Was ist das?

We, as Catholics, should not be congratulating Obama, we need to be praying for him. With the election of Obama we face the signing of FOCA into law. The Freedom of Choice Act will lift any and all limits on abortion. It will allow persons who are not licensed physicians to perform abortions. (How does that protect the life and health of the mother?) It will eliminate any parental notification or involvement when a minor choose to have an abortion. In short, it will be all abortion, all the time, for any (or no) reason. Is that what we truly want for this country? See http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/16236/
If you voted for Obama and plan to "protest" his signing of FOCA, you are too late. He is beholden to the pro-abort community.
We will see Planned Parenthood (in some form) as "health care providers" in our public schools. We will pay for abortions around the world through our tax dollars.
Pray, pray, pray.

Sigh. I'm sorry, but Obama is not changing things. Look at who backed him early on: Ted Kennedy, the oldest of old guard liberals. Look at those he has thus far picked for his staff: People from the last Democrat() administration.
You can say I'm engaging in fear mongering here, but to me it's just the facts: unless Obama does a 180 (and I would be thankful for that), his will likely be the most liberal presidency yet. The media today is report how Obama will probably issue executive orders to overturn Bush on ESCR, Abortion, permission to drill for oil, etc. I hope and I pray that he will realize the political suicide it would be to engage in these acts (such as fighting 7 out of ten blacks on Prop 8) but we can't underestimate the power of willful blindness.

It is my personal request -- in no way an exercise of administrative authority

For the record, I remembered this:
22. When someone is under a warning not to ride his hobby horse, others on the blog are not to post comments tempting him to get back on the hobby horse (e.g., "I wonder what So-and-so will do to twist this thread onto his favorite topic").

(SOURCE)

The Church's answer is no.

And I remember having read that this has been debated by the Church by the time the telephone was invented.
By the way, this post, as well as others from the post-election craziness, could very well have its last-page comment link.

If I can find a priest who agrees to confession by phone, is it valid? That would be nice.

The Church's answer is no. Physical presence is important, and the recipient of a sacrament must be physically present to the celebrant (or, in the case of the Eucharist, the minister); sacraments can only be administered in person.

If I can find a priest who agrees to confession by phone, is it valid? That would be nice.

It is my personal request -- in no way an exercise of administrative authority -- that posters inclined to honor my personal request avoid addressing parting shots to cath mav on the occasion of his ostensible departure.
Yes, I know. I would prefer to let it lie. Thanks to all.

If you could, please also pray for a special intention.
Will do.

I take it then that you do subscribe to some of NT Wright's ideas, ideas which seem echoed in your description of Jesus' religion as distinct from Christianity, using phraseology remarkably similar to NT Wright. It is my opinion that NT Wright's Christology is unorthodox. It is your opinion, evidently that his Christology and his view of how Christianity came to be is orthodox. God bless you and peace be with you. I don't care whether I am part of this blog or how you choose to use your power. I care only about pleasing Jesus and because of that I again wish you blessing and peace.
Update for Beastly,
I have been reconciled with God and the church in the sacrament of penance ministered by a priest over the phone. I had been trying as best as I could do find reasons not to return to the Catholic faith and the sacraments, but found all my arguments against the faith unconvincing and all the arguments for the faith very persuasive. I am still pro-choice though. To my surprise my liberal priest friend also wanted me to end my business relationship with the gentlemen's club. Equally to my surprise, in what must have been a moment of supernatural grace, I decided to amend my life there and work toward that end; it was so consoling to hear his words of absolution:
"May your sins be forgiven"
And, as I made the sign of the cross, I felt Catholic again and at home.
I thank God for his victory through the Cross in my life in my healing. I've had some bad experiences with some priests including at a tender age, but forgiven by God of my own sins I am freed to forgive others of theirs.
I am thinking of also making a pigrimage to Nevada to some legal brothels there. I have never engaged in prostitution, but I have of course done things that almost every human has in terms of objectifying women. My hope is to purchase time with some women there and during that time use it to simply be kind and if the occasion arises, evangelize.
If you could, please also pray for a special intention.
SDG,
No need to disinvite me. You have my word that this will be my last post. If I post again, then disinvite me. I may disagree with your choice but I will respect it and based on my experience I know this post will be interpreted by you in your psychoanalysis as "sophistry and passive-aggressive" behavior. FWIW, I have a background in psychology and have actually worked as part of psychology research teams (specifically in the field of cognitive psychology). IMHO, Catholic to Catholic, it is not spiritually healthy to react to someone based on a perceived personal slight. God is powerful but he is not powerful in a way that you and I imagine. St. Anselm asked why if God is powerful he is not able to do evil and Anselm responded that it is because the power to do evil was not a true power. The power of God is the power of loe, the power manifested on the Cross. You may think this an affectation to Catholic piety or some hair-brained scheme to embarass your earlier dismissal of the possibility of my conversion, but for your own good let me take the effort to let you ponder this: Do you think it not possible that I came here because I had doubts about my past rejection of Catholicism and yearned to return to the Church and was seeking to see if the best arguments against the Faith could be met? FYI, they were not met here, but they were met elsewhere. This is your blog and yours to do as you please in our secular society, but as a Catholic I appeal to your conscience not with respect to me, since as mentioned this will by my last post -- you have my personal word -- but with respect to how you treat others who may in the future come here and may be similarly situated epistemically and spiritually. If people who are actually sincerely seeking the truth, albeit in disagreement, external and internal, with you are dismissed as not being sincere, then that is the sin of scandal. You may think that the sin of scandal refers only to those things that are already sinful apart from the scandalous effect, i.e. the effect of leading to an occasion of sin for another, but that is not the traditional Catholic doctrine; the sin of scandal traditionally refers to any action which without just reason, whether that action is otherwise innocent or good or not, that needlessly (i.e. without just reason) puts another in an occasion of sin. This is the definition that for example, Fr Heribert Jone uses. Perhaps it is not the one your favorite moral theologian uses. Perhaps you disagree with me that your definition is not traditional Catholic doctrine. But that doesn't mean my disagreement is insincere or is sophistry or is passive-aggressive behavior. I know b/c some have told me this that some, though they won't say this to you, are afraid of your power as a moderator. I can see why. You feel free to tell someone that their definition is not traditional Catholic doctrine but when someone does the same with you, you threaten disinvitation. In my opinion you do reject some traditional Catholics just as in your opinion I reject some (such as in my being pro-choice). Why should you have some special immunity there? I speak not for me but for those who have expressed similar feelings in analagous situations. Ad hominem attacks are not spiritually healthy and since I have just gone to confession please do not bring up my past life. At the end of my confession, I told the priest:
"I am sorry for these and all the sins of my past life."
Though I know it suffices to just confess and receive absolution, let me say to all of you that I am sorry for any sins I may have committed against you.
If you wish to converse with me, you can email me at:
Peace be with you, Tim J and SDG. Peace be with each of you. I thank any of you who whether you intended to or not, may have, whether known to me or not, by your example, words, or prayers occasioned God's blessing for me today.
I know SDG, that you said that were you to learn that I was graced with conversion you said you would rejoice. I saw no rejoicing from you since and I don't expect any now. You would say that there would be no way for you to know that I in fact did covert as opposed to trying to embarass you by feigning conversion or your would say that you do know that I am feigning. But my happiness is not found with you or this blog. Giving up lots of profit was a big sacrifice, giving up this blog compared to that, is nothing. Sometimes one's self and one's activity is not as not as important as one might in pride think them to be; in your spirit I have left this "construction" "deliberately" "ambiguous."
Anyway, I know that even though Beastly has been the only one to truly rejoice in my progress thus far and even though he is probably the only one, if any, to rejoice in this miraculous conversion, that as I said I am content in God who alone satisfies. As a bonus, I know that the angels in heaven rejoice. May they too bless you all.
My prayers are extended also to all those in the blogosphere and their readers who may be struggling with their Catholic faith or estranged from it or while solid in their faith may be having many difficulties, not necessarily adding up to a doubt per Newman and the Catechism. My own recommendation is that they read The National Catholic Reporter, especially John Allen's writings there which are oft cited with admiration by Jimmy Akin here and whose books also are sometimes recommended by him. The NCR and John Allen in particular has been most helpful in my return to the church. Here's their website
http://ncronline3.org/drupal/
Now that I have given SDG my personal word that this will be my last post, let me pray in conclusion that your intercourse amongst yourselves sing in beautiful praise to God in my permanent absence.
Pax.

