Let’s also remember what we’re talking about:
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live." View all posts by Jimmy Akin
The next time you hear some “independent thinker” or “moderate” saying that there really isn’t any difference between Republicans and Democrats and that all politicians are the the same, ask yourself if John Kerry would have nominated, and if a democrat senate would have confirmed, Justices Roberts and Alito. This is a great day for this country.
How the media can be aghast at a man who kills 32 of his fellow students and professors, and at the same time give its nod of approval to the slaughter of millions of babies is so far beyond my comprehension that I can only shake my head in disbelief.
Debate his merits and his policies until you are blue in the face for all I care, but know that George W. Bush’s signature on this bill and his apointees to the Supreme Court saved the lives of babies today, period. I’ll take a stammering President who defends life over a slick-talking pro-abort any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Keep those Justices, GWB, and the souls of the children for whom this decision came too late in your prayers tonight.
A lot of pro-death politicians keep mentioning the serious health risks women face by not being able to have a partial birth abortion. I’m not a doctor, can someone explain what these risks are? I know they’re just using it as propaganda, but just to help me understand the other side’s argument: What are the risks of other forms of abortion as opposed to partial birth abortion? And expanding the scope, what are the risks of health care that treats the baby as a person as well as the mother (i.e. a society where abortions are illegal)?
Our governor in Oklahoma just vetoed a bill that would restrict those abortions paid for by state money–even though it passed both houses by a wide margin. So it is a bittersweet day for us in Oklahoma. I ask for your prayers that the legislature overrides his veto.
Health risks from not having partial birth abortion = Zero. It’s a flat out lie. Having a partial birth abortion is more risky than just having the darn baby.
I’ve asked the same question about health risks a lot. A PBA is a forced breach, which can cause damage to the mother’s cervix depending on technique. Also, a C-section is less risky only because doctors have more training and do them more often. From what I have learned (and believe me, it’s like pulling teeth from an alligator that’s wide awake), there is absolutely NO situation in which a c-section cannot be substituted for a PBA. The only difference is one leads to a live baby and the other one leads to a dead baby.
–Sparki
Susanne in Oak. Good News there is technically no need to. It is NOW illegal to perform a partial birth abortion(AKA infanticide). Any and all state laws that permit it are out the window! Federal law always supersedes state law.
And for more information, including drawings showing how partial birth abortions are perforemed, see
http://www.nrlc.org/
especially
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html
One of the concerns Justice Kennedy addressed in his opinion is that dismembering the fetus inside the uterus might cause its bones to cut or rip the uterine wall.
Bob, it’s unfortunately the case that this bill likely won’t prevent many (or any) abortions. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court only upheld it because it found that it wouldn’t.
Supremes to those who hate the unborn: No so fast!
Unborn children haters: waaaaaaaaaah
Bob, it’s unfortunately the case that this bill likely won’t prevent many (or any) abortions. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court only upheld it because it found that it wouldn’t.
francis03:
As I stated in the other two threads, remember: ‘baby steps’.
Besides, a small victory may one day lead to a great one!
Esau, I got news for you. The devil is enjoying these baby steps to no where.
The devil is enjoying these baby steps to no where.
So, I take it, it’s better that NOTHING be done at all and that no SUCH EFFORT be taken in trying to combat this evil????
Unless there are SMALL victories won, we can’t hope to ever achieve the ultimate one of defeating this evil!
SLAVERY wasn’t one in JUST ONE BATTLE!!!
It took a WHOLE SERIES of victories in order to achieve the FINAL END!
Nick, care to elaborate?
“So, I take it, it’s better that NOTHING be done at all and that no SUCH EFFORT be taken in trying to combat this evil???? Unless there are SMALL victories won, we can’t hope to ever achieve the ultimate one of defeating this evil! SLAVERY wasn’t one in JUST ONE BATTLE!!! It took a WHOLE SERIES of victories in order to achieve the FINAL END!”
First. God is not incremental, he’s merciful and loving. We must pray that God’s will be done and not man’s will. I’m so sorry that you’ve been deceived.
Make that:
SLAVERY wasn’t WON in JUST ONE BATTLE!!!
It took a WHOLE SERIES of SMALL VICTORIES in order to achieve the FINAL END!
Need I also REMIND you that even in the Early Days of the PERSECUTED Church, the great Roman Empire wasn’t won over by Christianity in just one fell swoop!
It, too, took a whole series of SMALL VICTORIES in order for Christianity to finally be embraced, which lead to it becoming a major religion in our world today!
FURTHERMORE, in regards to your particular statement, the devil ALSO ENJOYS that we NOT take ANY steps at all and I’m sure he rather NOT have such SMALL VICTORIES WON!
First. God is not incremental, he’s merciful and loving. We must pray that God’s will be done and not man’s will. I’m so sorry that you’ve been deceived.
I’m sorry that YOU have been DECEIVED!
That’s just it — MAN’S WILL SHOULDN’T BE DONE — BUT GOD’S — and the only way out is TO FIGHT THE SMALL FIGHTS and WIN THE SMALL VICTORIES!
CHRISTIANITY, ITSELF, WON OVER THE WORLD BY SUCH ‘INCREMENTAL’ STEPS!
Don’t tell me that CHRISTIANITY became a DOMINANT RELIGION OVERNITE!
Nick is right. God wants us to pray, but doesn’t want us to take any action. Remember what our Lord said about the end of the world: “Come, blessed of MY Father. For I was hungry, and you said a prayer; I was thirsty, and you said a prayer; I was naked, and you said a prayer; sick, and you said a prayer; in prison, and you said a prayer.” It’s all right there in the Gospels.
“SLAVERY wasn’t WON in JUST ONE BATTLE!!! It took a WHOLE SERIES of SMALL VICTORIES in order to achieve the FINAL END! Need I also REMIND you that even in the Early Days of the PERSECUTED Church, the great Roman Empire wasn’t won over by Christianity in just one fell swoop! It, too, took a whole series of SMALL VICTORIES in order for Christianity to finally be embraced, which lead to it becoming a major religion in our world today! FURTHERMORE, in regards to your particular statement, the devil ALSO ENJOYS that we NOT take ANY steps at all and I’m sure he rather NOT have such SMALL VICTORIES WON!”
Where’s is your faith Esau? Isn’t it amazing how I can back you into a corner and you cry like baby and whimper? Seriously. Are you suggesting that timing is everything. Timing just doesn’t cut it. Remember what Martin Luther King Jr said, in his prison cell in Alabama, “For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait!” Are you going to tell me that you are going to tell the other babies who are being killed that they should wait?
“I’m sorry that YOU have been DECEIVED! That’s just it — MAN’S WILL SHOULDN’T BE DONE — BUT GOD’S — and the only way out is TO FIGHT THE SMALL FIGHTS and WIN THE SMALL VICTORIES! CHRISTIANITY, ITSELF, WON OVER THE WORLD BY SUCH ‘INCREMENTAL’ STEPS! Don’t tell me that CHRISTIANITY became a DOMINANT RELIGION OVERNITE!”
Of course it wasn’t won overnite. And you know what? The Roman Empire paid the price for waiting blind pharisee! By the time Christianity became legalized Rome was falling. Have you learned nothing. And guess what? By the time slavery became illegal we were in danger of having our nation destroyed. You see what I’m driving at?
“You see what I’m driving at?”
No. Try just saying what you’re driving at.
Where’s is your faith Esau?
14 ¶ What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?
15 And if a brother or sister be naked and want daily food:
16 And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit?
17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works. Shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.
19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.
Are you going to tell me that you are going to tell the other babies who are being killed that they should wait?
THAT’S JUST IT —
PEOPLE MUST WORK HARD AT TRYING TO ABOLISH ABORTION — AND THAT’S GOING TO TAKE A SERIES OF BATTLES, NOT UNLIKE SLAVERY!
WAS SLAVERY ABOLISHED AFTER JUST ONE ACT OR EVENT? WAS IT ABOLISHED RIGHT AFTER THE CIVIL WAR WAS WON????
Did folks FIGHTING TO ABOLISH SLAVERY say to the slaves who were suffering then that they’d have to wait???
NO! They ACTUALLY FOUGHT A SERIES OF BATTLES ALL THROUGH THE NEXT CENTURY IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH JUST THAT!
Nick-
I’m going to tear a page out of Rush Limbaughs book here and ask “What is your solution, sir?”
God Bless.
Where’s is your faith Esau?
14 ¶ What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?
15 And if a brother or sister be naked and want daily food:
16 And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit?
17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works. Shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.
19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.
Are you going to tell me that you are going to tell the other babies who are being killed that they should wait?
THAT’S JUST IT — PEOPLE MUST WORK HARD AT TRYING TO ABOLISH ABORTION — AND THAT’S GOING TO TAKE A SERIES OF BATTLES, NOT UNLIKE SLAVERY! WAS SLAVERY ABOLISHED AFTER JUST ONE ACT OR EVENT? WAS IT ABOLISHED RIGHT AFTER THE CIVIL WAR WAS WON???? Did folks FIGHTING TO ABOLISH SLAVERY say to the slaves who were suffering then that they’d have to wait???
Esau it took a war to end slavery! By the time blacks were allowed to vote, the pro-abortion movement had already taken wing.
NO! They ACTUALLY FOUGHT A SERIES OF BATTLES ALL THROUGH THE NEXT CENTURY IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH JUST THAT!
Of course it wasn’t won overnite.
Oh, gee, I guess THAT was my point — but what do I know?
I have NO faith and prefer to sit around, twiddling my thumbs, doing NOTHING but PRAY and LEAVE IT ALL to God.
And you know what? The Roman Empire paid the price for waiting blind pharisee!
HUH????
By the time Christianity became legalized Rome was falling. Have you learned nothing.
Yes — De Civitate Dei, in fact!
And guess what? By the time slavery became illegal we were in danger of having our nation destroyed. You see what I’m driving at?
YES — A BRICK WALL!
Great. More rejects from the lunatic asylum. The sane:insane ratio here is dropping precipitously.
“NO! They ACTUALLY FOUGHT A SERIES OF BATTLES ALL THROUGH THE NEXT CENTURY IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH JUST THAT!”
No. Read your history my friend. Once a government loses respect for the dignity of the human person, none is actually safe.
# 1859: The American Medical Association (AMA) condemns abortion except as necessary to preserve the life of either the mother or child (?)
# 1875: Every state in the United States has adopted laws banning abortion.
# 1916: Margaret Sanger forms the Birth Control League (now Planned Parenthood) to promote contraception and abortion.
# 1959: The American Law Institute (ALI) proposes the “Model Penal Code” urging that abortion be performed in licensed hospitals when necessary to preserve the mental or physical health of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
# 1965: Griswold v. Connecticut. Supreme Court hands down decision that legalizes contraception and defines the “right to privacy.”
