 9, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Your goodness is shining through here. :)

I don’t have problems with a RC like you; the problem I have is with the RCC hierarchy, which does say that someone like me who rejects its ‘authority’ cannot be a real Christian. A simple example of this is contained within Munificentissimus Deus, which is an ex cathedra declaration about the Assumption of Mary. From M.D: “Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”

As it reads, if someone like me doubts that that proclamation came from God Himself, I’ve completely fallen away from the divine. There’s no wiggle room there at all – I mean, how can you argue with God and win? LOL I don’t/can’t respect that kind of dogma.

I agree with the gist of the rest of your post. The RCC undoubtedly has a lot of wisdom about the outcome of irresponsible sex.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 10, 2011 at 7:42 PM

Since I am aware that the RCC considers the use of condoms to be sinful even if you are using one with your spouse, it proves I know more than you are giving me credit for.

Well, couple this with the fact you’ve only said the RCC is “cultish” and that’s the only argument you’ve offered.

WHY is it sinful to use a condom, according to Catholic teaching and WHY is this wrong? If you can answer that question, then you’ll be closer to my point. Because you haven’t rationally answered any of the questions about your criticism that I’ve asked. Demonstrate that you’ve studied this by giving specific examples of your criticism, that’s what I’m asking for.

There’s no wiggle room there at all – I mean, how can you argue with God and win? LOL I don’t/can’t respect that kind of dogma.

To which I would counter: What’s the point of faith, if you’re looking for “wiggle room”? Either God is Truth, or He isn’t. Either what He says is binding, or it’s not.

Because of your defense mechanism which interprets both intellectual and emotional arguments as emotional ones, there’s no good reason for someone to debate/disagree with you about the RCC, as you’ll only feel attacked.

I only feel attacked when the basis of an argument is “the RCC is cultish” but there’s no citation or explanation WHY it’s “cultish.” I have demonstrated here, many times, that I can hold a rational, intellectual debate when the opposing argument is presented rationally and intellectually.

I repeat: saying “It’s cultish!” and then not explaining why is not an intellectual argument.

That explains why you took Magnus’ innocuous comment about the Vatican as a disrespectful, immature one even though it wasn’t.

His tone was sarcastic. I read it as such.

englishqueen01 on January 10, 2011 at 8:05 PM

I agree with the gist of the rest of your post. The RCC undoubtedly has a lot of wisdom about the outcome of irresponsible sex.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 10, 2011 at 7:42 PM

The “gist” of my post was not simply that the Catholic Church has “a lot of wisdom on irresponsible sex.” The gist was that it had a lot of wisdom about ALL artificial birth control and the important point is where (or from Who) that wisdom came from. Like I said, the Catholic position was the position of all Christians up until a hundred years ago and like prophets of old, the Catholic Church was the lone voice of opposition and was mocked and criticized in some circles for it, for the Church became a “sign of contradiction.”

It shows that the Holy Spirit is working through the Church in her teachings.

Of course you might think it shows that up until a hundred years ago all Christian denominations were “extreme, overly religious or dopey,” but now they straightened out and found “truth.” I’d like to know the benefits to society of widespread use of artificial birth control after Protestant denominations approved its use. What were the spiritual and emotional benefits to marriages and families and society? Facts might help prove your opinion.

Elisa on January 11, 2011 at 1:33 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on January 10, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on January 10, 2011 at 7:42 PM

While it’s very nice of you to say I have “goodness” when I gave you the benefit of the doubt, you seem to have a problem with englishqueen01, which I can’t understand. She was absolutely right about Magnus being sarcastic, and he was “disrespectful” towards Catholics. His Vatican remark was uncalled for. As were yours about Catholic teachings being “dopey” and “cultish.” I chose to believe that you are sincerely misinformed and mistaken about the Church. By the grace of God, I pray one day you open your heart and mind to the truth about the Church. But you must first realize that you don’t know as much about the Church’s teachings as you think.

Englishqueen01 has defended our faith reasonably, lucidly, politely and from her heart. (and I love her for it.) She and I are still waiting for you to demonstrate that you truly understand Catholic teachings and prove why the Catholic faith is “cultish.” Just knowing condoms aren’t allowed and throwing around a few encyclicals is not enough. Why aren’t condoms allowed? Is the reason unreasonable, arbitrary, “dopey” or “cultish?” You can’t just throw around insults without backing them up.