All this of course was scandalous -- btw, needlessly causing your brother to be in an occasion of sin, whether the action that brings him to that occasion is itself sinful or not, is the sin of scandal; SDG doesn't seem to be aware of this Catholic doctrine or if aware, seems to reject it. We all want to be cool like NT Wright (whose Christology among other things is unorthodox btw) or be able to sound as reasonable as possible to our secular buddies, but even as an unorthodox catholic, I appreciate a lot of the traditional Catholic doctrine on this.

cath mav: If you want to convince me once and for all that your participation on this blog is entirely disingenuous and intended to be noxious, so that I have no choice but to disinvite you from participating, keep up the sophistry and passive-aggressive behavior. My patience with you is at a low ebb.

I thought you quit posting here, pro-choice catholic basher.

I want to make note of confirmation from a former Palin advisor that she did indeed ask "who was in NAFTA" which to the objective observer would suggest a betrayal of ignorance as to who was in NAFTA:
On not knowing what countries are in NAFTA, Biegun was part of the conversation that led to that accusation and it convinces him "somebody is acting with a high degree of maliciousness." He was briefing Palin before a Univision interview, and talking to her about trade issues. He rolled through NAFTA, CAFTA, and the Colombia FTA. As he talked, people were coming in and out of the room, handing Palin things, etc. She was distracted from what Biegun was saying, and said, roughly, "Ok, who's in NAFTA, what's the deal with CAFTA, what's up the FTA?"—her way, Biegun says, of saying "rack them and stack them," begin again from the start. "Somebody is taking a conversation and twisting it maliciously," he says.
[National Review online, "the corner"]
This comports with Palin's only non-denial denial ... or rather non-denial admission
"If there are allegations based on questions or comments that I made in debate prep about NAFTA, and about the continent vs. the country when we talk about Africa there, then those were taken out of context," she said. "That's cruel, It's mean-spirited. It's immature. It's unprofessional and those guys are jerks if they came away with it, taking things out of context and then tried to spread something on national news. It's not fair, and it's not right."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081107/ap_on_el_pr/pa...
She's saying "if there are allegations ...." which there are, so we can scratch the "if" part and extract the truth that "In questions or comments that I made in debate prep about NAFTA, and about the continent vs. the country when we talk about Africa there, those questions or comments were taken out of context." No one has come forward with an explicit defense (spin) of Palin on Africa as a "continent vs. the country" the way one former advisor has with NAFTA (he says he wasn't present for whatever transpired with the Africa thing so that may be why he can't; those present may be can't b/c they are the leakers or b/c it's hard to defend her or spin it to defend her).
Anyway, these leakers did a great service to their country. At least now Palin is out of the national picture for president. It is unfortunate however that as Fox's Carl Cameron reported, they kept this information on background until after the election. So Cameron knew about all or some of this before the election. I guess you cannot expect the leakers to be super heroic.
If as the bible teaches we should be thankful in all circumstances, for all things, then we should thank God for Obama's presidency and leave it at that.

Patrick, I couldn't have said it better! I agree with all your posts.

maverick, your long post reminds me of a conversation I had with a Catholic Obama supporter on another website who said she wasn't going to change her politics just to suit religion. Spoke volumes about what she valued most. Your lengthy post is by far more about politics than the Catholic faith.
...that many fervent Catholics have this notion that if you are not Catholic or have rejected Catholicism that it must be b/c you just don't know Catholicism that well...
and in your next sentences, demonstrate the truth of that "notion"...
My idea of Catholicism
ah, but Catholicism is not up for private interpretation
is that it does not have a monopoly on truth.
perhaps you are unaware of the teaching that Catholicism has the fullness of truth
Some thing might be revealed in another person, idea, religion that is not so revealed in us. If we can learn about God from the "book of nature" as medievals thought, through telescopes and observing the stars, why not from other religions? Ditto for pro-life v. pro-choice.
heart of the example that you don't know your Catholic faith as well as you think you do. Full explanation will have to wait til this afternoon.

If the Church lets a priest who denies Jesus is God remain in the priesthood, celebrate and administer the sacraments, then I'm sure the Church is OK with me who also denies Jesus is God receiving the Eucharist. Unless things have changed, around Christmas time there should be general absolution available. I will wait til then. Communal celebration is more in line with the early church anyway. Communal celebration can also take place without general absolution.
It is not just pro-life (he seems to display hints of a pro-choice anti-abortion position) Kmiec who supports Obama and parts or aspects of Obama's anti-abortion approach. There are other prominent pro-lifers and pro-life Catholics in particular who also testify to Obama's anti-abortion courage. For example, Nicholas Cafardi, also like Kmiec, a lawyer, who was apparently pressurred to resign from the fundamentalist Catholic Franciscan University of Stuebenville due to his endorsement of Obama.
A great sign of hope is the ratio of Catholics who voted for Obama versus for McCain is greater than the ratio of the general population that did so. So, Catholics voted more Obama or more "pro-choice" than the general population. (For the general pop. the vote was 52.6 versus 46.1 so the ratio is 526/461 there; for Catholics the ratio was about 52 versus 43, so the ratio is 52/43 which is greater than 526/461).
Most encouraging tidbit:
“One of things you have to keep in mind about Catholics is that most aren’t opposed to abortion,” Smith said. “And of those who are, most don’t see it as a particularly important issue.” Smith said a recent Pew survey showed that fewer than one in four Catholics said they oppose abortion and see it as a politically important issue.
[link below]
When one excludes those Catholics who might have voted against Obama for cultural reasons (i.e. whites as exit polls in W. Virginia indicated during the Democratic primary as reported by the media), then an even more, overwhelming majority of Catholics voted for Obama. When one excludes both whites and blacks, still a decisively overwhelming majority of Catholics voted for Obama.
Obama did better amongst Catholics than Kerry did in 2004.
Misleading blogosphere headlines notwithstanding, it was only a "vocal minority" of bishops that engaged in the transparently partisan attacks on voting for Obama or a candidate with Obama-features:
“Catholic voters ignored the instructions of a group of vocal bishops,” Jesuit Fr. Thomas J. Reese wrote in a post-election news release for Woodstock Theological Center where he is a senior fellow. “Although these bishops were a minority of the U.S. bishops, they received much attention in the media because other bishops kept silent or simply referred people to their 2007 document, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”
http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2430
All this of course was scandalous -- btw, needlessly causing your brother to be in an occasion of sin, whether the action that brings him to that occasion is itself sinful or not, is the sin of scandal; SDG doesn't seem to be aware of this Catholic doctrine or if aware, seems to reject it. We all want to be cool like NT Wright (whose Christology among other things is unorthodox btw) or be able to sound as reasonable as possible to our secular buddies, but even as an unorthodox catholic, I appreciate a lot of the traditional Catholic doctrine on this. Anyway:
“It appears transparently partisan,” Wallis said. “It’s hard to respect somebody’s consistent ethic of life when they only talk about abortion and not the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, poverty, genocide.”
[link as above]
The reason why many conservative Catholics don't support this notion of "consistent ethic of life" is also b/c they just don't agree with it. They support the Iraq war, etc. But instead of acknowleding the role this plays in their calculus they resort to misleading politics.
I'd like to step back for a moment and say that it is possible for two people to have the same information and then just honestly disagree. I find it rather arrogant that many fervent Catholics have this notion that if you are not Catholic or have rejected Catholicism that it must be b/c you just don't know Catholicism that well or that if you did know it well and still rejected it then it must be b/c you have a heart of stone. Um... why should this be true? Should an economist who considers the theory behind whether Basic Income is a good idea and then rejects it be assumed to have done so b/c he had a heart of stone? My idea of Catholicism is that it does not have a monopoly on truth. Some thing might be revealed in another person, idea, religion that is not so revealed in us. If we can learn about God from the "book of nature" as medievals thought, through telescopes and observing the stars, why not from other religions? Ditto for pro-life v. pro-choice.
We can be thankful for one thing. Palin is not in the White House. She did not know which countries were in NAFTA and may have not realized Mexico was part of N. America (to be fair, you can consider it culturally not part of N. America; some continents have more of a cultural definition than a geographically sustained one; for ex. Europe). She also did not know that South Africa was a country and thought it referred to the southern region of Africa the continent or perhaps even the southern region of Africa, a country (of course there is no country by that name). We know this b/c she more or less admitted it. When asked about these allegations she did not categorically deny them and seemed to affirm that there was a substantial core in each that was true but that some were observations taken "out of context." So for example, it's possible that she knew Africa referred to a continent but perhaps she also thought there was a country by the same name. Or perhaps she knew there wasn't but thought that South Africa referred to the southern part of Africa like south Florida does with Florida; in that case she would have been ignorant of the existence of South Africa, the country.
We can also be thankful that McCain is not in the White House. McCain is a manic craps player. The media pointed to that as an explanation for the Palin pick. We don't want someone with that proclivity as Commander in Chief. Obama on the other hand is a "pretty good poker player." Many Americans and Hollywood educated folk are ignorant of this but poker is the subject of serious mathematical study and study in the computer sciences. Just as aritificial intelligence projects tackled chess, so also are they tackling poker as well as other "games of imperfect information" (chess is one of "perfect information"), like bridge. Whole teams of dozens of researchers are working on this. The mathematical field of game theory is being applied too. I'll leave you with this thought and hope it will lead you to be grateful to our God that Obama, not McCain, is, irrespective of what he might do on abortion, our Commander in Chief ... he himself alluded to this perhaps in the O'Reilly interview where he said he didn't want to show "all his cards" to Iran before becoming President:
"From what I'm told by intimates, Obama's poker skills bode well for a potential leader of the free world. He is versatile, but shuns unnecessary risks; he wants to be holding premium cards before he even thinks of getting involved; the only gambles he takes are very closely calculated. America would be mad to pass up a potential leader of such acumen. In a world so fraught with danger, a leader of such visionary powers will surely restore his country's tarnished reputation." This moved Time magazine to reveal two months later that John McCain is, by contrast, a manic craps player.... As this comment bobbed all over cyberspace, I stuck doggedly to my theme: Which would you rather have as president? A skilful, calculating poker-player taking highly calibrated risks, or a craps obsessive content to let the dice fall where they may (viz. the Palin pick)? Well, quite. I rest my case.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/200...
I noticed that no one here seems to think Obama is a brilliant man. In economic policy too, his backgound could prove useful:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/10/business-game-the...
If you are not prejudiced you should acknowledge Obama is brilliant IMO.

