Pandoctrinal Catholicism: Unity before Truth

Blogged by James Preece on 17th January 2012

You will no doubt have seen it pointed out many times and by wiser men than me that many of the more popular heresies have consisted in taking some truth of the faith and playing it off against the others. Classic examples include Arianism in which the humanity of Jesus becomes a reason to deny his divinity, then there's Pelagianism where the obvious value and necessity of good works (e.g. James 2:24) is used to deny the necessity of grace. Not to mention more modern examples such as our friends the Protestants and the whole sola scriptura/sola fide thing...

It's not difficult to see why this should be the case. Truths of the faith are true!

This nugget of truth at the heart of the more famous heresies is what makes them so potent - and so hard to oppose. You see, the Arians are right to say that Jesus is fully human, the Pelagians are right to insist on the necessity of good works, the Protestants are right to insist on the importance/inerrancy of scripture and the necessity of faith.

Unfortunately, they are very wrong to claim that these particular truths trump their apparent opposites. Jesus is both human and divine. Faith and works are required for salvation. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are both important.

Why do I mention all this?

Well, it is my view that a particularly dangerous heresy is widespread in the Church today and, like Arianism, can be found among many Bishops and even Cardinals. It is not a local problem, not a "one or two bad eggs need reporting to the Bishop problem" - it is a major crisis that affects the Church at every level.

The heresy is simply this: That unity is to be preferred to Truth.

We find at it's heart a truth that nobody can deny: That unity is important. That division is bad. That Jesus prayed to the Father "that they may be one, even as we are one". We are painfully aware of the effects of the division which ravaged Christianity in the latter half of the second millennium. We know that a lack of Christian unity undermines our efforts at Evangelisation and even leads to sectarian violence. Then there's the fact that truth itself can be expressed in different but equally valid ways as well as the fact that there is an (often misunderstood) "hircarchy of truths".

All of these things are true of themselves. None of them can be denied. Yet just as the Arians were wrong to think that Jesus' humanity trumped his divinity, so it is also wrong to think that these truths trump, well, truth. Those of us who oppose the triumph of unity over truth are thus characterised as nasty, divisive individuals who yearn for conflict and violence. We are too stupid to understand that differences within the Church are really just differences of opinion over the best way to express the truth... and so on.

Unfortunately these arguments form a convenient smokescreen to hide the fact that actually, important doctrinal truths often are denied. The laity often are mislead by what is not merely a different of expression of the same truth. You really can choose your teaching on major doctrinal issues simply by driving from one Catholic parish to the next. Orthodoxy is just one perfectly valid "expression" among many. I hear many accounts of a priest spreading falsehoods from the pulpit - so do you. Can any of us think of a single occasion when a Bishop has done anything about it?

Naturally there is a tension. The Bishops want to to preserve the unity of the Body of Christ, it is their job to preserve it. Yet if they teach too strongly then those who disagree with them may walk away. The scriptures are no stranger this - when Jesus said "my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55) we read that "many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him". Jesus doesn't offer them an inspirational listening day where there are no wrong answers... He let's them walk away.

Rather than disposing of truth in the name of unity, we need to understand that unity can be found only in Truth.

The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? [...] A "being together" which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart.

[John Paul II - Ut Unum Sint]

My children have the right to hear the fullness of the Catholic faith proclaimed clearly, not several different versions of it depending on which priest is in school that day, not ambiguously worded in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of the latest political fashions.

Do I need to remind you what Jesus said about millstones?

Rate this blogentry: + -

+59

This Item Tagged With:

Reader Comments

+13

Chrysostom said...

A good article, full of sense and truth. A common fallacy, is to say that with heretics, other churches, and ecclesial communities, there are more thing in common than that divide us. This is like saying that those who say that 50 + 50 = 99.9 are very close to us in mathematics. They are, of course, completely in the wrong.

Our Lady Help of Christians - pray for us.
St Athanasius - pray for us
All Ye English Martyrs - pray for us.
St Anthony, abbot - pray for us.

Joe said...

"They are, of course, completely in the wrong".

But the correctness of the sum 50+50=99.9 depends on what values the two "50"s would have if they were quoted to the next significant figure. Depending on the values of those additional figures, it could be perfectly correct.

One of the points I find most interesting in Ut Unum Sint is the suggestion (n.84)that it is in martyrdom - death occuring out of faithfulness to the Christian mystery - that the sought after visible unity of Christians/Christian Churches is already achieved: "I now add that this communion is already perfect in what we all consider the highest point of the life of grace, martyria unto death, the truest communion possible with Christ who shed his Blood,.."

Does this represent a "50" in relation to a "50.00"?

James said...

I see what you are getting at but your mathematics is incorrect. No amount of decimal places can make 50 + 50 any less than 100.

+12

Philip said...

This is very simply explained by pointing out Mgr Gilbey's explanation of a heresy as a truth out of context rather than an untruth. Thought about that way, everything falls into place. Of course, we want unity, but through all moving closer to Christ. In fact, priests who argue the way you suggest are really arguing either that truth does not matter or that there is no single truth and that we are all supposed to find our different way to God through what are, in effect, a series of fairy stories and experiences. Either of those are extraordinary positions to take, if you think about it. There might be situations where you agree to disagree and still nevertheless choose to have good inter-denominational relationships, family relationships or whatever the problem is. But, agreeing to disagree is much better than pretending that we really agree.

+14

Catherine said...

In 1989 the metropolitan archbishops of the US (most if not all of them nominated by the infamous Belgian nuncio Jadot) were effectively summoned to Rome for four days of high level talks concerning the crisis in the American church between March 7 and 11.
According to the NY Times Cardinal Ratzinger at the conclusion of the meeting 'appeared to reply ... with a final admonition that truth must never be sacrificed for the sake of peace in a diocese'

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/12/us/meeting-with-vatican-soothes-us-archbishops.html?pagewanted=3

This article in the New York Times also declares:

"Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, [opened the discussions] by declaring that every bishop must be ''a martyr'' who courts unpopularity and suffers for truth.

The Cardinal's theme, a bishop's responsibility to teach the truth, ran throughout the conference, according to reports from participants and the texts of the two formal presentations that began each session.

Advocates of Compromise
Cardinal Ratzinger criticized bishops in general for letting their own authoritative teaching be drowned out by ''so-called experts'' in religious education and the ''discordant concert'' of theologians. Ultimately, he argued, modern culture was hostile to religious authority.
[..]Cardinal Ratzinger maintained that the antidote to those pressures was an unyielding proclamation of church teaching"

The key detail not in this report but highlighted in a book on the Recife abortion case of 2009 by Mgr Michel Schooyans of Louvain University entitled in French "Sur l'affaire de recife et quelques autres... - Fausse compassion et vraie d�sinformation"

is the fact that in the discussions in 1989 Cardinal O Connor of NY proposed that the understanding and widespread perception of what is meant by conscience had changed dramatically among the majority of Catholics and in response to Cardinal Ratzinger maintaining that the antidote to those pressures was an unyielding proclamation of church teaching, it was Cardinal O Connor who asked the question:
"But Holy Father, if a bishop teaches the doctrine of the Church- will he be supported by Rome?"

Well....In the infamous Washington Case of 1971 the Vatican did not support the brave Cardinal O'Boyle against the dissident clergy publicly defying Humanae Vitae. In O'Boyle's words 'they hung me out to dry!' And Rome has been doing it ever since with Bishops seeking to follow the exhortation of the former head of the CDF. The Holy Father himself entertained Kung for 4 hours after his election.....in the interests of presrving unity??? with Kung?? what's the point?

