ChrisTS: We lapsed Unitarians are pretty open on the whole dogma thing.

Coming from the corner of Judaism so lax it’s often compared to Unitarianism, I’m surprised such a thing as “lapsed Unitarian” is even possible.

So, all these years you mistakenly believed you were a Catholic? Now that you have learned the Truth, whatever will you do?

P.S. We lapsed Unitarians are pretty open on the whole dogma thing. (Just keep the trinitarian stuff on the down low.) Welcome! :-)

you (like some others here) are confusing two issues

No. I was responding to a line of argument developed by others.

Oren: Where did you get the idea that the former gets a pass? Canon 914 of the Code of Canon Law (”Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”) clearly applies to them.

Except that this Canon appears not to be enforced except for politicians.

How would you know? Would you expect cases involving non-politicians to be announced via press release? Doesn’t it stand to reason that cases involving public actions of politicians are inherently more public in nature and more likely to make the news than the case of Joe AverageCatholic paying for an abortion for his daughter?

Sandy MacHoots: Uh, Planned Parenthood? There are lots of population control folks who advocate abortion as a tool for family planning….

Really, “There are lots of population control folks who advocate abortion as a tool for family planning.”? (italics added)

If, as you say, there are lots of them, would you name a few and tell us how we might confirm that they do indeed advocate abortion as a tool for family planning. Do you have anything to support your contention that Planned Parenthood does so with any evidence?

(BTW, do you believe that the use of contraception is somehow immoral, and more importantly would you try to limit or deny others access to contraception, as the Church has tried to do? How about Plan B, would you want that kept off the market no matter whether or not it posed a health risk for the woman?)

The one the church silenced.

Not only did I memorize the Baltimore Catechism, I’ve studied what the church did in practice.

I am ‘against’ arm amputations because I prefer a world in which no one no one needs to have an arm amputated. I believe that everyone should have the right to choose amputation.

Uh, Planned Parenthood? There are lots of population control folks who advocate abortion as a tool for family planning

.

No, they argue for permitting abortions in case of undesired pregnancies, rape, etc. This all goes under the rubric of ‘family planning’ because of the history of the reproductive rights movement and because the medical professionals who provide abortions usually belong to the same group that provides ob/gyn services.

If I advocate for a strong view of gun ownership as a civil right, I think it’s fair to say that I’m “promoting” gun ownership.

Really? A position on the right to bear arms is equivalent to the view that everyone ought to be armed?

To say that one is against abortion but in favor of “choice” is like saying I’m opposed to people owning other people (slavery) but that they should have the right to do so if they want to.

This is too disingenuous. Or, are you genuinely not aware of the fallacy of equivocation and the basic rules of good analogy?

Promoting “choice” is only good if the things chosen are not evil.

So much for voting rights.

The problem with legislators who vote in favor of abortion funding or against restrictions is that this is a continuing sin [...] If I’ve murdered 100 people I can be forgiven. But if I refuse to stop arguing in favor of killing more, I can’t.

So, in essence, having an abortion (which never a ‘continuing sin’) can never result in loss of communion. That is, in fact, quite bizarre.

Even more bizarrely, one could have one hundred abortions and be forgiven, but not speak out or vote against abortion and not be forgiven. Kind of a raw deal for you men.

Leo Marvin: What did you expect? It was broken.

Thanks for the laugh.

More to the point, I suppose, is why anyone thought the voices heard over radio would be housed inside it.

HALLEIUJAH!

Several folks here seem puzzled about the distinction between sinning and publicly advocating sinning.

It is indeed puzzling, since I’m not aware of any Church doctrine that states that a sin is ameliorated just because it took place in private and no one found out.

The problem with legislators who vote in favor of abortion funding or against restrictions is that this is a continuing sin [...] If I’ve murdered 100 people I can be forgiven. But if I refuse to stop arguing in favor of killing more, I can’t.

So, in essence, having an abortion (which never a ‘continuing sin’) can never result in loss of communion. That is, in fact, quite bizarre.

No, but if it becomes public knowledge that so-and-so paid for an abortion for his girlfriend (just theorizing here) that seems to be equivalent to a politician abstractly supporting abortion. The fact that the former gets a pass but that latter doesn’t is what puzzles me, since they ought to be theologically-equivalent transgressions.

Where did you get the idea that the former gets a pass? Canon 914 of the Code of Canon Law (”Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”) clearly applies to them.

Except that this Canon appears not to be enforced except for politicians.

Sandy MacHoots:
Re not finding the will in a dissected body:When I was a kid I found a broken radio.I took it all apart, piece by piece.There were no voices in it.

What did you expect? It was broken.

neurodoc: anyone voting for a Catholic politician should be willing to accept the Church’s teachings on abortion, contraception, reproductive rights, stem cell research, etc., since a Catholic politician who doesn’t vote consistent with those teachings may face sanctions by the Church, including denial of Communion, maybe even excommunication no matter that they may personally disapprove abortion, not employ contraception, etc. Non-Catholics either accept that and don’t let it influence their votes or they are bigots?