# 1967: Colorado becomes the first state to allow abortion for cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother’s life.
# 1970: Fourteen states were allowing abortion in certain circumstances.
# 1973: Roe v. Wade. Stating that a constitutional “right to privacy” exists that protects a woman’s decision to have an abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court legalizes abortion on demand. The Court permits states to outlaw abortions from viability until birth (third trimester) except when necessary to preserve the mother’s life or health.
# 1973: Doe v. Bolton. The Supreme Court defines “health” (of the mother) to include all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age. This basically allows a woman to have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy and for any reason.
“Of course it wasn’t won over nite.Oh, gee, I guess THAT was my point — but what do I know? I have NO faith and prefer to sit around, twiddling my thumbs, doing NOTHING but PRAY and LEAVE IT ALL to God. And you know what? The Roman Empire paid the price for waiting blind pharisee! HUH???? By the time Christianity became legalized Rome was falling. Have you learned nothing. Yes — De Civitate Dei, in fact! And guess what? By the time slavery became illegal we were in danger of having our nation destroyed. You see what I’m driving at? YES — A BRICK WALL!”
It was the persecution of Christians by Rome, that was just one, that destroyed the Empire in the first place.
No. Read your history my friend. Once a government loses respect for the dignity of the human person, none is actually safe.
Actually, YOU should study US history!
There were just as many, if not, even more measures that were FOR SLAVERY and, talking about the dignity of the human person, actually depicted black people as SUBHUMAN!
Hence, just like Slavery, it will take a whole series of similar battles to end abortion — not just one!
My point is that if we allow this law to pass we only farther hindering the pro-life movement. We don’t put our salvation in partisan politics.
It was the persecution of Christians by Rome, that was just one, that destroyed the Empire in the first place.
You DON’T GET IT, do you?
I was saying that Christianity didn’t become an accepted religion in the Empire OVERNITE — it took a whole series of ‘incremental steps’ before that actually happened!
“‘You see what I’m driving at?'”
“No. Try just saying what you’re driving at.”
Guess not.
Esau, by the time that happened, it was too little too late.
My point is that if we allow this law to pass we only farther hindering the pro-life movement.
What the heck are you talking about???
We were talking about the recent court decision regarding PBA, which was essentially a moral victory FOR the Pro-Life movement!
We don’t put our salvation in partisan politics.
That’s not the point — the fact of the matter is that we need to SUPPORT those in politics who will help FURTHER THE CAUSE in seeing the end of abortion!
Esau, by the time that happened, it was too little too late.
NO IT WASN’T BECAUSE, IN THE END, CHRISTIANITY BECAME EMBRACED BY THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND FROM THEREON, BECAME THE VERY FORCE THAT ULTIMATELY SHAPED THE FUTURE OF THE WESTERN CIVILIZED WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!
“My point is that if we allow this law to pass we only farther hindering the pro-life movement”
H’okay… up is down, black is white… I get it.
Look, knowing how candidates stand on certain issues is one thing. I only support politicians that are 100% pro-life.
Besides which, the law IS passed. The law is law.
“NO IT WASN’T BECAUSE, IN THE END, CHRISTIANITY BECAME EMBRACED BY THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND FROM THEREON, BECAME THE VERY FORCE THAT ULTIMATELY SHAPED THE FUTURE OF THE WESTERN CIVILIZED WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!”
If Rome had legalized Christianity way before Constantine Rome never would have fallen.
Are you going to tell me that you are going to tell the other babies who are being killed that they should wait?
AND
I only support politicians that are 100% pro-life.
So, I guess you can say to all those innocent babies being killed, “Sorry, I could’ve voted for somebody that might’ve helped to further the cause against abortion, but I only vote for 100% candidates!”
If Rome had legalized Christianity way before Constantine Rome never would have fallen.
Ever hear of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE????
Also, it would help to actually read De Civitate Dei!
The Holy Roman Empire came after the fall of Rome. Not before.
The Holy Roman Empire came after the fall of Rome. Not before.
THAT’S THE POINT!
“So, I guess you can say to all those innocent babies being killed, ‘Sorry, I could’ve voted for somebody that might’ve helped to further the cause against abortion, but I only vote for 100% candidates!'”
Esau the biggest mistake the pro-life movement ever did was align itself with a political party.
Esau the biggest mistake the pro-life movement ever did was align itself with a political party.
You mean to say that ACTUALLY ADDING 2 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES THAT ARE PRO-LIFE (the actions of said political party) was a MISTAKE?
Did you even READ about the recent decision on PBA?
“The Holy Roman Empire came after the fall of Rome. Not before. THAT’S THE POINT!”
I see, take baby steps to ending the persecution of Christians, Rome gets destroyed. Then set up a new empire. Which is by taking baby steps you destroy one country in make a new one.
“You mean to say that ACTUALLY ADDING 2 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES THAT ARE PRO-LIFE (the actions of said political party) was a MISTAKE? Did you even READ about the recent decision on PBA?”
Where was Bush’s anger when South Dakota rejected a ban on all abortions? Very telling if you ask me. Are you going to say to me that this silence over rejection of the ban on all abortions in South Dakota and the election of two Supreme Court justices is a postive?
I see, take baby steps to ending the persecution of Christians, Rome gets destroyed. Then set up a new empire. Which is by taking baby steps you destroy one country in make a new one.
If Rome becoming a Christian Empire is destruction to you, then there is no point to this (apparently) one-way conversation.
the election of two Supreme Court justices is a postive?
Do you actually know what is the FUNCTION of a Supreme Court Justice???
Apparently, not!
“If Rome becoming a Christian Empire is destruction to you, then there is no point to this (apparently) one-way conversation.”
Converting people by destroying one nation and making another is not the way to do it.
Nick–
“Esau the biggest mistake the pro-life movement ever did was align itself with a political party.”
I don’t really think the pro-life movement really intended to align itself with a political party. It just so happens that the Republican party has a heck-of-alot more pro-lifers in it than the Democratic party. In fact, there are many good Catholics and Christians out there who would like to vote Democratic (myself not included here) but can’t because their consciences wont let them elect agents of death.
I’m still not sure what you’re “driving at” here Nick. Could you please spell out your ideas, perhaps a long term strategy, for clarity’s sake?
God Bless.
“the election of two Supreme Court justices is a positive? Do you actually know what is the FUNCTION of a Supreme Court Justice??? Apparently, not!”
So you are saying that a positive action by Bush somehow erases a bad action he did? Doesn’t work like that.
Nick-
I’m going to tear a page out of Rush Limbaughs book here and ask “What is your solution, sir?”
God Bless.
I’m interesting in hearing the answer to Kris’ question. If Nick would be so kind as to share the solution to ending abortion all at one, I’d be the first on the bandwagon.
Converting people by destroying one nation and making another is not the way to do it.
They DIDN’T destroy it!
Their own actions (those of the ignoble Roman Power at that time) did that!
However, from the rubbles came a phoenix — since the Holy Roman Empire that came to be would subsequently help to make Christianity a widespread religion all throughout the known world and, later, even beyond — in fact, Western Civilization is what it is today because of it!
…there are many good Catholics and Christians out there who would like to vote Democratic (myself not included here) but can’t because their consciences wont let them elect agents of death.
Yup – I for one would probably vote mixed-ticket if there were actually pro-life Dems on my ballot. And I know quite a few other Catholics who feel the same, or would be hard-core Democrats, if it weren’t for life issues.
So you are saying that a positive action by Bush somehow erases a bad action he did? Doesn’t work like that.
Nick,
You DON’T GET IT —
The actions of the Supreme Court Justices have SIGNIFICANT RAMIFICATIONS since they MOVE and SHAPE the COURT (as they are doing right now, in fact, with the recent decision on PBA) for YEARS TO COME!
THUS, their very actions have TREMENDOUS CONSEQUENCES for ALL Americans and can help, in fact, UNDO the horrific repercussions of Roe v. Wade at the very root of its evil!
Especially significant as well is the fact that these folks hold their positions for FOR LIFE and that’s why PRO-DEATH folks were so against the nominations for Roberts and Alito, Bush’s nominees!
You can read the recent court decision to see why!
By all means, Nick, share this abortion-crushing strategy you’ve got… don’t hold out on us.
Heck, if we all throw in together we ought to have it all wrapped up by, what, next week?
Yet another example of one of my favorite aphorisms: “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
Your not “100% pro-life” so to hell with you. sigh
There’s nothing wrong with “baby steps” as long as they’re in the direction of God’s will. There will always be people who complain that correcting evils isn’t being done fast enough and we’re not there yet, but they just remind me of those people who crabbed at Moses. And remind me here, guys… how long did it take Moses to fulfill his God-given job of getting the people to the promised land?
Nick is insane. Literally. He needs to be committed. Assuming, of course, that he isn’t a Perl script. You all spend so much of your lives trying futilely to talk to trolls, irrational lunatics, psychotics, and computer programs it isn’t even funny.
Does that mean I shouldn’t post anymore?
Anon-
Thank you for comming down off your pedastal to save us all from ourselves.
Nick:
If Rome had legalized Christianity way before Constantine Rome never would have fallen.
Which is absolutely ridiculous. No government of man, even the best, is guaranteed survival. The reasons the Roman Empire fell are not clear and agreed upon. There are so many factors. In the past it was traditional to regard moral disintegration as crucial, but that’s not so easy an argument to make when you look at the facts.
There was so much pressure from outside the Empire by the Westward migration of peoples. There were also plagues that we now know to have been worse than the Black Death. There may have been climatic factors. And there were millions of individual people making individual decisions. You can’t say events in history happen because of *one* thing.
(One half of the Roman Empire *did* survive, though, for another thousand years, something us Westerners often forget.)
But I do think it’s not worth while getting so flustered and arguing with… well, not trolls, but people who are so unable to engage in the back-and-forth of conversation.
Ooops. That last comment was me.
Thanks to Eileen R for the reminder to those who had forgotten that the Roman Empire didn’t actually fall until 1453.
Blessed Emperor Constantine XI Paleologus died in Communion with the Roman See. He was a Greek Catholic and didn’t repudiate the Council of Florence.
I marched in the Respect-for Life gatherings in Washington for many years. For years, I have sent many e-mails to legislators and editors supporting Life and finally the message is being heard. Bravo to the five Respect-for-Life Supreme Court Justices!!!!
Blessed Emperor Constantine XI Paleologus died in Communion with the Roman See. He was a Greek Catholic and didn’t repudiate the Council of Florence.
Hmmmm… I wonder what famous and distinguished individual actually mentioned Palelogus in the relatively recent past (although was unjustly castigated for his rather innocent remarks regarding him)?
