Loading ...NYT: Pro-choice catholics aren’t ‘liberal’, they’re ‘progressive’
flockwoodThe New York Times has an article today about liberal Catholics who support politicians who oppose the church’s moral teachings on abortion. The Times repeatedly labels them ‘progressive’ Catholics. Catholics who support church teachings on abortion [would that make them 'regressive' Catholics?] are labeled “conservatives.”
As a writer, I steer clear of “progessive/regressive” and stick to liberal and conservative or left and right. What do you all think? Is it better for journalists to use “liberal” or “progressive”?
September 17th, 2008 at 11:46 am
The problem with “liberal” is that the conservatives have branded it as a negative word, one they never use in any positive light. I suspect that this is why that so many people now label themselves progressive rather than liberal. As words go, I like progressive, because it evokes images of the old progressive era early in the last century when people like Bob LaFollette and Teddy Roosevelt (both Republicans) and Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryant (both Democrats) labeled themselves as progressive.
I generally refer to myself as a liberal, in part because I know the word makes conservatives mad, and I try to make them mad every chance I get. I suspect, though, that I’m in the minority and that most liberals would rather be called progressives. As to the whole regressive thing, I tend to think that most conservatives are really regressives (or reactionaries), in the sense that they want to regress to an earlier (and less liberal) time, but I don’t imagine they’d like the label very much. To be technical, I suppose a true conservative would only want to conserve the status quo, not move backward, but these days the word is used to describe a wide variety of people who want to change things as well as conserve them. So, none of the combinations is exactly correct, but I’d suggest that grammar be ignored, and the contrast made between progressives and conservatives.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I would say pro-abortion Catholics. There are more issues in defining a Catholic than abortion. Even liberals are finding it difficult to find the moral high ground in abortion.
As for liberal versus progressive, progressive has the better connotation. Progress = new and open = good and tolerant. As silly as that is, it works. It’s as silly as saying the Republican Party is the moral political party, which is especially ridiculous if one looks a the last eight years. I lean towards conservative and orthodox in my faith, but towards liberal or progressive in my politics. I have several church friends who are just the opposite, and I think they value their cultural secular world views and politics above any faith-based world view. I can understand that; however, I try to choose a Christian view over the world view, and then usually a conservative view.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I suspect they’d prefer “pro-choice” to “pro-abortion,” but otherwise I agree with you, Mike, that there’s more to the liberal/conservative axis for progressive Catholics (which I imagine is most American Catholics these days) than a woman’s right to choose, as important as that is.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
You know, Mike, I have never ever met a single person who was truly pro-abortion. That’s just a term that some folks made up to cause a fuss. And ironically it’s rare to find “pro-life” folks who have a consistent philosophy of treating life as sacred.
I really dislike this business of using labels. It’s not just lazy but it’s also misleading, and too often it intentionally hides the truth. Did you ever ask a rightwinger to prove that s/he was really conservative, in any objective and meaningful definition of the word? As for these here Catholics, if they have an agenda that broader than pro-choice then maybe “progressive” is as good a word as any.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I agree it is problematic to categorize people and/or their views with labels, Jose. To continute to label myself for expediency, I am a former pro-choice Catholic. The choice to choose or not choose abortion as a solution is available in our culture. The “choice” in “pro-choice” usually means it is OK to choose abortion. Pro-choice could be considered an obfuscation of the reality — a positive spin on choosing abortion, if you will, or way to say that abortion is a difficult but culturally (but not morally) acceptable choice. It’s a slippery slope. I have personal, painful regrets about this. I cannot wish this pain on others, nor judge them for choosing their paths. I pray for a better, more enlightened path than abortion. Peace.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Catholics don’t believe in abortion on a theology standpoint. Jesus was born to an unwed mother.
September 18th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Well, Mike, let’s consider the People’s Republic of China. Due to overpopulation, the authoritarian government has a strict “one child” policy in urban areas. Forced abortions are a reality there. According to your definition, the Chinese government is pro-choice. According to a literal definition and common sense, they are distinctly ANTI-choice. I’ll go so far to assert that by taking reproductive rights out of the hands of the people, the Communist Party of the PRC is darned close to the pro-life radicals in the USA.
