Qui Locutus - Formerly The CathApol Blog - a Catholic Apologetics Blog
Defending the Faith and keeping Catholics Catholic!
Scott Windsor, MEd. - aka: CathApol
Well, the news caught many of us off-guard as we were not expecting the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn the Roe v. Wade case from 1973. For nearly 50 years the mother's womb was one of the most dangerous places for a newly conceived child. From 1973 to the present there have been well over 600,000 abortions per year in the United States alone, and from 1977-1997, in that period it was well over 1 million abortions per year (1).
Now, does the decision by the Supreme Court mean that abortion is over? No, not by a long shot! All this decision has done is returned the authority back to the states for abortion. Some states already had laws on the books which became in effect as soon as the court presented its decision. Other states have said they will not prevent abortion at all, and welcome people from other states to come to them for the procedure.
So, while abortions will not end immediately with this decision, they were already on the decline, along with pregnancy rates. The problem with this is that many pregnancies are terminated through artificial birth control (ABC) - and most of those treatments are, in reality, early abortions that do not "count" as abortions. Most forms of ABC do not prevent conception - but they affect the vaginal lining so that newly conceived babies cannot attach to their mother's womb - and thus die shortly after conception. Once sperm and egg unite, a new life has begun and if one artificially interferes with the process so that this new life terminates, regardless of how early this happens, it is still an abortion.
This has, indeed, been a glorious decision by the Supreme Court - but the Pro-Life fight is not over. So long as any states approve abortions AND so long as abortifacient forms of ABC continue - innocent lives are being destroyed.
That said, I support pro-choice! You have the right to choose NOT to have sex outside of marriage. Even within marriage, you have the right to choose WHEN to have sex, so long as you are accepting of God's Will that if you do become pregnant, you will be the parent of that child and not kill it. Your "choice" comes BEFORE pregnancy - once there is a child you cannot morally "choose" to kill it.
What the world needs is disciples, not fans of Jesus Christ.
A fan really likes Jesus, supports Jesus even keeps up with going to church and hearing Jesus - but a disciple is committed to Jesus (Guarendi, 2019). Are you committed to Jesus Christ and the Church He founded on The Twelve Apostles - our first bishops? Or, are you a fan - who really likes Jesus Christ, you even go to "a" church every week - but not necessarily one in communion with a bishop in apostolic succession from The Twelve? Maybe you like singing along with Christian singers and even go to a really "happening" worship service - well, all that is great for a "fan" - but there is more to being a disciple.
Why Choose the Catholic Church? Because the System Works!
Choices, the Church says do it this way but we want to do things our way. It is like the car manufacturer saying, "this is your car, it runs on gasoline" but we decide that salt water is cheaper, "I want my car to run on salt water." Going against the advice of the manufacturer is not a good choice! (Richards, 2019). Again, Jesus selected twelve disciples, the Apostles and our first bishops and taught them how He wanted His Church to be run. He told them how to take regular bread and wine, bless them and then declare them to be His body and His blood - not representations of body and blood, He said, "This IS My body" and "This IS My blood." And then He commanded them to do as He has done. Recalling what He did was select bishops, so they were to select bishops to come after them and spread His Church throughout the whole world. THESE were the instructions from the Manufacturer of the world - and each of us! So, is it wise to go and follow someone or some teaching which is not in communion with one of these bishops? Or worse, separated in protest (where we get the word "Protestant" from) from those bishops?
If you are seeking to be a true disciple of Jesus Christ, do not stop with the humanistic pleasures found in many places of worship - but continue seeking until you find THE Church which Jesus Christ founded upon Twelve Chosen Ones - who did as He commanded, and continued to build the Church which Jesus Himself started.
References
Guarendi, Dr. R. (2019). Living Right with Dr. Ray. EWTN. Aired September 24, 2019.
Richards, Fr. L. (2019). Living Right with Dr. Ray. EWTN. Aired September 24, 2019.
Steve Hays responded to my article on Onanism v. Homosexuality, and since a combox reply would not be practical, I am responding to him with a new article. Steve's comments are in yellow, where he has quoted me is in blue.
I'm going to comment on a few recently claims by Catholic apologist Scott Windsor.
I found the article interesting, and even almost Catholic in many places, however... you knew that was coming :-) ... when it comes to Onan's sin - the writer makes a very definitive statement that Onan was not slain for spilling his seed, but in reality - it is precisely for what Onan DID (spilling his seed) and not his MOTIVE (not wanting to produce children for his brother).
i) Evangelical converts to Catholicism like Windsor and Dave Armstrong resort to traditional prooftexting. A more sophisticated Catholic apologist would skip the fanciful prooftexting and justify his denomination's teaching by appealing to the theory of development as well as attempting to mount a natural law argument.
a) Hmmm, why bring up Dave Armstrong? Are you trying to draw him into this discussion?
b) Then you go straight into ad hominem as if whether or not I am a “sophisticated Catholic apologist” or not has any bearing on the points made!
c) Catholicism is not a “denomination” - it is Protestantism which has denominated itself to be apart from Catholicism. Catholic simply means “universal” - whereas “Baptist” or “Lutheran” or “Methodist” are given names to distinguish themselves from the Universal Church which Jesus Christ built… but I digress (squirrel!).
d) Hays ignores my thesis and jumps to supporting arguments I made. which are tangential.
ii) As is typical of evangelical converts to Rome, Windsor is out of touch with Catholic scholarship on his locus classicus. This, again, betrays the fact that apologists like Windsor and Armstrong remain outsiders to their adopted denomination. But here's some examples of modern Catholic scholarship on the issue at hand:
Onan is commissioned to raise seed to his brother's wife, according to the levirate law; cf.Deut 25:5-10. Oanan's offense is obvious: he selfishly refuses the responsibility of fulfilling his duty to his brother, as the law provided. That is the point of his offense. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Prentice Hall 1990), 38.