If you’re a single-issue “pro-choice” voter you shouldn’t vote for anyone who opposes abortion, Catholic or not. If a politican advertises himself as a Catholic, you need to take that into account, just as if he announced he was an Objectivist. If you’re a single-issue anti-”affirmative action” voter you shouldn’t vote for NAACP members. It’s not bigotry merely to vote against people who disagree with you.

rpt: to bar people from sacraments. Generally only abortion and homosexuality are spoken about from the pulpit. Adultery/divorce and violations of various of the other 10 Commandments (or the two great commandments) are generally no problem,

Everyone sins. Sinners get communion. Denying communion is a very serious step to take. What makes abortion different from nearly all the other sins is that it kills innocent people — millions and millions of them. That makes it a vastly more terrible thing than adultery or stealing or lying. I’m not aware of the Church denying communion to people who advocate for civil rights for gays.

Oren: As I understand it, the Catholic Church does not deny communion to average folks that have had or promoted an abortion. Joe AverageCatholic can pay for his teenage daughter to have an abortion (promoting abortion in the most literal sense) without hearing peep about it. His daughter can probably get the wafer too.

Several folks here seem puzzled about the distinction between sinning and publicly advocating sinning. Those who confess their mortal sins (public or not) and show repentance can get communion. If they don’t confess and repent a mortal sin, they’re not permitted to take communion — assuming that the priest knows for certain what happened. If they take communion without confession and repentance, or if their “repentance” is fake, they’ll be required to deal with a Higher Authority down the line. If at any point a public abortion advocate admits his sin and shows repentance, he gets communion. The problem with legislators who vote in favor of abortion funding or against restrictions is that this is a continuing sin. They aren’t admitting sin and asking for forgiveness, they’re encouraging others to sin by providing the means to do so, just as much as if they were selling assault weapons to terrorists. If I’ve murdered 100 people I can be forgiven. But if I refuse to stop arguing in favor of killing more, I can’t.

ChrisTS: Please, let’s be a bit careful with our language. No one “promotes abortion.”

Uh, Planned Parenthood? There are lots of population control folks who advocate abortion as a tool for family planning. If I advocate for a strong view of gun ownership as a civil right, I think it’s fair to say that I’m “promoting” gun ownership. To say that one is against abortion but in favor of “choice” is like saying I’m opposed to people owning other people (slavery) but that they should have the right to do so if they want to. Promoting “choice” is only good if the things chosen are not evil.

HarryEagar: One of my pet peeves is being told I don’t know what Catholicism is. Did I memorize the Baltimore Catechism for nothing then?

Apparently. Unless you got a Memorization Prize or something. Me, I once got a picture of Jesus with eyes that glow in the dark.

Re not finding the will in a dissected body: When I was a kid I found a broken radio. I took it all apart, piece by piece. There were no voices in it. This proves conclusively that there are no such things as radio broadcasts.

No, but if it becomes public knowledge that so-and-so paid for an abortion for his girlfriend (just theorizing here) that seems to be equivalent to a politician abstractly supporting abortion. The fact that the former gets a pass but that latter doesn’t is what puzzles me, since they ought to be theologically-equivalent transgressions.

Where did you get the idea that the former gets a pass? Canon 914 of the Code of Canon Law (“Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”) clearly applies to them.

But it’s a straw point–or did I miss the part where someone where did assert that physical observation might discover the “will”?

You might start by reading the comment to which I was responding.

I do not understand why it is puzzling? If, say Tom Dascle, as he did, continued to promote abortion and continued to proclaim himself to be a Catholic, esp. if done to garner votes as,

As I understand it, the Catholic Church does not deny communion to average folks that have had or promoted an abortion. Joe AverageCatholic can pay for his teenage daughter to have an abortion (promoting abortion in the most literal sense) without hearing peep about it. His daughter can probably get the wafer too.

ArthurKirkland: More or less embarrassing than adults who believe fairy tales?

I assume you mean fairytales about the Roman Catholic Church’s closed-door masses, weekly anti-abortion sermons, routine denial of communion to pro-Choice politicians, and extensive record of appearances as a litigant before the US Supreme Court?

People believe all sorts of incredible things that bear only the most minimal connection to reality.

You can’t get to a “will” by observing anything physical, including human beings. That was my only point.

But it’s a straw point–or did I miss the part where someone where did assert that physical observation might discover the “will”?

It is and, it is a terrible sin to actually have an abortion. However, Oren, do you think the Church runs around gathering data and wiretaps on its congregants? They are not the FBI, for Pete’s sake. In theory, someone could get denied communion or excommunicated for supporting abortion privately, but that action is open for theological debate as well.

No, but if it becomes public knowledge that so-and-so paid for an abortion for his girlfriend (just theorizing here) that seems to be equivalent to a politician abstractly supporting abortion. The fact that the former gets a pass but that latter doesn’t is what puzzles me, since they ought to be theologically-equivalent transgressions.

Oh good grief, Oren. You’re generally a sensible fellow, even when I completely disagree with you. :-) But your 5:01pm is embarassingly juvenile.