Taking attacks and mistaken notions about the faith personally is a good thing and I pray God blesses englishqueen01 for it. Because the Catholic Church is like our family and we love it.

And please don’t separate me from the Catholic Church’s “hierarchy,” if by that you mean the Pope and any orthodox Bishops who uphold Catholic teachings and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Because I agree with all of it.

You are mistaken about Catholic teachings. The Church doesn’t say that someone who rejects the Church’s authority “cannot be a real Christian” and that they have “completely fallen away from the divine.” We believe that you do not have all the truths of Jesus Christ and that your are wrong about some things.

We believe the Church is more than just the spiritual body of all believers (all Christian churches all put together), because the Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth,” so it can’t be made up of some truth and some untruth. Logically, the Church has to be either the Catholic Church (East and West) united in faith beliefs or one of the various Protestant denominations or one of the numerous independent nondenominational congregations. Only one of those. Even if the Church isn’t the Catholic Church, it can’t be all of these put together, because they all teach different things, sometimes on important beliefs about salvation.

We believe that Christ founded a physical Church (not just spiritual) and that it was singular since He called it “my Church” and the Apostles He founded it on called it “the Church.” We believe that you are not in full communion with that singular and physical Church founded by Jesus Christ, which “subsists” in the Catholic Church. And we believe that at some point everyone who will be saved will believe all the truths of Jesus Christ, (even if Christ Himself explicitly presents them to that soul in the moments between life and death), because in Heaven there can be no untruth, only truth, even in small things.

Either the Church is right or it is wrong. If it is right, then all who love Christ will eventually believe her teachings. If the Church is wrong, then I would want to only believe the truths that Christ tells me before entering Heaven. I would think all Christians would feel that way, if it turns out that the Catholic Church is correct. Not like someone can go up to Christ in Heaven and say, “I think your mother is a nice lady and all, but I don’t believe she was sinless or that she was a perpetual virgin or that you allow her to hear when people ask for her prayers.” That’s not going to fly. If Christ says, “well, those things are true,” you can’t say, “well I don’t want to believe them.”

There lies the point of why the Church says that all Christians need to believe in the fullest truths of Jesus Christ and belong to the Church, which we believe come from the Holy Spirit and are taught by the Church (East and West.) Because we believe they are true. It would make no sense for us to believe they are true, but think that all Christians don’t need to believe them. We aren’t trying to be arrogant or uncharitable.

All who love the Lord, love truth, all truth. (Of course one must be convinced of it by having an open mind and heart.) Because Jesus said, “I am the way, the TRUTH and the life” and Jesus told Pilate, “I came to testify to the truth.”

Phillipians 1:27 and 2:2:
“that you are standing firm in one spirit, with ONE MIND struggling together for the faith of the gospel, . . . by being of the SAME MIND, with the same love, united in heart, THINKING ONE THING.”

Does that sound “cultish?”

The Church also teaches through the Catechism that the Holy Spirit is alive in all Christians and works through all Christian communities. He is in the hearts of all believers. No Christian is devoid of truth and all Christian belong to Christ.

Some Christians are “fully incorporated” into the Catholic Church and some are partially incorporated into the Catholic Church. ALL CHRISTIAN BELONG IN SOME WAY AND TO SOME EXTENT TO THE ONE TRUE PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL CATHOLIC CHURCH, to the extent that they agree with Catholic teachings. So if a non Catholic believes that Jesus is Lord and Savior and forgives sins, believes in the Trinity and is baptized in the name of the Trinity, etc., then they are incorporated into the Catholic Church partially and to that extent. A believing Catholic would be fully incorporated into the Church. Some Catholics are not believing Catholics. Only if one is aware of what the Catholic Church is and refuses to enter into the Church when God calls them to it, even till the very end, would they not be saved in the end. Because they would willingly be rejecting truth because of a sinful reason, like pride, obstinance, laziness, indifference, etc.

The Catechism says, there are “elements of sanctification” found outside the physical boundaries of the Catholic Church.

And Jesus said, “Where two or more are gathered in my name, there I will be.”

I will post excerpts from the Catechism.

God bless you.

