Why the Christian Right is Wrong by Michael Pierce

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

First a disclaimer; I am myself a practicing Christian believer so I’m not attacking from the left, right or center. I’m rebuking sadly in Christian love.

In anticipation of the criticism I will receive for not including the so-called "Christian" Left in this piece I can say only that most Christian leftists have long ago abandoned normative Christian practices. There is therefore, no common ground from which I can say anything to them – they make it up as they go along and answer to a political, rather than a Biblical calling and so I must leave them to their own devices.

President George Bush and his Republican yes men find their largest and most gullible group of constituents among the Christian Right – a loosely defined amalgamation of churches and denominations that typically includes most fundamentalist Christians, particularly in the South.

I say "gullible" because few other groups are so easily led by slogans, so regularly ignore substance, and receive so little in return. I say "fundamentalist" in the strictest sense meaning those who believe that scripture is God’s Word and useful for teaching, correcting and instructing. Note that "fundamentalist" is not a pejorative!

Since I believe much as they do why then am I critical of Christians who support the War on Drugs and the Invasion of Iraq? Who often support government schools and line up for government monies to use in "Christian" causes. There is a simple and compelling answer to that.

The US government as it now exists is a government of scofflaws and Christians are required to uphold the actual law of the land – not merely nod their heads in passive acceptance of what to all intents and purposes is anarchy. The US constitution, imperfect document that it is, remains the law governing our Republic just as scripture governs our theology.

When Christians support extra-constitutional actions by government, even for what they rationalize as "good reasons," they themselves become outlaws, taking it upon themselves to write law rather than obey it.

Has not the left used the same tactics and worked around rather than with the constitution to justify their attacks on Christ and decency? When you opened that door, and got away from strict rule of law, did you not think the other side would use the same tactic?

A quick review of the Constitution to which our Republic is bound gives us no hint of any allocation of power to the central government under which it can create massive police agencies and prosecute a war against selected drugs. It is simply not possible under law for this to happen at the national level.

Yet the Christian Right routinely barks happily when President or Senator Pavlov rings that particular bell. So it is all right to violate the law for the greater good as we see it? Show me in scripture or in the constitution where that is so!

Out-of-control government is given a pass for not doing one of its few prescribed missions, which is to defend our borders. Government ignores the law and Christians, who are admonished by scripture to be good citizens, refuse to hold them accountable. As a result we see our culture in decline. But that’s okay – after all, President Bush thinks Christ was a great philosopher so we dare not question him.

The Christian Right has routinely supported the Republican Party because of its avowed support of a pro-life agenda. How many dead babies does it take to get through to you folks? If the Republicans cared about that it would be done. It has not been done.

Do you honestly believe there is a constitutional right to kill unborn babies that is frustrating attempts to stop this holocaust? Perhaps it is just easier to shrug and hope that the Republicans will one day keep a promise or two. Examine yourselves and consider if you are making a sound judgment.

That Christians should support government welfare programs that funnel money into Christian coffers for "good works" is frankly, an outright abomination. Christians are co-opted into illegal conduct and do it joyfully, claiming it is for the greater good. Yet how good is it to have government thugs using the sword of the state to extort money from your fellow citizens to use as you wish? I wonder where the constitution gives them the legal right to do that?

Christians have widely supported the war of aggression against Iraq, which was waged without a declaration of war, and was waged against a country that "might" be a threat to us at some time. Under that rubric we could justify invading Bolivia or Australia. Many Christians say this is fine since Sadaam Hussein is a wicked man and so what if it had nothing to do with national defense or those elusive WMDs.

Sadaam Hussein was and is answerable to God Almighty and the Iraqi people, but he is most definitely not answerable to the United States of America. Unless of course we were suddenly to admit our culpability in creating him and announce that we were shooting our own dog.

The body of writings left for us by the founders of this nation declares vehemently that aggressive war and large standing armies are not in our interests and are not part of the intent of this Republic. We are to be defended by a militia of male citizens yet the Christian Right joins with the usurper government in declaring this an "extremist" position. Thus we see Christians lobbying for more military intervention in the world as if somehow there was not enough war and violence already.