Also, about the Fall of the Roman Empire being blamed on the Christians — nihil novi sub sole! (nothing is new under the sun!)
This is the very same accusation hurled then at Christians during Augustine’s days — thus, it would be best to actually read De Civitate Dei.
Further, as mentioned, the Holy Roman Empire that came to be helped propel Christianity to become the world religion it is today and, in fact, it can arguably be said that out of that came the very foundation of Western Civilization as we know it.
it can arguably be said that…
Anything “can arguably be said.” Doesn’t make it the truth though.
Doesn’t make it the truth though.
I take it you haven’t read “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” then?
Esau,
Actually, I believe it was Emperor Manuel II Paleologus, wasn’t it?
And wow. I actually agree with Realist on something! Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! 🙂
Esau,
You have the wrong Emperor.
The Holy Father quoted Manuel II Paleologus.
Esau,
You have the wrong Emperor.
The Holy Father quoted Manuel II Paleologus.
Wasn’t Constantine his son though?
Also, about the Fall of the Roman Empire being blamed on the Christians
Esau, I think Nick blamed the Fall of Rome on the Romans for not legalizing Christianity earlier.
“Susanne in Oak. Good News there is technically no need to. It is NOW illegal to perform a partial birth abortion(AKA infanticide). Any and all state laws that permit it are out the window! Federal law always supersedes state law.”
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t referring to partial birth abortions. The governor in Oklahoma vetoed a bill that would have prohibited state (tax dollar) funding for all abortions.
Esau, I think Nick blamed the Fall of Rome on the Romans for not legalizing Christianity earlier.
This assumption was just as faulty.
I would argue the Roman Empire that was of Caesar was meant to fall.
The Holy Roman Empire out of which Christianity would be spread not only throughout but, later, even beyond, was meant to happen.
This assumption was just as faulty.
I withhold judgement on historical causality. I am but a lowly computer programmer.
I am merely irked when people are misquoted — it often leads to bad results — hence I put my referee hat on. 🙂
I am merely irked when people are misquoted
Smoky:
Where, exactly, in my remarks did I actually say that it was Nick I was referring to?
Then whose statement were you referring to?
Not to any actual person in particular but merely alluding to the following comments:
The reasons the Roman Empire fell are not clear and agreed upon. There are so many factors. In the past it was traditional to regard moral disintegration as crucial, but that’s not so easy an argument to make when you look at the facts.
I don’t see how:
Also, about the Fall of the Roman Empire being blamed on the Christians
alludes to
The reasons the Roman Empire fell are not clear and agreed upon. There are so many factors. In the past it was traditional to regard moral disintegration as crucial, but that’s not so easy an argument to make when you look at the facts.
It seems that it’s more likely a mis-reading of Nick’s statement:
If Rome had legalized Christianity way before Constantine Rome never would have fallen
which is what I based my comment on. I apologize if I’m wrong. I’ll drop this now, as this isn’t likely to be useful reading for anyone.
Here, perhaps this sequence of reading may help (although, unless you’re familiar with some of the proposed reasons why the Roman Empire fell, you perhaps may miss it still):
start comment:
The reasons the Roman Empire fell are not clear and agreed upon. There are so many factors. In the past it was traditional to regard moral disintegration as crucial, but that’s not so easy an argument to make when you look at the facts.
Then, my comment:
Also, about the Fall of the Roman Empire being blamed on the Christians…
But I do think it’s not worth while getting so flustered and arguing with… well, not trolls, but people who are so unable to engage in the back-and-forth of conversation.
Well, I don’t see how CONSTANT SCREAMING!!! helps facilitate rational conversation either. I feel a bit sorry for Nick and think he’s being unjustly derided while trying to get at something important. Catholics here are rejoicing at action that wasn’t meant to and probably won’t prevent any deaths, and which is nevertheless giving the pro-death people a rhetorical opportunity to bewail the curtailing of their precious “constitutional freedoms”. I can easily see this helping the pro-choice movement more than the pro-life in the long run.
I think the PBA ban shows recognition of how heinous it is to crush a child’s skull as it is half-way out of the mother. In this ban there is an acknowledgment, at least a subtle one, that it is ridiculous to argue that a half born baby can be justifiably killed.
Now as to ending abortion totally well, I think my grandpa’s farm advice fits well: “You’ve got a long row to hoe young man, so get your butt back to work!”
MS:
It’s not CONSTANT SCREAMING! it’s called STRESSING the point.
Also, what unjust derision was there?
Furthermore:
Catholics here are rejoicing at action that wasn’t meant to and probably won’t prevent any deaths,
That’s why I called it a moral victory.
… and which is nevertheless giving the pro-death people a rhetorical opportunity to bewail the curtailing of their precious “constitutional freedoms”.
Oh, so then let’s NOT even WIN the SMALL VICTORIES and, in fact, let’s NOT even try to win ANY battles against abortion SINCE ANY VICTORY AGAINST ABORTION ONLY MEANS A RHETORICAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PRO-DEATH PEOPLE TO BEWAIL THE CURTAILING OF THEIR PRECIOUS “CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS”!
Heck, let’s not even fight against abortion at all since it only gives pro-death folks the chance to have a platform from which to speak!
Esau,
I don’t know if you or anyone else will care about this, but I’m seriously starting to consider not coming to Mr Akin’s site anymore, or at least not reading the comments anymore, because of your ubiquitous participation in the discussions and the manner in which you conduct it. This is not the way to have a conversation. Rhetorically, EMPHASISIZING EVERYTHING IS THE SAME THING AS EMPHASIZING NOTHING, BUT JUST YELLING!!! It’s obnoxious and your posts are nearly always unpleasant to read because of it. I know that a lot of people feel the same way and have said so.
More seriously, you seem not to know how to have a discussion with people you disagree with. I’m on your side here, really I am. I am a staunch orthodox Catholic and I hate abortion and want it to disappear. But I do have doubts about the significance of this “victory”. I think Nick raised some points which were not really addressed. I suggested that producing no tangible result, but only a moral one, has questionable value if the other side can easily use it to achieve just as much of a moral and rhetorical victory. What will a decision like this, which does nothing to save lives but does get people angry and self-righteous, do when the next round of judicial nominations is up and the Democrats are almost certainly in charge? The point that Kris makes a few posts ago is perfectly sound, but will be lost on all pro-murder supporters if they don’t already know it. Killing a baby is always heinous, but they don’t see that and the details of the “procedure” make no difference to them. I’m not sure the details of how abortion is conducted should make a difference to us either. Perhaps this ban will have the effect of enforcing the perception that there’s a meaningful difference between abortion and infanticide, when there isn’t.
But Esau, you show no willingness whatsoever to engage these points or even consider that they might be worth engaging or thinking about for a moment. You treat me with the same sarcastic dismissal as you did Nick. As I said, it’s not really worth trying to have a discussion, or read such discussions, in these circumstances.
MS:
What you and your friend Nick doesn’t seem to understand is that you can’t win the WAR against abortion OVERNITE!
It appears that you haven’t read the comments of others on this thread who feel the same way!
It is also apparent that you haven’t read the full extent of my comments or, if so, HAVEN’T CONSIDERED THEM AT ALL AT ANY LENGTH but instead resort to SARCASTIC DISMISSAL.
By the way, my comments were not the SARCASTIC DISMISSAL that you have wrongly characterized them!
In fact, if you read what you said to me and what I actually said, you would come to realize the reasoning behind the comments I made. The same goes for what I said to Nick.
Of course, what do I know?
I’m merely part of a once oppressed people who stupidly thinks that small victories matter and can actually appreciate such small wins because I know that later on down the road, they may lead to greater ones!
Thank you for confirming my point.
Anytime.
Glad to be of service!
Actually, this decision will save lives..today. PBA is, to the best of my knowledge, the standard procedure for a late-term murder…er..abortion. The procedure is now banned, so the child who was scheduled to die today will be spared. The abortion mills will now have to design a more cosmetically appealing procedure to murder a child, but until then, we have our proverbial thumbs in the dike.
This also wasn’t just a victory for the pro-life movement. It was a victory for the idea that our elected officials make law in this country, not robed appointees. Roe was created out of whole cloth by judges and foisted upon this country. It is bad law that we never voted for. With this first crack in Roe, there is already speculation that states will begin to enact more limits on abortion.
And as for the notion that this is just ammunition for the pro-aborts, whatever happened to the notion of doing something simply because it is the right thing to do? How many excuses are there in the history of mankind for sin and/or inaction? Fornication (…but we really love each other…), murder (…but he was a really bad person…), theft (…they’ll never miss it…), sloth (…the job is too big and too difficult…), and cowardice (…what’s the point? I can’t defeat them and I’ll just get hurt…) are just a few examples of how the darker parts of our nature can thrive when we let our guard down and refuse to bear our crosses. Simple question – yes or no: do you think PBA should be legal? If you don’t, then celebrate the fact that it no longer is. Then choose your next battle.
This week marked the 65th anniversary of Jimmy Doolittle’s (sp?) bombing raids on Japan. They were largely innefective and served no real military purpose. A lot of lives, planes, fuel, training, time, and effort were sacrificed for these raids. What was the point? It energized the country…it raised our hopes for victory…it gave the country a taste of success…it gave our citizens and our troops a notch to put in our collective belts that we could carry into the next battle.
Personally, I am enjoying the taste of this small victory. And I am newly energized for more.
Bob, I like the comparison to the Doolittle raids.
Given how threatened the pro-aborts sound, this is not a small victory. It does make me wonder what their counter-move will be.
Doolittle’s raids prompted Japan to try to dislodge the American navy, which the Americans anticipated leading to another victory.
Besides, in any protracted battle, small victories really do count.
I agree with MS that the caps are hard on the eyes and could possibly make you come across as angry to a reader unfamiliar with your writing style. You wouldn’t write a book using caps every time you wanted to add a little emphasis to a sentence. There are times when extra emphasis is needed by caps or bolding, but those techniques should be used sparingly. The rest of the time good old sentence structure and exclamation points should do the trick. While we’ve got more freedom with the rules of grammar here on the Internet, maybe we shouldn’t bend them quite so much.
Esau, the CAPS read as yelling to me too. It’s just the internet convention, drummed into my head as a thirteen year old newbie to the web. ALL CAPS = YELLING.
In defence of Esau, about Christians being blamed for the Roman Empire’s collapse, I can very well see where Esau got that from my post, not from misquoting Nick, because yep, that’s what I was referring to. The old theory of moral disintegration originally did blame the Christians. The newer moral disintegration theory seems to blame the pagans, but people are working on blaming the Christians again. 😉
Jimmy,
Thanks for the picture of the beautiful baby. That’s what it’s all about. I am 10 weeks away from seeing the face of my baby and I can’t wait. To hold his hand, to hear his cry, to see his face. Mothers hearing their pre-born baby’s heart beat and seeing the baby’s ultrasound pictures will do more to save the lives of babies than all you guys fighting on the internet. Use your passion for good. Go out and raise some money for a pregnancy help center to buy an ultrasound machine.