Elisa on January 11, 2011 at 1:52 AM

For Bizarro No 1

The important things to remember about the current divisions in Christianity is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#I

“more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of BOTH SIDES WERE TO BLAME. The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body . . . do not occur without human sin.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church #817)

CCC #818:
ALL WHO HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED BY FAITH IN BAPTISM ARE INCORPORATED IN CHRIST; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

CCC #819:
“Furthermore, MANY ELEMENTS OF SANCTIFICATION AND OF TRUTH” ARE FOUND OUTSIDE THE VISIBLE CONFINES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s SPIRIT USES THESE CHURCHES AND ECCLESAL COMMUNITIES AS MEANS OF SALVATION, WHOSE POWER DERIVES FROM THE FULLNESS OF GRACE AND TRUTH that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

And as CCC #820 says, as Christians we should pray for full unity one day:

“Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, SUBSISTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.” Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: “That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me.” The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.”

CCC #836-838:
Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 “ALL MEN are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, IN DIFFERENT WAYS, BELONG OR ARE ORDERED: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”320

837 “FULLY INCORPORATED into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who – by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion – are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”321
838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.”322 THOSE “WHO BELIEVE IN CHRIST AND HAVE BEEN PROPERLY BAPTIZED ARE PUT IN A CERTAIN, ALTHOUGH IMPERFECT, COMMUNION WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”324

IF YOU READ ONLY ONE THING, READ #847 All sincere men may achieve salvation, including non-Catholics and even non-Christians. Only God knows what He is calling each individual to and only He can read their heart.

CCC #846-848:
Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless SEEK GOD WITH A SINCERE HEART, AND , MOVED BY GRACE, TRY IN THEIR ACTIONS TO DO HIS WILL AS THEY KNOW IT THROUGH THE DICTATES OF THEIR CONSCIENCE – THOSE TOO MAY ACHIEVE ETERNAL SALVATION.337

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

Elisa on January 11, 2011 at 1:56 AM

Well, couple this with the fact you’ve only said the RCC is “cultish” and that’s the only argument you’ve offered.

I wasn’t arguing that, even though I believe it to be true – I was merely stating my observation that I find the RCC’s behavior to be cultish.

WHY is it sinful to use a condom, according to Catholic teaching and WHY is this wrong? If you can answer that question, then you’ll be closer to my point. Because you haven’t rationally answered any of the questions about your criticism that I’ve asked. Demonstrate that you’ve studied this by giving specific examples of your criticism, that’s what I’m asking for.

I have read the RCC’s explanation why condom usage is ‘sinful’, and I don’t agree with its reasoning.

Usage of NFP, which the RCC approves, is no different than usage of a condom, in the sense of sharing the goal of avoiding pregnancy. Since intent in this case matters much more to me than methodology does, I don’t really care about the distinction the RCC makes between the two methods – I believe it is engaging in rationalization on the matter.

Besides that, I don’t believe God cares either if someone uses a condom or not.

There’s no wiggle room there at all – I mean, how can you argue with God and win? LOL I don’t/can’t respect that kind of dogma.

To which I would counter: What’s the point of faith, if you’re looking for “wiggle room”? Either God is Truth, or He isn’t. Either what He says is binding, or it’s not.

I didn’t mean “no wiggle room” the way you inferred. What I meant by it is that the RCC made an unequivocal declaration that willful rejection of the doctrine contained within M.D. would result in God’s wrath, and it would be a sign that the rejector of M.D. is not a Christian.

Pardon me for not believing that such sentiments would come from God!

Because of your defense mechanism which interprets both intellectual and emotional arguments as emotional ones, there’s no good reason for someone to debate/disagree with you about the RCC, as you’ll only feel attacked.

I only feel attacked when the basis of an argument is “the RCC is cultish” but there’s no citation or explanation WHY it’s “cultish.” I have demonstrated here, many times, that I can hold a rational, intellectual debate when the opposing argument is presented rationally and intellectually.

Would you demonstrate how someone could impersonally and inoffensively make the argument to you that the RCC has a human, not divine, origin?

His tone was sarcastic. I read it as such.

englishqueen01 on January 10, 2011 at 8:05 PM

All sarcasm directed at the RCC is disrepectful, and immature in nature? How dare someone not pay due homage to the Pope!

Like I originally said, the RCC is a sacred cow both doctrinally and for many of its members, which is why I believe it’s a Christian cult, not a legitimate denomination.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 11, 2011 at 4:42 AM

Elisa on January 11, 2011 at 1:56 AM

None of what you posted gets around the fact that willful rejection of RC authority is a rejection of God, according to the RCC’s own dogma. That’s not rationally disputable.

To be clear, I’ll say that I do believe many RCs are genuine Christians, as Christianity has more to do with what’s in a person’s heart than her/his head. I wish the RCC’s hierarchy understood this!