Moreover, from the biblical author’s point of view, Onan’s sin was his refusal to fulfill the important responsibility involved in the levirate law (cf.Dt 25:5-10). New Catholic Encyclopedia (CUA, 2nd ed., 2003), 9:315b.
In common usage often taken to mean improperly completed intercourse or even masturbation. The word is taken from the story of Onan in the Book of Genesis...This was in accordance with the custom of Levirate marriage...Popular usage of the term onanism is based on the assumption that the evil for which the Lord took Onan’s life was his unchastity. This, however, is by no means clear from the text, in which his refusal to conform to the prescribed marriage custom can be seen as the wickedness that brought vengeance upon him. Consequently, no certain argument can be based upon this text to prove the sinful character of either improperly completed intercourse or masturbation. Evidence for this must be sought elsewhere. Ibid. 10:600a.
e) Again, ad hominem as "typical evangelical converts to Rome…” is unnecessary, irrelevant and
invalid argumentation.
f) Again, naming Armstrong in this discussion - who was not a party to the original discussion.
g) Irony: Hays refers to “locus classicus,” as if I am ignorant of it, and then cites a MODERN source! How about going to a “classic” source instead of the modernist commentary in the New Jerusalem Bible or the “New” Catholic Encyclopedia? I reject Mr. Hays attempt to prove “locus classicus” from “modern” commentaries (neither of which he cites has any authority). Would he like me to admit there have been some revisionists in the Catholic Church? Fine, I will admit to that, but that, however, does not change my point in the least.
h) Hays then argues that it “is by no means clear from the text” that Onan was punished for what he did and argues (as the two other respondents did) that it had more to do with his motive than what he did. I refer the reader (again) back to what the actual Scripture says Gen. 38:10 -
10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.
So back to my point, the Lord slew him, because of what he DID, not for WHY he did it. To say it was due to Onan’s motives that he was slain imputes something to the text which is simply not there. My opponents here are rationalizing that because the text also mentions the motive, that it was his motive that was the reason for his punishment - but again, the text does not say it was due to WHY he did the “detestable thing” but that he DID the “detestable thing.” My point remains unassailed. I ask the objective reader - what did Onan DO which the Lord found detestable? Don’t rationalize WHY he did it, just tell me what he DID - OK?
iii) Windsor shortsightedly excludes Onan's motivation. Yet that runs contrary to Catholic teaching on contraception, where intent is a key consideration. Conjugal relations should always be open to the possibility of conception:
2366 it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.
i) It is not “shortsighted” at all, but that being said - I do not “exclude” Onan’s motivation, in fact I agree 100% with them that this is WHY he DID what he DID - but I remind Mr. Hays, but moreso the objective reader of this discourse, that verse 10 does not say that God punished Onan because of his motive, but because of his ACT. And this is a FACT which Mr. Hays cannot get around, no matter how hard he tries.
Continuing with Windsor:
It was here that for the first time a major Protestant communion opted for some limited use of contraception, so long as the motives were not selfish, based in luxury or mere convenience. Now, honestly ask yourself, for what other reason, outside of a personal health issue, would have been considered acceptable by such limitations? Not many, if any! Yet less than 100 years later it is precisely for selfish, luxury or mere convenience reasons that contraception is practiced! Today's practices by most who participate in contraception would be condemned by the 1930 Lambeth Conference! It should be noted as well, than more than a third of the voting members of this conference voted against acceptance of the resolution.
The church of Roman supports "limited use of contraception." It simply draws a makeshift distinction between "artificial" contraception and "natural" methods of birth control.
j) Nice attempt at the Red Herring argument, Mr. Hays. How about dealing with what you quoted instead of going off on a tangent which Begs the Question? (Two invalid arguments in one statement there, Mr. Hays!). To make it easier, I’ll summarize the point Mr. Hays SHOULD have responded to… The 1930 Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church was THE FIRST TIME even among Protestants that a LIMITED use of ABC (Artificial Birth Control) methods MIGHT be used IF done for the right reasons (which the conference conveniently does not define). What the Lambeth Conference DOES define are reasons NOT to partake in ABC methods - which are “selfish, luxury or mere convenience” - which are PRECISELY why MOST people participate in ABC methods today! Thus - by the standard of 1930, most who partake in ABC methods are in the wrong. How about dealing with the ACTUAL POINT, Mr. Hays?
Well, as an article inSalon puts forth, the anti-contraception movement (primarily Catholic) had not caught hold among Evangelicals, but that all changed in 2011. The "HHS Mandate" was passed on July 19, 2011 and according to Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, on July 20 said: “HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has recommended mandatory coverage for ‘emergency contraception,’ which is a euphemism for the morning-after pill, which often kills a newly conceived child by not allowing the embryo to implant on the wall of the mother’s womb.” In September of 2012 the founder of Hobby Lobby sued Kathleen Sebelius and based on the fact that his company was founded upon Christian principles, they should be exempted from the mandate.