There has been little or no discussion of the long held tradition of the Just War – Christian spokesmen seem to support any war that comes along.

You lobby government to support the nation state of Israel with taxpayer monies. Once again you use the sword of state to extort other people’s money for your causes. Consider the results and use better judgment. Actions have consequences and when you support a particular action you are responsible for the consequences!

Other Americans are using the same tactics to lobby for support of the Arabs. The net result – your result – is a proliferation of American weapons in an already volatile region, with both sides shooting American bullets. Isn’t that akin to pouring gasoline on a fire? Is this really God pleasing?

Christians regularly ignore the law of land in exchange for crumbs from the master’s table. While our borders are being overrun and our heritage of freedom destroyed, Christians are shouting their approval for a defense of marriage amendment.

How ridiculous that is when you consider the implications. The Christian Right; co-conspirators with government scofflaws in the overthrow of the constitution, want a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. You cannot have it both ways. What good is an amendment to a document that you have yourselves helped to render superfluous?

What about the last time Christians lobbied for constitutional change – remember the people gunned down in the streets after the moralistic attempt at prohibition and the wide acceptance of bootlegging that resulted. Ask yourself, was banning alcohol actually such a good idea?

That we are once again seeing gun fights in our streets as a result of the latest attempt at prohibition should make you ask yourselves some tough questions but it does not. You simply demand more and more of the same failing programs and pat yourselves proudly on the backs as the body count mounts and the prisons overflow. As if somehow pontificating for morality had actual worth and rejecting sober judgment had some merit.

Shouldn’t legal remedies be handled at the state level? That is after all, how this country was set up. In the days when there were fewer laws there were also fewer crimes. Is there not a message in that?

As far as drugs and alcohol go – why not take responsibility for your own families, create your own Christian schools and set an example that would be the envy of unbelievers and leave the sword of state in its sheath. That sword, once drawn, can and does swing both ways. You should have figured that out last Christmas.

The wicked, Marxist teacher’s unions find all too much support from the Christian Right who believe government schools are a good thing simply because it feels good to believe that. Is willful stupidity a sin? I think so. It could be that this is a way of pretending that Christians have not failed their children by failing to build and support Christian schools. Let Sam do it. Just don’t complain when your children come home mouthing government platitudes about tolerance and diversity.

Aren’t the government schools a hotbed of illegal drug activity? Which you say you are so worried about? Why on earth would you send your children to such a place? Just askin’.

Many if not most Christians recognize that the Republicans are not much better than the Democrats but vote for them under the reasoning that they are voting for the imagined "lesser of two evils." I say to you that evil is like virginity. There is no degree of evil, it is simply evil and for a Christian to support evil under any circumstances is a sin. Given the latent power of the Christian Right this seems to me to be even more heinous since that power could be used to press for lawful government.

For those of you who think voting against George Bush is the same as voting for a democrat I can only ask you, would you have voted for Adolph Hitler? There were many in Germany who did not like Hitler one bit but were desperately (and justifiably) afraid of the communists and voted for him as a "lesser of two evils." What they got was evil. It was the only thing they could get with that mindset.

There are men out there who stand for the rule of law. Not many, but they are there. There are enough Christians in this country to give those men a voice. That we are not doing so is a disgrace.

I call upon the Christian Right to stop playing to your own self-righteousness and actually do the right thing. Nowhere is more faux patriotism to be found and less of the real thing, which is so badly needed in this time of crisis for our country. You have the power to turn this country around and return us to rule of law, to decency and order.

I say to you that your claim to the moral high ground is a false one as long as you support any political leader who violates his oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. We are not the subjects of some king – we are part of a Republic that demands of us responsible and committed citizenship. The Republic is in our hands and we have ill-used it.

For us to fulfill the Great Commission we must be always consistent and do that which is pleasing to God for it is with His power, not our own that lives are changed. It is God’s will as set forth in Holy Scripture that we follow rule of law and in this country that law is codified in the constitution.

How can Christians justify their role in overturning that constitution?