+13

Amanda said...

I am no advocate of compromise & count myself as an orthodox Catholic faithful to the whole Magisterium. I would prefer to kneel at an altar rail, avoid folk Mass if I have a choice, embrace Humane Vite... etc. But orthodoxy that is practiced without charity (as is too often seen in Catholic social media these days) truly damages the body of Christ. That's all.

Brummey said...

I think James you are actually describing Arianism.
It reappears in various forms, all of which deny man has access to God. Both Protestantism and Modernism are essentially Arian.

Mark Dobson said...

Eh?

Unless I missed something, James explicitly refers to Arianism.

And, putting two and two together, you seem to say that Protestantism denies that man has access to God; perhaps you have an explanation ready, but it sounds a bit funny to me - all the Protestants that I know are sure to tell me (rightly) how important a "personal relationship" with God is.

New Friend said...

This thread is amusing! You are all so proud of your determination never to compromise on anything, so certain that what you believe is correct, that you fail to see where this leaves you.

What is governance without compromise? Most of us would call it dictatorship, which is an accusation tossed at your opponents with great freedom. You remind me of the captain of the Titanic, steadfastly believing in his ships invincibility, steaming without deviation towards the iceberg and dismissing those voices who dare to suggest that he might just occasionally be wrong.

Mark Dobson said...

Not really the best analogy. The truth was that the ship wasn't unsinkable; he was wrong, and no amount of compromising would change that.

New Friend said...

Mark

But if the captain had listened to others he could have avoided the iceberg. The compromise was not in the vessel, but in his attitude.

And the truth is that traditional Catholicism is sometimes wrong and listening to others also a sensible compromise.

+20

James said...

You are the one who says that if the government makes something legal then it becomes moral - which is a lot like saying a Captain can make icebergs dissapear by declaring they do not exist.

New Friend said...

No James, you are the one saying that I am saying that. I have never suggeested that because something is legal, it automatically must be moral. What is immoral to you may be perfectly moral to others, so cannot be legislated. The government make laws, not morality.

If our captain was a Catholic he would be standing on the bridge declaring that there is no need to change course because his route has been the same for 2000 years and will never change. That is the Truth, those who don't listen are condemned and those who argue are wrong. Those who feel moralities are never changing are denying common sense. Of course they are developing, as our knowledge and experience grows so does the way we apply it. What was considered moral yesterday may not be today, in the light of human knowledge and experience.

+15

Ian said...

I would rather be on the boat with the Catholic captain with his lack of common sense telling me that killing an innocent life is, always has been and always will be morally wrong, than on your boat which may 'in the light of human knowledge and experience' tell me tomorrow that its morally acceptable to murder my new born baby for its own good.

New Friend said...

Ian

Why on earth do you think that I, or anyone else, is likely to think it would ever be acceptable to murder a new born baby, for any reason? That is something which has already been worked out. There is nothing else to be revealed or learned. Killing is wrong. That, by the way, doesn't mean that an abortion is wrong. That is a completely different issue.

There are though many other issues in which our knowledge has increased over time. With that knowledge has come the enlightenment of what is the right way for society to respond to various situations. This is nothing unusual, surprising or to be ashamed of. It is simply a consequence of the march of human progress. To deny it is to deny the obvious.

Marguerita said...

There are people out there who believe that babies should not be declared persons and have human rights until they are one month old. Presumably that would be in case the child had a defect that wasn't detected before birth. Prof Peter Singer, who holds the Ira W Decamp chair of Bioethics at Princeton University's Center for the study of Human Values advocates this view. To him it is a matter of cconsciousness. A mature gorilla has more rights than a neonate, according to him.

New Friend said...

Marguerita

Then let us all be thankful for democracy for such views are, and I expect always will be, in a very small minority. There is always a nutter around proposing something really stupid. Some even still believe the earth is flat!

Mark Dobson said...

"That is something which has already been worked out. There is nothing else to be revealed or learned."

Irony of ironies; this is just the way in which a Catholic might describe the dogma of the Church.

We already knew killing was wrong.
We already knew abortion was wrong.
We already knew contraception was wrong.

And you already know that killing is wrong too, but society has forgotten about those other truths that it should already know.

New Friend said...

Mark

Here we go again. Seeking to impose your opinions as unchallengable truths.

That killing is wrong is something universally accepted by all developed societies. It is not subject to opinion or revision, or the received wisdom of any particular religion.

That is not true of either abortion or contraception. Your objection to both is simply your opinion. It is not universal, indeed it is not even shared by all your fellow Christians, let alone other sections of society.

It is merely your opinion that "society should know". The majority opinion is different.

Philip said...

My reply a few comments below is really meant to be a reply to this. I put it iin the wrong place. You really are in a muddle aren't you. So, not killing is an absolute truth - there is nothing more to be learned. Actually, the Catholic Church does not even believe that - there is more to be learned about when a war is just and, until recently, she also considered that there was more to be learned about the death penalty. Anyway, you've sorted these issues, they are an absolute truth. It is also, it would appear that there is another category of things for which it is an absolute truth that they are not absolute truths. Who decides which is which? You should probably invent your own religion. I cannot see how your views are compatible with theism, atheism, agnosticism, moral evolution or anything else.

Mike Carroll said...

But you would kill a foetus?

Philip said...

who me? No, what makes you ask?

Philip said...

sorry, I realise I might have written something that could be taken to be my view when it is my interpretation of new friend's view

Mike Carroll said...

Sorry, I was asking NF who recently implied that it was ok to kill a foetus.

Mike Carroll said...

So come on NF.

Is it OK to kill a foetus????????????????

New Friend said...

Mike, and all,

It isn't a valid question. You kill people. A foetus is not a person.

Jonathan Marshall said...

Really? So when, in your opinion, does a foetus become a person?

New Friend said...

Jonathan

When it is born. Until then it is a foetus. I believe the current law is correct and that abortion up to the time of viability is acceptable, although extremely unpleasant and undesirable.

Jonathan Marshall said...

So, according to you, a prematurely-born baby (let's say 2 weeks premature) is a baby, and killing it is wrong. But if the very same baby was carried almost to term but was aborted two days before birth it's just a foetus and so it's OK to kill it?

Can't you see how illogical (and repellent) your argument is?

New Friend said...

Jonathan

No. As I thought I made clear I believe the current lawful position to be the correct one. An abortion is lawful within the first 24 weeks of a pregnancy and only rarely, for special reasons, later.

My understanding as to why 24 weeks is the determined time is that before this a foetus cannot survive outside the womb, no matter what assistance is given. Up to this point the foetus is not, and cannot be, independent of the mother and is not therefore a "person". In practice most abortions are carried out much earlier than 24 weeks.

Late term abortion is rare, and a separate issue presenting some other, and quite different, issues. You should not though refer to the "very same baby", because in those circumstances, it isn't.

Jonathan Marshall said...

Rubbish, I'm afraid, NF. You're evading the point.
You said that a foetus wasn't a person until it was born; now you're backtracking to the "24 weeks" argument.

You've also evaded my point about late abortions. My hypothetical baby IS the "very same baby" - it's just that instead of being accidentally born premaurely it's been carried almost to term.

The fact that late term abortion is rare is irrelevant - what matters is that you still think he or she isn't a person, so it's OK to kill him/her.

Denying the humanity of one's victims has been the classic ploy of the tyrant, the enslaver and the mass murderer throughout history; that's the sort of company you're keeping.