Passage of Obamacare was made possible by support from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, colluding with Catholic politicians like Bart Stupak and Nancy Pelosi. Sebelius is another Catholic official.
k) Again, missing the point, the point is that FINALLY “Evangelicals” are coming around and re-joining Catholics in opposing ABC methods of ALL kinds.
l) To be honest, those “Catholics” you named may have a LOT to answer for when they stand before the Judgment Seat. I would not want to be in their shoes! But again, what these “Catholics” (whom I personally would consider to be CINOs, Catholic In Name Only) have done is irrelevant to the point of how “Evangelicals” are coming around on this issue. Ignoring the points does not make them go away, Mr. Hays.
While recognizing the abhorrent sins here, the Catholic Church has recognized, perhaps moreso recently than previously, that we must recognize the sinner and the sin are not the same. While the Church has more openly embraced sinners - she has not changed her position on the sinful acts and/or lifestyles. While the cliche may be a bit overused, it does ring true - "Love the sinner; hate the sin." Pope Francis relates the Church to a "field hospital," and you really can't treat those who need you if you don't first bring them into the hospital!
Well, you can read the exchange yourself and see - but essentially, I can only assume here, that those respondents are supporters of ABC and/or participants in it - and thus have a vested interest in arguing for such methods, but do they realize they are so, so much in the minority of the historic Christian viewpoint? Even among their own fore-fathers (for which they can only go back about 500 years, at best) ABC was by and large condemned. In their relatively short history, only the last (less than) 20% of their existence as protesting (Protestant) Christians can be seen as supportive of the modern (or Modernist) views on ABC. One would think this SHOULD cause them at least SOME concern!
To the contrary, Rome used to take a very different position on the nature of conception. Based on Aristotelian embryology, abortion before ensoulment wasn't deemed to be homicide. That's documented in John Noonan's classic monograph on Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists (Belknap Press, enlarged edition, 1986).
By Windsor's nostalgic logic, we should return to the good old days when abortion in the first trimester wasn't classified as homicide by Rome's leading theologians and canon lawyers.
m) Mr. Hays, simply making reference to a secondary source which allegedly argues for “Rome” having a “very different position” is not valid documentation and would not be acceptable in any sort of debate forum. If you wish to challenge what I have to say, please, at least do so validly. If you have a primary source for me to consider, please present it. If the secondary source you cited is worth anything, it quoted and cited its primary sources - go to those and present them and they will be given the consideration they deserve. You entitled your response "Ensoulment" - yet your only reference to that is in this invalid citation. I repeat, if you wish to make a valid case for the Catholic position on "Ensoulment" - please begin with valid documentation.
n) While what Mr. Hays "responds" to here was a tangential point, the REAL point is that Protestantism has changed its stance on ABC methods and that even in their own (less than) 500 year history, less than 20% of that has taught ABC methods in a favorable light.
o) The response Mr. Hays quoted from me just above (in blue) also was actually getting back to the original thesis of the original article... "squirrel!"
p) I will say, the main thesis I began with "Onanism v. Homosexuality" was a bit "lost" in my responses to "rockingwithhawking" and "ANNOYED PINOY" - and I take responsibility for that "squirrel" on my part. The point there was, and was actually in agreement with "ANNOYED PINOY's" response - that homosexuality is the epitome of "spilled seed" as conception cannot occur. Both homosexuality and "Onanism" are condemned by the Lord.
q) In conclusion, I am disappointed in your response, Mr. Hays. Typically you do a lot better work, but in this “response” you have skipped over several points and when you have quoted my words, your arguments have not dealt with the topic at hand. I really had come to expect better scholarship from you.
The full text of the interview is copyrighted, except for quoting portions. For the purpose of this article I will be quoting only the section which has been taken out of context by many "reporters" who are trying to make it sound like the Pope is changing her teaching on homosexuality, marriage and contraception. So, first that quote and then my comments:
The Church as Field Hospital
Pope Benedict XVI, in announcing his resignation, said that the contemporary world is subject to rapid change and is grappling with issues of great importance for the life of faith. Dealing with these issues requires strength of body and soul, Pope Benedict said. I ask Pope Francis: “What does the church need most at this historic moment? Do we need reforms? What are your wishes for the church in the coming years? What kind of church do you dream of?”
Pope Francis begins by showing great affection and immense respect for his predecessor: “Pope Benedict has done an act of holiness, greatness, humility. He is a man of God.
“I see clearly,” the pope continues, “that the thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds.... And you have to start from the ground up.
“The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you. And the ministers of the church must be ministers of mercy above all. The confessor, for example, is always in danger of being either too much of a rigorist or too lax. Neither is merciful, because neither of them really takes responsibility for the person. The rigorist washes his hands so that he leaves it to the commandment. The loose minister washes his hands by simply saying, ‘This is not a sin’ or something like that. In pastoral ministry we must accompany people, and we must heal their wounds.