“Obfuscation of the reality” indeed. If you think that “pro-choice” is a cloudy term, you really ought to try justifying “pro-life” sometime.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Jose, China is a communist country, so an opinion as a citizen there is a mute point.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Jose: The people of china are not given a pro-choice decision, the government gives them a pro-abortion mandate. I am beginning to wonder if your last name is Miranda. Honestly sometimes you are like an old dog with a bone. you like to keep harping on someone who doesn’t agree with your way of thinking and won’t let go- and we tell our elementary children here that is a bully.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Mike: you need to turn your pain into a testimony. Many people (males included) that this pain will last them till the end of their life. They can never undo an abortion. I pray for you.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Peach, Jose’s entire point is that the people of China are NOT given a choice. However, their government is clearly pro-abortion. Therefore, being “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” are two fundamentally different things, and to refer to Americans who are pro-choice as pro-abortion is simply not true. And who’s Miranda?
The whole abortion issue was ignored by protestant evangelicals from 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, until about 1978 when some of the organizers of the Moral Majority decided to co-opt it as one of their own political issues. Prior to that, even the Southern Baptists were in agreement with Roe. This isn’t about morality, it’s about politics.
September 19th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I beleive it was Thurgood Marshall who had given an interview a few years befor his death in 93, he had explained how Wade vs Roe had been so close to being overturned. It was bittersweet to those of us who don’t believe in abortion. I can’t recall all the details, Maybe Caleb has the resources to find it. Roe vs Wade was on the way out prior to the Clinton years. Lots of current history affecting today’s vote.
September 20th, 2008 at 11:42 am
But back to the original subject. Frank seems to have an issue with calling these Catholics “progressive” instead of “liberal”. I don’t see why that’s particularly remarkable.
According to the online version of the American Heritage Dictionary, and picking the most relevant definition:
PROGRESSIVE:
Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods.
LIBERAL:
Favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
-or-
Favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.
Seems pretty clear to me that either word would do just fine. I’m sure that these good people consider themselves as reformers who are advocating change towards a better church. There’s a rule (or there ought to be a rule) that folks can call themselves whatever they want, provided that the meaning is correct. This situation meets those criteria.
As for what to call the other end of the political spectrum, let’s ask them what term they prefer. The opposite of “progressive” should be something that connotes favoring the status quo, and “conservative” works well in that regard. As for the suggestion of “regressive”, well, that’s just Frank mocking the NYTimes.
September 20th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
According to the Vatican, Catholics don’t beleive in abortion. period.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:29 am
Hmmm, “Liberal or Progressive Catholics.” How about “Wrong Catholics” on a pro-abortion stance? Regardless what a minority of American Catholics may think, say or do, the truth remains. Second Vatican Council: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide…is a disgrace.” Tertullian, a 3rd century church father: “…it is not permitted to destroy what is conceived in the mother’s womb. To hinder the birth of a child is a faster way to murder….” The 2nd century Didache: “…You shall not kill an unborn child or murder a newborn infant.” Declaration on Procured Abortion 1974: “The first right of a human person is his/her life…It does not belong to society, nor does it belong to public authority in any form to recognize this right for some and not for others; all discrimination is evil….”
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 am
Perplexed, I don’t have any special insight on Roe v. Wade, other than what I’ve already said, which is that it was NOT a controversial decision at the time, and has been made so only by the drum pounding of the right wing, who needed an issue, and were persuaded by their political flacks that this was the one. Certainly the holy grail of neo-conservatives these days is to get it overturned, but my question is how they’ll do it and still call themselves conservative. Conservatives (to the extent that they believe in anything but money) are supposed to believe in a doctrine called stare decisis, which means “let the decision stand.” That is, the conservative approach to jurisprudence is that after our highest courts have decided a case, that decision should stand as precedent unless there is a VERY good legal reason to overturn it.
Roe v. Wade has been the law for over thirty years now. Thousands of lives have been saved because abortion is legal and safe, and the reason that so many people today want it overturned is because there aren’t many people alive today who remember much about what life was like in America before it was decided. A recent article in the NYTimes by an older doctor who practiced medicine before Roe’s decision reminded us of the women coming to hospital emergency rooms with bloody coathangers hanging out of them and with infections that caused their deaths. Whatever anyone thinks about abortion, no one would voluntarily go back to that, either. It’s only because a generation has grown up that doesn’t know what a backroom abortion is that we’re even talking about the issue now. Certainly back when people remembered what life was like pre-Roe, no one other than the extreme right wing wanted it overturned.
And Bap-Cat, quoting the Vatican’s pronouncements on things might well hold water with traditional Catholics, but not many of the rest of us much care what they think about anything. I know I don’t.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Folks, take another look at Frank’s summary above:
“liberal Catholics who SUPPORT POLITICIANS who oppose the church’s moral teachings on abortion.”