New Friend said...

Jonathan

The kind of accusations made in your last paragraph are those frequently made by those on your side of the debate. They are often thrown back at you by those on mine. I see no point in such tactics. To try to associate people like me with tyrants, enslavers and mass murderers is a cheap, baseless slur without a grain of truth within it. It is to totally misunderstand the point of view that is held, and says so much more about those who make it than ever it does about those it is made about. I regard myself as a humanist and, as such, a steadfast defender of humanity.

As have I tried to point out before late term abortion presents a new raft of separate considerations which need to be considered on their own, and away from the main debate.

If it makes you feel any better I agree that once a foetus has passed the age of viability, and is capable of independent survival, that your argument has more merit. That is not to say that late term abortion is always wrong. To save the mother's life it can be argued as acceptable. I disagree with those who believe that late term abortion, in cases of mental or physical disability, is also acceptable.

I would not though describe any foetus as a "person", unless and until it has been born, for the very simple reason that it isn't. It remains attached to it's mother and wholly dependent on her until separated. Once done the foetus becomes a person. Before 24 weeks survival is impossible, so abortion is legal. After 24 weeks survival is possible, so abortion is illegal.

Jonathan Marshall said...

Playing the victim now, NF?

If the cap doesn't fit, you're not obliged to wear it; I was simply pointing out the sort of company you're keeping.

Your arguments, such as they are, grow weaker with every post.

New Friend said...

Jonathan

Suggesting I am "playing the victim" is a bit rich coming from a member of a group who see themselves as victimised all the time!

I don't see myself as a "victim" Jonathan. I just totally reject the association you tried to make as worthless. You can hold your opinion if you like, it doesn't mean it is right, or that I must share it. I would never associate with the type of people you described and that you can reach such a conclusion just shows how much you truly understand my arguments. I suggest you not only take that cap away but try it on for size yourself, because I see many more parallels with Catholicism than with my viewpoint. You are a victim of your own misunderstandings, and not me.

With regard to weak arguments I would suggest that seeking to position me as a "victim" has about as much strength as a tower block built on foundations of jelly. It won't stand up!

+13

Edmund said...

In 2008 my wife and I lost our first son [whom we named Patrick] stillborn at 7 months. Words cannot begin to describe the absolute sense of devastation and grief we went through. As a father who nightly spoke and sometimes sang to my unborn child by placing the side of my head upon my wife's pregnant belly and feeling him respond with kicks and movement to my voice; the need for me as a man and husband to physically embrace and hold my dead son in my arms after 32 hours of induced labour following the pronouncement of his death was and still remains for me the single most important factor in my being able [by God's grace] to respond to the enormity of the loss and support my wife through her own grieving. For three days we continued to return to the post natal unit in the local hospital where the midwives could not have been more compassionate and considerate of our needs and feelings to accommodate our every wish. Those precious days of viewing and tenderly kissing Patrick who simply looked asleep in Christ were hugely important also for his maternal grandparents who also valued the chance to connect with their dead grandson. When the day finally arrived [after waiting two months for the completion of the post mortem process] to celebrate a Mass of the Angels with Patrick and commit him to the earth, the fact that we had physically spent time with his tiny deceased form meant that the funeral rites were truly sorrowful in the Christian sense and not an episode of uncontrollable weeping. In short our son was not merely a foetus [which in any case is Latin for 'little one'] but a person fully made in the image and likeness of God - to whom we pray every day with his now younger brother as a saint in heaven. I pity - sincerely pity "New Friend" and all those who think like him.

+11

Sarah said...

Thank you for this most beautiful comment and your extraordinary witness to the dignity of every soul.

I had the privilege of holding my 14 week baby after a miscarriage and treasure the time we spent marvelling at the wonder of this tiny child (who nurses and doctors referred to as a "product of conception".

The medical professionals use such terms to distance themselves from true humanity of the children who are lost to miscarriage but more particularly to abortion on the ward, a way of coping I suppose. But the dehumanising of the unborn child has been the success of the pro-choice movement.

We insisted that our baby be removed from a kidney dish in the sluice room and placed in a casket in the mortuary. We also insisted that they call our baby "baby" and in the end they did.

New Friend said...

Edmund

I am truly sorry for your loss and humbled by your story. At 7 months, and after a long labour, you clearly had a son. I have no difficulty at all in accepting that, or the strengths of your personal beliefs.

People who think like me can also relate to your experience. There is no need to pity us.

+12

Edmund said...

Sorry is a word that comes far too easily from our lips.

You accept we had a 'son' but not a person according to your definition that a foetus is not a person until born....

My Christian faith tells me that when Mary the Mother of Christ visited her cousin St. Elizabeth [who was pregnant with St John the Baptist at about the same gestation that my son died] - the child [John the Baptist] in her womb [St. Elizabeth] lept for joy! mere physiological reaction of the foetus to an emotionally exciting event external to his mother's womb or the first ever herald of the Incarnate Word of God? I know which one instils me with more humble awe and gratitude and trust that one day I shall see my son again. In the words of St Thomas More - may we all meet verily in Heaven. I pray my unborn yet born again son intercedes for you and your loved ones from his place in the eternal wedding feast, even though you neither request it nor believe in its necessity. I believe the Lord died for both of us on the Cross and our solidarity is sealed in His Blood regardless of the chasm of differences between us.

New Friend said...

Edmund

I do not propose to discuss your faith with you, nor in view of your story to comment much more upon it, and certainly not upon the comfort it gives you.

I want just to correct you on one thing on that which I regard to be true. Your son reached 7 months and was born, therefore in my eyes he too was a "person". That he was still born does not make any difference in my eyes. I anticipate that you might struggle to see a difference, but I don't. As I have said elsewhere late term abortions raise many difficult issues, some of which also make me feel uncomfortable. It is before the 24th week when viability is impossible, that my attitude and yours will primarily divide, not at 7 months. Thats all from me. I just wanted you to be clear.

Policraticus said...

The advances in ante natal care and medicine have now proved beyond all doubt that unborn babies prior to 24 weeks gestation - many at 23 and 22 weeks can survive and reserach proves that the child certainly feels pain [or the abortionists knife or suction tube or saline solution] as early as 17 weeks. In april 2011 a baby girl widely considered the most premature European baby ever to survive left a German hospital and headed home. Frieda Mangold was born more than four months early, at 21 weeks and five days. She weighed a smidge over a pound. I wager you feel uncomfortable about issues on late term abortion because the natural law inscribed in your heart is telling you something about the absolute humanity of the unborn but your utilitarian mindset stubbornly refuses to listen.

Policraticus said...

New Friend said...

Policraticus

I am aware that there is a debate in progress over whether the current 24 weeks ought to be reduced. As medical advances are made this is certainly likely to be the case. However, I prefer to leave such matters to those wiser and more experienced than me, and possibly you too, leave the recommendations to the experts, and the decisions to the politicians.

I completely reject the whole concept of "natural law", at least in the way it is decribed by Catholics, as a distortion to suit their own agenda. There are certain aspects of human behaviour, and the societies they organise, which are universal, and arise from their inherent humanity. It is from such first principals that common law arose and enacted law was developed. When Catholics speak of "natural law" what so often they really mean is their own "Gods Law", which includes many things beyond that which is truly natural.

Marguerita said...

