Friday, March 23, 2007

Brave New Catholics



A "Catholic" couple tries to have a baby using IVF- condemned by the Church by the way. Fail for 5 years. Then use the wife's sister as a surrogate- the result being twins. At the same time these einsteins decide to try IVF once more themselves- now they have 3 newborns. All born of IVF. Spent over $100K.

I wonder what Fr. Jonathon would say? Probably something very pastoral. After all- $100K these people must be loaded.

40 comments:

The Sedated Koala said...

Hello,

This comment is not in response to this post in particular, which I do not really have an opinion about, but rather in response to the overall tenor of this blog.

I think that this blog, perhaps unintentionally, comes across as quite mean and angry and judgmental. I think any non-Christian reading this site would obtain a very poor opinion of Christians.

I wonder if you are aware that the blog comes across as angry and mean? If so, why would you choose to do that? If not, then maybe this comment will be helpful in illustrating how outsiders may view the blog.

M. Alexander said...

I'm very glad to hear you say this. I would say that I have successfully managed to communicate my anger then.

Thanks you for the encouraging words.

NCTradCatholic said...

Koala:

IVF has a very high "failure" rate, i.e., new human lives destroyed or kept FROZEN in the laboratories. I'd say that merits much righteous anger.

Tradcatholic said...

"Righteous anger" is a blessing to blogdom! Pointing out error which may mislead the 'Christians' who visit this superb blog, is a grace! It makes thinking visitors say, "Now, why would M.A. say THAT?" Or, 'what's wrong with THAT picture/article/belief/idea/book/picture/person/ etc. It INTENTIONALLY 'mean and angry and judgmental' by design. When Christ called certain people a "brood of vipers" He was MEAN! It seems He went about doing good, but did not hesitate to comment on EXTERNAL aberrations scandalizing the 'little ones' or the faithful. We, unlike Him, cannot 'judge' the soul of man, but we can see, if we are with the program at all, that external actions which cause scandal, no matter what the interior intentions or good will of the individual (THAT judgment is for God) should be exposed for the error -- even HERESY-they expose. After all, the blog's name, for heaven's sake, is AGAINST ALL HERESIES - so when heresy or error, or scandal are seen, they are exposed for what they are and the TRUTH taught in its place. So, the koala IS sedated on this one...does not even 'have an opinion' on the IVF situation (sorry, it is NOT a matter of opinion but of TRUTH taught by the Church) but does not like anger, judgmentalness, and meanness -(perhaps NO and can't help it)...maybe this is not the blog for you. Perhaps you should climb back into your eucalyptus tree and suck leaves! (Now, now, it's meant to be a funny take on your name! Laugh a little!)

NCTradCatholic said...

The "smiley face" approach is quite in vogue today, but Our Lord was not known for that approach. Neither was John the Baptist, Saint Paul, Jeremiah, etc...

hilary said...

Oh come on you guys! Why are you so down on the poster? I mean, its not like he/she/it was being hypocritical or anything! I mean, he/she/it was probably being completely sincere, speaking from the depths of his/her/its heart in calling Mary (and by extension everyone who agrees with her style) "mean, angry and judgemental." I'm sure there was absolutely no double standard intended.

Why can't we all just get along?

COme on now, group hug, and then we can go for a nice round of singalong from the Glory n' Praise and later have some smores.

(For more gratuitous ad hominem attacks on hapless Catholic dhimmis, visit my blog! I dare ye.)

Thomas Shawn said...

Perhaps Mr. Sedated Koala does not understand that IVF is not approved for Church members and these Church members did it anyway and then had the temerity to call it a "miracle."

On the story: the couple is 38 and have been trying for 5 "long years." I wonder how many women realize how far down the road they are at age 33, having the first one at 33 is a bit late.

Wifey is coworkers with a woman aged 33 who basically destroyed all her eggs with 15 years of pill-popping. She's had IVF and now is working until the very last minute before she basically cannot stand anymore.

Then, it'll probably 3 weeks of "bonding", then dumping off the kid in a kennell and back to work.

Get the pattern? That's woman's lib for you, GET TO WORK, HONEY.

bill bannon said...

Actually Christ was "mean" to the well instructed leader classes of the Jews and He was less mean to the near out of control... like the Samaritan woman at the well who had more spouses than Mayor Giuliani...yet with her Christ was frank about that but more gentle than if He was with Peter at times. Keep the distinction in mind because if you seek to imitate Christ's meanness... then you must imitate the distinction he made. From Corinthians until now, it is known that there are the spiritual and the more carnal that Paul refers to as "infants". If you use Christ as a 007 license to kill...with meanness anyone who sins...without regard to this distinction He made, He may not recognize you when you say..." Wasn't I mean in your name." He may say, "I never knew you.... because you forgot to whom I was mean and to whom I was not."

M. Alexander said...

Dear Bill Bannon,
thank you so much for you comments. It reminded me of something very important that I wanted to say. The reason I am mean and the reason I am mad is that these people violated Church teaching. They violated moral statutes in their behavior in having doctors create life in a petri dish where embryos (brothers and sisters of the living children) were killed, discarded and forgotten.