In a secular court we are reminded that ignorance is no excuse under the law. How much sterner is the court from which there is no appeal? If we in ignorance of the constitution allow scofflaws to rule over us and cheer them on in the name of morality we are no better than hypocrites and we will have scant credibility since God will not strengthen us in our error.

Read your Bible daily. But for goodness sake read the Constitution of the United States once in a while and make your political decisions based upon what is lawful rather than what feels good.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/peirce/peirce72.html

-- J. Fernandes (goananda@hotmail.com), February 14, 2004

Answers

-there is no left or right -the premise of left or right presupposes Truth to be center and therefore relative...

There is ultimate Truth and there is everything else...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 14, 2004.


w

-- anthony kew (antioch@wanna.be), February 15, 2004.

What Bush? Is he still alive?

-- anthony kew (antioch@wanna.be), February 15, 2004.

I tend to agree, however, the trouble lies in the "Lesser of tewo evils" comment. So long as peole have a polorised veiw, they will never enact a seperate movement. The Us VS Them mentality is too strong.

They asusme they must either be, and vote for, democrats or republicans. You are either Liberal or conservative. Thus you choose Bush or a Democrate.

Peopel cannot fathom for some reason thaty they can elevate an independant, and that this independant coudl win the election and become the President.

They dont see that they can create a new paety, and, with the massive power of he Religious Right, this party can win, and restore order rathe rhtan fight for a political agenda.

All they see is the two party system, and the current politics, and assume that its either a vote for the Democrates, or the republicans, and htese are our only choices.

Likewise, they wont use membership in either psrty to change the party, they will siml,ey asusme that the party is what it is, and hten, withhtat in mind, choose between the two parties. As tjhey are now.Without tryign to change htem.Without creatign a new one. They cant, these are the choices, the only choices...

Its a hazard, but this is pur wolrd.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 16, 2004.


I would argue that the blame for most ills in our society falls at the feet of the silent majority. The Christian Right at least tries to back pro-life politicians who respect christian views. Meanwhile the polls I have seen of Catholics show a 50/50 split on all issues. I am joining the Catholic Church because She teaches the Truth but I am a bit disappointed that Her members seem to have views similar to the general public.

If all religious people in this country used their vote we wouldn't have legal abortion, gay marriage, bans on school prayer etc. Politicians are not stupid. They put their fingers in the wind and go with the polls. If the 70 million Catholics all said they would never ever vote for a pro-choicer (pro-death) that would be the end of that. But insteed we get catholics like Kennedy, Kerry, Kucinich that are an embarressment.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 16, 2004.



I am a bit disappointed that Her members seem to have views similar to the general public.

You should be disappointed in the majority of Catholics in the U.S., David F.. But do you know the main reason why they "seem to have views similar to the general public"? It is because 95% of the U.S. bishops and priests for the last 40 years have been too gutless to speak out to teach what is counter-cultural and politically incorrect. Why have they been too gutless? Various reasons, the most important being the following -----

1. Terror of the IRS, which they think will take away their tax- exempt status if they demand that their flock vote only for pro- lifers.
2. Terror of feminists, who are packed into positions of power in the USCCB bureaucracy, in chanceries, in parish committees, etc..
3. Terror of "white martyrdom" -- i.e., being scorned by many of their flock, the media, etc., for standing up for life.

God bless the 5% (and slowly growing number) of bishops and priests who have the guts to ignore these factors and to do what pleases God. If even half of the bishops and priests had the required courage, the whole nation would undergo an amazing change.

-- (Vote@PROLIFE.only), February 19, 2004.


I think I'll mention another reason for the too-slow conversion of U.S. bishops and priests -----

4. Almost all of them grew up as Democrats, and it is worse than pulling teeth to get most of them to abandon that party, even though it has a pro-death, pro-perversion platform. The U.S. clergy are supposed to be among the most intelligent of all Catholics, but by clinging to the Democrats, they show themselves to have no common sense at all.

-- (Vote@PROLIFE.only), February 19, 2004.


David F., I agree.

Vote, I agree with reason #4. Very true.

Reason #1, short of passing out something like a marked ballot to people, the IRS won't bother churches for mere telling people how they think they should vote, and if it did, then all the denominations should sue for discrimination because all the unions and other special interest groups do the same thing.