(Emphasis added.)
Some of the “Bad Catholics” are guilty of nothing more than asking the church to listen to them. Others have committed the theological crime of suggesting that the Pope’s teachings should not necessarily be imposed on the American public, most of which is not Catholic. If that makes one a Bad Catholic then we need lots more like them.
The first amendment to the US Constitution may not be scripture but it’s beautiful and profound:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Look at that– freedom of speech but also the right to be heard by one’s leaders. And it’s not just our laws that protect these practices in our civic institutions, many churches endorse them as well. It’s dangerous when leaders to insulate themselves from open, honest discourse, whether they reside in the White House or a Vatican palace.
A while back we had a lot of discussion about the Epicopal Church. Some members of the church are unhappy with the beliefs and actions of the church and they are raising holy heck about it. That’s all fine and good. They have the right. But they wanted more, a lot more. They wanted to break the laws that have governed the church for many years, just so they could take church property when they secede. As I recall there were some bloggers here who cheered on these secessionists, saying that their local opinions mattered more than the longstanding covenant with the rest of the denomination. I don’t know if we should call these people liberals, for wanting to discard with church regulations so casually, or if we should call them progressives, for wanting to reform the church. But according to the principles that are now espoused we should call them outlaws and pro-schism activists, and maybe even Bad Episcopals.
Suppose that a Catholic diocese in the USA did like the breakaway Episcopalians. Imagine that they decided the authorities in Rome were no longer representing the true, humble faith of the Good Shepherd. Imagine that after years of being disregarded and silenced, the members found that they could no longer serve both Christ and Pope, and so they voted to remove themselves from the human yoke and accept only the holy one. And then they voted to reorganize themselves as independent from Rome while retaining stewardship of the church property and bank accounts. As a matter of principle, would you not support them just as you supported the breakaway dioceses of American Anglicism? Why or why not?
September 22nd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Well, as a Catholic, several things come to mind. Roe vs Wade has always been an issue with the Catholic community. The labels I see being put on Catholics are not their own. As far a a theological standpoint about abortion, its a sin and we consider it murder. What if Jesus were to return the way He came the first time, He might not make it because of abortion.
Roe vs Wade was almost overturned prior to the Clinton appointments in the Supreme Court which changed the direction of the court set by Reagan. I’m not sure what your referral is to right wing. Catholics have been called many things, but their theology is deep and well rooted in wisdom. Its a shame that the plight of babies don’t get the press that dogs do in America. To date, the system of teaching youth about unwanted or preventable pregnancies isn’t working. Once again society turns a blind eye and gives a solution that not acceptable on Biblical terms.
The solution isn’t abortion, it never has been. I have known several women who have had this procedure and 10, 20, 30 years later its still haunts them. Somebody you trust give your advice to terminate your pregnancy. You know its even worded so that it doesn’t sound like murder, how convenient.
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:45 am
Hitler labeled what we termed “Holocaust” as preserving the German bloodlines. Others termed it as genocide, while the Higher courts named it Crimes against Humanity. A name is but a name… does the name change the atrocity of the act it associates with? Does it change the fact that one day all will stand before God and be held accountable?
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:58 am
Jose: That may be the most biased and malformed question (about the session of Anglican congregations) that I have heard all week. Seriously, you should go to work in politics, maybe help Obama match up against McCain’s distortions.
And for the record, I am not one to “cheer on secessionists.” I think the situation in the ECUSA, a full communion partner of my denomination, is a tragedy and is breaking apart a glorious church. If something similar was happening in the Catholic church, I’d feel the same. I think the secessionists are walking down the wrong path in leaving, rather than staying and offering their witness to the larger church. With friends on both sides, I know this whole issue is not a simple “conservative vs. liberal” or “schismatic vs faithful” matter… and that it is painful for everyone involved.
Insisting that both sides be heard, especially in a context where people have plainly not considered the other viewpoint, is not “cheering on:” it’s simply maintaining basic philosophical and Christian charity. Over the past year, I have worked hard to put unity in Christ before political divisions in my own thinking , and that requires seeing others’ actions, whether I agree with them or not, in the best possible light.
Caleb: B-t-C also quoted documents of the Church Fathers (well, at least one)… you might not care what the Vatican said in the 60′s and 70′s (I think you’re a little misguided there, btw), but surely an Episcopalian wouldn’t just glibly dismiss what the Church Father’s taught in the 2nd and 3rd centuries…
Baptist-turned-Catholic: I give you points for quoting the Didache, but you may want to reconsider labeling a “Catholic-turned-Montanist” as a Church Father (at least without an apostrophe). In my church history class, I was a big Tertullian fan (his question, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem” is one that should be asked more often, IMO), but despite his massive contributions to the Church, he did end up departing from orthodox Christianity. Still, I think pointing out that Christianity opposed abortion and infanticide from its earliest days is a valid point.