A newborn baby is just as dependent on his mother as an unborn child. If the newborn is not fed and clothed, cuddled and kept warm, it will die. The dependency argument can be used just as well as a justification for a mother to kill a young born child, because the dependency of the born child is likely to be much more onerous than that of the unborn child. Birth is such an arbitrary dividing line. Of course you would say that governments in their common sense would not legislate for such a thing. Not today maybe, but who knows what's down the road? If a government legislated in favour of infanticide, no doubt you would accept it, because that is the way it should happen, right?

New Friend said...

Marguerita

Your first point is frequently made by the anti-choice lobby, but is entirely wrong because it completely misses the point. A new born baby is NOT dependent upon it's mother. It can survive without her very well. It needs help and support from somewhere, but not neccesarily it's mother. That is the absolutely essential difference when comparing a foetus with a new born. Without the mother a foetus cannot survive, whilst a baby can.

Do you seriously expect any democratically elected government to approve of infanticide? Seriously, really seriously? Approve of legal murder? I don't believe it is in anyway possible. Murder is not accepted in any developed society. It is one of those things which has a universal acceptance. I cannot see an electorate ever approving of such a thing. In a dictatorship, maybe, just maybe, but we don't live in one, and if one was imposed on us all bets are off.

Marguerita said...

Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands and a few other places. But no doubt you have a reason why that is not legal murder.
Once men take it upon themselves to decide who can live and who can die, it is a short step to expand the categories. We hear many stories in the news of how awful the conditions are in many of the care homes for the elderly in the Uk. There are an ever increasing number of elderly people in need of care and good care is hard to find. I wonder what the government's solution will be?

New Friend said...

Marguerita

My personal position is that I am against any form of "mercy killing" in any circumstances, for I also believe it to be a form of legalised murder. I can though understand the other point of view, so what I am about to defend is not my personal opinion. It is really important to distinquish between voluntary "mercy killing" and compulsory "euthanasia". The situation in the Netherlands, was summarised by the BBC thus:-

"Patients must face a future of unbearable, interminable suffering

Request to die must be voluntary and well-considered

Doctor and patient must be convinced there is no other solution

A second medical opinion must be obtained and life must be ended in a medically appropriate way
The patient facing incapacitation may leave a written agreement to their death"

I do not believe we will ever pass this type of law in the UK but if we did it is actually a very, very, BIG step to expand the categories. What is being permitted in the Netherlands is the ability of the medical profession to assist those who cannot tolerate their lives any longer, and to end them in a regulated, pain free and dignified way. I can see the humanity involved in that, even if I disagree with it.

Your remark about over populated care homes is of the kind which devalues this debate. It isn't serious, and never will be, whilst the UK remains a democracy. No-one would ever be prepared to vote for such an idea would they? As an ex care home owner who helped many elderly people enjoy their last years, and was frequently impressed by their capacity to do so, this is something close to my heart and of which I have some experience.

Marguerita said...

I am sorry but I do not share your optimistic view of humanity in its current state. I don't think the BBC can be relied on to give an unbiased view on this topic. Many people think the BBC has shown considerable bias over the last year or so with several programmes which looked sympathetically at assisted suicide, but few opportunities for the opposing view to be presented. There is a strong campaign being waged in this country for he legalisaton of assisted suicide. It is already permissible to remove food and fluids in some cases. Doctors in the Netherlands have admitted to euthanising people who had not asked for it. I believe there are moves afoot to bring in euthanasia for children in the Netherlands.
Catholics regard this whole spectrum from contraception to abortion to euthanasia as being the culture of death. Those who provide contraceptive services are the first to admit that the more contraception is used, the more abortions there will be, because all contraception has a failure rate. The likes of Marie Stopes International who you regard as sympathetic and non judgemental, are quite happy to be involved in the coercive one child policy of the chinese government, or the two child policy of the Vietnamese government, for which they were given an award only last week, but you believe they are not in it for the money, and only exist to provide women with a free choice. Why do they want to advertise on TV? TV advertising is expensive. They are a big business, they will advertise because the reward will be worth the cost.

New Friend said...

Marguerita

And I am very glad that I don't share your profoundly pessimistic view of your fellow man, for it must be depressing to live with. I chose the BBC summary because it was consise and in familiar language. There are others, which all say much the same thing. If you really distrust the BBC that much, though I really cannot see why for they are the most responsible and balanced broadcaster I know, I can find and post some alternatives.

I realise that assisted suicide has it's advocates, and can understand the argument, even if it is not an opinion I share. No resucitation decisions, made by family members, or the decision to withdraw fluids and food are also contraversial related issues. They present difficult ethical dilemmas, but you must surely accept that the people who face them are all of good will, who sincerely want what is in their patients best interests. You might reach different conclusions as to what those are, but at least you can accept that those who come to their alternative view are not evil people.

This desire to classify these matters as a "culture of death" baffles me. I have heard the term often enough, and read the reasoning first expressed by the previous Pope. It only makes any sense when you view things from a particular place. For those who look from another place it is complete nonesense. We are interested in life, not death. We are interested not just in the volume of life, but also in the quality of life. We are not interested in death at all, as for us death is the end of life. It's inevitable but unwelcome.

I have heard your claim that contraception increases the number of abortions before, but as it is counter intuitive I did a little research. No-where did I find any evidence at all to support your claim that pregnancy advisers admit this, and therefore challenge you to provide that evidence. There are plenty of such claims being made, but it is notable they all come from anti-choice organisations, so I submit that they are not necessarily reliable. I came across this piece of research, which appears to be both relevant and independent:- http://www.prcdc.org/files/Recent_Trends_in_Abortion.pdf

It seems to suggest a very different pattern to your claim and more in line with what one would expect. Of course if you could find a way to convince the whole world to practice abstinence unless conception was planned, there would be no need for either contraception or abortion. It just isn't going to happen and, whether you like it or not, people's sexual behaviour these days is far removed from a Catholic ideal, even, I have to say, within the Catholic community in which I live. We must deal with this reality and not live with our head in the clouds saying "if only, if only" for you will recall what happened to Nero.

I have no knowledge of the practices of Marie Stopes in either China or Vietnam. I do know that they bravely try to help here, which cannot be easy in such a Catholic country where abortion is illegal. As an organisation, whose sole purpose is to provide support and counselling to vulnerable, pregnant women I can imagine they might well distance themselves completely from any political considerations at all. I don't know that. I am just surmising.

I don't know that any agency has actually expressed any intention to advertise on TV! I just think that the rules have been clarified so that if they, or an agency steadfastly opposed to abortion, decided to do, they could.

I reject your claim that they are "big business". Brook is a charity and depends upon donations. BPAS is also a charity and does not make a profit. Marie Stopes works in partnership with the NHS and devotes a lot of it's resources to helping in the third world. The motive is care, not remitting dividends to shareholders.

Marguerita said...

Well check out this study from Contraception Journal: http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(10)00327-6/abstract

Or these quotes:

"Despite its current claims to the contrary, the abortion industry was never in doubt that more contraception would lead to more, not fewer, abortions. In 1973, abortionist Dr. Malcolm Potts, past medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, said that �As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate.�1 Dr. Judith Bury of the Brook Advisory Center chimed in a few years later that �There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate.�2"

See http://www.pop.org/content/presidents-page-contraception-reduces-1874
for more.

Mike Carroll said...

There is a saying that goes 'once a Catholic, always a Catholic'. However, if you sanction murder (which is what you are doing) then maybe there is no hope for you.

Mike Carroll said...

Time for you to man up and stop just talking the talk.

Below is the Abort67 site. There is a video of a live abortion as soon as you go to the site.

http://www.abort67.co.uk/

Why don't you have a look (if you've got the balls) and see if you think a foetus if not a baby then.

