Ok, let me reword that as ‘a change in priority’. They may be starting to consider wider issues in the concept of ‘pro-life’ as being more important than abortion and birth control. It could also indicate that the church is going to be more politically active in issues instead of simply affirming positions. And I was mentioning hypothetical motivations for the Pope’s statements, not claiming that this represented anything in particular.
I think they always were. I mean, the economic lectures from the Vatican about how we need stronger labor unions and how much free market Capitalism is anti-Christian are about 120 years old now. The abortion thing is pretty recent, if only because it’s only in like the past 40-50 years that abortion has become widely accepted and a problem as far as the Catholic Church is concerned.
The new Vatican statement is out, btw.
It’s condemning economic liberalism and utilitarian thinking and calling for a worldwide body to regulate the world financial system, and ultimately some sort of worldwide governmental authority that serves the public good.
That last sentence sent a chill down my spine, and I like Pope Benedict (tho I reject Roman authority over Christendom).
Funny that the readings in church yesterday (10/13) were about how we need to take care of orphans, widows, be kind to our neighbor, etc.
Maybe Dan Brown was onto something after all. Illuminati, anyone? :eek:
Sorry I haven’t been back with any more info, today turned out to be busier than I expected (I hate when that happens on Mondays). I haven’t found anything on the MSNBC web site yet. I believe this fellow Reese was the one on the show or being cited by whoever was on. I’ll keep looking for info before commenting further on the source.
I don’t know that saying that the UN should set up a financial oversight board to monitor the world economy or that there should be a democratic, supranational organization that keeps countries from acting to the detriment of each other is very Illuminatish.
If the Tpers are pro-life then why are they against taxes to help support the already born? To me they are just pro-birth. One need just look at Haiti for an example and see how that works!
No, there is a genereal hatred for all religion on teh left these days, a lot of it stemming from abortion and gay rights (that and some some folks just can’t get past his history as a Hitler Youth, which I believe was mandatory at the time, it would be like blaming a Vietnam Vet for serving in Vietnam when all that sh!t went down).
As I see it the left doesn’t despise the Pope, just don’t like a lot of his teachings, like against birth control, but doesn’t seem to care for a lot of poverty some of his declarations seem to cause.I have never heard him (or any pope) tell people about responsible parenthood, nor worry about the children born to parents who didn’t want large families, but had them out of fear, because they believed birth control was sinful or unnatural, when the church’s stand is the most unnatural there is! But keeping a person against their will to live in a comatose state for several years(in some cases) by artificial means! It seems he has made himself the moral leader of the world, and not all people agree with all of his teachings.
This shop worn argument is still bouncing around?
Maybe because they are also pro-personal responsibility? Pro-lifers are strong believers in adoption as an alternative. If you can’t afford your baby, someone else can.
Right, because before Roe, the US was just like Haiti. I see.
You can’t ask for personal responsibility from an infant.
Most conservatives support welfare for children. Every time someone proposes cutting WIC or SCHIP or teh school lunch program, you see an ad with an infant or child who benefits from teh program and proponent backs down almost immediately.
Another reiteration of the same doctrine isn’t terribly significant. It would become significant it it came with we-mean-it-this-time teeth (e.g. an instruction to deny Communion to political and economic leaders whose policies undermine the teaching), but it apparently doesn’t.
Parent. I though that was obvious, but maybe not.
I do not think he speaks for me. Sounds rather arrogant of him.
Well the Catholics have always held to certain moral standards, but some of the Spanish and Italian and Catholic bishops kinda let things slide in World War II, as a practical matter. They’ve been known to let rich people slide in a lot of ways too. A public push by the Catholics on these issues could be taken by believer to mean, “Economic injustice is back on the front burner, boys and girls, time to vote Democratic.” Like most major institutions, they do a lot of nodding and winking. I mean, they love women officially, but …
There are many children who are not adopted, and many in the US who do not have enough to eat,get educated,or proper medical care. Before RoeV Wade there were many abortions and many women died, hence Roe V Wade exemption.
I wonder how many you personally support or have adopted, or did you vote for a tax increase to help the poor? There are many people who have more children than they can support, financially,mentally, or physically. many are abused because of the parents frustrations,and in some cases(rare) the woman has killed her child or herself.
If pro-birth people are so pro-life they would sacrifice themselves to help others, if they want to force a person to sacrifice their body etc, because a religious belief says a" possible" fertilized egg is a person! I would think having the morning after pill for any woman who doesn’t want to bear a child should have it on hand.To me having a child that you do not want or love is a greater wrong than preventing the conception of a child that you don’t want. I had 7 I wanted 9 but that was my choice,and I would not force a woman to have even one child if she chose not to, only she and her doctor can and should be responsible for that!
Jesus neve spoke against abortion even though the prostitutes in his day had them, they have found graves of many babies in a burial spot near a house of ill -repute.(at least that is what I saw on the History Channel) I can’t swear to the validity of that ,but it does seem reasonable.
Of course if war is okay, because thousands of people innocent people are killed that is okaybut a woman shouldn’t be allowed self defense/
I know of a woman who died in giving birth to her 10th child,because she believed she had to have the child,because birth control was wrong in her religion!
I’m pro-choice, btw, so don’t pin any of that shit on me.
So, are you backing down from the Haiti analogy?
No,
If the people of Haiti had less children the population would not be so crowded that too many live in dire poverty,can’t get proper education etc. Many have died trying to get away from Haiti (drowned in their attempt) and in this country people complain that there are too many trying to get to this country, many are met and sent back!
I believe in entry in this country should be legal, but I also believe the people in other countries should consider the fact that the poverty level is way too high, and yet they spend much money on Catherdrals, Government buildings etc. The early Christians met in houses, so if that was practiced then perhaps the money spent on lavish buildings could be used to help the people of those countries and teach a method of Birth Control( or the morning after pill) to help keep the population in check. Consider the future, if all that are now born have many more children they can’t afford, what the poverty level will be then?