I take issue with the idea that this criticism of the Catholics and the RCC is “repetitively unimiginative”. It’s that way because that’s how reality is- they have repeated the habit of victimization and abuse many many times, hence the repition. We are stating facts, which I SUPPOSE you can call ‘unimaginative’. Would you rather we just MAKE STUFF UP?
Oh wait, THAT"S the realm of the church, isn’t it?
Too true.
Miller, I think I love you!
I can see now why you might criticize others here for being “unimaginative”…
Wouldn’t it be REALLY be called “pawed” though? That’s what I call it when I call it when I have my dog shove her appendage up my anus. She doesn’t even file her nails down, the kinky bitch! Nothin’ like a dog claw scratching on the ol’ prostate!
Holy crap that made me laugh.
Right. Very nicely put. This is why I always thought that being a fundamentalist made more sense than being a moderate. If fundamentalism is insanity, moderates are doubly insane. There’s a kind of paradox here. I’d still rather be around a moderate than a fundamentalist, generally speaking.
Settle down, Bamboo Boy. Step away from the keyboard. Breathe slowly and deeply.
Just a reminder, there are other threads to reply to. 
I am well aware that there are other threads to reply to. The thing is, I am currently engaged in this one. I progress from the top and don’t want to read all the way to the end before I respond, as I will not remember where the particular entries were that I wished to respond to. So I jump in when I feel I have something to add or the itch is too great to resist.
If the thread has slowed down in the meantime, it can look like an obsessive pile-up. I know this is less than desirable, is this considered bad form? Please let me know if it is and if so how much, I’m not very seasoned at this.
However, I have to think that had the thread remained active, you (Boyo Jim) would not have posted your…friendly advice.
I’m not angry or up in arms about this, honestly, though I DID think your post kinda smelled of a kind of matronly condescension. Maybe it’s me. No big deal, though. I’m mostly wondering if I crossed an etiquette line.
But my breathing is and has been fine, I am and have been settled this whole time, the appearance of my obsessive posting, I contend, has more to do with the pace and rhythm of the post than anything else.
-BB
You could collect a number of quotes you’d like to respond to and respond all in one post.
Some of us choose to think for ourselves. It is a duty and an obligation to do so. I feel no need to obey or believe something if I see it as being wrong. There are “laws of God”. The Ten Commandments for example. There are “laws of men”. All the other stuff, the rituals, the legalistic mumbo jumbo about linen and cotton and shellfish and small mammals and which hand to wipe your ass with. I see no need, no reason, to be just a blind unquestioning follower, if I believe that a “law of men” is simply WRONG. I’d reather be a cafeteria shopper, than some blind unthinking fanatical mindless follower.
See my above comments. I have NO problem seeing where the wrong is, what the evil is here. I do not see why the people involved should feel any need or desire to reconcile themselves with this at all. If you follow what is wrong, if you reconcile to it, if you go along with it, then you become it. Or something.
Am I to understand from this that you ARE in actuality what most would call a ‘cafeteria Catholic’ – and free to choose which tenets of church dogma to follow or not?
And it doesn’t disturb you that one day, should you perveive the need to violate some element of dogma out of personal belief, and that action becomes known to the church, the church might cast you out and deny you the opportunity of eternal salvation? (Assuming of course, they’re right about the whole salvation thing).
And how would they not learn, unless you also get to decide what sins are worth confessing and keep your mouth shut? Or, decide you know better than the church as to what constitutes sin, decide it’s not one, and there’s no need to confess.
And while I don’t dispute your right to do any or all of these things, I wonder why you claim membership in it? Almost the whole point of Catholicism is that the church is a necessary intervenor between God and, well, anyone other than the priesthood. The church is interpreting God’s will, and if you don’t buy that you would probably be more comfortable in some flavor of Protestantism, IMO.
I’m not saying all this to claim you belong to the wrong faith, but I do want to understand. My own sister feels much the same, And I don’t understand her either.
Or am I totally misinterpreting you, and you think the fault is with the doctors performing the abortion, and the church’s response is correct?
Yes. You understand perfectly.
Not at all. There is only one judge we have to answer to.
There was a time (I suppose) when it would have been considered a good thing to burn witches and heretics. If you hid or protected one, that was a sin. Under the “harsh light of history”, some of those dangerous witches and heretics were nothing of the sort. It had more to do with power and land, who had it, who wanted to take it. So, what was really the worse sin or crime? Hiding the accused, or burning them in order to expedite a land grab? How many “crazy cat ladies” were burned, for not doing anything wrong?
The church can interpret all they want. They can (and sometimes do) reverse an interpretation. They can teach, they can advise, they can even threaten. But they can not think for me or make my decisions for me. The catch of course is, that if I go along, that itself is a decision.
There’s nothing to understand. Some things are right. Some things are wrong. The church is made up of people. Some are right, some are wrong. Some are good, some aren’t.
The doctors did their job, to try and keep the girl, a 9 year old rape victim, alive. They did this in the way they had available. They made a choice, based on what they believed was right. The church, in this case, is wrong.
Rules change. There was a time when “mackerel snappers” could not eat meat on Friday. Serious bizniz. The rule just went away one day. Rules change. Rules disappear. If a rule does not support what is right, the rule needs to be changed, or needs to go.
This is not the part I don’t understand. What I don’t understand is why you continue to claim membership in a church that, if it knew your true feelings, and perhaps some the acts you do (or would under some circumstance), might toss you out and condemn you.
Did I misinterpret this too? Do you in fact consider yourself Catholic?
I consider myself a non practicing, or a backslider. I don’t attend, or take part anymore.
In today’s news, it seems there are some in high Vatican places who’d ask the local bishops to temper orthodoxy with mercy in extraordinary cases. At the very least, ISTM he’s saying this was not the case over which to make a hardline stand, which is putting it mildly.
Imagine that.
The story is very ambiguous. It seems the Vatican guy was complaining more about the public condemnation of the doctors, rather than the excommunications themselves. It seems to me his concern is about a PR nightmare, rather than taking issue with the actual doctine that drove it.
“There wasn’t any need, we contend, for so much urgency and publicity in declaring something that happens automatically,” Fisichella wrote.
Yes, he looks more worried about bad publicity. If it (the excommunication) had happened and nobody knew, I guess that would have been OK. Screw him too.
But he did say this:
I acknowledge this is a bit ambiguous, his statement as a whole. But the portion I quoted doesn’t seem to be. I read the part you quoted as meaning, “even if this were cause for excommunication–which it is not–in that situation it’s automatic, so why would you feel the need to point out something that is automatically rendered?” I don’t see any other way to make the portion I quoted make sense, since it seems to clearly assign NO blame to the mother or doctors.
Yes, he did seem to be concerned about the child in the sense of not wanting her to believe that she was in any way responsible for the condemnation of the doctors who treated her.
OTOH, he says the acts weren’t worthy of excommunication, but still acknowledges that that is what doctrine calls for, yet doesn’t seem to have issues with the doctrine.
Like it’s a computer error in the cosmic grading program and the dean of students can quietly reinstate the correct grade later. But fixing the bug in the program is too much trouble.