Reason #2, well, remove women and all that they do, and you wouldn't have much of a Catholic church, or any church, for that matter. Sure, there are going to be some radical thinkers, but by no means all of them are going to be that way. Same for the men.

Reason #3, to some extent.

As far as the original post, not everyone in the Christian Right is ignorant and gullible. Many of them are very intelligent, honest and sincere, and they are willing to put their money where their mouth is when they believe in a cause, like pro-life.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 19, 2004.


Reason #2, well, remove women and all that they do, and you wouldn't have much of a Catholic church, or any church, for that matter.

Thanks for your agreement with most of my points, but ----- who said anything about removing women and all that they do???

What I said was this ----- 95% of the U.S. bishops and priests for the last 40 years have been too gutless to speak out to teach what is counter-cultural and politically incorrect. Why have they been too gutless? ... 2. Terror of feminists, who are packed into positions of power in the USCCB bureaucracy, in chanceries, in parish committees, etc..

This doesn't say that bishops should "remove women and all that they do". Rather, the context clearly implies that the clergy need to avoid being silent about the life issues, out of fear of a backlash from the bad sort of feminists (the "pro-women's-ordination", "pro-choice" bunch) that have infiltrated influential places in the Church in the U.S.. After the bishops become bold, let this undesirable group of radical feminists leave in frustration, shrink away by attrition, or (in cases of open rebellion) be fired -- and let them be replaced by men or by real "women and all that they do" for the Church.

-- (Vote@PROLIFE.only), February 20, 2004.


Vote, one reason I answered as I did is that if one strictly interprets the role of women, as the Church does, most women working and/or volunteering in parishes these days should actually be staying home and bringing up children.... You can't have it both ways.

I do think the pro-choicers should be removed. As to ordination of women, I still keep an open mind.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 20, 2004.



if one strictly interprets the role of women, as the Church does, most women working and/or volunteering in parishes these days should actually be staying home and bringing up children.

I have no doubt that you lack the statistical facts that would be required to make such a statement with any degree of confidence. You have no idea how many of the women you mentioned are (1) married and (2) fertile and (3) lacking need for employment, etc.. But that is neither here nor there, since you are mixing your apples and my oranges.

I did not speak about all the "women working and/or volunteering in parishes." My message, above, was more restrictive, referring to "feminists who are packed into positions of power in the USCCB bureaucracy, in chanceries, in parish committees". The women I was talking about tend to be (1) single or (2) married and past child-bearing age. This gang includes lots of dissenting "religious sisters" and gray-haired rebels of the "silly seventies". These are the kinds of people who have caused so much damage in our language of worship, trying (and often succeeding) to get clergymen to use feminist language (falsely labeled "inclusive"). They have also got many of the clergy afraid to condemn abortion and contraception, because those are supposedly women's concerns. More could be said, but why bother?

As to ordination of women, I still keep an open mind.

You apparently opened your mind too much, because your brain must have fallen out. If it were still in place, it would have registered the fact that the Church has taught INFALLIBLY that only men can be ordained. It is IMPOSSIBLE for this to change between now and the end of the world. If you reject this teaching -- or even seriously doubt it -- you are guilty of heresy, and you are on the verge of excommunication. Please realize this, for the good of your soul. Do not take a chance on burning in hell. Right now, please make this act of faith: "God, I haven't yet understood why only men can be priests, but I trust in the Catholic Church to have taught this infallibly, so I believe it with my whole heart. Please help me to understand this teaching, so that I can share it with my family and defend it to people who disbelieve it."

-- (Vote@PROLIFE.only), February 20, 2004.


Vote, that was very rude, and totally uncalled for.

There are certainly worse things than thinking that women priests might be necessary and perhaps even a good thing. Have all the pedophile priests been excommunicated? Doubtful.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 20, 2004.


Vote,

Easy on GT. Women have always had a place in the Church. Good woman are more than welcome to serve in many capacities IMO.

Now regarding women being ordained. Can you refer me to the infallible declaration that women cannot be ordained? As a new convert (come Easter) I am happy with the current celebite male clergy structure for now and into eternity. I even got into an arguement at RCIA with the priest when he felt that ordaining women was not a big deal and that it might happen. Please give me some more ammo to use.