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
UKLutheran, sorry, but I don’t care what the Vatican says. When the Vatican begins cleaning its own house, I might be persuaded to care what they say. As for the Church fathers, yes, I give them the respect they deserve. That respect includes recognizing that they may have significant and important things to say about the development of doctrine in their day, but it does not include allowing them to make political policy today, any more than I would take their views on slavery into account in determining whether slavery is right or wrong today. You can be a church father and wrong at the same time, just as you can be the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury and be wrong at the same time.
It is not clear to me at all that “Christianity” or even the Roman church opposed abortion “from its earliest days.” Certainly by the middle ages, many church scholars believed that a fetus was not “human,” and therefore still a part of its mother, and could be freely aborted, for 40 days after conception for a male and 80 days for a female. This disparity shows that the law (supported by the Church) was hardly either fair, humane, or divinely ordained. This concept was adopted by Bracton, one of the earliest of the common law scholars, as banning abortion only when the fetus was “quick in the womb,” that is, when it could move by itself, a time usually defined as the fourth or fifth month of the pregnancy.
In 1758, Blackstone wrote: “Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.”
Thus, under this formulation, again with the full consent of the Church of England, abortion prior to the fetus’ quickening was not a crime at all, and thereafter only a misdemeanor. Laws making abortion at any point during the pregnancy a felony arose in the mid to late 1800s when physicians began attending women at birth rather than midwives. The Roe v. Wade opinion notes that the Texas abortion statute it struck down was only passed in 1854, and that pre-quickening abortion had been perfectly legal in Texas before this. As late as 1879, the Kentucky Court of Appeals, then the state’s highest court, struck down a conviction for an abortion of a fetus during the third month that did not allege that the fetus was “quick” in the mother’s womb. The case held that no crime had been committed.
Bracton’s treatise on the common law was written in the 1200s, when England was still a Catholic nation. Blackstone’s commentaries were written in the 1700s, well after the split between the Anglican and Roman churches, and both say the same thing about abortion: Prior to the “quickening” of the fetus, it was perfectly legal, and had been considered so for hundreds of years. This was the law adopted by the colonists when they formed our nation. Anti-abortion statutes weren’t passed in this country until the late 1800s, and then as an economic weapon used by physicians, who because of their hypocratic oaths could not assist in abortions, to take patients away from midwives, who, having taken no oath, could assist with abortions, and often did. I don’t know of any evidence that the religious establishment ever objected to any of this.
September 23rd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Consider the time line for this Caleb, women were just short of being treated as property during these periods, don’t forget to factor that in while your contemplating your argument.
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Oh goodness…. I really don’t want to debate abortion.
However, Caleb… I understand that you would like to shift this discussion to the domain of law, since you are far more knowledgeable there than I am (or anyone else that regularly posts here).
But I made an off the cough remark about church history… specifically about 2nd and 3rd century Christian thinkers/teachings. So quoting Blackstone et. al. is just tossing up a couple of red herrings.
Find me a Church Father, Ecumenical Council, significant thinker or major document that supports your position, and I will be happy to concede the point that it was not a universally held position…
September 24th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
UKLutheran, perhaps I didn’t make my point well. My point was that for a thousand years, abortion during what we would call the first trimester, or later, was perfectly legal. A thousand years. And during that time, I don’t know of a single uprising in the church to change the law until the 1800s. As far as church fathers go, I tip my hat to you on theology as you did to me on law.
In an honest attempt to answer your question about how theology plays into all this, I fall back on a footnote in Roe v. Wade which at least purports to put the matter in a historical and theological perspective:
“Early philosophers believed that the embryo or fetus did not become formed and begin to live until at least 40 days after conception for a male, and 80 to 90 days for a female. See, for example, Aristotle, Hist.Anim. 7.3.583b; Gen.Anim. 2.3.736, 2.5.741; Hippocrates, Lib. de Nat.Puer., No. 10. Aristotle’s thinking derived from his three-stage theory of life: vegetable, animal, rational. The vegetable stage was reached at conception, the animal at ‘animation,’ and the rational soon after live birth. This theory, together with the 40/80 day view, came to be accepted by early Christian thinkers.