Eileen R:
Thanks as always, Eileen R.!
Brian:
Thanks for the advice!
From both yours and Eileen’s feedback, it is definitely something to consider.
What MS doesn’t realize though was that the comments he thanked me for wasn’t actually sarcastic dismissal as well but that my subsequent comment was.
Recently after the Democrats took control of congress, I was amazed to read a survey published by Americans for Religious Liberty which finds that “Catholics” hold 155 seats out of 535 in the new 110th Congress of the United States, seated January 11, 2007. That’s nearly one out of three. The new Speaker of the House of Representatives is
”Catholic”. If you add the other “Christians, that comes to a total of 448 Christians, or 84% of the entire U.S. Congress.
Why, then, is it so difficult to pass legislation that conforms to Natural Law and Christian morals: against abortion, against “gay
marriage,” etc.? Why is it so difficult finally even to get legislation against moral crimes like this partial birth abortion, which only extremists in the United States advocate?
The answer is simple:
They are no longer “Catholic”, because as Kennedy said when he was running for President in 1960, right to John XXIII (who failed to rebuke him)was that as a Catholic, he does not take any direction from the Pope, but the American people. Could one imagine a Catholic saying that to Pius X? That set the tone for all of the disrespect Catholic people who emulate their politicians such as Pelosi, Giuliani, Kennedy, Kerry, Cuomo, etc-who advocate death of the unborn but the Pope on down to the USCCB dont have the guts to deny them the body and blood of our Lord!
Catholics after Vatican II are no longer associated with the Bible, not to speak of Tradition. It is, rather, associated with non-religious, secular, liberalist politics.
Senators John Kerry, failed 2004 U.S. Presidential candidate, and Ted Kennedy, participant in the death of a young woman at Chappaquiddick and proud “divorcee,” who consistently vote against Natural Law and
Christian moral principles, are good examples of this ilk. They do not hesitate to grab the eucharist for a photo opportunity, nor does Donald Wuerl, the new archbishop of Washington, D.C., hesitate to give the eucharist to them.
So you continue to wonder whether it ever occurred to this ilk, which dares to call itself Catholic/Christian, that if they actually represented Christian morality, they have control of congress to enact the most far-reaching moral program ever attempted but with Popes who preach that all religions should be respected and that the Catholic church is not the only means to salvation, why should they worry?
John, what’s your point? The same argument can be applied to any subject. An environmentalist could say that the reason we aren’t all driving zero emission cars is because there aren’t enough environmentalists in Congress and the ones who are aren’t true to environmentalisms tenants.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t JFK say that before Vatican II?
Kasia posted:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t JFK say that before Vatican II?
That is correct-but Pope John XXIII ushered in “agiornomento” and Vatican II
The winds of change were in the air and so was the moral breakdown of the Catholic clergy and laity alike
Kasia 1, John 0.
not the best way to say it, but I couldn’t resist temptation 🙂
If memory serves right, JFK said that in the months prior to the 1960 election which was held before Vatican II was convened.
They are no longer “Catholic”, because as Kennedy said when he was running for President in 1960, right to John XXIII (who failed to rebuke him)was that as a Catholic, he does not take any direction from the Pope, but the American people. Could one imagine a Catholic saying that to Pius X?
Doesn’t this strike you as the least bit ironic?
Generally, I can’t imagine a Catholic saying that to Pius X, but I don’t *have* to imagine *you* saying that to Benedict XVI. You’ve said plenty of times that as a Catholic, you don’t have to take direction from the Pope.
Kasia 1, John 0.
not the best way to say it, but I couldn’t resist temptation 🙂
If it comes to skilled debating, John picked the wrong person to mess around with.
Not to say they’re the only ones out here, but based on past threads, I can surely say Kasia and Eileen R. would be two of the most lethal.
Probably why I love reading their comments so much on the blog! Quite the learning experience — especially for one such as I!
With 155 “Catholics” in congress-one could only imagine what power they would wield if they actually held fast to the faith, tradition and Catholic teaching and voted in unison
Could you imagine a Jewish member of congress voting against Israel (at least the right to exist or something that is a doctrine of their faith?). Moslem and Palestine? Black caucus?
The church began the big sellout with ecumenism, Vatican II and a papacy that became a figurehead much like the king and queen of England
Pray for a full restoration of the church, her mass, traditions, sacraments, catechism, and canon law
They are no longer “Catholic”, because as Kennedy said when he was running for President in 1960, right to John XXIII (who failed to rebuke him)was that as a Catholic, he does not take any direction from the Pope, but the American people. Could one imagine a Catholic saying that to Pius X?
King Henry VIII had Kennedy beat by hundreds of years. If he were alive during Pius X’s pontificate I’m sure he would have told him off too. The Church wasn’t ecumenical back then and it couldn’t stop the Anglican split.
Catholics on a personal level have been dissenting from the Pope since the beginning. Why would you think that American politicians would be any different? Afterall, the American Government has never been Catholic. I would expect more out of Henry VIII than JFK.
Pray for a full restoration of the church, her mass, traditions, sacraments, catechism, and canon law
Ditto.
Sounds like JFK and John both agree that the Pope’s authority can be dismissed when it doesn’t align with one’s own opinions.
Brian posted:
“King Henry VIII had Kennedy beat by hundreds of years. If he were alive during Pius X’s pontificate I’m sure he would have told him off too. The Church wasn’t ecumenical back then and it couldn’t stop the Anglican split.”
Ahh, but the Pope stood for something back in Henry VIII’s time, and good old Henry paid for such with excommunication, where today the stakes are even higher (murder of the unborn) and “Catholic” politicians go unpunished and are even allowed to receive communion!!
Lets be real, in the 11th century the Pope Urban called a crusade to rescue Catholic pilgrims as well as the Holy Land for the onslaught of Moslems who enslaved Catholics (a practice which was permitted LEGALLY up until the 20th century in which Catholics were sold by Moslems to slavery)in which hundreds of thousands heeded the call
Today the Pope cant even get 15% of the Population to go to Mass let alone fight for the faith (something that was changed as well after Vatican II when we receive our confirmation, no longer “Church Militant” and the “blow to the cheek by the Bishop has been done away with in the name of ecumenism”.
I know I’ll hate myself for this in the morning, but…
“blow to the cheek by the Bishop has been done away with in the name of ecumenism”.
Care to back that up with any real, authoritative reference, or do you just assume it’s true because you found it on a webpage somewhere?
It was certainly included in MY Confirmation, 14 years ago.
But, assuming (for the sake of argument) that it has been “done away with”… how in the world is getting rid of the symbolic blow to the cheek supposed to be more “ecumenical”?… or is that just the standard accusation you make against any idea you don’t like?
The Pope still stands for something. It’s we who don’t stand with him. Instead of complaining, why not get behind him as he works to restore the Church?
P.S. You’re currently standing in the same spot as all the people you’re ranting against.
Today the Pope cant even get 15% of the Population to go to Mass let alone fight for the faith
The Pope can’t get Catholics to return to Mass with a crusade either. It’s easy to point the finger at the Pope. But Benedict is doing his job of proclaiming the Truth.
Turn that finger around: when the laity joins the Pope the Church will return the power it once had.
“Today the Pope cant even get 15% of the Population to go to Mass”
Right, blame the Pope…
I hear he kissed a manuscript of the new Harry Potter book! He failed to stop the Virginia Tech shooting! And what about Andrew Sullivan? He continues to operate a popular website promoting homosexuality and calling himself a Catholic, and what has the Pope done about it? Huh?!
The hobby horse is wearing poopy pants!
There once was a troll who lived in a hole/ He loved to eat lies, roots, and (gallup) polls/
Well, one day this troll, who lives in a hole/ Saw his old enemy, Depraved, across the great cave/ ‘Now look, here,’ he said, not looking brave/ “Leave my hole, and or I’ll call out more trolls”/
His old enemy, not heeding this warning/ stayed there, eating into late morning/ It was then that the Troll, looking very grave, rushed across the cave/ As he reached the far end, he found that his enemy had never been/ “crash” went the glassy stones/ and now the old Troll is just bones.
I hear he kissed a manuscript of the new Harry Potter book! He failed to stop the Virginia Tech shooting! And what about Andrew Sullivan? He continues to operate a popular website promoting homosexuality and calling himself a Catholic, and what has the Pope done about it? Huh?!
Tim, it has GOT to be a sin of some sort for me to laugh that hard…
Seriously, I think Brian just hit it out of the park. Dead on.
Bad, isn’t it? 🙂
What ‘blow to the cheek’ are y’all talking about? I was just confirmed at Easter, and no one gave me a symbolic or real smack in the face.
But then, the Bishop wasn’t there…he just consecrated the Chrism…
I admire the way the Traditionalists adamantly stand for what they believe in. We could use them on our side. At the highest level we want the same thing – One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church (I know it already is but sometimes it’s hard to tell). But somewhere along the way their logic goes wrong. By attacking the Authority of the Church they do the same thing their enemy does.
Brian:
Magnificently said!
Here:
The Pope still stands for something. It’s we who don’t stand with him. Instead of complaining, why not get behind him as he works to restore the Church?
P.S. You’re currently standing in the same spot as all the people you’re ranting against.
Posted by: Brian | Apr 20, 2007 11:41:59 AM
and here:
I admire the way the Traditionalists adamantly stand for what they believe in. We could use them on our side. At the highest level we want the same thing – One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church (I know it already is but sometimes it’s hard to tell). But somewhere along the way their logic goes wrong. By attacking the Authority of the Church they do the same thing their enemy does.
Posted by: Brian | Apr 20, 2007 12:23:14 PM
I can see why the traditionalist position is appealing. Especially for people who lived through Vatican II or people from my generation whose parents were children during Vatican II.
My Catholic upbringing was basically the same an any secular American upbringing except I got first communion and confirmation parties in addition to birthday and graduation parties. As I result I had no faith and stopped even attempting to practice Catholicism when I went off to college. When I finally came back to the Church and saw Her real Truth and Majesty in comparison with the reality of your average parish I was very tempted to join the traditionalist camp. But in the end the Traditionalists offered me no hope. They tore down the Church without giving me anything to replace it with. How could I discover the Truth if I couldn’t place my trust in any Authority to proclaim it?
As I result I had no faith and stopped even attempting to practice Catholicism when I went off to college. When I finally came back to the Church and saw Her real Truth and Majesty in comparison with the reality of your average parish I was very tempted to join the traditionalist camp. But in the end the Traditionalists offered me no hope. They tore down the Church without giving me anything to replace it with. How could I discover the Truth if I couldn’t place my trust in any Authority to proclaim it?