Killing babies really makes me mad. If you think I should apologize for that you are sadly mistaken. The Samaritan woman acted immorally. She didn't kill her babies.

People who are lukewarm and apathetic do not need to be further placated into a coma. They need to be shaken up. Someone has to say, stop the killing, if you don't mind. Now is that better?

bill bannon said...

M. Alexander

Surely the prostitutes Christ ministered to used abortifacients.
I repeat...Christ based his "meanness" not on the offense but on the degree of religiosity and education in the Law... so that more was demanded from those who had been given more in the way of religious knowledge...with one exception I can think of...sacrilege: driving the money changers from the temple. But....sacrilege...even if one were uneducated in God's law usually meant intimate death from God in the Old Testament (Uzzah for touching the ark, Achan for stealing that which was scared to God, Eli's sons... killed for eathing the choice sacrifices, Dathan and Abiram for revolt against Moses, the 40 children who taunted Elisha and were devoured by bears, 70 descendants of Jechoniah for not greeting the ark...even in the NT Herod is killed by the angel in Acts 12 for not denying that he was a god to the crowd and Ananias and Sapphira are killed for lying to the Holy Spirit in Acts 5).....so that the driving from the temple with the whip was really Christ pulling back on what could have happened to those people... who were not educated like the pharisees.
We must remember as to killing.... that Peter tried to kill a soldier of the temple and Christ was gentle with him. Not one homilist I ever had admitted that as to the cutting off the ear incident at Gethsemane. Do we think that Peter was a Samurai...that he could aim at cutting off an ear amidst commotion.
No....he was trying to split the man's skull with an overhand thrust and the man moved just in time but not so fast as to protect his ear. Moses killed over a Jew being assaulted not killed...and God punished him with being a shepherd for Jethro for decades after being rich and one of pharoah's household since a youth. Paul was a murderer of Christians objectively...but he "acted ignorantly in unbelief".
Hate the sin....consider the sinner as someone sent to you for intercession.
Meanness....bring it to the Bishops who give Communion to pro abortion pols despite the canons involved which have been brought up to them by one bishop in particular in their conference. Then you will be aiming like Christ at the class that Christ aimed at. Abortion as evil is infallibly defined ever since section 62 of Evangelium Vitae of 1995 (which see) wherein John Paul polled the world's bishops and was able to thus avoid the ex cathedra route since they unanimously backed his statement on abortion. In vitro and birth control though fail under Canon 749-3 which requires that any infallibility be "manifestly evident" and the abortion statement did not bring them into the statement as natural corollaries or forms of abortion no matter how much you see them as being so. So they remain simply theologically certain in the ordinary magisterium but not infallible and thus no one has been brought up on heresy charges vis a vis birth control but they now could be on abortion since 1995.

Tradcatholic said...

Well, Mr Bannon is right - Christ was not 'mean' all the time. You are right - the Samaritan woman was just ignorant, and He treated her gently.But, notice that she went and told all the people of the town that Jesus had told her 'everything that I have done'. So, the conversation was far longer than related in the gospel. Maybe Christ actually 'went off' on her. We don't know.
Observe, though, Mary's cited article is about a priest WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER...he is not an person ignorant of the things of God...or he should not be. But his actions tell us differently. One wonders if the priest had a prayer or two said for the woman's children who were killed while docs searched for just the perfect embryos to implant, or if he was kind enough to instruct this mother on the laws of the Church if she were ignorant of them. I too am very angry and judgmental of the exterior actions of this woman, and the audible words of Fr. Jonathan...without judging any interior guilt of either of them. This is what good Catholics do. We point out obvious,external errors so that the Truth many be known as to right and wrong. This is what Christ did at the well. The TRUTH sometimes hurts!

As to the last comment you posted, it demonstrates an ignorance of the basic biology of reproduction and formation of the embryo. To kill an embryo, IS to kill a human being...a human being(embryo) can exist even with the use of birth controlpills/IUD's (which prevent the embryo from implanting..therefore, birth control pills/IUD's kill a human being. That has no need of an 'infallible' statement. It is already stated in the fifth commandment.

bill bannon said...

tradcatholic

Actually some think that NFP when not timed perfectly can result in non implantations also on the outside window of ovulation's fertility time period. This was brought up in debate in the 1970's in Theological Studies, a Jesuit periodical where the top Catholic theologians debated at that time. Father Bernard Haring brought it up then and in 2006 a Luc Bovens in the Journal of Medical Ethics brought it up again and there are opposing views on that matter.

I did not read an article on a priest but merely the lead short piece on the couple and did not know whether the photo was of them or of someone else.

Either something is infallibly defined or it is not and if not, it falls under Lumen Gentium 25's "religious submission of mind and will" as would interest on a loan have fallen under the same authority in 1622 had it been written then.

Scientists say that 50% of fertilized embryos do not implant by nature. If that is true and if they all are persons, then Limbo has at least half of mankind if pre-implantation embryos are people.....which is absurd.