Bizarro No. 1 on January 11, 2011 at 4:58 AM

Elisa on January 11, 2011 at 1:56 AM

I should have included this in my last post for clarity’s sake: I realize that the RCC acknowledges in word that the content of person’s heart is what counts most, but I don’t know how that acknowledgement could be practiced by it when it contradicts other of its supposedly divine teachings e.g. how could a person’s belief, or non-belief, in the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary be more indicative of what’s in that person’s heart rather than in her/his head?

I see a huge, insurmountable dilemma within the RCC’s dogma over this.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 11, 2011 at 6:12 AM

Like I originally said, the RCC is a sacred cow both doctrinally and for many of its members, which is why I believe it’s a Christian cult, not a legitimate denomination.

So then what do you define as “legitimate”?

To be clear, I’ll say that I do believe many RCs are genuine Christians, as Christianity has more to do with what’s in a person’s heart than her/his head. I wish the RCC’s hierarchy understood this!

So wait…my “emotional” defense and arguments for the Church are wrong…but it’s what’s in a person’s heart that matters more than the head?

No offense, but that sounds like a bit of a double standard to me.

englishqueen01 on January 11, 2011 at 6:29 AM

None of what you posted gets around the fact that willful rejection of RC authority is a rejection of God, according to the RCC’s own dogma. That’s not rationally disputable.

I totally think it is. I go back to my original point: what is the purpose of faith if there is the ability to interpret away what one believes?

I see this all the time in the Anglican/Episcopal church, which has twisted itself into knots in an attempt to justify and Biblically-base things like abortion (which one A/E bishop referred to as a “blessing” in a sermon) and gay marriage.

For me, it makes no sense – rationally or emotionally – to get up on Sunday and go to a church that says “We believe this…unless it makes someone feel bad” or “We’re going to reinterpret Scripture for the 21st century to make it relevant to us, rather than making our faith and lives relevant to the unchanging truth of Scripture and tradition.”

So, therefore, the fact the Catholic Church has dogmas, has a Catechism that says, “Hey, this is what God wants, and this is what breaks your relationship with God” and that this won’t fundamentally change regardless of what the rest of the world wants (e.g. gay marriage, married clergy, women “priests”) is actually something that works in the Church’s favor.

Scripture clearly states that Jesus named Peter the “rock” on which He founded His church; Catholics are the only denomination that can trace the lineage of priests/bishops/Popes back to Peter and those first Apostles.

I don’t think there’s anything more rational than a Church with 2,000+ years of tradition — rooted in Scripture and the original acts of the Apostles — to say rejecting what we believe is a rejection of God.

And I’ve never known a Protestant denomination that didn’t, deep down, agree that rejecting their theology was a rejection of God.

For crying out loud, my former Pastor told me upon my conversion to Catholicism, that I was going to hell. And so the “rigid Catholic dogma!” argument rings very, very hollow for me.

englishqueen01 on January 11, 2011 at 6:36 AM

e.g. how could a person’s belief, or non-belief, in the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary be more indicative of what’s in that person’s heart rather than in her/his head?

Because we’re to love God and give due homage to His Mother. Catholics believe that Mary was sinless from her conception because of the GRACE OF GOD, in order to make her worthy to carry His Son and give Jesus His total and complete human nature.

Because we believe Mary’s words, when she told the angel she was a handmaid of the Lord and said that the angel’s tidings – she would conceive and bear a child to be named Jesus – should be done to her according to God’s will.

In other words, all Catholic teaching about Mary has to do with reflecting HER love and obedience to God in our own lives. Mary is held up as an example of what it means to love God with all your heart, and to submit to His will with perfect trusting faith.

Showing that one at least acknowledges Marian doctrine indicates one has love for God in his/her heart.

englishqueen01 on January 11, 2011 at 6:39 AM

Usage of NFP, which the RCC approves, is no different than usage of a condom, in the sense of sharing the goal of avoiding pregnancy. Since intent in this case matters much more to me than methodology does, I don’t really care about the distinction the RCC makes between the two methods – I believe it is engaging in rationalization on the matter.

Except that your assumption, which is incorrect, is that Catholic teaching on sexuality and contraception is solely about pro-creation. But it’s not.

It’s also about the unitive nature of the marital act. And since Catholics believe marriage is a sacrament that is indissoluble (unless one or both of the parties could not enter freely into it at the time of marriage, in which case an annulment is the only course of action), the teachings on even condoms make sense.