Brian,
Your journey back to the Church almost reminds me of mine.
The only difference is that when I stopped practicing at college, I made the detour into a form of Protestantism.
However, when coming back, I did, at first, was tempted to join the Traditionalist camp — especially after having come into the realization of the Truths of the Catholic Faith and the very need for its preservation amidst a secular world.
Yet, like you, I saw that the Traditionalists were just as rebellious as some (not all) of the Protestants I ran into when it came to church authority.
In the end, I attended a Catholic parish that had the Indult Latin Mass, but then, finally, attended the Novus Ordo Missae once the priest who celebrated the Indult retired.
God is wonderful that way — in that he brings back to the flock those who had once been lost!
Esau, I never switched faiths, but it took marrying a Presbyterian to get me to wake up.
The orthodox Catholic can feel out of place and isolated in his own parish. Sometimes I feel that way in my own K of C council. I think the opportunity to be among people who take their faith seriously is one of the big draws of the traditionalist movement.
The orthodox Catholic can feel out of place and isolated in his own parish. Sometimes I feel that way in my own K of C council. I think the opportunity to be among people who take their faith seriously is one of the big draws of the traditionalist movement.
I can DEFINITELY relate.
I feel the same about my parish and why I sometimes feel a certain affinity toward the ‘Ultra-Traditionalist’ slant.
Authentic Catholicism in America seems to me doomed.
It’s unfortunate when you consider the fact that America wasn’t originally a Protestant nation.
Catholics came here first to North America from the Catholic Nations of Spain and France before the English Protestants.
You have Liberals on one end destroying the Church by their liturgical abuses (not to mention, some beliefs that can arguably be called ‘heretical’) while there are the Rad Trads on the other also destroying the Church with an equally senseless and devastating rebellion.
In the end, the only thing I can place my faith and trust in is God’s mercy and promise.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call American Catholicism doomed. The more mainstream “Catholicism” resembles mainstream America, the more appealing the real Truth will look to the malnourished youth being brought up in it. Those who really want to find the Truth will find it.
Eventually the mainstream “Catholics” will realize that they don’t need Church and fade away. They’ve already made up their mind that they don’t need an authority telling them what to do, the next logical step is that they don’t need to be wasting a good Sunday morning at Mass. The resulting Church will be smaller but lean, mean, and ready to start the Great American Catholic Revival (I’ll start working on the t-shirts).
The resulting Church will be smaller but lean, mean…
Hey, sounds much like Ratzinger’s ‘Salt of the Earth’!!! ;^)
… and ready to start the Great American Catholic Revival (I’ll start working on the t-shirts).
I’ll happily buy one!!! <=^)
The resulting Church will be smaller but lean, mean, and ready to start the Great American Catholic Revival (I’ll start working on the t-shirts).
Is it wrong to quote myself? A Guadalupe-like appearance of Our Lady in the U.S. wouldn’t hurt either. But the t-shirts are a good start.
The resulting Church will be smaller but lean, mean…
Hey, sounds much like Ratzinger’s ‘Salt of the Earth’!!! ;^)
… and ready to start the Great American Catholic Revival (I’ll start working on the t-shirts).
I’ll happily buy one!!! <=^)
I haven’t read any Ratzinger other than Deus Caritas Est.
I actually sell T-shirts at CafePress that have a rosary made out of the 50 stars of the flag and say God Bless America. Am I allowed to put a link to it on the forum?
To Those Who Think the Recent Victory Against Partial Birth Abortion is actually a WIN for the Pro-Death folks instead of the Pro-Life Movement (as MS claims) —
CHECK OUT THIS PICTURE:
WHAT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION REALLY LOOKS LIKE
DISCLAIMER: THE ABOVE LINK IS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC
They planned this in advanced of the showing so that they can, in a sense, have their cake (i.e., show the footage, etc., to draw audiences) and eat it too (i.e., save face by justifying their actions by some sort of pseudo-sentimental appeal to the audience that what they actually did was the right move — and, after all, they only showed just a small segment of it rather than the whole thing!).
What garbage!
Thanks, Brian.
I neglected to mention that.
Yes, Disclaimer.
A Human Life IS garbage and, therefore, ALL forms of Abortion should, indeed, be permitted!
God bless you and the Pro-Death folks who give us the opportunity to commit such actions that are most likely even acceptable to the Lord.
Disclaimer, was that supposed to be in the VT thread?
I agree with other here who rightly point out how the market for sensationalized reality t.v. is driving all of this. I think it will only get worse. I don’t know about reality crime t.v., though that is possible. But, I can imagine reality death penalty t.v. where they show live executions. Or, even worse, reality abortion t.v.
But, it seems we already have abortion t.v.
But, it seems we already have abortion t.v.
Yes — it’s much better that we never acknowledge what abortion really is and, like the Pro-Death folks, keep away such images from us and our minds so that we NEVER come to the REALITY that THIS IS WHAT ABORTION DOES and that ABORTION IS REALLY MURDER!
Such Pro-Death folks do so in order to make sure their consciences AREN’T DISTURBED in order to OBJECTIFY the whole process as a ‘PROCEDURE’ rather than what it really is — A MURDER!
KILLERS do the same thing, which is why they never try to humanize their contact with the VICTIMS so that all they see is an OBJECT rather than a PERSON!
Maybe it will inspire some copycat killers.
Maybe it will inspire some copycat killers.
That’s EXACTLY what the ABSENCE of it does.
A Human Life IS garbage
Esau gives new meaning to Paul’s words, “the flesh counts for nothing.”
Esau gives new meaning to Paul’s words, “the flesh counts for nothing.”
Yes, rather CHRISTIAN of you to PUT IT OUT OF CONTEXT.
Seems Esau has turned pro-abortion on us.
Seems Esau has turned pro-abortion on us.
Gee, maybe that’s why I bring attention to PROMOTE efforts AGAINST it!
What a great strategy!
Maybe Esau ENJOYS those pictures.
Maybe Esau ENJOYS those pictures.
Yes — since it PROMOTES CHRISTIAN VALUES!
Why Not?
Esau has become another shock jock.
Yes — since it PROMOTES CHRISTIAN VALUES!
Another ends justifies the means proponent.
Esau has become another shock jock.
You mean people who devote efforts against abortion are nothing but shock jocks?
Wow!
Howard Stern must be the most Pro-Life person out there!
Another ends justifies the means proponent.
Pray tell, Jessica, just what makes me an ‘ends justifies the means’ proponent?
The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
Esau just wants to add mutilated babies to the list.
Esau just wants to add mutilated babies to the list.
Must be why I fight AGAINST abortion!
What will Esau post next? Porn?
What will Esau post next? Porn?
Must be — since porn has a lot to do with ABORTION!
“It has value as breaking news,” ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider said, “but then becomes practically pornographic as it is just repeated ad nauseam.”
Every mason plays his role…
“It has value as breaking news,” ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider said, “but then becomes practically pornographic as it is just repeated ad nauseam.”
You mean to say that what I said about how wrong the Media was in (repeatedly) airing the Killer Cho’s works could be — GOD FORBID! — RIGHT????
Like posting dead baby pictures on the Catholic forums.
What’s next? Nude pictures of the Pope?
Like posting dead baby pictures on the Catholic forums.
Really???
Must be the reason why I got it from another Catholic Website!
Of course, we Catholics LOVE the slaughter of innocent babies — that’s why we love devoting our time and effort in FIGHTING against it!
What’s next? Nude pictures of the Pope?
No, JTNOVA@OPTLINE.NET —
Only YOU are TURNED ON by those!
Looks like posting people’s private information was what was next on Esau’s plate. Did God ask you to do that?
Did God ask you to do that?
The same way God asked you to be a good Christian and how you’ve behaved so perfectly in that regard!
Paul VI changed both the form and matter of the sacrament of confirmation, not to mention all of the sacraments, in order for it to be more ecumenical, especially with respect to the Eastern and Protestant church’s.
If you took the time to read Pope Paul VI’s Apostolic constitution Divinae consortium naturae (15 August, 1971), it is said clearly:
“The Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by laying on of the hand and through the words accipe signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti, which means “Be Sealed with the Gift of the Holy Ghost”, which is supposedly taken from the Byzantine Rite, which is actually ASKING the conformandi to ask for the Holy Ghost to leave its mark instead of the Bishop imposing such, which was more pleasing to the Protestants. Then if you read further, just like with the “Lords Supper”, Paul VI states that the rite of Confirmation ‘recalls’ what took place on Pentecost, which is clearly faulty. The Holy Ghost bestows through the church, not recalled. Phony Phony
Paul VI then says that the reason for these revisions was that “the intimate connection of this Sacrament with the whole Christian initiation may stand out more clearly.”
Then you have the matter which he changed, where the chrism has been changed where olive oil to any vegetable oil, with the suppression of the laying on of hands and the statement that the signing of the forehead with the cross suffices for this leaves doubt as to the validity and if really you have a church militant at all!
With the form and matter changed across the board, from the very essence of the sacrifice of the mass, to Baptism, to confirmation, maybe the decline in morals from the clergy on down to the laity has to do with faulty sacraments?
Ever come to wonder why these sacraments needed to be changed in the first place????????????
Maybe you’ll want to avoid the dead baby website if this is how you’re going to behave Esau.
Maybe you’ll want to avoid the dead baby website if this is how you’re going to behave Esau.
I just love the way folks who are so PRO-DEATH are bothered by such attempts to wake-up their conscience.
Again, just like killers —
They don’t want to humanize their contact with their victims but, instead, make an all-out effort to objectify them in order to ensure their conscience isn’t disturbed!
Poor Esau. Looking at dead baby pictures has driven him mad. Posting email addresses like one of Pavlov’s dogs.
Poor Jessica.
Bothered by her conscience because she actually can’t stand the fact that her right to an abortion might be squashed one day and she won’t be able to KILL any more babies!
Dearest Esau, the Eighth Commandment is “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Maybe you’ll want to avoid the dead baby website if this is how you’re going to behave Esau.
Dearest Esau, the Eighth Commandment is “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
Really?
Your behaviour on this thread clearly demonstrates your very obedience to this Commandment.
Yeah, really Esau. I’m not turned on by naked pictures of the Pope. Why did you say I was?
Yeah, really Esau. I’m not turned on by naked pictures of the Pope. Why did you say I was?
The same reasons why you and Jessica have said such lovely things about me as well.
Besides, I know how much you suffer from DENIAL — don’t worry — your family doesn’t know — yet.
Why do you pretend to know me? You’re mad like Jessica said.
Why do you pretend to know me? You’re mad like Jessica said.
IP addresses are a lovely invention — don’t you think?