The theological debate was reflected in the writings of St. Augustine, who made a distinction between embryo inanimatus, not yet endowed with a soul, and embryo animatus. He may have drawn upon Exodus 21:22. At one point, however, he expressed the view that human powers cannot determine the point during fetal development at which the critical change occurs. See Augustine, De Origine Animae 4.4 (Pub.Law 44.527). See also W. Reany, The Creation of the Human Soul, c. 2 and 83-86 (1932); Huser, The Crime of Abortion in Canon Law 15 (Catholic Univ. of America, Canon Law Studies No. 162, Washington, D.C., 1942).
Galen, in three treatises related to embryology, accepted the thinking of Aristotle and his followers. Quay 426-427. Later, Augustine on abortion was incorporated by Gratian into the Decretum, published about 1140. Decretum Magistri Gratiani 2.32.2.7 to 2.32.2.10, in 1 Corpus Juris Canonici 1122, 1123 (A. Friedberg, 2d ed. 1879). This Decretal and the Decretals that followed were recognized as the definitive body of canon law until the new Code of 1917.
For discussions of the canon-law treatment, see Means I, pp. 411-412; Noonan 20-26; Quay 426-430; see also J. Noonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists 18-29 (1965).”
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), footnote 22.
As a non-canon lawyer, I can’t confirm that the court was right about any of this. However, if these citations are correctly interpreted (and I suspect you are in a better position to look them up than I am), the concept of abortion has gone through four stages from its early development until today:
(1) The earliest Christian thinkers, based on Aristotelian concepts, accepted the pagan view that abortion was not a crime until the embryo had formed for thirty days for males and 80-90 days for females (no sexism there).
(2) Later, in the 1200s, Bracton expressed the view that under the English common law, the ability for the fetus to move, or be animated, was the decisive factor. This stage was generally thought to begin in the fourth or fifth month. This is the view that was repeated in Blackstone, Coke, and other scholars on the English common law, and as Roe says, was adopted wholesale by the American legal system when it formed. About this, Roe says: “Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas’ definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point.”
(3) During the nineteenth century, abortion came to be regulated by statute, and the statutes generally held that the abortion of any embryo was a crime, not matter the stage of development. These statutes were the law in most states until overturned by Roe v. Wade.
Finally, (4) we have Roe v. Wade, and its tortured legacy.
As a legal scholar, I’ve checked the citations to Bracton, Blackstone, and Coke, and have satisfied myself that, whatever one may think of the morality of abortion, what Roe says about its history is correct. I do not have the facility with canon law or early church fathers to do the same with the citations noted above, but welcome you, UKLutheran, or anyone else who is interested, to do the same. I apologize for the length of this, but these are serious issues.
September 24th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Caleb, thats a very nicely worded brief.
Thou Shalt not Kill.
That small brief came from the top, its pretty straightforward and clear to me. The Boss-man didn’t need to consult with anybody.
Tell me this, how can man justify changing orders from the top. The only way is to serve their own needs. That’s what abortion is all about.
Who speaks for the right of the unborn child. God, its very clear to me.
Its not distorted, but then again, perspective is the word of the day.
September 24th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Perp, this subject is too serious for such silliness. Even hardcore anti-abortion rights activists don’t entirely agree on what that simple command means.
September 25th, 2008 at 4:35 am
Jose, the world is in the shape its in because men in power abuse that power, its not just about abortion, its famine, its war, its oppression. People label anti- abortionists as nuts while passive countries literally are wiped off the face of the earth.
Who’s kidding, I’m not. I try and follow the ten commandments, how can abortion be justified over one of the ten commandments. Because it serves mans needs. Its not part of my religion.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Perplexed, my “brief,” as you called it wasn’t about the morality of abortion. It was about the history of what people have thought about that morality. UKLutheran suggests that Christians have believed from the earliest days of the church that abortion was wrong. What I wrote merely suggests that the situation has been more complex than this, and that whatever any individual might have believed, for a thousand years abortion during roughly the first half of a pregnancy was perfectly legal, and that, as far as I can tell, the organized church never objected to this. And during most of those thousand years, the organized church had far more sway over the laws of nations than it does today.
In my earlier post, I likened the issue to that of slavery. I am sure that many Christians, from the very beginning, were opposed to slavery. And yet the Bible does not condemn it, and Paul’s letter to Philemon asks the Christian owner of a Christian runaway slave to accept that slave back as a slave and never suggests that a Christian ought not to own slaves, even if the slaves are Christians, too. For almost two thousand years, slavery was perfectly legal in various parts of the world (including, after its founding, the United States) and until the abolitionist movements of the 1700s and 1800s, the organized church never objected to this, either.