“How are we treating the people of God? I dream of a church that is a mother and shepherdess. The church’s ministers must be merciful, take responsibility for the people and accompany them like the good Samaritan, who washes, cleans and raises up his neighbor. This is pure Gospel. God is greater than sin. The structural and organizational reforms are secondary—that is, they come afterward. The first reform must be the attitude. The ministers of the Gospel must be people who can warm the hearts of the people, who walk through the dark night with them, who know how to dialogue and to descend themselves into their people’s night, into the darkness, but without getting lost. The people of God want pastors, not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials. The bishops, particularly, must be able to support the movements of God among their people with patience, so that no one is left behind. But they must also be able to accompany the flock that has a flair for finding new paths.
“Instead of being just a church that welcomes and receives by keeping the doors open, let us try also to be a church that finds new roads, that is able to step outside itself and go to those who do not attend Mass, to those who have quit or are indifferent. The ones who quit sometimes do it for reasons that, if properly understood and assessed, can lead to a return. But that takes audacity and courage.”
I mention to Pope Francis that there are Christians who live in situations that are irregular for the church or in complex situations that represent open wounds. I mention the divorced and remarried, same-sex couples and other difficult situations. What kind of pastoral work can we do in these cases? What kinds of tools can we use?
“We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner,” the pope says, “preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing, even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound. In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.
“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them with mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the priest to say the right thing.
“This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace. The confessional is not a torture chamber, but the place in which the Lord’s mercy motivates us to do better. I also consider the situation of a woman with a failed marriage in her past and who also had an abortion. Then this woman remarries, and she is now happy and has five children. That abortion in her past weighs heavily on her conscience and she sincerely regrets it. She would like to move forward in her Christian life. What is the confessor to do?
“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
“The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.
“I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching. A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. Today sometimes it seems that the opposite order is prevailing. The homily is the touchstone to measure the pastor’s proximity and ability to meet his people, because those who preach must recognize the heart of their community and must be able to see where the desire for God is lively and ardent. The message of the Gospel, therefore, is not to be reduced to some aspects that, although relevant, on their own do not show the heart of the message of Jesus Christ.”
So, first off let us be clear - the Pope is NOT changing the Church's teaching on homosexuality, marriage and contraception! Allow me to take the "snippet approach" to show a more contextual presentation of this portion of the interview:
I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds.... And you have to start from the ground up.
So, in short, he's NOT saying we change our teaching, but rather - look at the whole person first, heal wounds first - "Then we can talk about everything else." He still wants to talk about these things, he just doesn't want the initial focus to be on peripheral issues - let's get them "into the hospital" first, then work on these things. Next snippet:
The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules.
The "small things," as Pope Francis calls them, are these individual sins. Read on...
The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you.
Note, the "most important thing" is the matter of salvation. Jesus Christ came to save you. He has done all that is necessary for your salvation - we need to put more emphasis on saving the sinner instead of focusing on the sin in "the first proclamation." Again, this is not avoiding the 800 pound gorilla in the room, it's just saying "first things, first." In speaking about those who minister he says:
The first reform must be the attitude. The ministers of the Gospel must be people who can warm the hearts of the people, who walk through the dark night with them, who know how to dialogue and to descend themselves into their people’s night, into the darkness, but without getting lost.
The emphasis is on the attitude of how we approach the sinner. Do you just pronounce judgment upon them and then expect them to follow us? No! Pope Francis is telling us to be like Jesus! Get out there in the trenches with the sinners - but be prepared. Know how to dialog and descend into their "dark night" without getting lost in it yourself.
“We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner,” the pope says, “preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing, even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound. In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.
This part I have some concern with, but really only with the last part of the last sentence. It is our responsibility to "interfere spiritually in the life of a person" especially when the spirituality of that person is taking them on a path to hell. We don't need to present it in such a way that we're threatening them with hell (though sometimes that too is a good method!) but, as Pope Francis said, confront them first with the Gospel message that Jesus came to redeem them.
We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible.
And that is the sentence most taken out of context! But read it again, even out of context! It is saying that we cannot insist only on these issues - not that we can't talk about them! Note as he continues:
But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
Again, not that we cannot talk about these issues, just let's not talk about them all the time. He even says, "when we speak about these issues..." so he is saying we can talk about them - but keep them in a context. He goes on to say that "the teaching of the Church, for that matter, is clear" and it is clear and it has not changed, nor has Pope Francis instituted a change in teaching.
We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant.
Note, he is still emphasizing the Gospel of salvation FIRST and that is the important thing to stress - but not ONLY the Gospel, but what? A "new balance." You cannot JUST preach the happy, feel good message anymore than you should just preach fire and brimstone - but preach with a BALANCED approach. This is made clear when he continues with:
It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.
Pope Francis is not ignoring the 800 pound gorilla, he's just saying that's not the only animal in the room. Once someone has accepted the proposition of salvation it is THEN that they can consider the moral consequences of these other aspects which may be in their lives. Again, get them into the "Field Hospital" first, then work on the tangential (but still important) issues. Pope Francis drives the point home again when he says:
I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching. A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives.
He's not saying we are not to talk about the moral matters, but what he IS saying is that if we begin with "the first proclamation" then after some good catechesis we can draw an even more moral consequence - just put the "proclamation of salvation" at the forefront. To focus and/or put undo emphasis upon these other matters does not speak to the heart of Christ. THAT is the message which Pope Francis is putting out. He's not changing Church teaching and he's not saying we don't speak about these moral issues (upon which, as he stated, "the Church teaching is clear").