Catholic teaching on marriage believes the relationship reflects that of Christ (the “groom”) and his Bride (the church), and that the relationship between the two is totally selfless and totally giving of one another.

While you may, technically, be correct that condoms and NFP both prevent pregnancy (without the abortifacient effects of the pill), you forget that the physical and symbolic barrier created by a condom mars the unitive aspect of marriage.

It puts a wall between what is supposed to be a selfless relationship and a complete and total giving of one’s self. It says that the couple either doesn’t totally accept the other spouse’s fertility, or is otherwise in need of “protection” from the one person to whom they are to give and share everything as husband and wife.

Again, perfectly rational and totally focused on forming the heart to the vocation of marriage.

englishqueen01 on January 11, 2011 at 6:51 AM

Would you demonstrate how someone could impersonally and inoffensively make the argument to you that the RCC has a human, not divine, origin?

Bizarro No. 1 on January 11, 2011 at 4:42 AM

Maybe if they could use Scripture, early Church history and facts and not engaging in belittling someone else’s faith with unsubstantiated “opinions” that are derogatory. Like calling it “cultish” and “dopey.” Those words mean nothing unless they are backed up. Of course I already know that no one can prove from Scripture or early Church history or facts that the Catholic Church is not of Divine origin and that it is not the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels.

All sarcasm directed at the RCC is disrepectful, and immature in nature? How dare someone not pay due homage to the Pope!

Like I originally said, the RCC is a sacred cow both doctrinally and for many of its members, which is why I believe it’s a Christian cult, not a legitimate denomination.”

Bizarro No. 1 on January 11, 2011 at 4:42 AM

Please don’t insult our intelligence. You can’t name call without any facts to back it up and without any provocation and then say that you were just minding your own business and simply politely discussing religion and now YOU are the one being unfairly attacked and we are overly sensitive. Again, where is the proof that Catholic teachings are “dopey” or “cultish.” Your unprovoked criticism is not “rational.”

And yes, ALL sarcasm against any religion to someone’s face or publicly is disrespectful. I never do it and (while there might be some Catholics here who have and I haven’t seen it) I don’t see Catholics out of the blue start disrespecting Protestants here. But time and again, a few Protestants here do it to Catholics. They disrespect and tell untruths about our faith a lot. Let’s not play games with what actually happens here and other places. Some feel entitled to disrespect the Catholic faith. It’s big and old and it can take the heat, I guess.

And I guess we are to just sit back and shut up when we see the disrespect and untruth so we aren’t called crybabies or overly sensitive or told we hold “sacred cows.” Please. Like the old saying goes, “don’t spit on my shoe and tell me it’s raining.”

1 Peter 3:15-16: “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence,”

Do you think St. Peter would think words like “dopey” and “cultish” qualify?

Phillipians 1:27 and 2:2:
“that you are standing firm in one spirit, with ONE MIND struggling together for the faith of the gospel, . . . by being of the SAME MIND, with the same love, united in heart, THINKING ONE THING.”

St. Irenaeus – Against Heresies:
“the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same.”

Are St. Paul in Scripture here (and in many other passages that say similar things) and this second century Bishop in good standing (who was taught the faith by a disciple of St. John the Apostle himself) being “cultish?”

None of what you posted gets around the fact that willful rejection of RC authority is a rejection of God, according to the RCC’s own dogma. That’s not rationally disputable.

Bizarro No. 1 on January 11, 2011 at 4:58 AM

To “willfully reject the authority of the Church of Our Lord, one would have to believe or suspect that it is the Church of Our Lord. If someone sincerely and honestly does not believe it is, then there is no sin in not following the Church, until the time that Christ calls that person to do so. (and all who will be saved will be called to all His truths in the end, even if it is in the last moments between life and death. Because in Heaven there will be no untruth, only truth and all will want to believe only truth.)

So you are wrong about what the Church teaches. Someone who is rejecting the Church’s teachings innocently is not rejecting God. But if someone is rejecting them knowingly or if one suspects they are being called by God in whispers to begin to investigate or take a further or deeper look than previously or to believe, and if they refuse God’s call, then they would be rejecting God.

Only God reads the hearts and minds of men. And the Church knows that and teaches it and not just “in word.”