I understand that the Catholic Church today objects to abortion, as do many other religious groups. I presume that they also object to slavery today as well. The sum and substance of my “brief” was that, in abortion (as in slavery), it wasn’t always that way.
September 25th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Perp, you’re missing the issue entirely. You claim that “Thou shalt not kill” is “straightforward” and “clear”. It is not, plain and simple. Set aside abortion for a moment. Consider capital punishment, innocent lives perished in avoidable wars, lives lost to unnecessary disease and famine. Shoot, look at people who die from cancer because tobacco companies knowingly sell a danger product for their own profit. Are these instances of people killing people? I think so, but a lot of people will find loopholes in the commandment just so they can justify these actions. You see? Not straightforward. Not clear.
Now a quick return to abortion. When a woman uses an IUD, and it prevents a fertilized ovum from implanting itself in the uterus, many folks do not consider that taking the life of human being. They will point out that whatever it is that moseys down the Fallopian tubes may be a potential human being, but it is not a person by an objective definition of the word. You may well disagree, and that’s fine, but the fact is that it is arguable, even among Christians.
I don’t want to discuss the merits of any of these interpretations other than to say that they are valid understandings by intelligent and thoughtful people. It follows, then, that you are demonstrably wrong in asserting that God’s commandments are so neat and clean. They are not.
September 25th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Jo, if you don’t want to discuss these issue why bring them up.
When God gave Moses the 10 commandments, it was a guide to a life that would get you through the gates of Heaven. God does forgive us because we all sin. Our asking for forgiveness must be real, from the heart.
We as humans have distorted everything we possibly can to serve our own needs. We have taken simplicity and made complexity using rational from Greek philosophers to justify an unmoral existence to perpetuate our so called happiness. I know that the world isn’t a euphoria. I just hate to see people being lazy about lifestyles that have no fulfillment, no integrity. The choices that some of us make, including me, in a quest for happiness have gathered so many twists and turns, we have miss the simplicity of life and then, in a blink of an eye, its gone.
Jose, you need to examine why people choose the direction of rationalization they choose, the purpose behind this is a direction of thought. Sometimes, a lot of times, that direction is a justifiable excuse for your behavior.
I still feel like the unborn are the victims, who speaks for them, go hold a baby in your arms and consider what gets destroyed and how an innocent and pure gift from God gets terminated.
Caleb, I’m not cracking on you, I really enjoy reading what you write.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:58 am
I understand, perplexed, and I’m not disagreeing with your moral stands, either. I’m just trying to give some historical perspective that’s a bit more nuanced than statements like “the Church has always been opposed to abortion.” This is an issue that has, in modern times, been made into absolutes, but it’s traditionally been seen in shades of gray.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:38 am
Abortion and contraception practices has been around since man himself was created; it is nothing new. Unfortunately, man has taken upon himself throughout the ages to contemplate exactly when the momentous moment of when the soul enters a body, then based upon this decision made moral laws concerning abortion. Does one really want to trust their eternal salvation on mortal man?
Anyone who makes God into a god of their choosing commits idolatry. Choosing to follow mortal man for your eternal salvation is making a God of your choice.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:31 am
That’s a noble ideal, Carol, but the problem is that every avenue to God that I know of is paved with mortal men (and women). If you’re a member of a church, you’re a member of an organization that might well be claimed to be ordained by God, but is operated by human beings. If you’re not a member of a church, you’re either relying on a philosophy ultimately explicated by people (even if they claim to only be channeling God) or on a religious text, like the Bible or Koran, which again may claim or be believed to arise from God, but has been through the hands of man to get to you. So, like it or not, we’re all in this boat together.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Friend: there is but one road to follow and it is not paved by mortal man. ALL other roads (and there are many to choose from) will lead to a heavenly judgment; you all will get to heaven to be judge before God.
The majority of religions have been tainted by men in power to meet their earthly needs, and most have written their own version of the scriptures to justify their actions or beliefs.
The Popes called themselves infallible, yet are no more so than you or I. Yet people still believe every word that proceedeth from their mouths to be the gospel. The Mormons followed a man who said that angels (or some type of entity) gave him gold tablets-yet those tablets have never been found to date. The seventh day Adventist were big into end time prophecy in the 1800′s to the point that several times people sold all their belongings and stood and waited, when the day came and went they were without food and shelter and then the process repeated itself on another date (I believe this group may have been called the Millerites-not for sure). Modern day protestants want to believe in a rapture-even when there is nothing in the Bible to justify it, then argue as to when it is to take place: pre, mid, or post.