You failed to read the subtext. Of course the will isn’t physical. My point was to argue (in absurdity) against the notion that the way humans work has something to do with God makes no sense. The functioning of a clock is entirely independent of the nature (or existence even) of a clockmaker — gears and levers (and enzymes) function exactly identically irrespective of how and why they were created.

You can’t get to a “will” by observing anything physical, including human beings. That was my only point.

Mac: Oren,
I do not understand why it is puzzling? If, say Tom Dascle, as he did, continued to promote abortion and continued to proclaim himself to be a Catholic, esp. if done to garner votes as,

and neurodoc followed your lead

I was not tryng to jump on you; it’s just misleading language.

Do we also need a supernatural explanation for how extremophiles can survive in conditions that would be utterly fatal to any organism but them? How about a supernatural explanation for the platypus? Or photosynthesis, which is largely unique to plants? If not, why not? Each of these groups of organisms work in ways that are fundamentally different from how the rest of the world works.

You misunderstand “fundamental.” The effort to understand the world is based on a presumption that everything – thermophiles, oenophiles and supernovae – ‘works the same way’ and that that way can be described as a single system. The examples you cite as being fundamentally different are in fact only trivially so.

And there is nothing “supernatural” about considering the will as an objective phenomenon: we observe it, just as we observe the results of laboratory experiments. If anything, experimental results about the nature of reality are less sure than evidence drawn from self-experience because we have no certitude that the laboratory is there.

Reading the rest of the thread might help, here. At some point, we got off onto the topic of the Catholic Church and its political activity. This is not a thread (much less an OP) about abortion as a general legal or moral concern.”

Yeah, I got that. I wasn’t trying to argue the morality of abortion qua abortion, but respond to the earlier comment’s statement that opponents of abortion either come to that view through blind adherence to their faith or malign intent to oppress women. That there is a third (at least) reason to oppose abortion changes the calculus that comment proposes for Catholic politicians significantly, since it would no longer be apparent that a Catholic politician who deviated from church teaching on some other issue but opposed abortion was a hypocrite who sought only to control others’ sexuality.

To neurodoc, obviously I am aware that people who are pro-choice usually don’t find abortion immoral (although I thought that was the whole “safe, legal, and rare,” rationale?). My point was that many pro-life people find it immoral for reasons unrelated to adherence to a particular theology.

Your thinking that you could see the “will” as if it were an organ or physical structure is no more sophisticated than the Azande that Evans-Pritchard studied almost a century ago.

the immorality of poverty

Huh? The poor have a lot to deal with; the least you can do is refrain from casting aspersions on them…

Harry,

The only reason freethinkers haven’t been put in camps is that religionists hate each other even more than they hate irreligionists.

Jeez, dude, I’d say that a lot more quietly, and w/o attaching your name to it–what if those evil religious guys decide to hold a truce for a day so they can concentrate on taking you out???

Mac: And, JFK had an uphill battle getting elected due to his Catholicism. Not a proud moment in our country’s history, but I gather you would think it was just a fine thing and that the folks erred in electing him?

Abortion, contraception, stem cell research, and the like weren’t political issues back in 1960, let alone the hot button ones that they are today. If they had been at the time, though, then if Kennedy had not voted in lock-step with the Church’s positions on those issues, you would have thought it “just a fine thing” to vote against him for that reason and that those “folks erred” who did vote for him notwithstanding his professed religion?

Again, in your view it would have amounted to anti-Catholic bigotry on the part of individuals to vote against JFK if they expected that once in office he would vote the Church’s position and those positions were contrary to their own? I thought the bigotry was baseless presumption that as a Catholic JFK would surely take his marching orders from the Vatican, but you seem to think he should have been committed to do so or not identify as a Catholic.

BTW, who besides the Justices are invited? All federal court judges? Members of Congress?
Is there a sermon, and if so, is the text available?

Mac: And, JFK had an uphill battle getting elected due to his Catholicism. Not a proud moment in our country’s history, but I gather you would think it was just a fine thing and that the folks erred in electing him?

Given the well-known details of JFK’s personal life, I think it’s fair to say he had a somewhat flexible relationship with Catholic theology. Justice Scalia, no anti-Catholic bigot himself, argues that Catholics who embrace the Vatican’s teachings on the death penalty should not become federal judges since they would be required by law to affirm death sentences that run counter to Vatican teachings and that such affirmation would be repugnant to a strict reading of the Vatican teachings. He resolves this conflict by openly rejecting the Vatican’s anti-death penalty position.

Catholicism is not a cafeteria religion. Many others are and they should join one of them.

neurodoc: So, in the spirit of caveat emptor, anyone voting for a Catholic politician should be willing to accept the Church’s teachings on abortion,

Looking at Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and many others, I wouldn’t be too worried if I were you, neurodoc.

ChrisTS: ChrisTS says:
mac and others:
Please, let’s be a bit careful with our language. No one “promotes abortion.

I never used the words “promotes abortion” did I? I think you are confusing me with someone else. However, it is late, so who knows?