SDG:
I am duly impressed with your measured, chartiable response to my last post. Thanks in particular for not devolving into sarcasm, which seems to be all too common. You have retained my respect.
I do not like "agreeing to disagree." Thus, I wish to ask you for a couple of things:
1. Three examples of ways that you believe Mr. Obama demonstrates decency, civility and impressiveness.
2. An argument as to why you find it reasonable to use these words to describe him in light of the obvious problems we and many others have with his positions on life issues of various sorts.
3. In congratulating him, why you/the Register avoid consideration of the circumstances surrounding his achievement when you/the Register surely agree that a moral act does not simply involve consideration of the object alone. I know without a doubt you/the Register have been diligent about defending life and arguing against Mr. Obama's positions on life issues. Yet, it seems to me that congratulating him for the achievement is isolating the achievement from the circumstances (the platform, his voting record, his determination to undermine so much of the pro-life pedigree, etc), and the achievement should not be recognized as a good thing under the circumstances.
I think your point about scandal is correct in the most technical sense. However, derivation of meaning in words according to custom is important. I recall St. Paul's example of advising his hearers to avoid certain activities good or indifferent in themselves, if those activities were a stumbling block to their neighbors.
I understand your intensity about the improbability of avoiding any and everything that might cause scandal to someone, somewhere. However, maybe an important point to consider is whether what one is proposing to do, say, write, etc., really needs to done, said, written, etc. for some greater good or whether the supposed good is not that good and needs to be sacrificed for the sake of "the weak among us." Thus, I see little gain for the Register in offering congratulations.
I will happily withdraw the word "hounded." It was probably too strong. I meant to convey that I think there will be a great deal of negative response from readers. As exemplied by my posts, I think any confusion or feelings of betrayal will be understandable, even if they are not warranted.

SDG, out of time for response, but until then I'll leave you with http://tinyurl.com/64uvvt

Heh. Funny and well-written. But I'm not a big fan of fear-mongering. Post-mortems on the U.S. under Obama are about as convincing as post-mortems on post-Obama conservatism, or on -- well, okay, not as unconvincing as post-mortems on the Catholic Church, but there's a similar sense of ideology overriding realism and frankness at work.

ohhhhhhh, I didn't realize comments now are in multiple pages.
David B, thanks :^)
SDG, out of time for response, but until then I'll leave you with
http://tinyurl.com/64uvvt

Does anyone know why typepad re-did their formatting? Perhaps it was to make smaller blogs load faster? The P. Z. Meyer post took forever. This way, new visitors would be able to see the first fifty comments without having to wait forever to decide that they really didn't want to read those comment, after all. Unfortunately, old visitors wind up clicking through twenty-five pages to get to the end of the posts. :( Why can't typepad give the blog owner the option of choosing continuous or forwarded posting (DO YOU HEAR ME, TYPEPAD!)?
The Chicken

Erm, I missed that there was a second page. I hate this new typepad formating thing.

I weakly took one side of this debate before, so I think I'll weakly take the other side now as a counterbalace.
While Obama stands for a lot of evil policies, as well as in my opinion several dangerously imprudent ones, the fact remains that he has been elected President and during this time of transition we should be sure to stand up for what we believe in but also adopt, at least for now, a bit of a spirit of cooperation. Not to the point of selling our souls, but if the lefties see us not as the voice against progress, the voice of that which is being transcended, but as one voice of many saying what we think real progress would be, what our concerns are in this period of change, then our points may have a little more impact. Maybe it's a fine distinction, but it is important not to be excessively polarizing, at least at this time of a fresh slate.

Charel Weng,
As I have said before your long-winded post seem to be some sort of stimulation to you. The more offensive you can be to Catholics while pretending to discuss the topic the more you please yourself. Pretending to hide behind dictionary definitions so you can write trash is pathetic.
The more you post the more I pity you.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

CT,
One final word. If you expect to receive something from the sacraments, you must remain receptive. Think of it like attending a literature lecture or a training session in a dojo. You will learn very little if you assume that you already know more than the instructor. Not that I think it won't be salutary anyway, but I think you can receive all the more grace if you ask for it in humility.

Aside to labrialumn: No one has called Obama "kind," AFAICT, just as no one called him "a great man" as someone else seemed to think. There seems to be some embroidery going on around the edges of the positive comments that have been made.
Mary Kay,
There is no equivalence between BDS and whatever you're referring to as ODS.

Give it time. To continue the horticultural imagery, BDS has had eight years to take root and flower, and the soil has been well fertilized, in no small part (I would contend) by Bush's blunders.
Now, deranged Palin hatred is another matter entirely. That was instantaneous, visceral, foaming at the mouth and nearly satanic. BDS is a different animal. We aren't there yet with Obama. But among the most dangerous words in the English language are "It couldn't happen here."

No, actually the McCain campaign didn't try to sic the Department of Justice after those who asked tough questions.

AFAIK, McCain did have his own legal and law-enforcement backed efforts to oppose public criticism. Ugliness and cynicism figured in the arsenals of both campaigns. I'm not making any claims of parity one way or the other. I'm just saying it may not be as cut and dried as some might suppose.

To whatever extent that's true, if Obama can't control his campaign staff, imagine what will happen when he becomes POTUS.

Not everyone trying to get Obama elected was part of his campaign staff either.

Nor am I impressed with Obama as a "role model," but that will have to be another post as my wrist is making typing difficult.

I should have added that, as I once heard someone put it, Obama can sound almost Cosbyish when he talks about the black family -- talk that, IIRC, earned him that infamous verbal emasculation from Jesse Jackson. Anything that tics off Jackson like that has got to be worth something. ;‑)

CT,
I don't feel I have to adopt your theology or politics to be Catholic.

True, to a point. However, in order for the word “Catholic” to mean anything, it has to have limits and boundaries. The word has a meaning, whether you accept it or not. The Church has a real membership and a real doctrine, or it has nothing. Simply claiming that your beliefs are “Catholic” does not make it so.
To answer your question though I do feel Jesus' contribution to revealing God was unique, but I believe that about everyone.

In other words, no.
When I mentioned my business relationship with a gentlemen's club, the priest did not seem ready to give me absolution. He seems to, among other things, want me to end or intend to end this business relationship as a condition of receiving absolution.