I live in the Bible belt and I love the zeal of the protestants around me. I wish Catholics as a group where more devout and politically active. The Church hierarchy would do well with some devout hardliners or even clergy that walked the party line. The Church Herself however is wonderful and I look forward to being a member and taking the eucharist.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 20, 2004.


Vote, we're trying to foster a courteous Christian atmosphere here, in the forum. Please show respect for others.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 20, 2004.

There are certainly worse things than thinking that women priests might be necessary and perhaps even a good thing. Have all the pedophile priests been excommunicated? Doubtful.

GT, you don't understand. Of course there are "worse things than thinking that women priests might be necessary and perhaps even a good thing." Murdering your husband and children are "worse things," yet they won't get you excommunicated. But that is completely irrelevant. The only relevant thing is that persistently doubting or openly rejecting something taught infallibly (such as this truth about ordination) is heresy, which makes one no longer a practicing Catholic.

Likewise, if you publicly deny the existence of the Holy Trinity, that is heresy, that excommunicates you and makes you a non-Catholic and non-Christian. You would not think there is anything wrong with that penalty, I hope. Yet if someone burned some churches to the ground -- which would appear to be "worse things" than your heresy -- he would not be excommunicated. The point is that the Church binds and looses, and it is not your place or mine to judge the penalties as appropriate or not.


Vote, Easy on GT. Women have always had a place in the Church. Good woman are more than welcome to serve in many capacities IMO.
Vote, we're trying to foster a courteous Christian atmosphere here, in the forum. Please show respect for others.


David F, you need to go back and read my messages again. Nowhere did I say that women have not "always had a place in the Church." Nowhere did I say that women are not "more than welcome to serve in many capacities." My briefly getting incensed at GT was over her incredibly stubborn insistence that she has permission to disbelieve this infallible teaching. This is at least the third time that she has expressed her doubts about (if not disbelief in) this dogma over the course of the year or two -- and each time she has had to be corrected in the same way. You were not aware of this, so you did not realize that it is inappropriate to tell me to go "easy on GT." It's long past time to go "hard on GT" -- with verbal chastisement in "tough love," for the good of her soul.

Please take the same message to heart, Ed. You too must have been unaware of GT's long-lasting intransigence on this matter, which is incompatible with being a Catholic. I have indeed shown the appropriate degree of Christian courtesy and respect. It is not always appropriate for me or you to treat a person "with kid gloves" and gentle sweet words, as though we were all weak, frightened little girls.

My comment about the "brain"/"open mind" should have been taken as an obvious joke. I am amazed at the hypersensitivity toward it, resulting in the crux of my message being ignored. If you are going to criticize my "barb," Ed, the least you could do afterwards is support me in telling GT that she is either already outside the Church or dangerously close to self-excommunication, because she will not believe an infallible teaching.


David F, the documentation that you have been seeking to show the infallibility of this teaching can be found at http://ww w.cin.org/users/james/files/w-ordination.htm. That page was prepared by apologist James Akin of Catholic Answers, Inc.. For anyone unwilling to read that page, I will quote the key paragraph here -----
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium" 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

-- (Vote@PROLIFE.only), February 22, 2004.



I should have made clear that the quotation in italics, above, was not written by James Akin. Rather, it was by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, in an officially published reply to a written query about whether or not the pope's (then recent) teaching on male-only ordination was infallible.

-- (Vote@PROLIFE.only), February 22, 2004.

Vote, ALL things are possible with God.

And that includes the possibility that some doctrines could change for some future reason (like finding the equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls for some "missing" books of the Bible). It really isn't for us to know until it happens (if it does).

To me, women priests would be strange, but then most people were very uncomfortable in the beginning with Eucharistic Ministers. They eventually got used to the practice, especially when priests started "sitting out" the entire Communion period. If the priest shortage is that bad, the Vatican can either ordain married men, ordain women, or have more Eucharistic Services led by laypeople and fewer Masses.