And it means that women are walking death machines and yet the Church has no services that mourn this one half of mankind that are constantly dying pre-implantation.
And I'm sure that Catholics privately do not pray for their salvation either.

Further scientists tell us that there is 14 days in which the fertilized ovum..then embryo can undergo division of the one cell into two and thus into identical twins up til the 14th day. Ensoulement prior to that then would be irrational and this present Pope at Regensburg said that our God and the rational are intimate....as opposed to the God of less rational people.

Both of these details....vast implantation failures and the 14 days til identical twinning.... argue for delayed ensoulement as noted in article 3 of the Catechism of the Council of Trent which is online and reads in the relevant section on the immeidate ensoulement of Christ...9th paragraph:

" That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time."

See those last 14 words....delayed ensoulement. Jerome believed in early ensoulement when younger and seemingly before he came in contact with the Septuagint's version of Exodus 21:22-26. Here is an earlier letter of Jerome and implies immediate ensoulement that Trent's catechism only allowed to Christ:

Epistle 22 to Eustochium

"...Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder. "

But later after seeing the problem raised in the Septuagint,
Jerome then talks like this in a later letter:

Epistle 121.4 to Algasa
"...seeds are gradually formed in the uterus, and it is not reputed homocide until the scattered elements receive their appearance and members".

The same two types of contradictory passages by the way can be found in Augustine and probably for the same reason relating to Exodus in the Greek.

Aquinas went off into another direction based on Aristotle who saw males being ensouled at 40 days and females at 90 days which resembled in those prescientific times the purification days in Leviticus: 40 days of purification for a woman who delivered a boy and 80 days of purification for a woman delivering a girl.

So modern embryology might be saying exactly what Trent's catechism said (leaving the Fathers and Aquinas aside)..in embryology's finding of vast natural implantation failures and in its problem of identical twins.....that ensoulement is delayed.

Petrus said...

Bill:

Get to the point. You said, 'Either something is infallibly defined or it is not and if not, it falls under Lumen Gentium 25's "religious submission of mind and will" as would interest on a loan have fallen under the same authority in 1622 had it been written then.'

If you're saying that abortion, IVF and other such attacks on life are not really a sin. Say it. This is a blog, and few people who peruse blogs have the time to wade through your muddled comments. There's a reason that this window is so small.

The point of this particular post is that those who know the teachings of the church are obliged to instruct others and not gloss over very serious mortal sins - many of which are involved in IVF and surrogate motherhood.

Perhaps you, with all of your knowledge, should choose to do the same rather than spouting off various quotes.

Furthermore, Aquinas' discussion on the implantation of the soul - so often used in these discussion -is taken out of context. I think you know that, and would charge you with the same charge the author points at the couple - and more so the priest - in this post.

Again, please answer my question - what's the point? Killing babies isn't that bad?

M. Alexander said...

Wow Bill Bannon,
You have gone to a lot of study and trouble to convince yourself that birth control and abortion are okay. How sad for you.

I don't believe you emphasize this enough, speaking of birth control and abortion:


"they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder. "

They went to hell. Is that simple enough?

I can't stand people who use a lot of words and esoteric historical evidence to try to obscure the Truth. When you use pseudo intellectualist to obscure the truth and mislead peopld you are incurring guilt for not only what you do but what you convince them to do.

Yes this article is all about babies and love and doing whatever we want and the Church turns a blind eye or offers outright approval (so it appears from the photo)and the fact that the trains ran on time in Germany in the 1940s was the same delusional reality.

You are welcome to it. But it's not going to last forever.

M. Alexander said...

Flattery will get you everywhere. Yes I like to think of myself as "very young". At heart anyway.

Unique. I'm so happy to hear that.

I don't know if meanness and sarcasm would have changed the minds of the misguided couple. But it might change the mind of some hapless soul who stumbles upon this blog and finds him or herself in a situation where they may contemplate ivf. And if they are surrounded by cowards who refuse to tell them "It's wrong!" they may be thankful they knew of at least one person who supported what the Church taught.

And it might convince at least one priest or Bishop who thinks they can't talk about IVF b/c it's too mean and no one would agree with me and support me anyway.

The Sedated Koala said...

Hello Everyone,

Thanks for the different explanations of why this blog seems angry and mean and judgmental.

Mary, thank you for taking the time to answer my post and my first question, by explaining that this blog is a way to communicate your anger. The second question in my original post was why you would choose to make a blog that is angry and mean. Do you agree with some of what the others have written by way of explanation?

If so, then the first part of the post by "tradcatholic" describing righteous anger was particularly helpful in increasing my understanding. I kind-of-halfway enjoyed the jokes on my login name, although it seemed to me that in this case the humor wasn't meant in an entirely kindly way.

Initially, it was not clear to me whether the post by hilary was intended as sarcastic or not. But ultimately the s'more reference made me decide that the post was in fact sarcastic. I am a little mystified why my original post provoked such sarcasm.