So, what most of you are seeing in the media, especially the liberal media which seems to have a homosexual agenda to push, are out of context snippets to make it appear Pope Francis is, as at least one site calls him, "a flaming liberal." An in context look at what he REALLY said exposes that he's not backing down one iota from the Church's moral position on homosexuality, the sanctity of marriage and the illicitness of contraception - he's only saying that was aren't to make these items the sole focus of our ministries or apostolates.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
(AMDG = ad majorem Dei gloriam - To God, the greater glory)
Life begins at conception, and this short video - just over 4 minutes long - takes us from conception to birth. It is absolutely undeniable that once conceived, there is LIFE!
How anyone could watch something like this and still consider abortion as an "alternative" is just beyond comprehension!
How About Artificial Birth Control?
Most probably don't realize it, but most forms of artificial birth control (ABC) are actually abortifacients. Why? Because most do not prevent conception! Sperm and egg still "get together" and the ABC prevents implantation in the uterine wall either chemically or by "tricking" the body into thinking it is not a fertile time, and thus this newly conceived LIFE is artificially prohibited from its NATURAL process - and it DIES.
How About Cases of Rape or Incest?
In God's timing, when we are blessed with conception - it is absolutely wrong (evil) to try to overrule what has begun. God has given to you a LIFE to love and care for! Regardless of the circumstances of how that LIFE has begun - it is not the child's fault he/she has began their existence. It is wrong (evil) to kill that child for something they are not guilty of.
Someone asked for the URL to read the whole dialog regarding cathmom5's comments and my support of her. Well, there was no single URL so I am making one (long) article to recap the discussion which started with an article by me, a comment by cathmom5 which was followed by Mr. Hays reductio ad absurdum. I'll not be including EVERY comment - if anyone is interested they can follow the combox comments which are included in each posting started by Mr. Hays and myself. At the end of this article I'll also be including the chronology of postings - so anyone who wants to read every comment in the context of the article they were posted, they can. Text I am adding in this recap will be in purple (as here).
It starts with an article by Mr. Hays, which I quoted entirely in my response to it - so I will begin here with my response:
On Triablogue there's an out of context quote from Alexander Pruss and comments which should be answered...
Pruss writes: In fact, the biological union does not even require the couple consciously to will the striving towards reproduction. The biophysiologically united man-woman organism instinctively and automatically on a biological level strives toward that end. What is required is only that the couple should not place an obstacle in its way, because the act of placing the obstacle is an act of disturbing the union. The act of contracepting is opposed to the end of the teleological process by which union is constituted. A distinction between permitting and causing is relevant here. The couple that contracepts is the intentional cause of their infertility. The NFP-using couple, when infertile, is not the cause of the infertility: the natural cycles of the female body are the cause of the infertility, which cycles are independent of the couple’s decision to use NFP. The couple permits the infertility, and draw good from it, even though it would be wrong for them directly to will this infertility. That the distinction between permitting and causing is a significant one can be seen in at least two other examples. One is the distinction between letting die and killing, often discussed in the context of euthanasia.
Note please, Pruss does indeed state that it is WRONG to directly will this infertility. Thus a couple who directly wills infertility is wrong and mortally sins in doing so - by WHICH EVER MEANS they choose to be infertile. With NFP the couple cannot willfully refuse one another - regardless of the time in the woman's fertility cycle. They may "plan" to participate in "the marriage act" during the time of infertility - and that's the "planning" part - but I reiterate, they cannot refuse each other during the time of fertility. If the desire is there, then they must allow "the marriage act" to go on unimpeded - by ANY means of contraception.
On to the illogic on Triablogue:
It’s odd that someone as astute as Pruss would leave it at that. It’s of course true that the distinction between causing and permitting can sometimes be morally relevant or exculpatory. But it’s easy to come up with counterexamples where that distinction is morally irrelevant or culpable.
But Pruss didn't "leave it at that!" If one investigates the link provided by Mr. Hays they can see that Pruss indeed explained further:
The other example is that of theodicy. God never causes an evil. However, in order to draw a greater good out of it, He sometimes permits evils. The greatest and clearest example of this was the crucifixion. God did not cause Judas to betray Jesus and Pilate to condemn Him, but He permitted it, in order to bring a greater good out of it. It is essential to the way that sexual union as one body is constituted that while willing the union one not simultaneously unwill the end (reproduction) the biophysiological striving towards which constitutes the union. However, it is not necessary that one explicitly will this end, only that one not will anything contradictory to it. The implicit willing of the unitive meaning of the sexual act, in the absence of a contradictory willing, suffices to make the teleological striving that constitutes the union be a willed striving—and hence a striving of the person, and not merely of the body, thereby effecting a willed personal union.
It is a bit disingenuous of Hays to say Pruss left it "at that." Hays even quotes that Pruss says there are "at least two other examples" and then only quotes one of them - and has the audacity to accuse him of "leaving it at that."
In The Little Foxes, Regina doesn’t cause her husband to die from a heart attack. Rather, she permits him to die by withholding his heart medication. In that situation, letting him to die is morally equivalent to murder, even though she didn't positively bring about his demise.