So, is it likely? Probably not, but you never know. I think we should leave it up to God, don't you?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 22, 2004.


GT:
There is nothing in the Catholic Church doctrine that can be changed. To have a doctrine added to or ammended in ANY way would be to hold that Catholics of past ages had been believing in a deficient or limited revelation from Christ and his apostles. It would render the work of the Holy Spirit open to criticism; which is absurd. He is God.

Your observation, ''. . . women priests would be strange, but then most people were very uncomfortable in the beginning with Eucharistic Ministers.'' --has no relevance to Catholic rubrics and/or disciplines. ''Very uncomfortable'' has nothing to do with any aspect of the sacrament of Holy Orders. You know very well there are millions of Bible Christians today ''comfortable'' with their self-ordained clergy and corrupt biblical understanding.

It's GOD who must be respected and obeyed; and that's what the Church always keeps untouchable.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 22, 2004.


"women priests would be strange"

A: Catholic priestesses would not just be strange, it would also be impossible. It is an unchangeable article of the Catholic faith that the Church does not possess the authority to ordain women. End of story.

"If the priest shortage is that bad, the Vatican can either ordain married men, ordain women, or have more Eucharistic Services led by laypeople and fewer Masses"

A: The first and third options are possible. The second option is not.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 22, 2004.


GT, you truly amaze me. I finally see that you are un-reach-able. You have become a de facto Protestant while still posing as a Catholic. You are saying things that no Catholic could ever say. You don't even seem to have an inkling of the facts about the radical difference between disciplines and doctrines (using EMEs vs. ordaining men), the meaning of infallibility, and the unchangeability of dogmas. You must have been poorly catechized and/or you must live in a dissent-filled diocese.

I feel terribly sorry for you. You really, really need to pray, using the words I recommended to you earlier: "God, I haven't yet understood why only men can be priests, but I trust in the Catholic Church to have taught this infallibly, so I believe it with my whole heart. Please help me to understand this teaching, so that I can share it with my family and defend it to people who disbelieve it."

-- (Vote@PROLIFE.only), February 22, 2004.


Vote,

Thanks for the article. I will present it to my RCIA priest.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 22, 2004.


Eugene, you wrote:

"To have a doctrine added to or ammended in ANY way would be to hold that Catholics of past ages had been believing in a deficient or limited revelation from Christ and his apostles."

Doesn't necessarily have to be the case--look at "right-to-life" at the end of life. Today, the Church holds that people should be fed and given water through tubing, even if they are in a "persistent vegetative state". In the time of Jesus, that wasn't an option--when people could no longer eat or drink, they died, or they may well have told those they loved that it was their time to go, don't fuss over them anymore. As modern medicine advances, the Church is constantly making official pronouncements about these things. So things do change, they still have to be examined as far as how they fit or do not fit in with established doctrine.

Conceiveably there could be circumstances which might warrant the ordination of women. For example, if there were other books of the Bible found and verified that showed there were women priests, could that make a difference?

Vote, you are taking my opinions 'way too seriously. They are simply opinions, nothing more.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 23, 2004.


That "other books of the Bible" could be found is just as inconceivable as the ordination of women. The canon of scripture is closed for all time, just like the matter of ordination of women. You just have to accept that some things are set in stone, and absolutely cannot be changed regardless of circumstances.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 23, 2004.

Paul M is correct. Circumstances can't warrant the ordination of women. Your example of a change in doctrine, as in patients who continue in a ''vegetative state'', is a false premise in two ways, GT.

Never in the history of the human race was there ever a vegetative state, unless it was about celery or squash or cabbage. Humans cannot become vegetables. Human life is always precious, even when it entails great hardship.

Doctrine cannot change. The former practices had no relation to any doctrine, they simply had to do with raw survival. Hope is the last thing to die. Faith in God helps us survive.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2004.


If that is the case, Eugene, then why is a frozen embryo considered not worth saving, but a child born out of wedlock is? Both came into being through wrong actions (since from what I've read, the Church does not agree with in vitro fertilization). Both are human beings, given that life begins at conception.

"Never in the history of the human race was there ever a vegetative state, unless it was about celery or squash or cabbage. Humans cannot become vegetables."