To all of you: I guess I am still puzzled about three things: First, what ever happened to "hate the sin, love the sinner"?

Second, although I understand an initial reaction of "righteous anger," I don't understand why you would stay angry even long enough to post about it. For example, how does the fact that a couple unrelated to you chooses an immoral course of action have any impact on you, personally, what-so-ever?

Third, why do you think that anger and meanneness and sarcasm are the best ways to effect the kinds of change that you seem to want in the world? For example, do you think that the IVF couple would have been persuaded to make different choice through anger and sarcasm? Why is being angry and mean a useful response at all?

This blog I think is rather unique in its rage. The only people I know who seem to have a similar level of anger are all quite young, or had very difficult childhoods.

TSK

bill bannon said...

Mary Alexander

You wrote of me:

"You have gone to a lot of study and trouble to convince yourself that birth control and abortion are okay. How sad for you."
_________________________________

Strange remark since here is what I said:

"Abortion as evil is infallibly defined ever since section 62 of Evangelium Vitae of 1995 (which see) wherein John Paul polled the world's bishops and was able to thus avoid the ex cathedra route since they unanimously backed his statement on abortion. In vitro and birth control though fail under Canon 749-3 which requires that any infallibility be "manifestly evident" (for there to be a charge of heresy e.g....parentheses added) and the abortion statement did not bring them into the statement as natural corollaries or forms of abortion no matter how much you see them as being so."

Rome is less zealous than you and than most internet zealots in punishing birth control (95%) of Catholics ...precisely because Rome knows of the controversies I brought up and which gave you and Petrus culture shock so that you both non responded to what I actually said.
If 95% of Catholics were murdering their next door neighbors, Rome would have taken emergency measures by now and had another Ecumenical Council by now.
But with 95% of Catholics using birth control, Rome goes about audiences and concerts and papal vacations and discussions of Islam and a thousand other things. Why?... because Rome reads what I have read and knows that this area regarding the pre-implantation realities are very unsettled. Unsettled things cause Rome to move slower than those who through not reading really enough....think things are settled.

Anonymous said...

Oh for heaven's sake.

1. To everyone else: Sedated Koala is obviously not a native English speaker. All you cranky trads - and I love you all, I really do - seem to forget how many people are going to surf into your blog from outside the Anglosphere. The sarcasm doesn't translate well. You're going to have particular problems communicating with people from cultures who place taboos on expressing anger. I don't think you should stop necessarily but when someone pulls the whole "you're so angry, it must be your childhood" consider the possibility that they're not being deliberately annoying; they just might be from Asia.

2. To Sedated Koala: IVF is bad news, even though it's bad news that happens to end in cute babies. If someone posted nasty harsh words about a baby murderer, no one would ever ever ever pull the creepy "why are you so angry" card. If you don't agree that IVF is horrible, that's sad for you, but have the rationality to recognize that to people for whom it is a horror expressions of anger are normal and do not need to be explained by childhood trauma.

NCTradCatholic said...

Bill Bannon said, "Surely the prostitutes Christ ministered to used abortifacients."

How do you know that, Bill? Do you know for certain that abortifacients even existed in those days, that didn't also kill the mother in the process?? Perhaps the ones Christ encountered were still alive because they hadn't yet conceived and had to face the temptation to kill their children and endanger their own lives as well. In any case, the prostitutes who approached Him were probably already a little more repentant than the couple in Mary's article, and, more seriously, their pastor.

Jewish law allowed husbands to dump their wives for virtually any reason, or no reason, often making it almost impossible for them to support themselves. Another reason, I believe, for Our Lord's more gentle approach to them. In any case, the pastor of the couple in question here very much needs to repeat our savior's words to the repentant sinner in His time: "Go, and sin no more!"

bill bannon said...

NCtradcatholic

It's simple. You want Christ to be more angry than He was so that you can be angry always because anger is just as much a drug as alchohol or meth is.

So you imagine Christ going off against the Samaritan woman even though the Bible never says that.
You are recreating Christ in your own image and now you have Him in this last post dealing with novice prostitutes so you can explain away his lack of anger toward them. So you didn't notice this veteran prostitute denoted by the number seven: Mar 16:9 "Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils."

Find out why you love anger which St. Thomas warned against even as to just anger since most people unlike Christ and John the Baptist misuse even just anger....Aquinas quoted St. Gregory

" Wherefore Gregory says (Moral. v, 45): "We must beware lest, when we use anger as an instrument of virtue, it overrule the mind, and go before it as its mistress, instead of following in reason's train, ever ready, as its handmaid, to obey."

It just may be that you are not qualified to indulge in this area of heresy intellectually or emotionally like Christ and John the Baptist would be. Can you face that. Or will God have to clap your ears someday to get it through to you. I'm sure you and maybe no one here has gone through the effort to read Canon Law's defintion of heresy...the Catholic definition rather than the one that allows you all to be in a stew all year on whatever issue you... not the Church... calls heresy.