Sorry, but "withholding medicine" which is not an extra-ordinary means of keeping someone alive DOES CAUSE HER HUSBAND TO DIE! Certainly "the cause" is the underlying heart condition - but if one willfully withholds the medicine from another against his will - that would be murder. A clearer example of this would be a mother refusing to feed her newborn infant... that is negligence and murder for the mother has caused the death of her baby. No rational human being with any sense of charity or concern for the helpless/innocent would simply say the baby died of starvation and leave the mother's culpability out of the picture. Clearly in The Little Foxes, Regina does kill her sickly husband by withholding his medicine, which IS Hays' point here - but the point Hays misses is the fact that "planning" to participate in "the marriage act" during infertile times is not the same as "doing it" during fertile times and then killing the seed by some chemical or physical barrier.
Natural family planning has a contraceptive intent, and–where successful–a contraceptive effect. This illustrates the problem with Catholics who use natural law to ratify a conclusion they arrived at by other means.
I'm sure that those who condone contraception believe this to be the case, but if the intent is contraception then the couple is in mortal sin. The intent is to have "planned" participation in the period of infertility of the female cycle. If either party refuses the other during a period of fertility then that person has committed a mortal sin. Hays uses either false logic here - or demonstrates ignorance of what the Catholic Church really teaches on the matter of NFP.
Other comments on this article (at the time of the publication of this article/response):
One of the main proponents of John Paul II's "Theology of the Body", Christopher West, uses this kind of reasoning as well. He says that some people ask "What's the difference between causing infertility, and just waiting for the woman to be infertile?" His response is "what's the difference between killing grandma, and just waiting for grandma to die?" The same illogic as above and has already been explained/dismissed.
Most Catholics (1) don't abide by the Church's stance on contraception anyhow. In any rate, (2) there's no substantive difference in intent between contraception using a calendar or with a piece of rubber (or a pill). (3) Doesn't the Church keep reminding us that contraception is "ineffective"? If it is, then there's not a greater likelihood of preventing pregnancy with a condom than with NFP.
(1) What this undocumented "most Catholics" may or may not abide by is not relevant to the moral position of the Church. If a Catholic does not abide by the Church's stance - then, all rationalizations aside, they are in mortal sin. (2) On this point James MAY be correct - IF the INTENT of the couple is contraception AND they have deliberately refused one or the other during a fertile period. THE point here is INTENT. If the couple PLANS to only participate in "the marriage act" during infertile periods - but "the mood" arises during a fertile period - then they cannot refuse each other without committing a mortal sin. (3) Whether or not artificial forms of contraception are "effective" or not is NOT the point! Again, THE POINT is that it is a sin to artificially prohibit conception and it is still a mortal sin if the couple engaging in NFP refuses one or the other during a fertile period.
Well, yes. And the Spartans didn't practice infanticide, strictly speaking - they just left imperfect babies exposed on the hillside overnight. The irony is that in other spheres, "Catholic social teaching" is scathing of the "just leave people alone" thrust of Whig Protestant capitalism. Governments, say various Popes, have an affirmative duty to ensure that their subjects have healthcare, food, etc. You can't just ignore them while they starve, like Dives with Lazarus, or the "goats" on Judgment Day. Yet when it comes to methods of contraception, the Vatican has copied Judith Jarvis Thomson's "live and let die" defence of abortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion and moved it a stage earlier in the life-cycle.
Well, J.J. Thomson's "violinist" analogy (the "unplug and let die" analogy) is 1) not taught by the Catholic Church in NFP and 2) how this violinist "gets connected" is not the same way most women "get connected" to their babies - in fact - the only possible comparison would be to that of where pregnancy resulted from rape (very few abortions are because of rape). The obvious difference here is that an innocent child dependent upon his/her mother is not the same as a presumably not-so innocent violinist who him/herself could choose not to remain connected - regardless of how this person (male or female) may feel about it. Tom's comparison is fatally flawed.
cathmom5 responded:
It just seems to me that the attempt to compare NFP--used with the correct intent--and contraception is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to use contraceptions. Those "christians" who use contraception, I believe, know deep down they are morally wrong. The FACT that the majority of contraceptives are abortifacient doesn't matter. The FACT that contraceptives (the pill) causes cancers and infertility for thousands of women doesn't matter. The FACT that the legalization of the pill, historically, led directly to the legalization of abortion doesn't matter. Those "christians" must find a way to justify their disobedience of God's will by "taking down" the Church's moral stance--like the bully on the playground making himself feel better by making the others feel bad. Why else would this ignorant (in the dictionary sense!) argument keep coming up?
My husband and I do use NFP, however, as you pointed out, our intent is not to be closed to the possibility of life. I am almost 50 and have 5 children. I don't know if my body could handle another child, but I tell you what, I trust God enough to believe that if I were to become pregnant He would have it all under control! And, I refuse to commit a mortal sin by using other artificial means to kill my baby or slowly kill myself.
cathmom5 said: It just seems to me that the attempt to compare NFP--used with the correct intent--and contraception is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to use contraceptions [sic]. Those "christians" who use contraception, I believe, know deep down they are morally wrong...Those "christians" must find a way to justify their disobedience of God's will by "taking down" the Church's moral stance--like the bully on the playground making himself feel better by making the others feel bad. Why else would this ignorant (in the dictionary sense!) argument keep coming up?