So… did anyone hear me on Catholic Answers Live today? 🙂
Your posts include much invention. All proving you are mad.
Your posts include much invention. All proving you are mad.
Same can be said about yours and your fellow lemmings.
Esau has really flipped his lid today.
Esau has really flipped his lid today.
Why? Because I actually stand up AGAINST abortion unlike you guys who FULLY support it?
Can everyone please stop this immaturity?
Name-calling and mud-slinging help no one. The last 20 or so posts on both sides should just be deleted by Tim J or Jimmy.
Looks like you reaped what you sowed.
I just did a rough count. This mud-sling-fest has reached almost 50 posts. sigh.
Mud slinging on a Matt Drudge topic? No way.
Look Jessica/Tim/Mary/Peter/Sam:
Just because you’re AFRAID that the day might come when you won’t be able TO KILL INNOCENT BABIES any longer doesn’t mean I’m going to terminate efforts in FIGHTING AGAINST ABORTION.
pardon the irony, But what the Heck is going on here!?! It look like an invasion of trolls, followed by flaring tempers!
Smoky Mountain is sad for two reasons:
1.) He hasn’t been able to take off his referee for quite a while. He misses changes his alias every post.
2.) He’s worried about his sudden inability to write in the first person.
Looks like you reaped what you sowed.
Mark:
Why? Being AGAINST abortion is such a GREAT EVIL these days?
This all started because I posted up a link to a picture I found on a Catholic Website of how PBA actually looks like and why it’s such a terrible thing and why the recent ruling against PBA is NOT a win for the PRO-DEATH folks, but a win FOR THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT.
After that, all the Nay-Sayers (ending up with Mark) came crawling out of their hiding places because they’re SO AFRAID to FACE THEIR CONSCIENCE and the ACTUAL HORRORS OF ABORTION!
Maybe it’s how you go about it Esau.
ESAU! These ‘diffferent’ posters are seem to be in lock step with one another, don’t you think? Don’t feed the trolls.
BTW, por-aborts, if you don’t like pictures of these murdered babies, then you should also condemn showing archive photos of the Holocaust. You may remember that instead of being abused by their peers, the photographers were commended for their work. The 180 is mind-boggling.
John,
You ought to be ashamed to join in with these pro-abort hecklers!
Esau imagines he’s surrounded by baby killers.
BTW, por-aborts, if you don’t like pictures of these murdered babies, then you should also condemn showing archive photos of the Holocaust. You may remember that instead of being abused by their peers, the photographers were commended for their work. The 180 is mind-boggling.
THANKS, DAVID B.!
I will NEVER back down UNTIL EACH INNOCENT BABY IS SAVED FROM THE GENOCIDE THAT IS ABORTION — I will NEVER end my efforts to make sure people actually REALIZE that ABORTION IS MURDER!
People like John, Mark, Tim, Jessica, Peter, Sam, and all the rest of the Secular World can try to stop me for FEAR OF THEIR OWN CONSCIENCE BOTHERING THEM, but I won’t back down — NOT ONE BIT!
Esau,
Okay, but..uh…cool it ’bout the BOLD LETTERING..okay? thanks.
NBC broadcast a video full of lies. Whatever reasons the killer gave in his ramblings they were could not justify his actions. It only served to fill our desires to watch such garbage and possibly encourage other troubled souls who would like to get their 15 minutes of fame.
Esau posted a link to the sickening truth of what happens in an abortion. It obviously testified to the truth because even the pro-aborts were moved to call it a dead baby not a dead ‘bunch of cells that’s not yet human’ or something like that.
You might debate how appropriate it was for him to post such a disturbing picture when he was pretty much preaching to the choir. But, then again, the amount of trolls who suddenly popped up may prove otherwise.
They didn’t look pro-abort to me.
Esau,
I assure you that if you have a short post we’ll understand what you’re saying without the caps – even with the short attention spans that our Internet culture encourages.
If you have a long post, try writing newspaper style. Put your most important points at the beginning and then flush it out with all the details afterwards. That way those who like to skim will still get the gist of what you’re saying and you won’t need all the caps.
You usually write a lot of great stuff, but all the caps actually have the opposite effect of what you intend. Instead of helping people to focus on what you’re saying, it turns them off from reading your posts.
Esau, I agree with Brian. Caps can be very annoying… It’s like being yelled at… Nobody wants to be yelled at (including those who are trying to understand your point of view). It doesn’t help at all. Now, I know your intention for posting that graphic link was to show the horror of the thing (although hopefully most readers of JimmyAkin.org agree about that!), but you should really be careful when using sarcasm in your comments (e.g. “A Human Life IS garbage and, therefore, ALL forms of Abortion should, indeed, be permitted!”). The many comments (and useless debate) that followed was mainly because some people didn’t get your sarcasm.
Put your most important points at the beginning and then flush it out with all the details afterwards.
That should be flesh it out, not flush it out.
Brian, your 6:51 post helped clarify my thinking about the Cho material, but since it’s technically off topic, I’ll save it for later.
btw, not all typos are equal. I thought that one was funny 🙂
MS posted:
But Esau, you show no willingness whatsoever to engage these points or even consider that they might be worth engaging or thinking about for a moment. You treat me with the same sarcastic dismissal as you did Nick. As I said, it’s not really worth trying to have a discussion, or read such discussions, in these circumstances.”
Well said!!
Maybe if Esau and David B disappeared, we can agree to disagree but at least not feel like we are getting lectured like a child by Esau, not to mention the e-mail spewing, fake posts under my name, being called heretic, schismatic, damned to hell, and so on by Esau and his few followers. It gets soooooo tiresome!
To get back to the original topic a little bit: I was thinking this morning… Why isn’t the supreme court more interested in clearly defining what a person is from a legal standpoint? Please correct my novice legal analysis if its flawed, but the 14th Amendment makes it the explicit that it’s the government’s responsibility to protect the rights of all persons. It clearly states that one must be born to be a citizen, but also seems to make a distinction between the additional rights that citizens enjoy and those that are inherent in all persons. Yet it doesn’t seem to clearly state what a person is. It seems like a ruling on this subject would be much more inline with what the court is supposed to do than the virtual lawmaking displayed in the Roe decision.
I think that today the people who think a woman has the right to do whatever she wants to a baby before its born are becoming a minority. Despite what Clinton and Obama may have you believe, more and more people agree that if a baby is viable it should not be aborted (as evidenced by many states’ restrictions on late-term abortions and the statistics that most abortions occur early in the pregnancy). The logical debate seems to be on what merits the rights of personhood. Those who are pro-abortion ascribe the basic human rights to viability and sentience, while the Christian perspective assigns these rights to the human organism simply because it has the ability to achieve viability and sentience.
It seems to me that the thinking man’s argument for abortion works from the viability/sentience asumption. It doesn’t deny that an embryo is biologically a human organism, but that it merely doesn’t yet possess the attributes that make it “human.” While I think this argument has definite flaws and dangerously ties a person’s rights to their level of viability and sentience, I can respect it for being logical (even if that logic flows from a flawed original premise).
I think that a clear ruling on what is and isn’t legally a person would be a huge help. Even if it’s wrong it would give us a definite point to attack.
Jessica posted:
“Poor Esau. Looking at dead baby pictures has driven him mad. Posting email addresses like one of Pavlov’s dogs.”
So true-can Esau finally get booted. Jessica do as I did and contact the FCC as there is a law against what Esau does.
He cant come to grips that he loves the Catholic reformation of Vatican II because it changed all of the sacraments and now offers salvation to Non-Catholics per the V2 documents where it never existed. It along with the 155 so called Catholics in congress have compromised and joined forces with the secular world, instead of asking, as the Catholic church did for centuries to ask the secular world to conform the the Catholic church’s standards.
Being a “Traditionalist” only means one practices the faith as it had been for centuries. If Traditionalists are wrong now, then the church was wrong before V2. I prefer to think that the church is just “misguided” by an influx of liberal, secular, homosexual clergy who made their way up to Bishop and Cardinal and have lead the church down the wrong path for the past 50 years.
Till she finds her way, My family and friends will abide by the teachings that produced saints and martyrs for centuries instead of the V2 saints of today which has done away with the devils advocate, reduced the miracle clause down to 1 and has produced more “saints” in JPII’s 26 years than the past 500 years combined!!!
Oops… That last post on the Supreme Court, personhood, and viability/sentience was me.
John, I get what you’re saying and am sympathetic to your argument, but if you’re right where does the Authority of the Chair of Peter rest?
now offers salvation to Non-Catholics per the V2 documents where it never existed.
Didn’t the Gentiles of the old covenant had the natural law even though they didn’t have the Law of Moses.
It along with the 155 so called Catholics in congress have compromised and joined forces with the secular world
Are you a conspiracy theorist? To the best of my knowledge no one here claims the “Catholic” politicians are on our team.
Being a “Traditionalist” only means one practices the faith as it had been for centuries.
I never knew that not submitting to the Pope was how the faith was practiced before Vatican II
liberal, secular, homosexual clergy who made their way up to Bishop and Cardinal and have lead the church down the wrong path for the past 50 years.
The criminal priests and misguided bishops are sinners in the Church just as us laity are. We know what the truth is, we just choose not to obey it. The Church may be full of more sinners than it ever has been, but that doesn’t change the Truth it proclaims. By your argument, we shouldn’t believe anything you say (unless you happen to be perfect). The way to turn it around is by being faithful not unfaithful.
V2 saints of today which has done away with the devils advocate, reduced the miracle clause down to 1 and has produced more “saints” in JPII’s 26 years than the past 500 years combined!!!
Yeah, that Padre Pio, they really lowered the bar to let him in.
Ahem.
Brian, I’d really like the link to your CafePress store. If you’re not comfortable posting it in the combox, could you please e-mail it to me? clamrampant at yahoo dot com…
Thanks!
Kasia
Till she finds her way, My family and friends will abide by the teachings that produced saints and martyrs for centuries instead of the V2 saints of today which has done away with the devils advocate, reduced the miracle clause down to 1 and has produced more “saints” in JPII’s 26 years than the past 500 years combined!!!
:::BEGIN SARCASM:::
Shame on John Paul II, by canonizing all those everyday faithful as saints I might actually get the idea that I, struggling through and ecumenical marriage and surrounded by unbelieving friends and family, could one day be counted among the Church Triumphant and (Gasp!!!) maybe even encourage a few of them to join me on the journey.
:::END SARCASM:::
Sorry again, the sarcasm was me. I can’t get the combox to remember me.
Kasia, the shop is http://www.cafepress.com/rosaryflag
If its against the rules delete my post. I didn’t really make it for the money; I made it for myself and thought others would like it. In about a year I’ve almost made enough commission for Cafepress to cut me a whopping $25 check. If anyone with artistic/Photoshop skills can do it better feel free.