Here's how reticent St. Thomas and Augustine and the Decretals thought you should be about calling anyone heretic:

From the Summa T. and the section on heresy:

"As Augustine says (Ep. xliii) and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus): "By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth," because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church. Accordingly, certain doctors seem to have differed either in matters the holding of which in this or that way is of no consequence, so far as faith is concerned, or even in matters of faith, which were not as yet defined by the Church; although if anyone were obstinately to deny them after they had been defined by the authority of the universal Church, he would be deemed a heretic." ,

hilary said...

Actually, I use sarcasm because I really am mean and horrid. I like sarcasm. It's fun.

Tradcatholic said...

Perhaps, with all the invictive over 'anger' (actually you haven't REALLY seen REAL anger here yet!) the problem is right in front of our faces. We/you/they/someone may label some other person a genuine heretic, filling all the proper definitions, and be absolutely right! I may venture to say, that the reason for this blog and most of the other REAL trad blogs, is that ROME,and the present gaggle of bishops... the ones who have the right and the DUTY to protect US, the flock,and say ANATHEMA SIT to the heretics,are NOT DOING THE JOB! They turn a blind eye, for whatever the reason is, and heretics, under the guise of approbation from Rome and the bishops, continue to lead the sheep astray. Too terrible to think of, you say?? Eg. When the NC CATHOLIC has a column this month called: THEOLOGIAN OF THE MONTH, and honors none other than KARL RAHNER...a genuine heretic...we know the Church is in trouble, and lots of it. If the bishops, the priests, and yes even on occasion the Pope decide to avoid this less than pleasant duty or admonishing the sinner, say for 42 years or so, we on board the Ship must stay the course, doing what we can do: pray, instruct the ignorant, counsel the doubtful, comfort the sorrowful, admonish the sinner, (including ourselves),bear wrongs patiently (it's 40+years!)forgive offences,-- on this blog, with these topics, we try to turn invincible (we hope) ignorance into vincible. We don't just sedate ourselves(no offense, Koala)and hope it goes away.

Tradcatholic said...

Bill Bannon

Actually, the implantation or non-implantation of the embryo in the uterus is not a function of not doing NFP 'just right'. Most of the pregnancy 'wastage'(as medical science not recognizing the value of human life calls it,)is because of an abnormal embryo from whateven reason-drugs,radiation,lethal chromosome abnormalities,etc. And yes, these embryos, soul and all, go to Limbo. Limbo IS full of these little ones as we know from the millions and millions of abortions performed - or rathe, COMMITTED- each year just in the US.

The Church, in fact, does teach that human life begins at conception. It is from this teaching that we understand that the soul is 'infused', for want of a better term, by God Himself. In actual fact, no one knows exactly how this is done, or when. But, the Church teaches the above. 'Theologians' can talk about it all they want, but we follow the teaching of the Church as it stands.(By the way, using Jesuit periodicals and mentioning Bernard Haring does damage to your credibility!) And, in the case of identical twins, with exactly the same DNA, God does infuse a soul, perhaps first of the one, and then of the other. We do not know. Many particulars God has not chosen to reveal to us yet.

As to women being 'killing machines' - you cannot be this ignorant! Women who may conceive a child which is expelled even without her knowing she is pregnant, is NOT killing her child - there is NO intention here. However, a woman who used BCP's or abortifacients like Plan B or the morning after pill, is INTENDING to kill her child, euphemistically called ' products of conception'. So to call women 'killing machines' sounds 'cutesie' but is a serious error.

And, IVF always ends in embryo death. The embryo is fertilized in the dish from sperm furnished by the male (via an immoral private act), grown until the sex of the child is known, non 'viable' or 'wrong sex' embryos are discarded or saved for future experimentation or frozen for future use if another child is wanted. Pathetic people, these. These mothers, and fathers and doctors and technicians and nurses ARE 'killing machines'. Those who believe otherwise,and pretend to be Catholics, are HERETICS and should be exposed as such if they are public about it.

bill bannon said...

nc trad
You'd serve your purpose better by writing to each Bishop but that would take the sacrifice of stamps. I've done it and then I started on the auxiliary Bishops...the Catholic Directory has all the addresses.

Well in all that verbiage of your posts and declarations of theology and science, there was not one reference or cite to support anything you said....not one reference to a document, event, finding, historical moment, scientific study outside of nctrad.

For example, prove to us that Rahner or Haring was a heretic. And the humorous thing is that you avoided any criticism of a Pope. So heresy has flourished under the very Popes you see as heroes and yet they did nothing about it.

This is typical of heresy hunters. John Paul was wonderful but we had hundreds of unpresecuted heretics during his reign which would make him thoroughly negligent as chief sheperd but no one mentions it because he'll be canonized soon.

Can you imagine how this sounds to intelligent people outside the Church. "Well that is a Church that apparently is filled with heretics led by a great Pope who does nothing about the hundreds of heretics....has a sex abuse problem with 5 large dioceses going bankrupt and the leaders passed the offenders into new parishes near other children......say that sounds like the place to be.....let's join."