He wants you to be able to honestly recite the act of contrition, CT. In any case, I don’t think you’d be receiving a valid absolution if you don’t genuinely repent. Your liberal priest friend won’t change the reality, even if he does give you “absolution.”
My view is that prayer should be reinterpreted as simply an exercise of expressing one's desires. God, as Jesus points out, knows what we need and desire before we even ask him for it. So prayer is for our own spiritual journey and not to beg things from God

I am not entirely certain that you’re reinterpreting prayer there; just ignoring part of its efficacy. Remember also that Jesus has told us to ask before we receive, to knock before the door is opened. God wants us to petition him with prayer. To my mind, the primary good of prayer is the development of a personal relationship with God. He wants us to know him, which is why he came to live as one of us.
Besides, I don't think you need to join in all the responses to be able to licitly receive Communion. Since it's been a while, unless I am reading from the text, I'll probably have to remain silent mostly anyway as I don't remember it as I used to.

Fair enough. Just please do not receive Communion while embracing heresy.
... anyway I am glad you for one wouldn't exclude me from returning to the Church because I am pro-choice.

By all means return to the Church exactly as you are! Go to Mass every day if you like! Just please do not receive the Eucharist until you accept the truth of Christ’s divinity free from any semantic wrangling.
Leave the philosophy and theology and doctrine and politics to the theologians and politicians and bishops.

It is startling indeed to read this from you, of all people.
Maybe I'll email you Beastly with an update after Mass on Saturday/Sunday or after my confession appointment.

My invitation to email me remains open.

none of which goes on in the gentlemen's club; it is a very upstanding establishment
Are you using "gentlemen's club" as a euphemism for an establishment that displays bare breasted women?

SDG, I take the view of some of the Asian Bishops and theologians on those questions. The NCR's John Allen has covered this off and on with many Asian Bishops not comfortable with the Western approach you espouse.

In other words, apparently, you reject a historical assessment grounded in the beliefs, symbols, praxis and stories of the second Temple Judaism of Jesus' day and of the world of early Christianity.
Your East-vs-West dichotomy is a red herring. The historical evidence for the character of Jesus' self-understanding and the character of early Christianity is not a creation of Western philosophy.

SDG, I take the view of some of the Asian Bishops and theologians on those questions. The NCR's John Allen has covered this off and on with many Asian Bishops not comfortable with the Western approach you espouse.
Like Phan, Chia said that the FABC’s emphasis is on mission in an overwhelmingly non-Christian context. He cited the example of the theme of the 1998 Synod for Asia, which was chosen by the Vatican: “Jesus Christ the Savior and His Mission of Love and Service in Asia.” When the FABC organized its plenary meeting in 2000, the bishops decided they wanted to continue the discussions from the synod. They did so with the theme, “A Mission of Love and Service.” In other words, they deleted the specific reference to Jesus.
I don't feel I have to adopt your theology or politics to be Catholic. To answer your question though I do feel Jesus' contribution to revealing God was unique, but I believe that about everyone. Everyone is unique and everyone reveals God in a unique way not reproducible in any other person. When Jesus is seen transfigured with Elijah and Moses, Elijah and Moses are not seen bowing before Jesus or laying prostrate; they are all three erect in equal position. Jesus is a friend we remember in the liturgy, a friend whose meaning to us is unique.
Serena, you didn't understand me there. I know most don't because among other things most don't know, though it would be possible to have a symbolic date and no one does ... why not? Anyway, what I was speaking to was those rare occasions of people who DO know their conception day. It's rare but it happens. I don't think I need to explain to you how it may be some might know. Let's take an example, if a man is home just for a day or two and then is back off to war and then 9 months later you are born, then if your mother or father told you this story and the date involved, you would know when you were conceived. There are people in situations like this including famous ones actually yet none of them AFAIK celebrate the day of their conception.
Anxious to be reconciled, I was able to catch another priest and tried to go to confession with him. Unfortunately things did not turn out well. When I mentioned my business relationship with a gentlemen's club, the priest did not seem ready to give me absolution. He seems to, among other things, want me to end or intend to end this business relationship as a condition of receiving absolution. But I'll just go to my priest friend who being liberal won't worry about that, probably. If he too ends up witholding absolution, then I'll guess I'll just priest shop until I find someone who doesn't care about it or just not mention it. I don't get why my business relationship there is sinful. People have a business relationship of sorts with Apple if they purchase iPhones and we know Apple contributes to the "homosexual agenda". I'm not going to miss out on lots of profit just to return to the church. In a few years, my business relationship will end so even if this is a true obstacle now, I guess I can return to the sacraments at that time just as people waiting for annulments on their marriages do while they continue to have illicit sex ... none of which goes on in the gentlemen's club; it is a very upstanding establishment.

In the blog post I link to above, Bishop Finn says in part:
"The Freedom of Choice Act will mark the beginning of a great persecution against religious liberty, because it will require tax payer money to be used for abortions. You and I will be faced with this legal trial: whether we should pay our taxes making us participants in the slaughter of Innocents or be liable for jail and fines."
Thoughts anyone? How would a tax protest such as Bishop Finn is suggesting even be implemented? Most Americans have their taxes withheld from their paycheck, and I think you would probably run up against a brick wall trying to get it stopped.

He won't be president elect until and unless the Electoral College votes for him.
A kind and decent man does not insist on infanticide by exposure, sic lawyers upon those who donate to opponents, use legal tricks and law-breaking to get opponents removed from ballets so that he could run unopposed, support abortion, calling babies "punishment" and so forth.

Mary Kay,
When you agree or disagree, you do it with class. I think SDG would agree. :-)
P.S. Sorry about your wrist. :-(

SDG, for the first time, I have to strongly disagree with you. I agree with much of what JohnD said.
For all who objected to "Bush Derangement Syndrome": Be aware that Obama Derangement Syndrome now waits in the wings
There is no equivalence between BDS and whatever you're referring to as ODS. I once made the mistake of describing an unfamiliar flowering plant to a very liberal but otherwise normal and intelligent woman who then subjected me to a full ten minute harangue that I can never say the word "bush," that I should say "shrub" instead. It carried over to the next time I saw her. That's derangement.
Plus the more than one comment from otherwise normal intelligent people that it was unfortunate that Bush or Cheney hadn't been killed. I have not heard anything even close to either about Obama.
the McCain campaign appears to have used similar tactics
No, actually the McCain campaign didn't try to sic the Department of Justice after those who asked tough questions.
not everything that was done by Obama advocates was necessarily sanctioned by Obama himself.
To whatever extent that's true, if Obama can't control his campaign staff, imagine what will happen when he becomes POTUS.
I do agree with you that people in public positions such as the Pope and a newsjournal need to have a working relationship with Obama.
Nor am I impressed with Obama as a "role model," but that will have to be another post as my wrist is making typing difficult.

Charel Weng,
Do you own words mean anything? You have said multiple times you will not comment anymore. And yet you keep coming back.
What do you call someone who keeps repeating something that is untrue?
Since you can't be truthful about your non-participation in this blog no one should give any weight to your run-on-and-all-over-the-place-silly-comments. Not that I think many do....
You have my pity and prayers, truly you do.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

A few easy points off the top of my head:
Of course we don't celebrate our anniversaries of conception; we don't know them down tot he day, unlike our dates of birth. However, many cultures do count the newborn as a year old or nine months old. In China, one is traditionally a year old at birth and another year older at every new Year -- so, a child born yesterday, if today were Chinese New Year, would be considered two years old. They aren't suggesting you have been a living human being for two years. It's a convenient rounding off. We prefer exactness on something irrelevant to approximation on something more to the point in Western society, and therefore celebrate pinpointed, documented birthdays, instead of approximate real ages. Some cultures measure age from the child's first word, rounded to the nearest change of seasons. It has nothing to do with how long a person has been a person.
The percentage of babies who don't grow to viability due to natural miscarriage is unknown, but whether it happens after or before implantation, when the mother knows about the loss of life she usually does grieve. Perhaps she doesn't feel free to go into public mourning, because public mourning is not socially acceptable for those whose loved ones have died in the modern world, but a little mourning may be doen for prominent public figures. But one of the most desolate plaintive statements a friend hears is "I lost my baby."
I never hear anyone cry, "I lost my ovum. I'm short a blastocyst." It (He? She?) was no longer an ovum, and the subdivisions of the time from conception to toddlerhood are subcategories within the category "baby" in common usage, even among pro-choice liberals I know. It's a very radical prochoicer who won't mourn miscarriage and won't call the being that results from conception a child and a baby.
Of course, the implications of basing anybody's right to live or to be protected by law upon that individual's abillity to contribute to society or express herself/himself need no explication.