Brian posted:
“John, I get what you’re saying and am sympathetic to your argument, but if you’re right where does the Authority of the Chair of Peter rest?”
Brian-I believe totally in the pope, but I fully believe one can have “bad” popes and can also have a council, such as V2 which was clearly pastoral and non binding as John XXIII proclaimed (pastoral) in his opening speech. The church can not err, but the council documents clearly refuted what was previously described infallible teachings such as the salvation of non Catholics, ecumenism and even the liturgy to some degree.
We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.
If you were right then, we are right now.
Brian, that’s a GREAT design! We’ve finally gotten some spring weather, and it’s too nice outdoors to be in on the computer, but I’ll look more closely the next rainy day we have 🙂
Perfect example published today and the elimination of limbo. Pressured by the secularists and Africans where babies die at an alarming rate, limbo has now been done away with in a move to appease these “Catholics”. The church again moving to appease the secular world. Softened in the middle ages and not even taught 15 years ago after V2, it is now gone. So how again can teaching be wrong (St Augustine to name one) for so long and now due to Modernism is changed , as well as Protestants and others who can now be saved? This is exactly what leads one to challenge the church and lose respect and go back to unwavering tradition
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/faithvalues/2003675522_limbo21.html
Vatican abolishes the concept of limbo
By Tracy Wilkinson
Los Angeles Times
Pope Benedict XVI endorsed a Vatican committee report that reverses the Catholic tenet of limbo.
ROME — Limbo has been in limbo for quite some time, but is now on its way to extinction.
A Vatican committee that spent years examining the medieval concept on Friday published a much-anticipated report reversing limbo’s basic tenet that unbaptized babies who die may not go to heaven.
That could reverse centuries of Roman Catholic traditional belief that the souls of unbaptized babies are condemned to eternity in limbo, a place that is neither heaven nor hell, giving rise to the popular usage meaning “in between.”
Limbo is not unpleasant, but it is not a seat alongside God.
In his 14th-century work “The Divine Comedy,” the Italian poet Dante famously placed virtuous pagans and great classical philosophers, including Plato and Socrates, in limbo.
Catholic doctrine states that because all humans are tainted by original sin thanks to the experience of Adam and Eve, baptism is essential for salvation. But the idea of limbo has fallen out of favor for many Catholics, who see it as harsh and not befitting a merciful God.
The Vatican’s International Theological Commission issued its findings — with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI — in a document published by the Catholic News Service, the news agency of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
In limbo
• From the Latin “limbus,” for hem or edge, limbo refers to a “state of natural happiness” outside heaven, a destination for the souls of babies who were not baptized and certain virtuous people, such as faithful Jews who lived before the time of Christ.
• In the fifth century, St. Augustine declared that all unbaptized babies went to hell upon death. By the Middle Ages, the idea was softened to suggest a less-severe fate, limbo.
• Never part of formal doctrine because it does not appear in Scripture, limbo was removed from the Catholic Catechism 15 years ago.
Limbo, the commission said, “reflects an unduly restrictive view of salvation.”
“Our conclusion,” the commission said in its 41-page report, is that there are “serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and brought into eternal happiness.” The commission added that while this is not “sure knowledge,” it comes in the context of a loving and just God who “wants all human beings to be saved.”
A church decision to abolish limbo has long been expected.
Benedict and his predecessor, the late Pope John Paul II, expressed misgivings about the concept. Benedict, when he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the church’s top enforcer of dogma, said he viewed limbo as a mere “theological hypothesis.”
The document published Friday said the question of limbo has become a “matter of pastoral urgency” because of the growing number of babies who do not receive the baptismal rite. Especially in Africa and other parts of the world where Catholicism is growing but has competition from other faiths such as Islam, high infant-mortality rates mean many families live with a church teaching them that their babies could not go to heaven.
Catholic parents should still baptize their children, as that sacrament is the way salvation is revealed, the document said.
The Rev. Thomas Weinandy, executive director for doctrine at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the document “addresses the issue from a whole new perspective — if we are now hoping these children get to heaven, there is no longer any point in worrying about limbo.
“Although it doesn’t actually dismiss limbo altogether,” Weinandy added, “it argues for other ways of dealing with salvation for infants who died unbaptized.”
Catholic conservatives criticized any effort to relegate limbo to oblivion.
Removing the concept from church teaching would lessen the importance of baptism and discourage parents from christening their infants, said Kenneth J. Wolfe, a Washington-based columnist for the traditionalist Catholic newspaper The Remnant.
“It makes baptism a formality, a party, instead of a necessity,” Wolfe said. “There would be no reason for infant baptisms. It would put the Catholic Church on par with the Protestants.”
It would also deprive Catholic leaders of a tool in their fight against abortion, Wolfe said. Priests have long told women that their aborted fetuses cannot go to heaven, which in theory was another argument against ending pregnancy. Without limbo, those fetuses would presumably no longer be denied communion with God.
John,
Limbo (not the pre New-Covenent one) was NEVER Dogma. It was a popular OPINION of theologians. BTW, I’m tired of your obsessive and slanderous posts about me. Get over yourself.
John, please don’t be joining in with trolls’ vile insinuations about posting links to abortion pictures. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with posting a link, though there should be a warning. The wrong is the person who killed the baby, not the person drawing attention to it, and we should keep that very clear. It’s not worth siding with pro-abortion talking points just because you’re angry at Esau for other reasons.
The wrong is the person who killed the baby
All we have is a picture. To draw conclusions beyond that is but speculation.
Eileen
I am not siding with abortionists, never would with respect to THAT stance, but the fact that Esau is an _________ individual who can not debate out resorting to personal attacks is not without truth, and whatever he stands for right or wrong is useless because he lacks facts, resorts to long winded cut and pastes, bolds, anon posts, pretending to be someone else and posts under their name, etc-all in a lame attempt to get his point across. I am against abortion, but there are those that take it to the extreme like murder at abortion clinics
With the VT shootings-Someone had better get a hold on this Esau guy because when they talk about Red flags, they cant be more Red than with Esau as I can see him doing something very odd and even dangerous and I would think law enforcement should step in and take this guy away for some counciling
Brian, Roe v. Wade actually did hold that being born is a requirement of legal personhood. So Roe says: maybe you can be a “life” without being a “person,” and you can certainly be a “person” without being a “citizen,” but you can’t be either person or citizen without being born.
And it is true that even before abortion was in the picture, the law found it convenient to make certain rights turn on being born alive. So although you can debate the propriety of these distinctions between “life” and “person” and “citizen”, it’s not obvious (to me at least) that the Court’s decision was wrong.
Brian-I believe totally in the pope, but I fully believe one can have “bad” popes and can also have a council, such as V2 which was clearly pastoral and non binding as John XXIII proclaimed (pastoral) in his opening speech. The church can not err, but the council documents clearly refuted what was previously described infallible teachings such as the salvation of non Catholics, ecumenism and even the liturgy to some degree.
It seems like what you’re getting at is that the Catholic Church today has falsified some of the Truth: it has changed it’s doctrine. If that’s the case, where is the Church that Christ founded? I came to the brink of being Traditionalist, but when I looked at their churches I saw that they’re all different. Each one tweaks and changes stuff to make it how they want it. They’re all Protestants in Catholic clothing.
Please, show me the One True Church and show me why I should believe it is what you say it is.
Thanks Francis, for helping me to get up to speed.
I was just going by what the 14th Amendment said. It doesn’t explicitly state that a person must be born to be a person. I didn’t know that that there was already legal precedence that personhood begins at birth and not before.
Isn’t it kind of wierd that one can be a life without being a person? I mean its not like its a monkey life or a crocodile life in there. Wasn’t this exactly the type of thing that the 14th Ammendment was supposed to prevent? I mean not legally, I have no business arguing law. But just logically, the two seem opposed to each other.
Brian posted:
It seems like what you’re getting at is that the Catholic Church today has falsified some of the Truth: it has changed it’s doctrine. If that’s the case, where is the Church that Christ founded? I came to the brink of being Traditionalist, but when I looked at their churches I saw that they’re all different. Each one tweaks and changes stuff to make it how they want it. They’re all Protestants in Catholic clothing.”
Ahhh Brian, you want to compare the small differences between SSPX, SSPV and CMRI with diocese after diocese, Bishop after Bishop-who all believe in something different, as Paul VI allowed after V2? Each Bishop has complete control over his diocese, those like Mahoney allow gay masses, Brown in CA refuses kneelers, Egan IN NY slams closes church’s while calling the priest up to St Patricks as he was protesting the closing, Cardinal Law covers up for pedophile priests, and on and on
Who is actually the One True Church? The synod of Bishops and the power granted them by Paul VI was another rouse to push forth the “Spirit of V2”, to blame a corrupt Bishop here or there for allowing liturgial and every abuse under the sun
For goodness sakes the entire Ecclesia Dei promulgated by JPII “The Least” was another such, allow the Bishops to decide if the One True Mass could be said, knowing full well these liberal Bishops hate it as the Bishop over in PA recently said as it is not the Mass he is worried about allowing, it is everything else that goes along with it including the sacraments as the church is not heading in “That direction”. What direction is that? At least I can respect that Bishop for being honest, the church after Vatican II is a completly different church, with new:
Mass
Sacraments
Catechism
Translation of the Bible
Prayers such as the Apostles creed
Canon Law
Customs
The church of V2 has more in common with the Protestants as it was intended to have, instead of the church as all knew it before the “Catholic Reformation of 1962-65”.
One does not need to be a theologian to know this is not Catholic today what is being sold. So why not adhere to what was Catholic before and wait for the restoration to come? The church now teaches that Protestants can be saved, and they dont follow the pope, so the V2 church basically shot itself in the foot in the name of ecumenism.
Excellent decision!
Christine
TheWorld…IMHO
More “Fruits” of Vatican II. With everything including the mass changed to appease the Protestants and other faiths, where are the mass conversions? No where of course as the true Catholics have left in droves or stopped attending all together
http://news10now.com/content/all_news/romemohawk_valley/?ArID=102787&SecID=87
Syracuse Catholic Diocese announces reconfiguration plan
Updated: 4/21/2007 9:16 PM
By: Web Staff
The Catholic Diocese is facing hard times. Because of lack of resources, including money and clergy, Bishop James Moynihan said it’s time for change.
“We have to tailor our resources to fit what we do have, and at the same time, we want to meet the needs,” Bishop Moynihan said.
Discussion of how to address the problem began back in 1982. Now, a plan to close or merge churches across Central New York has been put in motion. On Saturday, Moynihan announced plans for the Eastern Region, which includes Oneida, Madison, and a small part of Oswego County. Scheduled to close as of August 16th are:
WATCH THE VIDEO
Church reconfiguration
The Syracuse Roman Catholic Diocese is gearing up for some big changes this year. A plan to reconfigure churches throughout Central New York is underway. Part of the plan was announced Saturday when Bishop James Moynihan held a news conference to discuss changes in the Eastern Region. News 10 Now’s Cait McVey tells us what churches will be affected.