Prove that Rahner was a heretic and explain why Pope John Paul II nor his predecessor did not do their duty and prosecute him or Haring. Or could it be that they knew such a charge was not accurate because they have looked up canon law's definition of heretic?

In the long run, Pope John Paul II whether canonized or not will be shown to have greatly erred on his mutual submission only of spouses within marriage...enunciated in both the Theology of the Body #89.3.3 and in Mulieris Dignitatem sect.24, par.3&4 ....a position by him that is contradictory to the actual word of God....5 clear times in the NT. His catechism has no mention of the husband headship that Casti Cannubii insisted on in section 74 in the strongest terms. His campaing against the death penalty also flouted over a millenium of Tradition. Both issues have a greater pedigree than birth control and yet he slighted both and not one heresy hunter or Cardinal called him on it.

Husband headship is clear in 5 NT passages and birth control might be in only one passage....Onan....but that takes believing that God would kill Onan for coitus interruptus and in the same story, not kill Judah for fornication and Tamar for incest....sense of proportion anyone?

So....a Pope flouts an issue that is 5 clear times announced by God in scripture and not one person mentions it in all the clergy because they are all dependent on him for their career progress or death of same.....but they all imitate him in promoting an issue that might be in the Bible once...unless Onan was about something far more serious: Onan by wanting no children ever....was risking the non appearance of the Messiah. Gee....that sounds more like the ordinary reason God kills intimately in the Bible: SACRILEGE....Uzzah, Achan, 40 children that mock Eliseus, the sons of Eli, the sons of Aaron,herod in Acts 12, Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. Could Augustine have been wrong? Could it be that he brought his guilt about ten years of fornication to the passage and that Pius XI did not notice that detail?

Madeline said...

Bill,

Why do you hate the Church so much?

bill bannon said...

Madeleine
I do not respond to the irrational....nor to sound bites that bespeak little work.

Madeline said...

I am laughing so hard, my eyes are tearing. Pardon me for distilling your rambling invectives down to the obvious. Still curious, though.

Petrus said...

Bill:

Its true, I did non-respond to you and the reason is that I hate these debates where people start pulling out vague references that would take you a year to look up, and debate and argue.

If your point is that the Church cannot and has not infallibly declared the exact moment of ensoulment, and therefore has no bloody clue as to when a fertilized ovum becomes a living child - that's fine. It actually doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

What I believe, and what I understand from what I've read is that life is precious. Its a gift, and God has allowed us pathetic, weak and stupid human beings to be co-creators with Him in this amazing work, and we should cherish this privilege.

The debate about the actual moment of ensoulment is like the pharisees arguing over whether or not its proper to heal on the Sabbath. Its an argument that defies logic, and so is so-called birth control. If you believe that life is precious, then its idiotic.

If you're proposing that the woman caught in adultery is also a baby-killer, well - that's just silly. we don't have any evidence for that, and its a stupid argument.

If you're point is that people who use or promote birth control should be compassionately taught the evil of their ways - sure, I agree. And, I have acquaintances who have or do use birth control, and when the subject comes up, I try to get them to see the harm they are doing to their bodies and to their souls in refusing to accepts God's precious gifts.
I also think that there are times when people know better, and they don't want to get out of their comfy space where its all about ME ME ME.

If you cared to notice, this blog really isn't for the uninitiated. Its for those of us Catholics who need to be more aware of the abuses out there so that we can fight against them.

You sailing in with all of your theology, and quotes and blah blah blah blah, is really silly in this context. This blog is for people who are in the trenches, trying to save the Church, save people's faith and more importantly, getto heaven. You are fighting a war, but I have no idea who you are fighting, or why.

Its like a civilian picking up a note from one officer to another saying "we just liberated Dachau and we really want to destroy these German SOBs" - and your response might be something like, "well, some of the Germans have very fine heritage so your description of them is inaccurate. Also, we should try to figure out exactly their purpose in constructing Dachau - I mean, maybe the inmates are criminals or spies".

So, I return to my original post - what is your point? Are you anti-Church? Anti-Catholics? Anti-being open to life? Pro-Birth Control?

Seriously, what is your deal, because I don't have the time or the interest to read your lengthy posts... but I would like to know what you're all about.

Madeline said...

Petrus;

I think your analogy is just slightly off. Bill is most obviously an in-the-know kind of guy, so finding the note from one Allied officer to another being "mean" about the German's would not at all confuse him.

In fact, he would be able to discern that the officer writing the note had never even looked up the definition of "concentration camp," was too lazy to write out "Sons of bitches" and was careless about the way he delivered notes.

Bill's concern is that a German SS officer might pick up the note and feel that the Allies are "mean" so he would not be swayed to their ideology. Or, and maybe this does fit your analogy, those kindly people from Switzerland, honestly "seeking the truth" might find the note and determine that regardless of whether or not concentration camps are abominations, the tone by which one officer conveys his determination of eradicating them is offensive, and therefore, the neutral party is more likely to support the SS.

However, it just may be that you've done the requisite amount of "work" to deserve a reply. LOL!

bill bannon said...