Bishop Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph (MO) talks about "a great persecution" under FOCA if it passes. The implications frankly scare me.

cath mav,
Again, I'm glad you consider yourself a theist. Discussion about sacramental theology, the morality of abortion and the nature of prayer is, however, very much jumping the gun at this point.
The fundamental question before you is: What sort of significance, if any, do you see in the historical phenomenon of the life and mission of Jesus of Nazareth, and in the belief, message and growth of early Christianity? Is the life and mission of Jesus and the shape of early Christianity revelatory of the divine? If so, how?
In particular, is the place of Jesus of Nazareth and the early Church in human history something in some way unique and definitive, or is it of relative significance only?

Beastly, thank you for your prayers; I believe not in traditional prayer. My view is that prayer should be reinterpreted as simply an exercise of expressing one's desires. God, as Jesus points out, knows what we need and desire before we even ask him for it. So prayer is for our own spiritual journey and not to beg things from God. I was taught similar things by many priests and not just liberal ones.
It looks like my priest friend wants me to make a special appointment with him since I've been away for so long and due to my particular circumstances. So I won't be able to receive reconciliation from him before I go to Mass on Saturday/Sunday.
Beastly, I believe I am able to recite the Creed in all honesty. You may interpret some parts of the Bible literally; others more poetically or metaphorically. The same is true here. Besides, I don't think you need to join in all the responses to be able to licitly receive Communion. Since it's been a while, unless I am reading from the text, I'll probably have to remain silent mostly anyway as I don't remember it as I used to.
And have no fear on acknowledging that the bread in the language of the liturgy is the body and the wine, the blood of both Jesus. I believe in the Real Presence. Many Roman Catholics don't know this but transubstantiation is not a Catholic dogma; the mystery of the Real Presence is. Transubstantiation, as many more Eastern Catholics know, is a Western formulation based on Aristotelian philosophy. Eastern Catholics (or Orthodox in Communion with Rome) do not subscribe to transubstantiation with maybe a few heavily Romanized Churches being exceptions. Eastern Orthodox Catholics (i.e. not in communion with Rome) also of course do not believe in transubstantiation. You can verify this on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Ea...
The Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, along with the Assyrian Church of the East, agree that the bread and wine truly and actually become the body and blood of Christ. They have in general refrained from philosophical speculation, and usually rely on the status of the doctrine as a "Mystery," something known by divine revelation that could not have been arrived at by reason without revelation. Accordingly, they prefer not to elaborate upon the details and remain firmly within Holy Tradition, than to say too much and possibly deviate from the truth. However, they do speak clearly of a "change" (in Greek μεταβολή) or "metousiosis" (μετουσίωσις) of the bread and wine. Met-ousi-osis is the Greek form of the word Tran-substantia-tion.
As well as on the ewtn.com expert forums if there Eastern Catholicism expert is still there. As you know Eastern Catholic Churches are in full communion with Rome and their theology is fully approved by Rome, as by the way is a liturgy of a Church where the words of consecration (institution) are absent; the Vatican ruled that still constituted a valid liturgy and valid effecting of the Real Presence; Jimmy Akin sharply, fairly transparently, and respectfully disagreed with this Vatican ruling on the radio at the time ... I don't understand why it would be OK to disagree with the Vatican on a matter of the Eucharistic liturgy and sacramental validity but not OK to disagree with the Vatican's opinion to a Cardinal about whether being pro-choice was OK (a letter I think is misinterpreted btw) ... anyway I am glad you for one wouldn't exclude me from returning to the Church because I am pro-choice.
Anyway I won't go into all the nooks and crannies of my view of the Real Presence, but the inspiration for my view is transignification. Wikipedia currently unfairly gives this view the label of "modernist Roman Catholic." It is Roman Catholic but it definitely is not "modernist." Modernism involved a variety of propositions; some of the Roman Catholic theologians advancing transignification as an alternative to transubstantiation do not subscribe to that set of propositions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transignification
"Transignification is an idea originating from the attempts of modernist Roman Catholic theologians, especially Edward Schillebeeckx, to better understand the mystery of the Real Presence of Christ at Mass in light of a new philosophy of the nature of reality that is more in line with contemporary physics. The concept of transignification was ultimately rejected by the Catholic hierarchy, and is now more prominent in some Anglican and Protestant circles. Transignification suggests that although Christ's body and blood are not physically present in the Eucharist, they are really and objectively so, as the elements take on, at the consecration, the real significance of Christ's body and blood which thus become sacramentally present."
It's not true that the concept of transignification was "ultimately rejected by the Catholic hiearchy". The only rejection cited in the article is a passing comment by Paul VI which is not a rejection at all but the mere statement that transignification is not enough; that it is not enough to leave the mystery at that level. I agree. As Eastern Catholics like to point out, the Mystery of the Real Presence exhausts our understanding and formulations; and as I said Eastern Catholics generally do not assent to transubstantiation; they don't touch that with a ten foot pole; the Orthodox with a fifty foot pole. Also just as, as Jimmy Akin has pointed out, Humanis Generis did not rule out the possibility for the church to embrace, accept or leave be polygenesis (i.e. that humans came from a group rather than from a progenitor couple) (he said that the pope didn't "close the door" on it completely), I think while the language here is different that a similar thing can be said too and even more so, since the discussion of polygenesis was a little more extensive there then the passing comment not even a sentence long here. And to import legal analogies, while the opinion on polygenesis may arguably be taken to be more than dicta and as true binding precedent, in this case the passing comment on transignification is clearly mere dicta. Also there is more than one theory of transignification. As Jimmy Akin likes to point out w/r/t many magisterial documents, including the Council of Trent, this means that whatever criticism contained there and the force it has is applicable only to the particular ones that were had in mind.
Anyway, since I believe in something similar to transignification, or a version of it, I feel that your admonition on Communion reception need not be heeded. I consider the bread to be as really and truly the body of Jesus as a kiss blown by a lover is really and truly a kiss by the lover even though no lips make contact. The blown kiss is really and truly a kiss because of the meaning it has in the sacred language of love and the personal non-local (see the wikipedia link for an explanation) presence it has on one's receiving lips. The same is true of the sacred language of the liturgy. But when a kiss is blown we think not of these philosophical formulations; likewise in the eucharistic liturgy we think not of transubstantiation or transignification. Rather, we, or we should, just love and then be free. Leave the philosophy and theology and doctrine and politics to the theologians and politicians and bishops. Let religion flourish in your heart.
This was just to update you and clarify that for you. It's not intended for debate; if debate follows, I won't participate in it.
Maybe I'll email you Beastly with an update after Mass on Saturday/Sunday or after my confession appointment.

CT,
I remain pro-choice but I've decided to go to confession this weekend and be reconciled with the church and God.

God be praised! This makes me very, very happy, CT. I hope your search for truth leads you Home!
I will certainly add my prayers for you.
Know that you will always be welcome in the Church as a child of God, but please do not compound your sins by receiving the Eucharist while obstinately holding heretical beliefs. Time enough to present for Communion when you can recite the Profession of Faith in all honesty, acknowledging that you are receiving the body and blood of our Lord.
One final note on pleasure: while God does give us plenty of beauty and pleasure in life, please don't think that God approves of everything we do, even if we get pleasure from it. God is love, and love demands justice, mercy, and moral flourishing for the beloved.

SDG, can we get a formal ban please?
CT/CW/Catholic Maverick tipped his/her hand some time ago. They have no motivation except to attack Christianity - and Catholicism in particular - by any means at hand.
This person does not argue or discuss in good faith, and should be banned before his/her commentary again clogs the combox like kudzu.