Experience says that you have not got the guts to watch.

New Friend said...

Mike

I have watched some Catholic propaganda on this subject before. I think it was called "the silent scream". Horribly biased, one eyed stuff. No need to do it again. It isn't nice but that isn't the point is it?

If I showed you a video of my prosatectomy you might be put off many things. Medical procedures are not something the man in the street is used to observing. We need to be trained and understand everything. So I regard this as simply emotional blackmail. Not of me, because it won't work, but of those vulnerable people you also try to show such things to who might not be quite so resiliant as I am.

+12

Liberal Traditionalist said...

NF, can you please avoid the trowelling of double-standards here.

Even if one life is saved through a screening of "the silent scream", it logically justifies its production and distribution. Mothers who change their minds away from an intended abortion into a Free Choice as well.

Don't accuse the Catholic Church or any pro-life denomination of black propaganda - our problem over the decades is that it has too often opted for the quite life.

As a final request, try not to respond to every comment that's made on this blog; you must surely have other things to do with your time. One wonders how many souls you are seeking to convert to the cause of aggressive secularism - there may be alternative vehicles open to you that might prove more fruitful.

While many of James' regular correspondents may welcome your round-the-clock interventions; some of us grow tired and weary of the endless spite-shouting (or the other spoonerisms of that phrase.)

New Friend said...

I am pleased to see a "liberal" here and look forward to learning what that means.

Any screening of "the silent scream" is a disgrace, for it is unmitigated propaganda designed to frighten and intimidate the vulnerable. It is not designed to inform, comfort and counsel. It is precisely this type of approach which sets the anti-choice movement at logger heads with others of goodwill who also seek to reduce the numbers of abortions. It is unfair, unreasonable and in my opinion unconscionable. Films like that should not, in my opinion, ever be given a certificate for general distribution. I believe in free speech, but when something is clearly propaganda then it ought to cause a pause for thought at least.
Don't worry about me and my time. I am retired and have no domestic duties. I am involved in plenty of other things but possess quick typing fingers. I am not an aggressive secularist, what a thought. If you really want to debate with some of them let me direct to some other sites. They would maul you. No, I might be almost alone here, but if everone held the same point of view it would be boring. Don't you agree?

+10

Liberal Traditionalist said...

NF, I'll keep this brief - it's hypocritical to trumpet being pro-choice then seek to deny an expectant mother the right to change her mind and refuse an abortion - many do.

This so-called pro-choice view appears to be solely pro-death.

I have no objections to contrary views being aired here; I only object to a 24/7 bombardment of illogical tosh - most of this blog's readers can be as open-minded as anyone if faced with a reasoned and logical argument.

I'm now going down to Ladbrokes to put a �100 on-the-nose bet on you responding; you seem to treat life as a personal insult if you don't have the last word.

New Friend said...

Can we share your winnings? Glad to assist!

I have never suggested that an expectant mother should not be given the opportunity to change her mind. Of course she should. She needs all the love, care and advice that is available to her at a time when she is often very vulnerable, afraid, lonely, guilt ridden and depressed. She needs proper advice from an independent source concerned only for her welfare and future. That advice must not have any strings attached, and not have it's own agenda. It has to include all the options and cover all the outcomes. It has to enable the woman to come to an informed decision and, once she has, for such further help as is required to be provided to her, whatever her decision is. If that decision is to continue with her pregnancy then no-one should pressurise against it, and if an adviser attempted to do so, they should be sacked.

So being pro-choice is very definately not "pro-death". Only the anti-choice lobby seek to present it as such.

If that isn't logical then your dictionary needs revision!

As with any contribution here you have the same choice as me. You don't have to read it, or respond to it. I won't be offended if you decide not to respond. Its a free world.

New Friend said...

Mike

Oh dear. You know just as well as me that those on the pro-choice side of this debate don't accept that description. The law supports them, and not you. Only the anti-choice lobby reverts to such tired old rhetoric.

Mike Carroll said...

I knew you would bottle it!

New Friend said...

Mike

Another reply which would be more at home in a football forum than in a serious debate. This is not a game in which points are scored. What bit of "it is not relevant" do you not understand?

Did you have to watch propaganda videos before you decided you objected to abortion? I don't have to watch another one to decide it is not relevant to my opinion and I am not going to be dragged into such a process just to suit you.

That is not because I could not watch it. I have watched some pretty terrible things, and seen some first hand too. I already know it will make no diffference at all to my opinion but I also don't want you to believe that this is an acceptable tactic when dealing with others.

No medical procedure is pleasant viewing for a non professional, unless you have some kind of warped mind. Watching an abortion doubly so, for I have never, ever contested the undesirability of it only the important differences between a foetus and a baby.

Mike Carroll said...

Like I said. I knew you wouldn't watch it.

My point is proved!

New Friend said...

Mike

All you have proved is that you don't understand what I am saying to you. Let me ask you this. If I directed you to watch a film or video on any subject at all, would you be prepared, in all circumstances, just to do my bidding?

I don't need to watch propaganda. I don't want to assist you in building it's reputation by watching propaganda. It has nothing whatsoever to do with me not being capable of watching it. I just don't want to dignify that kind of thing by participating, especially as it won't make the slightest difference to my viewpoint as I have looked at others before and came to the same conclusion. Propaganda, pure and simple.

Anna-Maria said...

I think Mike's point was that if you watch one of these films you can see the baby showing obvious signs of pain, and it is very hard to think of abortion as a medical procedure after facing that. With advances in medical science we will one day reach the point where a baby will be 'viable' so early in pregnancy that this 'guideline' pro abortions like to refer to will become obsolete and the legal limit will have to keep reducing to keep up. It seems to me pro abortionists consider it a baby if it is wanted and something else if not.

Ben Trovato said...

NF You surpass yourself in idiocy. I could kill an aardvark, a bear, a cat, a donkey, an elephant, a flea, a goat, a hamster, an iguana, a jackal, a kangaroo, a llama, a moose, a natterjack toad, an ocelot, a panda, a quail, a rabbit, a starfish, a turtle, a unicorn (well, okay...) a vole, a wombat, an X-ray fish, or a zebra - to name just a few. None of these are people.

As for the stupider claim in your statement, who are you to decide when someone else is or is not a person?

New Friend said...

Ben

Now who is being idiotic? Of all the silly posts I have read on here this one must be a candidate for a prize. It ought to be obvious that we are not discussing the killing of animals, but just in case you have missed that point, we aren't. We are discussing the difference between two stages of HUMAN development, a foetus and a baby. You think they are the same. I, and many others, don't. We respect your deeply held, faith based, reasoning and don't seek to change your opinion. All we ask is that you pay the same respect to the alternative view.

It is not for me, or actually either for you, to decide when someone else is a person. I can have an opinion, just like you can. Those who decide are those who make the law. I accept that, but it seems you cannot. I don't regard that as in any way stupid. In fact I think it is very much common sense and the only way that we, as a whole society, can successfully decide such things. Anything else, to my way of thinking, is what is stupid.

Ben Trovato said...

You ask 'Now who is being idiotic?'

The answer is clearly that you are.

You were asked the simple question "is it OK to kill a foetus?" You answered that it was not a valid question, as one kills people, and a foetus is not a person.

My post merely pointed out the fallacy in your response - albeit in jocund fashion.

Clearly one can kill a foetus, irrespective of one's view of its personhood or otherwise. Foeticide is a recognised medical term describing exactly that.