I used the conventional medical term to describe the condition, which did not apparently exist during the time of Jesus because there was no technology to sustain the condition, and really, is only an option in the countries that have such technology today, provided you are in these countries, and not out in the third world. So yes, of course doctrine was modified to reflect the fact that more actions can be taken to extend/preserve life.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 23, 2004.


GT:
Doctrine wasn't ''modified'', because doctrine never had anything to do with it. It has to do with The fifth commandment of God; Thou shalt not kill. The Church teaches the commandments, but they aren't Church doctrine. They are Divine Law. Doctrine is what the apostles taught. It does not change ever, because the apostles gave us a complete, unchanging deposit of faith. Both in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Don't ask me about ''frozen embryos''. We are speaking of the accumulated teachings of the apostles, given the Church from the beginning. A newere medical question challenges our consciences, not Catholic doctrines. It is always sinful to kill an innocent human being. I would ordinarily think freezing one is sinful as well.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 23, 2004.


Vote, you are taking my opinions 'way too seriously. They are simply opinions, nothing more.

GT, I am not taking anything "too seriously." What you still don't seem to realize is that you are not even permitted to have "simply opinions," secret or publicly expressed, that contradict or doubt the truth or permanence of an infallible teaching like this. Part of being a Catholic is to totally reject/ignore all contrary "opinions," when it comes to things like this, which the above Vatican quotation said is "to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith."

The examples you have been trying to give Paul and Eugene to justify your "opinion" on this are invalid examples. When the Church faces a new situation in morality (e.g., feeding/hydrating the comatose, saving frozen embryos, etc.) she gives a new teaching that is added to previous teachings. The Church never changes previous teachings -- i.e., it does not CONTRADICT previous teachings, saying, "Oops! We were wrong before, so here is the new, correct teaching."

Now, in light of that principle, let's look at the ordination matter. The Church has stated that -- infallibly (i.e., without any possibility of error) -- she has always taught that Jesus instituted a male-only priesthood and that it is impossible to ordain a woman. Your "opinion" would call for the Church to change the unchangeable -- to declare that she has taught wrongly for 20 centuries. You imagine that it would be possible for circumstances to change, allowing for women to be ordained some day. But that is simply impossible, because it would require the Church to contradict an un-contradict-able dogma.

-- (Vote@PROLIFE.only), February 23, 2004.


Eugene, so what about freezing a person for later treatment 10, 20, 100 years from now? Is that wrong too? If so, why? When is curing supposed to stop?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), February 23, 2004.

GT,

I will give my humble opinion on the freezing issue. I am not sure that the Church has a formal written statement on this particular matter.

If a person believes in salvation in the world to come you would have to wonder why they would have an unhealthy wish to prolong their earthly existence through cryogenetics. Its like having your brain put into a robot body in order to cheat death. Why fight the wonder of the world to come?

The Church has clearly voiced the opinion that mankind is not to play God. She is therefore against in vitro fertilization, cloning, stem cell research, eugenics, and euthenasia. I would imagine that cryogenics would be seen in the same light.

Vote is correct in stating we have a duty to obey the Church. As a protestant this obedience is tough for me but I understand the Church's wisdom and I have changed my life since deciding to convert. This obedience has caused me much anger and pain and has strained my marriage, but now that I have decided not to fight my marriage and life have never been better.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 23, 2004.


On something similar to this, see my discussion with Bill. http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BpqV also called: Voting Pro-Choice is a Mortal Sin (Bill Nelson)

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), March 06, 2004.


I am bothered by Bible misquotes. The commandment is "Thou shall not Murder" not kill. No need to go vegitarian. Also a real need to make this distinction. And a possible need to distrust Bibles that do not make this distinction -- it is there in the original Hebrew, I have been assured by those who can read that. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), March 06, 2004.

Sean is absolutely right about 'thou shalt not murder', and is backed up not only by the hebrew but also by the fact that the Jews were instructed by God to kill a number of different animals.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 08, 2004.


Including human beings (in battle and as punishment for the gravest crimes/sins).

-- (Vote@PROLIFE.only), March 09, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