Charel Weng,
You are and remain in my prayers.
Lord, Have mercy on both our souls.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Um, SDG, you are included in "you"; it's just that that "you" is plural, inclusive of you and others too. And you don't need any fancy context to know this; you need basic knowledge of the inherent meaning of "you" which is not non-standard at all and also of basic grammar … This construction, bolded above, as is, entails that the "you" in that bolded construction is plural. It would not be possible for that "you" to be singular since one could not extract a proper subset from "you" were it single.

cath mav,
FWIW, I worked in language education for several years, during which time I worked on the development of one of the standard grammar series in the field. I was informally considered one of the two top grammarians in my department. I am also, as you know, a professional writer, and I'm pleased to say that, in my experience, my craft as a stylist enjoys high regard among my peers and editors.
Your grammatical comments are without merit. (Is this addressed to you yourself, or to you and a bunch of other people? Only your hairdresser knows for sure!) In modern English "you" encompasses both second person singular and second person plural; context, which is not "fancy" but an entirely pedestrian and foundational dimension of language, is determinative (or not, in which case you have grammatical indeterminacy).
I find the lines presently under discussion a bit awkward, as your sentences occasionally are; but in no sense can it be maintained that the construction "entails that the 'you' in that bolded construction is plural," since in fact "some" is not clearly or obviously a subset of "you." I agree it's a bit awkward, but it's awkward either way, and there's nothing terribly unusual about encountering awkward constructions in your posts.
(For example, perhaps it was a mere inadvertency that you write in your present post "She is dear to me and I could not bring myself to betraying what I know in my heart to be true." But what can you mean by "Fortunately, the church does not teach that not enforcing laws against abortion is intrinsically evil or that voting for the same is intrinsically evil"? To what referent would "the same" refer? Etc. I don't mean to pick on you. But don't tell me I owe you an apology for misunderstanding you when I'm working harder to understand you than most, and feel free to parse that deliberately ambiguous construction either way you like.)
Context, I repeat, is determinative. In this case the natural reading of "you," determined by the direct quotation of my words and the absence of further determinative context, is second person singular. I have no doubt that, conservatively, upward of 90 percent of the relevant reading population would in fact give it that sense. You can stick to your guns if you like, but you have no case.

I won't hold my breath waiting for your apology though since in the other thread you promised an apology for saying I was a non-theist on which supposed fact your criticism of me was predicated and even spoke of how you would rejoice if you learned I was a theist, but then declined to actually apologize for saying I was a non-theist, indicating only that you would be happy to do so should you have occasion to actually to do so ... at least that is how I would interpret your remark there if I were to employ the same obsessive critical spirit you have employed here with respect to me.

That, too, would be incorrect. You use the provisional subjunctive in your summary. I used the provisional subjunctive before you clarified your stance w/r/t theism, to express my willingness to apologize if circumstances warranted; after your clarification, I switched to simple present, performative of an actual (willing and cheerful) apology. Sorry you missed it.

In evangelical Christian circles, this obsessive critical spirit is considered by some to be demonic.

Perhaps you've lost track of it, but in our present discussion, at every level -- micro (grammatical), intermediate (moral or intellectual inconsistency), and macro (morality of the Church's pro-life stance) -- you are prosecution, I/we defense. And now there is a fourth, meta-level, my (possibly demonic?!) "obsessively critical" treatment of you. This seems hilariously topsy-turvy. Project much?
Your other comments are a trivial assault on Evangelium Vitae without actually engaging the structure of the Holy Father's thought. At this level, the Gospel of Life needs no further defense from me.

I remain pro-choice but I've decided to go to confession this weekend and be reconciled with the church and God.
I also remain unorthodox in my doctrinal beliefs, but since Pope Benedict has embraced a diversity of sheep in the flock, I think we the church are moving in a direction true to me. I don't believe in some of the bible but since as the NCR's John Allen has reported some bishops believe in a restricted inspiration and inerrancy I feel confident my views can be tolerated. If they tolerated a priest who denies that Jesus is God, I don't think the liberal priest I know will reject me when I sit down with him. Karl Rahner even said whether Jesus is God depends on what you mean by "is God". I also don't worship God; I don't think he wants to order me around and for me to feel bound to obey his every word. I think rather he wants me to blossom as the sun and rain want a flower to blossom and to freely grow beautiful and sparkle in the wind. I love God and since God is nothing but love, there's not some part of him made out of something other than love, indeed he is love itself, I think that's all we need to do. As Augustine said, Love and do what you will or Love and do as you please. So love and if it feels good, do it. So love and indulge yourself. Love and be wanton in your appreciation of all that is good, including pleasure and material things.
I've decided also to end my participation on this blog. I will trust the Preacher to the Papal Household that the whole content of biblical revelation, indeed of revelation is contained within the sole sentence "God is love". Thus, though confession is something I feel inspired to do, I don't think it is necessary. Besides I believe as a priest has told me that mortal sin is rare and few if any people commit mortal sin. Let me leave you with the Preacher to the Papal Household's thought:
"Yes, God is love! It has been said that, if all the Bibles of the world were to be destroyed by some cataclysm or iconoclastic rage and only one copy remained; and if this copy was also so damaged that only one page was still whole, and likewise if this page was so wrinkled that only one line could still be read: if that line was the line of the First Letter of John where it is written that "God is love!" the whole Bible would have been saved, because the whole content is there."
http://www.cantalamessa.org/en/predicheView.php?id...
and also with my own:
F(J,MM) []-> UIDE(MM, J, "Lord, I want to please you")
Top 2 signs of spiritual health:
You believe God doesn't take himself too seriously and can laugh at himself.
You make jokes about God knowing that God's not going to punish you for it except by making his own jokes about you.
Top 2 signs of religious abuse:
You have been led to believe that God takes himself seriously and wants you to take him seriously to the point of not being able to make jokes about him.
You almost want to make a joke about God, it's a yearning, but your religious instinct of fear leads you to suppress it.
Why you shouldn't get down on yourself for "impure" thoughts or deeds in two words:
Jesus' intercourse with Mary Magdalene in a gospel.
... for the ignorant, intercourse is defined by dictionary.com as
1. dealings or communication between individuals, groups, countries, etc.
The secondary definition is:
2. interchange of thoughts, feelings, etc.
In my absence, may your own intercourse find inspiration in the aforementioned intercourse between Mary Magdalene and Jesus in which I personally see a Kant-like ethic of being at the loving attention of an individual person instead of utilizing the individual person for some supposed greater purpose. Jesus sought Mary Magdalene's happiness in his intercourse with her more than he sought to teach his disciples, the crowd, or anyone else, including us. And in response, inspired by that example of love in all its human form, Mary Magdalene sought to please Jesus to the maximum, not merely to his glory nor to his greater glory but per Maximilian Kolbe to his greatest glory and likewise not merely to please him nor to please him a lot but to please him in an overabundent way so that Jesus cannot contain his joy but must in heaven we can imagine break out in a joy that encompasses laughter, that laughter that Chesterton thought He chose to keep hidden from us for so intimate a laughter Chesterton thought it to be.
If you wish, pray I have a good confession this weekend.