You ducked the question and then try to pour scorn on me for pointing the fact out. QED.

New Friend said...

Ben

As you might have noticed I am not one to lightly "duck a question"which you accuse me of now doing.

To fully deal with this issue would mean, I suspect, getting in the lawyers, made even more complicated because the law varies country by country.

Foeticide is indeed a medical term, but legal abortion is not so regarded in many countries. It has specifically been excluded by statute to protect those who are involved. So it all depends upon intent. As we were discussing legal abortion my substantive point remains valid. QED.

+12

Philip said...

But, your position is that there are no absolute truths. So what you really means is that there are no absolute truths other than the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths. If you don't know whether there are any absolute truths or not, then the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths is no more impressive than the absolute truths that we hold - so why not leave us alone? Indeed, our absolute truths (contrary to your original suggestion) require us to act with charity and, in many areas of governance, with prudence and judgement. It is those who believe that there are no absolute truths that have (post 1789 at least) been responsible for tyranny.

New Friend said...

Philip

No-one minds whatever you wish to believe, so long as you respect others and don't try to interfere with them. I don't even mind if you want to regard that as the sole "univeral truth" if you want to. I would love to see you all acting with "charity, prudence and judgement" for those are characteristics markedly absent from much of that which I can see in your present attitudes.

+10

Philip said...

Really: and what makes you think that? I have never been other than perfectly polite in my (so far unsuccessful) quest to find out if you think there are any absolute truths and, if so, from where they come. You seem to have two absolute truths. 1. murder (or killing as you put it, but I assume you mean murder) is always wrong and 2. there are no other absolute truths (which you do hold as an absolute truth - and it has important consequences). If so, how is that consistent with not beliving in absolute truths? If you were to say, "human beings are just sophisticated animals and they have to muddle through making the best use of their reason and experience to develop political stuctures that work" then I would have some respect for that. But, you don't. You take a radical "anti-revealed-truth" view of the world without giving any coherent explanation of what you actually do believe. Those agnostics who believe in muddling through often respect religion's attempts to get universal values accepted because they bring some stabiltiy to society, but you are radically against that without being obviously for anything. But, my main point is, can you tell me where I have acted without "charity, prudence and judgement"?

New Friend said...

Philip

Lets deal with what you consider you main point first. My remark was not directed at you but at those Catholics, a few of whom seem to be on here but can certainly be found on other Catholic sites, who display profound intolerance of others, and lack, in my view, good judgement on many issues.

I have already suggested that if you feel comfortable believing that the only "absolute truth" that I accept is that there isn't any, then thats OK with me. It isn't actually true. There are many things that can be regarded as facts beyond dispute, which you would describe as an absolute truth. 2 plus 2 making 4 is one. The earth being almost a sphere another. I hold evolution to be one too. However, that does not mean that everything that a Catholic holds to be an absolute truth is one, just because they say so.

+10

Um... said...

New Friend, I feel confused as to where you are coming from, on one hand you say we are entitled to our opinion and you to yours, but then when we clarify our belief you claim we are imposing it on you. This blog is available for those to read it at their choosing, if opinions were not allowed to be expressed due to causing offense then blogs would not exist? But if opinions are allowed to be expressed why are yours an opinion and our an imposition of belief?

You say you are talking to those who are intolerant but as you say your self, the majority of people commenting on this blog are just up for a discussion. You however seem to think that we must allow tact and yet you yourself do not need to, for example on a previous post on the topic of abortion you slammed down a commenter without the consideration of their private experiences.

Please can you clarify what you are trying to achieve in your comments?

New Friend said...

Strange name but..........

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion and to express it. You are not imposing it on me on here. If I did not want to participate then I could leave.

My remarks about imposing views are all about seeking undue influence in the world at large and in the often expressed view that you are entitled to act against the law, because of your "morals" or adherence to "natural law". Catholics claim to know the "Truth" and that they have a duty to proclaim it by way of evangelisation. You are clearly entitled to such an opinion, but if the majority view is that such actions are not permitted then you will have to abide by that view. Right now there is a huge amount of tolerance of religious activity, well beyond that which is really justified. I understand that you won't agree with that opinion, but that is how it seems to many of us. The tide is flowing our way and I think your ability to act on the public square will gradually be curtailed and put on the same level as any other interest group.

My purpose in this particular thread is to enable you to understand how a secularist thinks.

Philip said...

you also mention "as long as you don't try to interfere with them". Nearly all this debate has related to abortion in one way or another and I am afraid that statement merely clarifies the disagreement rather than providing a valid challenge that ends it. The whole point of the abortion debate is that it is a debate about where personhood begings. And, I know plenty of atheists who are anti-abortion because they believe that the unborn child deserves the same protection in law as the one, a few minutes later, that is outside the womb. Indeed, I know not a small number who have become Christians as a result of their involvement in the pro-life movement and them seeing the love, charity and good example that Christians show for those who have no ability to speak for and campaign for themselves. Now, clearly you do not agree with that position (I am bending over backwards to be reasonable as ever, despite your unpleasant dismissal of my efforts). However, one thing that is very clear is that whilst an "interfering you others" argument may be effective at dealing with whether certain moral questions should be dealt with by the law or not, it does not deal with the abortion argument.

New Friend said...

Philip

I regard myself as pro-choice in this debate, whilst I regard those on the other side as "anti-choice". I cannot regard them as "pro-life" because they are not. Their attitude focusses entirely upon the foetus and ignores the life of the mother, who already has a life.

It offends me greatly when the anti-choicers describe those who think like me as "pro-abortion" or "pro-death", or even worse as "murderers". Nothing could be further than the truth. No-one likes abortion. It is a horrible thing at all times, but is sometimes the least worst of all the available options. I understand that Catholics struggle with any concept which tries to grade "sins", but others don't have that problem. In the real world choices have to be made. My wish is to see the numbers of abortions reduced to almost nil by reducing the desire for them to nil. That can only be achieved through better education, a change in habits and the universal acceptance and availability of effective contraception. I fail to see how we can achieve the one without the other.

In the meantime we live in a country in which abortion is legal. You have every right to hold your views, and to campaign for them. I disagree with them, although I can understand your reasoning. All I want from you is the same. That you accept that others hold a different view, that you respect it and do not try to interfere with their legal rights. No-one is compelling a Catholic to undergo an abortion, or assist with one against their will. Please do not attempt to restrict the will of those who disagree.

No-one has given you any rights to speak for the "unborn". When they do, you can. Until then do not assume them, and please speak only for yourseves.

Philip said...

If it offends you greatly to be referred to as "pro-abortion" or "pro-death" then it offends you greatly that people can believe that personhood starts at conception, because the description flows logically from that position. That does make rational argument difficult. If nobody has given me any rights to speak up for the unborn, who has given anybody any rights to speak up for those who (for example) are brain damaged? The problem is that as soon as one recognises personhood in the unborn, it is a game changer (whether Catholic or not). Unless your side of the argument understands that, you will, I am afraid, struggle to understand where your opponents are coming from and therefore struggle to make any impact on them. I am amused by the thought that Catholics struggle with the idea of "grading sins". I guess you must think that I believe that taking the last sweet out of the family Christmas sweet tin instead of offering it around is as bad as murder. No, we don't think that. But, because of our beliefs about personood (not just held by Catholics, but by many others including atheists) we do believe in the extreme seriousness of abortion.

New Friend said...