The Church that Jesus is coming for is not a specific denomination, rather one or two people within the any church building that have chosen to follow the road lead by Jesus–not the pastor, reverend, bishop, or pope.
While I cannot read Greek or ancient Hebrew, I have to have the faith that the Holy Spirit will guide me as to my reading of scriptures. Bottom line is that the knowledge of good and evil resides in us all, whether or not we admit to it.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Carol, I share your inability to read ancient Greek or Hebrew. And, even if you and I could read them, we don’t have the original texts that were originally written by the first person to write down those texts in those languages. And we have so many variations among the texts that we do have that we’re in no way certain that what we have bears much of a likeness to the original texts, wherever they were written. So, if the Bible is your religious text, it is, like all other books, at least in part, a man-made one, even if the original draft (which we don’t have) was dictated by God. So, we’re back to the path to God being paved with man. Sorry, but you can’t get around it; we’re all in the same boat.
September 28th, 2008 at 5:54 am
the time has come to start working on a new boat-Ark. One that is not filled with man’s traditions or doctrines
September 28th, 2008 at 10:08 am
The ark was built by humans, according to their best understanding of God’s word.
September 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
The Ark was built by ameteurs, It was the titanic that was built by professionals.
September 29th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Unless you’re certain that, like Sarah Palin, you have a hotline directly to God, everything we know, think, or believe about God or religion is filtered through man.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:47 am
I’d much prefer to deal with Sarah Palin’s line with God than drink the koolaid of Katherine Jefferts Schori!
October 1st, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Well, like it or not, Katherine Jefferts Schori is our presiding bishop. I suspect that she gets a lot of flack because she’s a woman. Her opinions, though, are not out of line with those of the vast majority of Episcopalians today, inlcuding me. We have always been on the left wing of theology and I suspect always will. As far as Sister Sarah goes, if you want her, you’re welcome to her.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
“…everything we know, think, or believe about God or religion is filtered through man.”
You’re right Caleb. Which is why the words found in Amos 3:7 are so very pertinent to arguments like those in this thread and why God created a pattern to reveal his will, a pattern so obviously simple if people would just see it. Christians get so caught up in the “authority” of the Bible that they fail to see the pattern that was set forth in the Bible.
This whole thread leads me to recall some words that I have read somewhere before…if I can recall….oh, yeah:
“…there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.
For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.” –Joseph Smith
Like Amos said, “Sure the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servant the prophets.”
And, as the Paul said, “And he (meaning Christ) gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
I realize that I’m “fighting” against centuries of man-made tradition here, and I’m sure to get lambasted about this, but why is it so hard to see the pattern; that God has always led man by prophets, He just didn’t expect them to flounder around by interpreting the written word in every way and manner imaginable?
Signed,
A “stuck pig”
October 1st, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Welcome back, prodigal brother David! Choose up a side or start a new one.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Hebrews1:1-2 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
Since Jesus there really has been no need for a “prophet”. If you want to believe in a prophet then test him/her by Deuteronomy 18:21-22. If one prophecy fails they are not of God. Man has often felt that common man was to ignorant to understand the Bible, and in 600 ad those in hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church made the Bible ‘outlawed’ for the common man. It was their belief that man would flounder around by interpreting in every way imaginable, too. What happened is that common man often understood better than those highly educated and found most doctrines to be false. For instance: Psalms 139
On Abortion vs 16: God knows the embryo in the making. We today know that the embryo or fetus is completely formed by the end of the first trimester. Doesn’t take a genius to understand God might be a little wrathful with those who discard indiscriminately.
Verse 15: the lowest parts of earth is a reference for being born of woman or the grave. Makes a better understanding of Jesus descent in Ephesians 4:9 as being born–not descent into hell. Might even make one want to reconsider their thoughts on the doctrine of original sin.
vs 8: God is everywhere in creation, the psalmist could not deny his existence. God did not reject the sinner–nor Christ on the cross.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Carol,
Of course when Jesus was alive there was no need for a prophet; He was there to listen to face to face. Funny though that you use a scripture from the mouth of Paul to refute a scripture about apostles and prophets that was also from Paul. Wonder which time he was correct, if they actually contradict each other?