Well, if that’s what motivates Protestants, then by parity of logic, it just seems to me that the attempt by popes to defend “natural family planning” is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to fornicate with nuns and hookers without wearing a condom or fathering a kid out of wedlock. Popes who defend “natural family planning,” I believe, know deep down they are morally wrong. Lascivious popes must find a loophole to excuse their lechery. Why else would they concoct so many ad hoc distinctions?
Scott Windsor (CathApol) responds to Steve Hays: Mr. Hays reaches a new low with me in this response. His response to cathmom5 is nothing short of anti-Catholic BIGOTRY. Have SOME popes been "bad popes" and sinned as Hays accuses? Perhaps - but it is NOT the norm and neither is the rationale behind Natural Family Planning. It appears to me that cathmom5 struck a nerve with Mr. Hays and he lashed out irrationally. For example of this irrationality - Pope John Paul II was a public proponent of Natural Family Planning* - and I would challenge Mr. Hays to provide PROOF or at least some SOUND EVIDENCE of any such "lechery" - such as "fornicat(ing) with nuns and hookers" with Bl. Pope John Paul II. Such debased language without some sort of support is irresponsible, invalid argumentation and even un-Christian.
Now, perhaps Mr. Hays is objecting to cathmom5's use of "Christian" (in quotes) as if to imply those who practice Artificial Birth Control (ABC) are not even Christian. As I explained to "BBB" (who was much more respectful in his approach) - from a Catholic perspective, those who would accept and even embrace such violence against the sanctity of the marriage act - and against innocent life, well - it IS hard to consider them to be "Christian" at all. Perhaps Mr. Hays is ignorant of the fact that virtually ALL of Christendom opposed ABC methods prior to 1930 and it has been just since that time that non-Catholics began embracing this mortally sinful practice. I reiterate, it is difficult to see those who are WILLFULLY engaging and embracing MORTAL SIN to be "Christian" at all.
Now to answer Mr. Hays disgraceful polemics - he DID ask a question which I will respond to: "Why else would they concoct so many ad hoc distinctions?" I would need Mr. Hays to clarify just who the "they" are who have participated in such "concoctions" and repeat my challenge for Mr. Hays to document those who have "concoct(ed) so many ad hoc distinctions" actually participating in "fornicating with nuns and hookers." Further - please explain at least SOME of these unnamed "ad hoc distinctions."
Will Mr. Hays clarify his position(s) and present some VALID argumentation - or should we dismiss him as a bloviating anti-Catholic bigot? Will he back down and even apologize (as a Christian should do) or will he entrench himself in his debased argumentation? Or, will he just try to ignore this and hope it passes by unnoticed?
I would also hope that other non-Catholics would join me in condemning Mr. Hays argumentation.
I state, here and now, if Mr. Hays can VALIDLY support his argumentation - I will acknowledge that. I do not believe it is possible for him to present valid argumentation to support what he's said - so what I would expect from an honest Christian debater is a retraction (or, again, VALID support).
Scott adds a comment to his own article: It IS encouraging to see that at least SOME non-Catholics ARE taking Mr. Hays' approach to task on his blog. Kudos to them.
Hays also explains that "It's often useful to take a foolish position to its logical extreme." Perhaps Mr. Hays would consider first challenging cathmom5 to clarify her statements (as I believe I have, if I was not too bold in speaking for her) before calling them "foolish" and then lashing out as he did and CALLING it a "logical extreme."
cathmom5 responds to Scott’s response: Thank you, Scott, I appreciate your clarification of my comments on Triablog. It was not my intent to insult anyone personally, but several times when I've made comments on an issue, I have been personally attacked. I don't believe anything I said was foolish or I wouldn't have said them. I am sorry if my style or passion made anyone feel insulted.
Just to say one thing--I don't think what I said, in any way, would lead to Hays' so-called logical extreme. To me that argument about a pope using NFP as an excuse to do what he please isn't even on the same planet as what I said. What I believe I said is that ABC and NFP (practiced as intended) are not the same, and those who try to claim they are, are looking for justification for what, I believe, they know deep down is morally wrong.
Back on Triablogue under “Team Players,” Steve responds:
Mr. Hays reaches a new low with me in this response. His response to cathmom5 is nothing short of anti-Catholic BIGOTRY.
If a Catholic indulges in a blanket, prejudicial smear of Protestants by impugning the motives of all Protestants who support “artificial” birth control, even though said Catholic is in no position to know their motives, that’s not anti-Protestant bigotry–but if a Protestant responds with a reductio ad absurdum, that’s “anti-Catholic BIGOTRAY”!
Windsor betrays the insular mindset of the team player. The team player automatically cheers his own team and automatically jeers the other team. The team player keeps a tally of every real or imagined foul by the other team while turning a blind eye to every foul by his own team.
It’s the Mafia mentality. One standard of la familia, another standard for outsiders.
Have SOME popes been "bad popes" and sinned as Hays accuses? Perhaps - but it is NOT the norm and neither is the rationale behind Natural Family Planning. It appears to me that cathmom5 struck a nerve with Mr. Hays and he lashed out irrationally. For example of this irrationality - Pope John Paul II was a public proponent of Natural Family Planning* - and I would challenge Mr. Hays to provide PROOF or at least some SOUND EVIDENCE of any such "lechery" - such as "fornicat(ing) with nuns and hookers" with Bl. Pope John Paul II. Such debased language without some sort of support is irresponsible, invalid argumentation and even un-Christian.