CT,
First, I know you took that from the Catechism, but traditionally and this is implicit in the context there, just war must also include the blessing of a sovereign (i.e. the state).
[snip]
this text in the Catechism:
2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.
I hope you will have the humility to correct your understanding per above.
Pardon me, but didn't you just prove yourself wrong? The just war doctrine (as outlined in 2309 and in 2243) applies to wars waged with state approval as well as those without. (Point 5 in 2243 seems to me essentially a restatement of 2, and the two sets of criteria are otherwise identical.)
But let's leave that aside for the moment. If civil war is something that would be a result and that evil is graver than the evil of abortion ... then well let's compare that to historical results. The U.S. civil war was the bloodiest American war in terms of American deaths. But far more lives have been lost to abortion in American than lost in that war.
True, but that doesn't mean that the death toll of a new civil war would be the same. I also can't predict how many more lives will continue to be lost to abortion if we don't resort to a civil war. In any case, the point is moot because such an insurrection would have no chance of success.
So your argument there seems fragile and frankly purposed to just get you out of becoming a radical.
I'm not afraid of the radical label. I just don't want to kill my fellow man without very good cause.
Further, many pro-lifers when presented with a hypothetical regarding if they would still favor enforcing laws against abortion were doing so to cause civil law, say that they would, contradicting their would be response here.
Having never heard this question posed, I can't really argue with you. Perhaps this is something you can link to evidence of? In any case, whether or not "many pro-lifers... say" what you claim, I said no such thing.
Also, it's one thing to pass a law that may provoke violence from others. It's another to start the shooting (or the bombing.)
On preventing abortions, wounding a Nazi doctor with the aim of stoping gruesome medical experiments would in your view then be unjustified if another doctor were in line to replace him?
Sure. If my doing violence to my fellow man does no one any good, then I have no reason to do it.
I hope and urge no one to become a radical as an intellectually consistent pro-lifer would become; I urge people and hope that they become pro-choice and reject radicalism.
Once again, your misunderstanding of the views, thoughts, and beliefs of others has led you to erroneous assumptions. Your assumption that "an intellectually consistent pro-lifer would become" violent is incorrect. I urge you and hope that you become pro-logic and reject mischaracterizations and faulty assumptions.
So, as I mentioned previously, Catholics with a good intelectual response in consonance with this catechetical text while they may acknowledge that a few lives may be saved (so (4) is satisified in that respect) they hang their non-radicalism on (2), (3), and (5).
For starters, 4 is not satisfied; I have no good reason to suppose that I could save anyone's life by bombing an abortion clinic or shooting an abortionist. And even if I did, 2, 3, and 5 are reason enough for me to stay my hand.
But denying (3) is though not inconsistent with, in tension with the claim that abortion is an issue which dwarfs any other potential issue.
Is it really inconceivable to you that civil war in America could result in a greater slaughter than the holocaust of the unborn?
And on denying (2), you already made note of something there above but with 16 years of pro-choice presidents possible to come, (2) may be satisfied by then and SCOTUS may have repeatedly declined to revisit Roe by then or affirmed it a few more times with even a 7-2 or 8-1 majority.
Maybe. I don't make a habit of killing my fellow man for maybes. As far as I can tell, only the first condition is fulfilled. While I can conceive of the second and third being fulfilled as well at some point in time, the fulfillment of the fourth and fifth are beyond my imagining, and you have not addressed them at all.
Well, the fact you apparently consider yourself in principle open to radicalization should circumstances change makes you to be frank a potential threat to society.
You mean "a potential threat to the established order." That is, perhaps, true. I submit that every conscious person in the country is a potential threat to the established order, given the right circumstances.
To mitigate against that threat, it is critical that we as a society in all its elements become more and more pro-choice.
Because becoming more and more pro-life wouldn't keep me from doing violence to my fellow man?
Pro-lifers like yourself are a ticking time bomb insofar as the longer the pro-choice justice is the settled law of the land the more settled and set in stone it is and as you have acknowledged the more possible it becomes for pro-lifers like yourself to be thus radicalized.
So what you mean is not that the culture needs to become more and more pro-abortion, but that I need to. That we'll never be safe until everyone thinks in unison. There's some truth to that, but (a) it's never going to happen that we become completely ideologically homogenized and (b) attempts to ensure such homogeneity are never pretty.
The longer Roe stands and the more it is affirmed, the clearer it becomes that it will never be reversed; the longer attempts at a HLA fail, the clearer it becomes that that avenue is also exhausted ... so what to do? You can be dishonest and try to make pro-lifers be moderate and inconsistent
CT, it's you being dishonest here. If you would simply read my responses and take them as they're written instead of trying to invent ways to circumvent the requirements for a just war, you'd understand my position. It's not complicated. The cost/benefit ratio of violence in this situation seems preposterously high to me. I think there are better ways of ending abortion, and armed conflict would impede those other ways.
or you can be like the columnist Michael Kinsley and expose the inconsistency (I forgot to give credit to him; I believe my idea is drawn originally from him) and hope that it will cause some pro-lifers to become pro-choice.
Great tactic, except that (a) the nonviolent anti-abortion approach is not inconsistent, and (b) if it were, we would have seen our second civil war in 1973.
But here’s the problem: The fact that a collection of cells starts to develop when that sperm hits the egg doesn’t make that collection of cells a person, or the moral equivalent of a born human being.
That's a statement of opinion, not fact. It is your opinion, and not mine, and therefore a lousy place to start an argument.
I think most people would agree — an acorn is not a tree, a seed is not a plant, and a zygote is not a person, even if a seed is a necessary precursor to a plant and a zygote is a necessary precursor to a person.
You're talking semantics now. The definition of "plant" may or may not include the seeds of the plant. I think that's debatable, but it doesn't really concern me; the definition of "person" concerns me very much. Whether you think most people would agree that a fertilized human egg is not a person also does not concern me. If your definition of "person" does not include all human beings, including unimplanted, fertilized eggs, then your definition of "person" is not useful in terms of defining human rights, including the right to life. In any case, it is my firm belief that it is objectively proper and good to respect, honor, and protect the lives of all human beings from conception to natural death. A zygote may be a precursor to an adult; it is certainly not a precursor to a human being.
The fact that about half of fertilized eggs don’t implant — ending the potential development of those early “lives” — coupled with the fact that there is no “pro-life” concern for all those billions of fertilized egg-deaths belies the idea that pro-lifers really believe a zygote is the moral equivalent of a born human being.
Even supposing your fact is true, it is understandable that I wouldn't be terribly distraught at the thought of losing a baby I never knew I had. How can a mother be upset when she doesn't even know that she was pregnant? Unimplanted babies are lost before the parents even know about them; how can you fault the parents for failing to grieve? If my grandfather dies in a distant state, and I am not informed, I won't cry, wear black, or attend any funerals. The degree of distress will also usually have a lot to do with how well one knows the deceased. I mourn the deaths of foreigners and unborn babies in the abstract, but it's a far cry from how I mourn the deaths of close friends and family members. I imagine the same is true of an unimplanted baby and a baby who dies after his mother has held and nursed him and looked into his eyes. It's a subjective matter, not proof of an objective difference of kind.
The anti-choice view has always been more about controlling women and controlling sex than saving lives.
Why do you post here, CT? Do you have so little regard for my (and other Catholics') intelligence and humanity? Do you really believe that our ideological difference is based on my desire to control women and the lives of others? If so, is there any point in continuing our conversation whatsoever? How do you expect to get anywhere in our conversation when you're more interested in telling me what I believe than in my own explanation of my beliefs? I can understand the pro-abortion position: You start from the premise that a fetus is not person on the same level as an adult, and so does not need to be accorded the same human rights. Given that assumption, abortion can be thought of as unhealthy, but perhaps a matter of personal choice sort of like smoking or sniffing glue. I understand your point of view here, and I don't ascribe pretend motives to you that have nothing to do with your actual views. Kindly do me the same service. Or, if you're convinced that my compassion is really just a mask for my misogyny, then perhaps you can explain to me why you bother to converse with me at all.

My error in haste; it's not "hundreds"; it's about equal to the number of children they do have (presuming they have never engaged in contraception).
Again this is not failure to implant due to induced abortion, abortifacient or contraceptive. This is nature. 30-60% of the persons God creates fail to implant. Being pro-life is the fast track ticket to atheism since only God's non-existence could explain that if personhood begain at fertilization.