Philip

I am not offended at what you personally believe. I can understand it, even if I disagree with it. What offends me is when people misrepresent my views and use inappropriate, deliberately emotional, terminology. The quality of the debate always suffers as a consequence.

No-one has given you any rights to speak for anyone, other than yourself, have they? You simply assume them and that is not good enough, and the fact that you feel passionate about the issue is no justification either. I, and those who think like me, have every much right to speak for the "unborn" or the "brain damaged" as you do. The fact that we either don't, or say different things, doesn't mean that our views should be discounted. You do not have exclusivity on these matters, just because you say so. This what your side of the argument has to learn before any progress at all is going to be possible. Unless, and until, you do you, will find you are just banging your heads upon a wall on on the other side of which are a group, holding the majority opinion, who are increasingly incredulous that you just don't "get it".

I have had many debates with Catholics on their view that sin cannot be graded or compromised. A sin is a sin and committing a small one to avoid a bigger one, not possible. If you are different, then good on you!

No-one, least of all me, wants you to stop believing in the extreme seriousness of abortion. I do too. I want to see the numbers being performed hugely reduced, which I just don't think will happen by banning it. All that would do is drive it underground and make it unsafe. I just wish that the other side stopped the emotion and started to seek practical solutions.

Philip said...

once again I give up because I think you are going round and round in circles and it is like banging one's head against a brick wall, you are right. On the technicality, you confuse two things. Catholics believe that you should not do something wrong in the hope that good might come from it; that is not the same as saying that all wrong things are equal

New Friend said...

Philip

I have never suggested you believe all wrong things are equal. That is your own interpretation of my words. What I have said is exactly as you put it, that you believe should never do something wrong in the hope that good might arise. I disagree with that, as I can see occasions when you have to weigh up a complicated situation, in which several issues might be undesirable, but following one or more of them might result in a greater good. To never be prepared to tolerate anything you consider sinful might result in you allowing a greater sin to occur. It is called being practical.

If that is going around in circles for you, so be it. I hope it is clearer.

VOAT said...

The Captain of the Titanic did NOT blindly nor deliberately steer the liner in to an ice berg because a) the lookout did not have binoculars in time to see the ice berg b) he saw it [in the dark] by normal vision and then gave the warning c) the Officer on duty on the bridge [not the Captain] gave the order to put the engines full astern and steer to port when in fact he needed to go full ahead and steer to port which would have certainly increased the chances of not colliding with the berg and at worst merely glancing it......your analogy [as usual] falls flat on its face

New Friend said...

VOAT

This is not really a discussion about the Titanic though is it, but lets continue for a moment. For whatever reason that ship stayed on a collision course against the advice of some voices who were warning they could see trouble ahead. Those voices were ignored as being inexperienced and ignorant. The "we know best" mentality was alive and well.

Now I can see a parallel with your Church, even if you cannot. It is said that if you stand close to a wall you can only see one brick. I am observing from across the road.

Jonathan Marshall said...

As a professional navigation specialist (RN retired) I must correct you here. The Officer of the Watch's error was not in his engine orders but in his helm order. If you have an iceberg ahead of you the best thing you can do is to keep the helm amidships and order emergency full astern on the engines. Turning to port or to starboard will risk tearing a gash along the side of your hull, where the plating is weaker and where you could open up multiple compartments to the sea (which is exactly what happened to the Titanic). It is much safer to take the collision on the bow, which is the strongest part of the ship.

New Friend said...

Jonathan

You are funny. I bow to your superior technical knowledge. I have only ever commanded a 20 ft angling Dory and never encountered an iceberg. Caught lots of fish though!

So that has sorted out what happened to the Titanic. Nevertheless, it would surely have been better not to have been in the area where icebergs might have been found, and when you were, to have reduced speed, rather than pursue your pre-determined objectives without pause for a second thought.

Jonathan Marshall said...

Wrong again, NF.

1912 was a very different world; no radar, no satnav, pretty awful charts, rudimentary weather forecasts, no ice warnings; just experience, training and the Mk I eyeball...

But the whole Titanic thing is ludicrously overblown. As the slogan on a splendid T-shirt I once saw said:

"TITANIC - It sank - get over it!"

New Friend said...

Jonathan

I completely agree with you, 1912 was a totally different world. Doesn't stop the fact that the captain, using whatever navigational aids he had available, stayed on a route determined by those in "head office" just because they knew best, and ignored other voices in his ear that danger lay ahead.

The analogy has validity and actually you make my own point rather well. 1912 was a very different world to 2012 and if we always apply the same solutions that worked then to today, we fail to learn our lessons. We mustn't be scared to revise our views in the light of modern knowledge and experience. Ships today do have GPS and radar. They use them and don't collide with ice bergs any more. Churches ought to do the same.

Jonathan Marshall said...

"Ships today do have GPS and radar. They use them and don't collide with ice bergs any more."

...they just go aground off Italy and drown people.

Modernism has its own perils.

New Friend said...

Jonathan

Keep up! Already answered below to Catherine. Its a cheap and nasty point though isn't it, to try to blame "modernism" for such a disaster, when we have no real idea of what happened. In any case how on earth do you think that being "traditional" or "conservative" or even "Catholic" might have prevented such an event. Its ridiculous.

Jonathan Marshall said...

You really are rather sad, aren't you?

Catherine said...

"Ships today do have GPS and radar. They use them and don't collide with ice bergs any more"

no just undetected rocks on the sea bed just off the coast of Tuscany eh! No amount of scientific or technological advances in human knowing will ever quell the sin of human pride and arrogance of knowing better than God's laws in any given situation so until the human race grasps this and 'gets over it' by accepting Christ as the One who saves us from our sins, the worse we will be.

New Friend said...

Catherine

So are we to assume that the captain of the Costa Concordia was not a Catholic? Because if he was he would have known that all he had to do was pray, or ring up the Vatican, and the right course would be revealed to him?

I have no idea what religion the captain is, nor do I know what really caused the accident. I read what the speculation is, but that is different.

I do though think that it is quite ridiculous to suppose that "Gods laws" have the slightest bearing on this. I don't argue that avoiding pride and arrogance is always desirable, but that is just common sense. You must not seek exclusive possession of common sense, especially when you, as a group, sometimes demonstrate so little of it.

Jonathan Marshall said...

"So are we to assume that the captain of the Costa Concordia was not a Catholic? Because if he was he would have known that all he had to do was pray, or ring up the Vatican, and the right course would be revealed to him?"

Er...no. And your point is?.......

New Friend said...

That the complaint seems to be that if only things were as they used to be that everything would still be OK and that it is "modernisation" and "progress" which is at the root of all that you see wrong in the world today.

The next thing I expect to hear is a recommendation that we should re-introduce a man with a red flag to walk in front of every car, because that is the only way to prevent accidents.

Jonathan Marshall said...

Utter drivel. Read what I actually said, instead of what you thought/wished I said.

You are clearly a very troubled human being, and I am not going to engage further with you in this - or any other - forum.

No doubt you will hug this to yourself as some sort of "victory" - if so, good luck to you.

You have my pity, and my prayers.

+17

Mike Carroll said...

This New Friend person is getting to be a real drag.

I know I'm as bad as everyone else but, can't we all just ignore him and go back to the way it used to be?

New Friend said...

Well done Mike. You ignore me if you wish, that's your right, as it is mine and everyone elses. However debate between those who already agree with one another isn't really debate is it?

I credit the owner of this blog for permitting dissenting comment. Many Catholic (and other) sites and blogs only permit "approved" comment. I have read several opinions, on other blogs, expressed about James Preece which are less than complimentary but, in this regard, he is to be given respect.