Petrus

Actually I'm about stopping the new NFP people from becoming a pharisaical cult who drug out on catching others in what they call murder as to the pill ( a hunt which was never conducted by the original rythmn catholics who actually sought change at the Birth control Commission) since none of the new NFP people seem to know the problems in such a position of early ensoulement. God Himself gave the Old Testament order that women and men caught in adultery be stoned....christ rescinded it only because He brought grace so that threats as in the OT would not be needed as they were then. If the embryo in the days after adulterous intercourse could be a person then depending on which day the woman was stoned, then God in effect ordered the killing not just of the woman...but of a possibly fertilized ovum within her. If it were a person as some not all NFP people say....then was God committing murder? I leave you with that puzzle because now some are falling into sin in this debate and the OT says not to "visit one's neighbors house too often lest he hate you"....house there means soul. If the hierarchy were watching the net....do you think they would allow an anti-heretical site that is unaware of the Canons involved and that most are not heretics formally until they are challenged on an issue by Rome not by this website? Another puzzle.

Petrus said...

Bill:

Yes, I do think that in the context of the OT death was the consequence of sin. There are many times in the OT, which I'm sure you are aware, where not only the sinner, but the entire family - including livestock - are killed for the sin of one man (see Joshua). Since the wages of sin are death, is it not what we all deserve?

Again, I don't see your point. By indicating that ensoulment is delayed, there still is no way that we can determine the exact moment when a soul enters the embryo, therefore, when the wheels of creation start moving we should respect that, and protect it as much as possible.

Birth control harms not only babies, but women as well. It sets up a false expectation that we can control/harness creation - and that's absurd. There are tons of other reasons why it is harmful, and the moment of ensoulment - which cannot be determined with any certainty according to you - is beside the point.

And if you want some sincere love and compassion, I'll tell you this. If you are struggling with whether or not you or someone that you know were implicit in the death of children, your heart will probably tell you the answer and you will find comfort and forgiveness in the confessional. That's what its for.

Abortificents are wrong because they kill babies. NFP used spuriously and other forms of birth control are wrong because they make the couple rival God in knowing when life should and should not be begun. Its as simple as that.

God bless.

NCTradCatholic said...

I'm going to lay aside my "anger" and forgive Bill for confusing me with TradCatholic, even though her medical and scientific expertise far exceeds mine! :-)

Bill, the ordinary magisterium is also infallible, when it teaches consistently through the ages on a point of morals or doctrine. Holy Mother Church has condemned artificial contraception since the Didache (apostolic age), so I don't see how you can claim that this teaching is not infallible.

That being said, why do I have the funny feeling that you, Bill, have more anger than anyone else posting here? Are IVF and contraception really the only issues with you? How about other aspects of the "theology of the body"?

Just a thought.

Tradcatholic said...

nctrad,
I agree!! Bill is the greatest angerer on this topic! He wins! He also it somewhat mean, and besides requiring a duel of quotations and proofs and references, he muddles the playing field. Those on this blog take for granted - because of all our study, prayer, investigations, experiences-the truths for which he demands proofs! Sounds like the big shots of the Gospels demanding proofs, "Perform a miracle!" Prove You are the Son of God!
Bill wins the verbage contest as well...and does in fact sound very well versed, pulling out quotes etc better than I ever could. But, what is the use of quotes when one misses the Truth that is proven? He asks the commenters here to essentially 'prove the sky is blue'. Some truths are obvious and need no further dissecting - most of us have done this already. It is NOT a PROVE IT TO ME blog. It is mainly for those who wish to recognize heresies when they produce their ugly heads ...to see how the devil disguises evil and makes it appear as a good in the paper,Mass,priest's actions,misguided Catholics instructed in misguided RCIAs,etc.

As for not mentioning the Popes..you won't see JPII called 'the Great' here. We are well beyond that stage.

Thanks to sedated koala (I don't think she is 'Asian' - I think Aussie through and through!)for sewing the seed for this comment section...actually those I know who wrote are very pleasant,humerous persons with great senses of humor!
As for Bernard Haring and Karl Rahner - if we have to PROVE they are heretics to you, you need to go back to the books. By the way, you can add Fr. McBrien to that list. Check out the TOTUSPIUS blog...lots about the popes there!

Madeline said...

Bill;

I just don't understand why you would use this particular forum to promote your pro-artificial contraception theories; except that you're desparately seeking approbation to defy Church law. I'm sorry, my friend, you won't find it here.

In an effort to aid you in your pursuit of the truth, I wanted to point out that the justification you profer for the use of artificial contraception is irrelevant considering what the Church teaches are the fundamental aspects and purposes of marriage: Procreation and Unity.

Msg. Cormac Burke states:

"The jurisprudence of church tribunals has constantly held that the marriage consent from which offspring is intentionally excluded ("bono prolis excluso") is null." http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/node/399

I can't help but suspect that you either are, or were formerly, at odds with your spouse regarding the use of artificial contraception (hence the allusion to JPIIs failures with regard to teaching "mutual submission only of spouses within marriage."). If that is the case, I can only echo Petrus' advice to seek reconciliation with the Church in the Confessional.