Beastly,
First, I know you took that from the Catechism, but traditionally and this is implicit in the context there, just war must also include the blessing of a sovereign (i.e. the state). So a battalion can't go off and fight its own private war in South Ossettia however just it may be. They need to be authorized by the chain of command to go there. And not just professional soldiers but private security firms can't morally speaking just go off on their own and fight wars they deem just even if they be otherwise just; they need to be approved by the President if they are acting in a war-fighting capacity. This is Aquinas, etc. Classic Catholic doctrine. Just war theory there in that exposition is presupposing that.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm
"The right of war lies solely with the sovereign authority of the State."
Second, for the above reason just war doctrine doesn't really apply here. But let's leave that aside for the moment. If civil war is something that would be a result and that evil is graver than the evil of abortion ... then well let's compare that to historical results. The U.S. civil war was the bloodiest American war in terms of American deaths. But far more lives have been lost to abortion in American than lost in that war. So your argument there seems fragile and frankly purposed to just get you out of becoming a radical. Further, many pro-lifers when presented with a hypothetical regarding if they would still favor enforcing laws against abortion were doing so to cause civil law, say that they would, contradicting their would be response here. On preventing abortions, wounding a Nazi doctor with the aim of stoping gruesome medical experiments would in your view then be unjustified if another doctor were in line to replace him? I hope and urge no one to become a radical as an intellectually consistent pro-lifer would become; I urge people and hope that they become pro-choice and reject radicalism.
OK, now as I was saying just war doesn't apply there per above (since a pro-choice state is not going to bless war against itself or its own blessed institutions). What is relevant is this text in the Catechism:
2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.
I hope you will have the humility to correct your understanding per above.
So, as I mentioned previously, Catholics with a good intelectual response in consonance with this catechetical text while they may acknowledge that a few lives may be saved (so (4) is satisified in that respect) they hang their non-radicalism on (2), (3), and (5).
But denying (3) is though not inconsistent with, in tension with the claim that abortion is an issue which dwarfs any other potential issue. And on denying (2), you already made note of something there above but with 16 years of pro-choice presidents possible to come, (2) may be satisfied by then and SCOTUS may have repeatedly declined to revisit Roe by then or affirmed it a few more times with even a 7-2 or 8-1 majority.
As for what my comment was supposed to mean.
Well, the fact you apparently consider yourself in principle open to radicalization should circumstances change makes you to be frank a potential threat to society. To mitigate against that threat, it is critical that we as a society in all its elements become more and more pro-choice. Pro-lifers like yourself are a ticking time bomb insofar as the longer the pro-choice justice is the settled law of the land the more settled and set in stone it is and as you have acknowledged the more possible it becomes for pro-lifers like yourself to be thus radicalized. The longer Roe stands and the more it is affirmed, the clearer it becomes that it will never be reversed; the longer attempts at a HLA fail, the clearer it becomes that that avenue is also exhausted ... so what to do? You can be dishonest and try to make pro-lifers be moderate and inconsistent or you can be like the columnist Michael Kinsley and expose the inconsistency (I forgot to give credit to him; I believe my idea is drawn originally from him) and hope that it will cause some pro-lifers to become pro-choice.
If pro-lifers really believed what they believe, then why do pro-life women mourn greatly when a child dies, and even mourn some when a more developed fetus or embryo dies in miscarriage, but don't mourn at all when learning of the fact that it is likely that (given a particular case and frequency of intercourse) hundreds of their zygote children were killed in the natural course of events, as the fate of nature befell them, prior to implanatation?
I mentioned this, but I don't think you understood it. Maybe you are in disbelief
But here’s the problem: The fact that a collection of cells starts to develop when that sperm hits the egg doesn’t make that collection of cells a person, or the moral equivalent of a born human being. I think most people would agree — an acorn is not a tree, a seed is not a plant, and a zygote is not a person, even if a seed is a necessary precursor to a plant and a zygote is a necessary precursor to a person. The fact that about half of fertilized eggs don’t implant — ending the potential development of those early “lives” — coupled with the fact that there is no “pro-life” concern for all those billions of fertilized egg-deaths belies the idea that pro-lifers really believe a zygote is the moral equivalent of a born human being. The anti-choice view has always been more about controlling women and controlling sex than saving lives.
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/09/08/t...
About half of the persons created by God according to pro-lifers die in a natural abortion; they don't even implant. This is not due to some contraceptive. This is nature. A woman taking no chemicals will have about half of her zygotes not implant and die. Yet pro-lifers do not mourn these deaths even when these are deaths of supposedly their own children. Ever hear of a pro-lifer who did? Do you if you are a father or mother of these hundreds of your zygote children lost to pre-implanation miscarriage? Do you now that you know? Of course not. Case closed.
O and yes that was a blog but it expressed the fact well. Here's wikipedia:
"A related issue that comes up in this debate is how often fertilization leads to an established, viable pregnancy. Current research suggests that fertilized embryos naturally fail to implant some 30% to 60% of the time."
with these as references:
Kennedy, T.G. Physiology of implantation. 10th World Congress on in vitro fertilization and assisted reproduction. Vancouver, Canada, 24-28 May 1997.
Smart Y, Fraser I, Roberts T, Clancy R, Cripps A (1982). "Fertilization and early pregnancy loss in healthy women attempting conception". Clin Reprod Fertil 1 (3): 177–84. PMID 6196101.

CT,
We need also more Catholics and priests who realize that Jesus is not and has never been God.
As far as I can tell, Jesus' divinity is the central mystery of the Catholic faith. Without it, everything else falls down, and loses any significant distinction from, say, secular humanism or Taoism. This was a hard one for me to swallow for awhile, too. But everything of value in the faith is based on that truth. You say you're a theist; pray about it for awhile, and ask for some understanding in the matter. Billions of people claim to believe that Jesus is God; are we all just stupider than you, or is it possible you're missing something? The Church you want to join is an empty shell; without the Holy Trinity inside, there is nothing there for you that you cannot find in any New Age bookstore. The real and actual Church is not going to change her doctrine to make room for you and all your ideas, but she is ready to take you in when you are humbly receptive to what she really has to offer. I guarantee you it's a thousand times better than what you're asking for.

CT,
My apologies for the crack pipe comment. It was rude and not helpful.
As for your objections to my examples, I would counter that abortion is also morally unconscionable, and that all people living within a state's borders can be considered to be within the state's jurisdiction, including those who still live in utero.
There are, in fact, "pro-lifers" who think that bombing abortion clinics is just peachy. Those of us who disagree with them generally do so out of an understanding of the principles of the just war doctrine. In order to be considered licit, such acts need to fit all the following criteria:
1. The damage inflicted by the abortionists/clinics must be lasting, grave, and certain. Check.
2. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective. Most of us have not yet given up on all other means, although your question arguably puts a checkmark next to this condition as well.
3. There must be serious prospects of success. This is where the bombers' argument really starts to fail; it is highly debatable whether a single abortion has been prevented by their acts.
4. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. Here's where the bombers' argument completely falls apart. I'd love to put an end to abortion; I'm not ready to start a civil war to make it so. Abortion clinic bombings and other forms of violence have killed seven people, and been a huge PR disaster for the anti-abortion cause. I think that even computer-based attacks do too much damage to the social fabric to justify the dubious benefits thereof. I am not entirely opposed to ideas that include civil disobedience or a nonviolent campaign of some sort.

I hope that answers your question and makes sense to you.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that "it is critical that the culture become more and more pro-choice." Are you talking about American culture, global culture, or the culture within the Catholic Church?
As for the heretical priest, heresy does not strip someone of their ordination, nor does it invalidate any sacraments he administers. I question why such a priest still wishes to remain in the Church, but I'll leave his pastoral care to his bishop and his neighbors. In any case, Church doctrine is not going to change, regardless of how liberal the next Pope may be. I haven't heard any cardinals complaining about BXVI's liturgical traditionalism; care to point me to a link?

Beastly,
Those things you mentioned as counterexamples to subsidiarity involve things:
1. Morally unconscienable.
2. Related to 1, subject to the jurisdiction of civil society, i.e. the state.
If abortion were truly comparable to say the Holocaust as you and other pro-lifers contend -- SDG apparently thinks the Holocaust was more evil or at least he gives that impression -- then there is a moral inconsistency in what pro-lifers say and do. This is not even addressing the moral inconsistencies as regards punishing a woman who, abused by her husband, hires a hitman to kill him -- most pro-lifers still think such a woman should be given jail time, but most pro-lifers do not say women who hire abortionists to kill their "children" should be given jail time. Most pro-lifers also do not when asked how many children they have count the one they are pregnant with as one of them. Nor is the day one is conceived, if known in rare cases, considered significant by most pro-lifers; generally in those cases, it is uncomfortable for obvious reasons to think about it.
Anyway, the inconsistency is this. Pro-lifers -- most anyway -- condemn abortion clinic bombings, even ones that involve or would involve no loss of life but only destruction of property. They condemn also things like computer-based attacks on abortion clinics and the like. In the Wild West of the Internet you see talk now and then of secularists wanting to do such virtual cyber attacks against organizations they deem bad, but none from the mainstream of pro-lifers (or any actually that I know of). Now let's go to the Holocaust which pro-lifers liken abortion to. Pro-lifers often join in critizing the Allies for not bombing some of the facilities or infrastructure used to slaughter Jews or transport them. Pro-lifers also would, had this then be relevant, support computer-based attacks on those facilities, even if the U.S. had not declared war or been at war. Pro-lifers give support to hypothetical Germans bombing the death camps or destroying property associated with the camps or to Germans who kill the officers who, in conformity with German law, carried out orders in slaughtering innocents just as abortionists are in conformity with American law.
Yet when it comes to attacks on life or mere property or computer-based attacks, pro-lifers are either reluctant to be forthright or deny -- in most cases sincerely -- that they support such things.
Most don't have a good intellectual response to the inconsistency. Those that do, say that the difference is that the German regime could not have been changed for the better by peaceful means working within the legal system whereas the American one can. Does that mean then that if Roe v Wade (described as "settled law" by J. Roberts) stands the test of time, and like Miranda, accumulates such stare decisis inertia (which inertia depends not solely on time passed but on its being repeatedly reaffirmed as J. Roberts noted with respect to Roe has been the case as well as on some other factors) that realistically abortion as a regime would continue just as realistically it would in Germany that then all these intellectually honest pro-lifers should be immediately suspected of national disloyalty and watched for violent acts and other illegal (such as computer crime) acts?
I believe so. This is why it is critical that the culture become more and more pro-choice. The next pope will surely be a liberal one. Most cardinals are not happy with Benedict's liturgical traditionalism etc.
There is a myth that the newer generation of priests is traditional. The priest who denies Jesus was God and who is in good standing with the Church i.e. not under any censure and is free to celebrate mass, has faculties to hear confession etc.,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444715,00.html
was ordained in 1990.
That's the so called JPII generation of priests. And no it is not the exception that proves the rule.

Charel Weng,
You have my pity and my prayers....
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J