St. George Church in Utica
St. Patrick Mission in Williamstown
St. Ann Mission in Glenmore
St. Mary Mission in North Brookfield
Plans for parishes to merge include:
St. Leo Church in Holland Patent and St. Ann Church in Hinckley
St. Anthony Church and St. Agnes Church in Utica
St. Mary of the Assumption and St. Peter Church in Rome
In addition, Our Lady of Lourdes in Utica and Our Lady of the Rosary in New Hartford will discuss merging, but no official decision has been made yet. Also, St. Joan of Arc Church in Morrisville will become a mission of St. Mary Church in Hamilton.
The diocese said it understands how hard these changes will be on parishioners.
Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Costello
“As often as we’ve tried to do reconstruction, people have reminded us that their great grandmother and their great grandfather who were married in that church 120 years ago,” Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Costello said.
But, once all of the changes are made, the diocese hopes people will see the benefits of merging parishes, particularly at a time when attendance is low.
Father Joseph Salerno
“Our worship will become more lively. Our financial possibilities will become that much greater. What we’ll be able to do won’t be that much of a burden,” said Father Joseph Salerno, of Our Lady of Lourdes Church.
If your church is affected by any of these changes, and you have concerns, the diocese encourages you to speak with your parish leaders.
More cut and paste hobby horsing? *Yawn*…
John,
Thank you for sharing your feelings. I wish the sacraments would be celebrated to their fullest just as you do. But you still haven’t answered my question:
Please, show me the One True Church and show me why I should believe it is what you say it is.
You’re tearing down what you believe is the false Church but not showing me the true one. I’m just left with rubble.
Vatican II is a completly different church, with new:
Mass
Sacraments
Catechism
Translation of the Bible
Prayers such as the Apostles creed
Canon Law
Customs
Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t all of these changed between the start of the Church and Vatican II?
John,
Thanks for posting about the Diocese of Syracuse, it’s my old stomping ground. I’ve been to St. Peter’s in Rome, NY and it’s absolutely beatiful with the pre-Vatican II altar and everything. It’s statues and windows are a catechism in themselves. It’s on the merged parishes list, but I called my mom and she said she though she heard that St. Mary of the Assumption is merging into it. I’m happy St. Peter’s is staying open.
My childhood parish, St. Joseph’s in Camillus is another story. They got a huge old organ and restored it (which is very good) and they moved the crucifix from over the Altar because it was in the way of the organ (which is very bad). Last time I was at home the pastor held up the Body of Christ with one hand during the consecration, same thing with the Cup. I almost flipped my lid.
I despise this stuff as much as you do, but no one has shown me that the Roman Catholic Church isn’t the Church that Christ founded. So I try to bring about reform from within rather than from without.
“For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait!” Are you going to tell me that you are going to tell the other babies who are being killed that they should wait?”
I know where this is going. I hope you’re ready to fight (and win) a bloody civil war, because that is the only thing left other than an incremental approach.
“Blessed Emperor Constantine XI Paleologus died in Communion with the Roman See. He was a Greek Catholic and didn’t repudiate the Council of Florence.”
Hehe, the last emperor of the Paleologus line also bestowed the then non-existent empire to Ferdinand of Aragon, King of Spain. I just read it on Wikipedia, so I dunno how true it is.
I am not siding with abortionists, never would with respect to THAT stance, but the fact that Esau is an _________ individual who can not debate out resorting to personal attacks is not without truth, and whatever he stands for right or wrong is useless because he lacks facts, resorts to long winded cut and pastes, bolds, anon posts, pretending to be someone else and posts under their name, etc-all in a lame attempt to get his point across.
JOHN:
You are a bloody HYPOCRITE and LIAR as USUAL!
Resort to personal attacks?
Have you even read or seen the posts you’ve written?
What I resort to is NOT personal attacks (as you do) BUT rhetoric!
And about the cut and pastes — again have you seen or read those that come from you???
I can cite near as many as twenty or more from you that are as long as a one page text book!
Furthermore, the reasons why you are so upset with my posts is, among other things: (1) they consist of many of your current and past posts, which, in fact, show how much of a hypocrite and liar you are — and that’s not a personal insult — it’s THE TRUTH, as evidenced by the facts! (2) because I stand for the Catholic Church, and not the schismatic sect that you claim as being the Catholic Church
You’re SO AFRAID that your deception is often uncovered for the LIES that they truly are by one such as I!
MS cites ‘many people’ in his rant — never mind the fact that it is only you who is the cause of such rants in the first place!
Moreover, never mind the fact that there are others who agree with what I have said.
Even Tim J. remarked (as regarding Nick) in the following manner:
But did MS even bother noting that?
No.
MS even stated:
Catholics here are rejoicing at action that wasn’t meant to and probably won’t prevent any deaths, and which is nevertheless giving the pro-death people a rhetorical opportunity to bewail the curtailing of their precious “constitutional freedoms”.
MS cares not even for the small victories against abortion (stating above that it does nothing but provide PRO-DEATH folks an opportunity a platform), never mind the fact that IT WILL TAKE SMALL VICTORIES AGAINST ABORTION in order to WIN THE WAR AGAINST IT!
Like what I said to Nick, that just as it took incremental steps to abolish Slavery, it will take the same incremental measure in order to ultimately abolish Abortion!
Even JonathanR. above rightly said:
As did Kris:
So, You see, you can get rid of people like me — but I assure you — There WILL be OTHERS who will STAND FOR THE TRUTH and for Christ’s TRUE CATHOLIC CHURCH, not the phooney one that you stand for, that does NOTHING but try and destroy the Church Christ actually established!
That’s the very reason why you often join up with someone as Anti-Catholic as ‘Realist’ (though I respect Realist more than I do you since he doesn’t even claim to be a ‘Traditional’ Catholic like you do) or even Pro-Abort folks, because, all in all, when all is said and done, you don’t even STAND FOR THE TRUTH!
Also John, about your other lie:
because he lacks facts
Is that why when I cite such specific details as regards the sessions of Trent, certain Rites of the Catholic Church, Scriptural passages, Patristic literature and citations from the Baltimore Catechism, among other things, you ALWAYS fail to refute and give answer to them?
Interesting that IT IS YOU who OFTEN LACKS FACTS!
What I resort to is NOT personal attacks (as you do) BUT rhetoric!
Main Entry: rhetoric
Pronunciation: ‘re-t&-rik
Function: noun
1: Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous
TAH:
I take it you’re not familiar with oratory then.
I’m familiar with yours.
TAH:
What have I stated as regards Abortion or even John that was actually wrong?
“rhetoric> noun 1. The art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing.”
That info on the Syracuse diocese was very interesting to me since I’m currently living and studying in Syracuse and have met some of the people mentioned. I know the Albany diocese (where I grew up) is undergoing a similar project of combining and closing parishes.
While I’m not at all a fan of the liturgy we see in most parishes today we have to admit that there has been a lot of cultural change that must play a role in the problem. I think a big part of it is just that most Catholics don’t take the idea of the Sunday Obligation seriously, if they even know about it. They just don’t accept that the Church has that kind of authority. While the change in liturgy may have contributed to the loss of respect for the Church’s authority and the loss of a sense for orthdoxy, the broader change in culture affecting the whole West I suspect contributed much more.
While I’m not at all a fan of the liturgy we see in most parishes today we have to admit that there has been a lot of cultural change that must play a role in the problem. I think a big part of it is just that most Catholics don’t take the idea of the Sunday Obligation seriously, if they even know about it. They just don’t accept that the Church has that kind of authority. While the change in liturgy may have contributed to the loss of respect for the Church’s authority and the loss of a sense for orthdoxy, the broader change in culture affecting the whole West I suspect contributed much more.
J.R. Stoodley:
Great points there!
I still think it’s a blend of not only cultural issues but scientific advancements as well.
We have reached a point in our technology where our ability to ‘mimic’ God has become much realized in terms of genetic manipulation and cloning.
Never in the history of humanity have we come quite close to this point in our Science where the powers of man is such that in place of ‘God became Man’; on the contrary, ‘Man became god’.
Unfortunately, the arrogance of humanity has resulted (in BobCatholic’s terms) in this ultimate mirror-worshipping.
Esau is back to his antics of cut and pasting others posts to blast them, belittle them personally and his BOLD face writing
Such a great Apologist
Esau is back to his antics of cut and pasting others posts to blast them
Why???
SO AFRAID that you’ll be EXPOSED for the HYPOCRITE and LIAR you truly are????
Speaking of ‘great apologist’, how about one who DECLARES Pope John Paul II as well as Pope Benedict XVI as Heretics and even Apostates, CONDEMNS Mother Teresa as a PAGAN, treats Catholicism and its Councils as a sort of CAFETERIA to choose as one wishes, and DISGUISES REBELLION against the Church as Traditional Catholic Teaching?
Yeah, indeed — you are such a great apologist!
Esau and John,
What do you gain by your incessant ad hominem attacks against each other?
What do any of us gain by reading them?
We. Get. It.
Smoky:
Haven’t you noticed that it is John who keeps provoking these instances?
If you would kindly observe, in almost every thread, it is he who butts into every thread to post to/about me.
No one forces you to reply.
I think Smoky meant to say “Fighters to your neutral corners…”
Or;
“Keep the gloves up” or some such…
Smoky:
Have you even read John’s past posts?
You would then realize that what I say are not ad hominem attacks but the truth.
For example, in one instance (there are many others which I can cite but here’s just one) John intentionally lied and mis-represented himself to Tim J. in the past by saying:
Although, just look at samples of his past comments that say otherwise:
AND
AND
Furthermore, would you be the type to not defend yourself amidst the lies that John spouts about your person?
“Have you even read John’s past posts?”
I gave up reading his posts in December. You should try it, Esau.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/04/23/partial_pro-life_democrats&Comments=true
Pro-“my political”-lifer Senator Harry Reid: “I would only say that this isn’t the only decision that a lot of us wish that [Justice Samuel] Alito weren’t there and [former Justice Sandra Day] O’Connor were there.”
Of course, now Senator Reid is saying that what he was referring to had nothing to do with the PBA Supreme Court ruling that day that was on everyone’s minds and which he was specifically asked about. I guess he just felt it was a good time to complain about those other Supreme Court rulings that he disagreed with Alito on, but which he couldn’t recall just then.
Beatifications are not infallible.
B16 knows that. That is why he doesn’t do them anymore. Any much more anyways.
In reference to critizizing bl. Theresa.
Sure it is messed up and irreverent.
But she is not neccesarily a saint.