Best Wishes

Thomas Shawn said...

So Bill's a Rahner devotee ... somehow I knew.

Is Sedated Koala really from Asia?

Anonymous said...

Bill, you have lost perspective and common sense.

You write "Rome knows of the controversies I brought up..." and "because Rome reads what I have read..." You promote to be an authority on some serious issues discussed on this blog, and the reasoning you use is dizzying. I was getting discouraged reading your comments until several other writers affirmed for me that there are still well-informed people out there who know the senstive issues Catholics are facing today.

95%of Catholics use the pill? I say not. You cannot both be Catholic and use the pill. You get distracted by sources and quotes, and drop names like Aquinas and Augustine to justify your opinions. "Women are walking death machines?" I am disgusted. Consider Mary, Jesus's mother, being thought of in that light. You are very misinformed, and do woman a great disservice with your bad opinions.

Thank you tradcatholic for your comments. And sedated koala, I wonder why you're bothered by the tone of this blog. We live in a sentimental age, where intentions and goodwill often trump reason. We are called to judge peoples actions, and if they are immoral and causing others to sin it is our duty to call attention to the sinful acts. We can never judge another persons soul; that alone is reserved for God. God is certainly merciful, but he is also just, not something easily taught in a politically correct age. IVF, contraception, abortion, and all of these evils should make us all angry, and if you are offended by those trying to defend the unborn, than I am afraid for us all.

M. Alexander, keep up the great work. Truth and the Catholic faith needs to be defended at all costs, and though it is hard for some to hear, thank you for having the courage to articulate the truth. If only our priests and bishops had such conviction!

The Sedated Koala said...

Hello all,

No, I am not from Asia, nor am I from Australia. I do have a rather unusual background that makes it difficult for me to interpret or respond to sarcasm. Sarcasm just seems mean to me; it doesn't seem funny or witty.

Many of you have responded that it is very reasonable to be angry about murdered babies. But as I stated initially, my question was not particularly about the IVF issue; my question was about the blog as a whole.

Much of this whole blog seems angry and judgmental. It almost seems as though some posters actually believe that there is a single correct point of view on any given topic, and that anyone who believes differently will be damned to hell. Can I possibly be reading these posts correctly? Or are you all fooling around?

If you're not joking about this, then I have to wonder: why would one want to present one's faith as so closed-minded?

Then again, perhaps I have misunderstood this blog. Perhaps it is merely an intellectual exercise in taking an extreme point of view, such that it becomes absurd. I'm just not sure; there's a lot I don't understand about this blog.

I submit that the impression this blog gives to outsiders is that Christians are a bunch of angry, mean, spiteful, judgmental, easily annoyed, sarcastic, and seemingly unhappy people. But maybe I am just missing the joke. Or maybe that is how you intend to present yourselves.

Yours in bafflement,

The Koala

Anonymous said...

Sedated Koala:

Are you austitic?

The Sedated Koala said...

No, I am not autistic. I am, however, very literal, and try to be precise in my use of language. The tone of this blog does baffle me.

For example, I initially had trouble seeing Hilary's response as sarcastic, because my post was, in fact, sincere, I did not call anyone names, and I do not believe I applied any double standard.

It was therefore difficult for me to understand where her sarcastic response was coming from, but it is consistent with what I perceive to be the generally hostile climate of this blog.

Again, I am speaking as an outsider. For all I know, this whole blog could be one gigantic joke. Many of you seem to be promoting Christianity through anger, sarcasm, judgment, and suggesting that people are going to Hell if they don't agree with you.

The contradiction embedded therein makes it virtually impossible for me to take this blog at face value.

I therefore remain,
The Baffled Koala

Tradcatholic said...

Sedated koala,
You're not of Irish descent I may surmise! What you are calling 'sarcasm' may be in fact 'wit'. Here are some perhaps helpful entries from the dictionary:

synonyms WIT , HUMOR , IRONY , SARCASM , SATIRE , REPARTEE mean a mode of expression intended to arouse amusement. WIT suggests the power to evoke laughter by remarks showing verbal felicity or ingenuity and swift perception especially of the incongruous: -a playful wit. HUMOR implies an ability to perceive the ludicrous, the comical, and the absurd in human life and to express these usually without bitterness:a sense of humor. IRONY applies to a manner of expression in which the intended meaning is the opposite of what is seemingly expressed SARCASM applies to expression frequently in the form of irony that is intended to cut or wound:given to heartless sarcasm. SATIRE applies to writing that exposes or ridicules conduct, doctrines, or institutions either by direct criticism or more often through irony, parody, or caricature: a satire on the Congress. REPARTEE implies the power of answering quickly, pointedly, or wittily:a dinner guest noted for repartee.
Lots of comments here come under various forms of the synonyms for WIT.
Cease being offended...enjoy the Truth presented and expounded! Join in on the fun!