Mark Dobson said...

Well amen to that at least.

We can say with Evelyn Beatrice Hall, �I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.� and with Voltaire �Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.�

Genty said...

If there's anything worse than being damned with faint praise, it's being damned with faint praise by a prig.

New Friend said...

Gentry

Strange that, for I have seen that word used elsewhere to describe at least one regular other contributor here. We are all entitled to our opinions: OED definition of "prig":-

"a self-righteously moralistic person who behaves as if they are superior to others"

Now who does that best describe...... me, or all those who bang on endlessly about their morality and how superior it is?

Mike Carroll said...

There is something we refer to in the Catholic church know as 'the culture of death'.

You exude the culture of death with every word you speak. When you look in the mirror it must be like staring in to the abyss.

New Friend said...

Mike

You know nothing about me other than what I have said on here. Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. I am the most optimistic of men. I see good where others see ill. I have always been determined to be the first man ever to live to 150, and so far I am on track. However, I do have cancer but whilst that means my task has been made a little harder, I still remain committed. I only ever look in the mirror to shave, for I am far from vain.

I don't recognise any "culture of death" in myself, or anyone else actually. It seems an idea which only those of a particularly morbid mind would contemplate. I believe in living life to the full, and enjoying every moment. Maybe thats because I believe this is all we have, so we had better make the best of it. I pity those who live their lives waiting for a non existent next one. Now that truly is a "culture of death".

Salsibury John said...

The phrase 'culture of death' was used by the late Blessed John Paul II. If he [whom TIME magazine acclaimed as Man of the Year and at whose funeral saw the largest assembly of global Heads of State in one place and time] was 'morbid' as you put it NF then you really are off beam and need to do your homework.... but heh - in fraternity I 'll give you a head start....

Liberal Democracy as a Culture of Death: Why John Paul II Was Right | Dr. Raymond Dennehy

"To claim the right to abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom." -- John Paul II, The Gospel of Life

Pope John Paul II's encyclical The Gospel of Life is the locus classicus for the claim that a culture of death is enshrouding the modern world. His identification and critique of what he calls the "culture of death" directly challenge liberal democracy, particularly on its separation of freedom from truth. This essay will focus on that challenge. The first part offers an analytic introduction to the term "culture of death," the second part unfolds the late pope's argument, and the third part advances a defense of it. ...
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/Dennehy_TELOS%20ARTICLE.pdf

New Friend said...

John

I am really sorry to disillusion you but JP11 was wrong, as are all those who follow him. I am sure he was a kind man. He was certainly a very popular one. I thought towards the end of his life he looked a very troubled one, which puzzled me, as I would have expected someone with an unquestioning belief in the afterlife to look happy as death approached.

For those who think as I do the only way to organise ourselves is through the use of "human freedom". We need to use our collective wisdom, knowledge and experience to come to the conclusions we need. We cannot rely on, and must not allow others to impose on us, outside influences, from whatever source, which do not match our own reason. If there is no God then His influence cannot be considered.

I respect that those who believe hold another view. That is fine. Please respect ours. Then count up the votes to decide how we procede.

+10

Liberal Traditionalist said...

New Friend, can you give it rest for a bit. I've counted (so far) that you've made 36 comments - out of 91.

- most of them are pompous in their treatment of other correspondents
- all of them are overlong
- none of them make a clear or concise point
- probably 87.7% of them are 91.3% inaccurate

I'm amused by your off-the-cuff use of the phrase "the anti-choice lobby" - today we were greeted by the news that the UK is now to have abortion adverts on TV.

We seem to the stage whereby the "pro-death community" wants to make abortion compulsory. This might just be the step too far for them.

New Friend said...

Thats not very liberal. As with everyone else you are at liberty to ignore me if you so choose. I look forward to NIL responses from you!

If you don't think my points are clear, well OK, I will try harder. I can only do my best. If it isn't good enough for you I am sorry.

I saw the news that advertising of private abortion services is to be permitted, and had little doubt it would be seized upon as a weapon by the anti-choice lobby. I am not yet fully up to speed on this but my initial reaction is to feel uncomfortable about the concept, and that before it is accepted much greater detail is required.

If I understand things correctly, this is NOT a specific proposal to allow such advertising but rather a realisation that the rules do not prohibit it. In any case it applies to ALL agencies, whatever their stance, so would also permit advertising by those seeking to specifically persuade against abortion. This proposal could therefore be welcomed by those on your side of the debate as an opportunity to make your points.

Nevertheless, the idea that any agency involved with pregnancy advice should advertise on TV sends out the wrong messages in my opinion. This is something which needs to be done quietly and personally. There must be no possibility that the profit motive is involved in such advice, and whilst I do not believe it is, perceptions are also important. I hope that wise heads will intervene.

The "pro-death" community is a fantasy organisation which exists only in the minds of those who are so blinded by their emotional reaction to this issue that they cannot see the wood for the trees. No-one will ever make abortion compulsory. Such an idea is ridiculous and seriously weakens your argument.

Philip said...

I think this will be my last ever comment in reply to new friend (and it is slightly out of sequence because it is getting too complex up above). As I say, we go round and round in circles. Having accepted that, in fact, there are some absolute truths (relating to killing and there not being other absolute truths) you now accept a sort of moral evolution approach through your regard for the common law. That is interesting, indeed. Abortion was a common law offence, codified in the mid nineteenth century and then codified further (with an exception given if the mother's life was in danger) in 1929. Allowing abortion required a specific Act of Parliament that effectively gave exceptions for statute law provisions that had derived from common law. There are two rational pro-abortion positions. One is a utilitarian judgement that we should allow some killing in some circumstances for the greater good (a position that I believe rapdily degenerates) and, secondly, a radical pro-choice position that allows a person to do whatever they wish to an unborn baby because the rights to a mother with a baby in her womb trump any rights that the baby can have. Both of these positions have huge dangers and - I repeat - we have arrived at our current position on abortion by making specific exceptions to generally accepted common law positions. That is the position in a non-Catholic country (in fact, two non-Catholic countries - Scotland, too has a related, but different, history).

New Friend said...

Philip

Without making any comment on your first two propositions there is a third, which is simply rejected or ignored by Catholics as untrue. Unless you begin to accept that those who hold this opinion are entitled to hold it, and give them the respect they deserve as decent fellow citizens, we will forever be arguing about basic principals.

The third alternative is that a foetus is NOT an "unborn baby". It is a foetus, and does not therefore attract the same rights and protections as does a baby. This is not a question of the mother's rights "trumping the baby's". Until the mother has a baby there is nothing to trump.

dictionary.com said...

Foetus "Compare embryo the embryo of a mammal in the later stages of development, when it shows all the main recognizable features of the mature animal, esp a human embryo from the end of the second month of pregnancy until birth

[C14: from Latin: offspring, brood]"

All the recognizable features except protection

New Friend said...

Thats a little silly don't you think? Of course a foetus has all the main recognisable features. No-one would argue it didn't. That doesn't make it a baby though does it? A canvas in a frame with paint splashed over it has the main recognisable features of a painting. It isn't one though. Not yet. It might become one in time but right now it isn't.

Marguerita said...

So its heart has been beating since 21 days after conception, it makes its own blood which can be a different blood type to its mother, by three months gestation it has fingers, toes, fingernails, all its internal organs are formed, it can even be seen on ultrasound sucking its thumb, all it will do from now on is grow. But its not a baby?