Here’s a guy who presumes to be an apologist for Rome, but he can’t grasp basic forms of argument. He doesn’t grasp the nature of a tu quoque, or a reductio ad absurdum.
An argument from analogy only has to be analogous to be valid. The counterargument doesn’t have to be any truer than the argument it opposes.
That’s the point. For the argument works either way.
If it’s valid for cathmom5 to impute immoral motives to millions of Protestants she’s never met, then it’s valid for me to impute immoral motives to the popes.
Notice that Scott Windsor doesn’t demand any evidence or proof from cathmom5 for her defamatory allegations. That’s because she’s a fellow teammate, so the rules are different for her.
My argument is predicated on a conditional premise: if her argument is valid, and my argument is analogous, then my argument is valid.
But Scott Windsor is one of those sociopathic partisans who will fly into a rage the moment you make their team play by the same rules. A loyalist can never step out of his own viewpoint to see an issue from the viewpoint of the Other. It’s the same thing we see in the political sphere every day.
cathmom5 comments: First off, thank you Cathapol for your defense of my comments and, more importantly, NFP and the Church's moral stand on openness to life.
Secondly, my intent was not to insult anyone. I find it ironic that certain things I say are taken personally by some protestant readers of this blog. I think it may be my style or my passion, but it is my intent to support the truth of the Church's teaching not offend Protestants. I think if we were to talk to each other face to face there would be less misunderstanding of motive or intent.
As Cathapol explained, some find it hard, I admit including me, to call those Christian who do not follow Christ's teaching. The sacredness of life was one of His core teachings. I believe that Christ's Sacred Heart is wounded every time a woman who claims to be a Christian puts a birth control pill in her mouth. She is not only injuring her own God-given body but could be killing an innocent life--both mortal sins.
Third, I don't believe I created any "straw men." I was a Protestant for over 30 years. I went to a Protestant, Bible-based College. I heard and I know the attitude toward and acceptance of contraceptives in that arena. My own mother, a wonderful Christian mother took ABC for 20 years--she no longer does, thank God, for personal reasons.
Now, just because a lot of women in the Catholic Church have been talked into accepting this easy way of "family planning" does not make the Church's moral stance on sanctity of life wrong. Nor does the fact that I accept and agree with the moral and Scriptural stance of His Church on this matter make my passionate defense of it necessarily make me wrong.
Those who try to say that NFP is the same as ABC are just plain wrong. In my experience, those who are the loudest in their protest against NFP or try to pretend NFP and ABC are the same thing are the ones who know the least about NFP or ABC. They, for the most part, want to justify their use of ABC by saying that NFP is the same--trying to take down, so-to-speak, His Church's moral stance on the sacredness of the marriage act. I don't believe that is a straw man--that is from my perspective and my experience.
Having practiced NFP for years, I know that it is not an easy course to take. A couple who practices NFP must communicate with each other, they must be "in tune" with each other morally, they must be in agreement on being open to life, and they must work, as a couple, to make NFP work. In my experience, a couple who is practicing NFP can hardly be doing it with the wrong motives. With so relatively few couples practicing NFP, I would hardly think motives are the problem.
We can also turn it around. NFP, practiced correctly, can also HELP a couple conceive which is one reasons why it is called Natural FAMILY PLANNING and not birth control. Couples have used NFP to conceive a new life, the same cannot be said for ABC.
I have spoken in as general terms as possible. I have not insulted anyone personally. I have expressed how I feel on the subject of NFP--From my personal experienc on BOTH sides of the "church" fence. If one feels personally insutled by anything I have said on the matter, I think they must look to themselves and wonder why what a perfect stranger says strikes such a nerve.
Scott responds to Steve’s “Team Players” argument: Steve, Let's be clear - I am not the one calling people names here. Your response to cathmom5 reflected anti-Catholic bigotry (my point) which is not directly calling YOU a bigot - but that the argument was bigoted. There's a difference.
Second, I fully understand your use of the reductio ad absurdum - and I've merely challenged you to put forth some VALID argumentation, like avoiding the common fallacies of rhetoric (ad hominem especially). One thing to bring to the forefront - IF we were to agree that cathmom5 were wrong (which I do not) then please explain to the few who may still be reading along how "two wrongs make a right?" You justified your argumentation saying, "If it’s valid for cathmom5 to impute immoral motives to millions of Protestants she’s never met, then it’s valid for me to impute immoral motives to the popes." (The tu quoque fallacy).
Both cathmom5 and I explained her statements - you did not deal with these explanations in the least, instead you concentrate on ad hominem (also a fallacy).
I challenged you to present valid documentation of ANY pope who publicly supports or supported NFP and also participated in the lechery you stated they participated in. I would remind the reader too - you went well beyond "motives" - you flatly accused popes of participating in fornicating with nuns and hookers and using NFP to rationalize what they had done. You crossed the line of valid argumentation, and you appear to be in staunch refusal of the error of your ways, not to mention the LACK of "Christian" spirit in your response to cathmom5 (and to me too for that matter).
Now, if you wish to rationalize your argumentation down to reductio ad absurdum - then I am willing to accept what you said was absurd and let it go.