Secondly, you need to be careful with that Deuteronomy scripture, my friend. Remember the first part says, “When a aprophet bspeaketh in the name of the Lord…” I’ve read too many “anti-Joseph Smith” things that claim he made prophecies that didn’t come true and when you actually study it, they were third-hand claims that he perhaps said this or that.
But, whatever. Here is my take on this whole abortion thing. I’m very much down the middle, some might say.
First of all, I think the whole “it’s my body argument” is bogus. That same argument could be made by someone who commits a bank robbery. “It’s my body, I can make it steal if I want to….”
Also, we have no idea when life enters the fetus/embryo, so that is a mute point also.
What it comes down to with me is that abortion should not be used as a means of birth control. I have a unique perspective because of two facts, on that I’ve known for a long time, one that I recently learned
1) I’m adopted. My bio-mother was single. She could have very easily aborted me since she already had another son, 4 years my senior.
2) According to the court papers I recently received after knowing nothing for almost 40 years, I am most likely the product of a date rape. My biological mother couldn’t even tell the social worker who my father was, only that she sure she conceived during a party where she got drunk.
(I hope no one gets uptight about me sharing this. It doesn’t nothing to change the fact that I grew up in a loving home and I know that I am a child of God. How I got here is secondary to me.)
Now, I am certainly no fan of abortion. I don’t care how it was thought of centuries ago, or even before 1973. I don’t care about the politics. It comes down to the why and how of the pregnancy. Obviously, I’m glad that my bio-mom didn’t abort me. I’ve told my wife that I could very much live with a son or daughter if something that horrific ever happened to her. However, it would be her ultimate decision.
That is what it comes down to for me. If the pregnancy is a product of rape, incest, or if under compentant medical advice the baby has no chance to live after deliver, then yes, as hard as it might be, I don’t consider it murder.
I do believe those who have used abortion as a means of birth control will one day answer for it if repentance is not sought, not just because of the abortion but because most likely it was caused by sexual relations outside of the bonds of matrimony.
I think the greatest sadness of the plentitude of abortions is how prevelant they are in our society and that comes with very loose morals. And don’t start on how our sexual morals are no worse than those of decades and centuries ago. That is just bunk. You might have examples like Henry VIII who jumped from bed to bed, but the morals of the common man were much better that those today. I’m certainly not perfect, but how many of us can’t see that if we tried harder to keep that simple commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” that we’d have much less abortion.
Just my two cents.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Carol,
“Man has often felt that common man was to ignorant to understand the Bible, and in 600 ad those in hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church made the Bible ‘outlawed’ for the common man. It was their belief that man would flounder around by interpreting in every way imaginable, too. What happened is that common man often understood better than those highly educated and found most doctrines to be false.”
I agree totally with this. It doesn’t disagree with my earlier statement at all. One of the problems I see is that most have come to believe that attending a theological seminary gives one the right to interpret the bible, or lead a congregation. I’m pretty sure that is not the Biblical example. Where did Jesus attend seminary? Yes, he was surely taught in the synagogues of his time, but is that the same? Where did Peter attend theology school? Sorry, he didn’t. Paul was a member of the sanhedrin, but is that why he was called to be an apostle? Don’t think so.
So, when I speak of prophets, I am not speaking of someone who decides to go to school and then claim he has some sort of authority. That is not the Biblical example, but is/ has been the example, like you said, since after the death of Jesus and his apostles, an example that should never been followed. It matters not what the man was before he was called, only that he was called. Abraham was most certainly a wealthy land owner, as was Job. Noah was considered a crazy man by those who didn’t see the rain coming. Matthew was a tax collector; Peter, Andrew, James and John were fishermen. Their worldly vocation was not what mattered. The fact that they were of called of God or of Jesus is the important fact, Carol and as for the calls of the apostles the fact that, as Jesus said, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you…”
Sorry to get off topic, but I felt I needed to respond to Carol’s post. Thanks for indulging….
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
David, thank you for sharing your background with us. That was a wonderful post, and took courage to write. We tend to forget that every point of theology or law has its human element. That part about the stuck pig in the earlier post was funny, too.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Regarding the stuck pig: Like, I’ve said before Caleb. I am not very easily offended by remarks people make. I think that a sense of humor is something that we Mormons could use more of. Of course, I believe that would benefit all of us. And yes, when we are attacked we tend to jump in with “guns a blazin.” You’ll have to forgive us for that.
Have a great day, my friend.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:22 pm
That was a very good set of posts David.
October 4th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
David, you just have to take the position, as my father always says, that if they’re shooting at you, you’re doing something right. But a little humor helps you get through it.