But “God will not be mocked,” as Scripture says. One can’t suspect, but bury their heads forever. We need to answer His call on God’s time, not ours. If one does not answer God’s call because of a sinful reason like pride, hatred, being obstinate, laziness, indifference to truth, etc. then they are rejecting God’s grace and call. If someone is sincere and loving in their disagreement at the present time, then they have nothing to fear. Wait on the Lord and the Lord will wait on them. Some things take time. And God is outside of time and space and has an eternity to dispel untruth.

Elisa on January 12, 2011 at 2:04 AM

how could a person’s belief, or non-belief, in the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary be more indicative of what’s in that person’s heart rather than in her/his head?

Bizarro No. 1 on January 11, 2011 at 6:12 AM

It would depend on what was in that person’s heart that prevented them from believing one of the truths of the Lord, as taught by His Church. (as I explained in my last post) A sincere disbelief is one thing, but a willful indifference is another. A person who looks deeply into it, but still doubts it, is one thing. But a person who has not investigated it fully yet rejects it is another. Sincere doubt along with prayer to the Lord for proper discernment is not sinful in any way. Outright rejection of something that could very well be possible truth or belittling it or disrespecting it is another thing.

God is truth. Jesus said, “I am the way and the TRUTH and the life” and that He came to testify to the truth. Anyone who loves God loves the truth. All truth and seeks it always.

That is why truths in all things related to God are important.

You used the example of Mary’s Assumption. What exactly is “ludicrous,” unreasonable, “dopey” or IMPOSSIBLE about the following?

The Catholics Church (the 21 Eastern Catholic Churches fully united with the Western/ Roman Catholic Church) and all the Eastern Orthodox Churches believe in the Assumption of Mary’s body into Heaven, either right after she died or that she simply fell asleep. Usually dormition, falling asleep, in the early Church was a euphemism for a Christian dying. The Holy Spirit has not revealed to us which is the case.

These are the only 2 places in the whole world who claim the Blessed Mother may have lived or died there. She is said to have lived in Ephesus with St. John before moving back to Jerusalem before her death. Yet in these 2 places and no where else in the whole world was there ever even a hint of a tradition, even in the earliest times, that anyone had Mary’s body, her relics. Only the tradition of an empty tomb.

Which would VERY UNUSUAL. With all the relics of all Apostles and Saints going around, true and questionable ones, why would there never be a legend or tradition of the relics of Jesus’ own mother? Some Saints have 2 cities who claim to have their relics, some have one part of the Saint and some another. It’s been said that if all the piece of the True Cross were collected together, there would be enough to make Noah’s Ark. (I don’t know if that is true and I personally believe that some of the True Cross relics may be true. But you get my point.) With all the relics out there, wouldn’t the relics of Jesus’ mother be a big prize for some ancient city? Yet there never was one story of them, EVER, East or West.

We know from Scripture that all the bodies of the faithful will be resurrected and assumed into Heaven. Mary’s body was one of the “firstfruits” that the Bible talks about.

And Scripture tells us that Enoch and Elijah’s bodies were assumed into Heaven. Enoch never died like it says of the other Patriarchs. Genesis 5 tells us that “Then Enoch walked with God, and he was no longer here, because God took him.” And you all know the chariot story of Elijah. Maybe even Melchizedek might have been assumed into Heaven, because Hebrews 7 tells us “without beginning of days or end of life.” (a type for Christ) That one isn’t as clear as the other 2.

So if there is a precedent, why the problem with Mary’s body being assumed? Would that be impossible? I’m sure we can all agree she was the quintessential Christian, who was “full of grace” by Our Savior and before He was even conceived in her womb, according to Gabriel. So if her body would be resurrected at the end of time, it is just a timing difference we are talking about here.

Revelation 12 says, “The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God” and “the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert.” Apocalyptic type writing like this can legitimately mean several things on different levels all at the same time. The Church has always taught that the woman can be the Church, can be Israel and the plain and literal meaning that she is Mary.

I am going to assume that all I’ve said here does not convince you. That obviously I have not proven beyond a doubt that Mary’s body was assumed. But you would have to agree that Mary’s body being assumed is entirely possible and does not contradict Scripture.

So my point is that if a Christian cannot deny the belief in Mary’s Assumption and only has sincere present doubts about it, then they should not reject the belief outright because it is Catholic. They can just say, “I’m not convinced right now” and prayerfully ponder it now and then over the years. Be an agnostic on the subject. But they should never call the belief “cultish” or “dopey.”

It should not be dismissed or disrespected because the belief is reasonable and ancient and entirely POSSIBLE and fitting.

God bless you and all here.

Elisa on January 12, 2011 at 2:11 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3