Wednesday, June 25, 2008

No Shows

Yesterday was very weird, because for the first hour and a half of the clinic, there were no protesters. Not a one.

Just after the escorts' shift change, a couple of them showed up - the Holy Ghost, Mad Thad. Crazy Legs was out there too, and she was being aggressive. There must have been something going on though, because why weren't they all there? Especially Father Grim, who is always out - I can't remember him ever missing a week.

So that was strange.

I don't really have much to write about - I have about eight hundred things on the go all of a sudden, so it's been kind of hectic in my life. Planning committees. It's good to be busy. Anyway sorry about the shortness of the blog, hopefully next time the protesters will give me something to write about.

102 comments:

Abramowicz said...

Just happened to stumble across your blogspot. What a disgrace! I cant believe that you could work for a disgrace to my Jewish people like Henry Morgentaler. From the impression I'm getting, the people who work for the Pro-Life are Christians and are the target of your opposition. But it isn't just Christians who oppose abortion. We Jews also believe it is against Judaism, and Morgentaler has no right to call himself a Jew when he operates such an abomination.

The Pedgehog said...

First of all, in terms of religion, Dr. Morgentaler , while ethnically Jewish, identifies as a Humanist.

Secondly, I have no illusions that there are not Christians, Jews, Atheists and so on occupying both sides of the debate. There are. This is not a religious issue, and I would never characterize it as one. I personally believe that one’s religion often informs the zealousness of one’s stance, particularly on the anti-choice side, but that is by no means true in every case.

I think you can use the holy words of any religion to justify either side. Personally I don’t care whose god said what about abortion, just as long as they aren’t sniffing around my crotch. And THAT’S the problem I have with the protesters, religious or not.

abramowicz said...

I realize that Dr. Morgentaler identifies himself as a Humanist, but he is ethnically Jewish, and that's why i called him a disgrace to us Jews. You said this isn't a religious issue, but Dr. Morgentaler (I use the term Dr. very very loosely in his case) said on an interview on the CBC that the only objections he heard against abortion were religious issues.

You CANNOT use the words of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim religion to justify the so called Pro-Choice side. There simply is no evidence in the Torah/Bible/Qu'ran to support taking the life of a child.

you're an idiot. Get a life and stop helping people kill babies.

The Pedgehog said...

1. Believe it or not, I have some opinions that are different than Dr. Morgentaler's. Again, I know that there are non-religious arguments both for and against abortion.

2. Wow, ad hominem in two posts. You must have a super strong argument.

abramowicz said...

Go do yourself a favour hunnie, why don't you see if the doctors will abort your life, it would be the one abortion I'd agree with. If your not that bold then move outside of your hick city and stop depriving a village of a good idiot. Then you'll fit in with all of the other backyard- barbequing, beer- bellied slobs in New Brunswick. And get an exercise bike while your at it. From the look of you in that picture, you could sure use it.

The Pedgehog said...

I'm just going to leave that up; I think it speaks for itself. Another great debater from the pro-life side.

BeccaTheCyborg said...

Wow, the anti-choice side sure is full of class and valid arguments. Thank other people's gods we poor heathen hicks have some misogynist ass who can come educate us!

And as far as abortion within Judaism and Christianity, you only need to look as far as Rashi, who wrote on the Talmud; "lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.", the Talmud Yevamot 96b, or that old classic, Exodus 21:22.

Ah well.

Laura said...

Nothing can invalidate an argument faster than some personal pot shots! Way to go, abramowicz -- just another great example of that rational, logical anti-choice dialogue.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Abramowicz. What a compelling and thoughtful argument. You truly are a beacon of wisdom that all Jews, nay all people from all faiths, should look to for guidance.

Dickhead.

How can a person try to be morally righteous while spouting such ridiculous hatred. Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

You, sir (or madame)are a glorious example of the hateful, misogynist and ignorant fool that typifies the anti-choice movement.

Let's consider the spokespeople for the two camps. On the pro-choice side, you have Henry Morgentaler (a brilliant, well educated man who is more than deserving of the order of Canada), the Supreme Court of Canada (a group of nine individuals who have risen, as a result of their wisdom and class to the pinnacle of the pinnacle of the Canadian judiciary) and the vast majority of educated people around the country.

Now, lets examine the supporters of the anti-choice movement: Religious zealots, old white men, people you confuse your with you're, George W. Bush and Anton Scalia.

Look what distinguished company you're (see not your) in. Kudos.

I know that I'm not being fair to the anti- movement. I realize that there are a great many people who are educated and intelligent who do not believe that abortion should be legal, but Abramowicz, my friend (and I use the term VERY loosely), you brought it on yourself. Your attitude is morally reprehensible, and you've done your cause far more harm than good.

-E

Amy O said...

hahaha go E!

abramowicz said...

Anonymous:

Just when people think anti-semitism is dead, you prove it to be alive.

And secondly,

It isn't just Religious Zealots, old white men, and George W. Bush who are Pro-Life. See your hero Jane Roe, PRO-LIFE supporter.

I guess I'd better shut up now because G-d only knows that you may move from killing babies to killing Jews.

I'm out.

The Pedgehog said...

.....When did anyone say anything anti-Semitic?

Anonymous said...

abrahamoiwcz - life doesnt begin at conception. life begins at 6 mnths of a pregnancy. any doctor willtell you this. after 6 mnths abortion is murder but before that itsnot.its just tissue. learn about medicine before you talk so bigoted.

The Pedgehog said...

I'm going to have to disagree with anon above. Life begins at conception, certainly - if it's not life, what is it? - but personhood doesn't start until birth.

And abortion is never murder. Murder means unlawful killing. Abortion is legal. Simple.

Anonymous said...

pdgehog- i cant agree with u becuz if murder meens unlawful killing n only cuz its legal then dr henry morgantyler wood have been a murderer b4 abortion was legal and i dont think he waz.whatev maybe it is a life but its not a person until like 6 mnths or more. like i wouldt feel guilty about gettin a abortion before 6 mnths but at 9 mnths it iz a baby for sure like just cuz it duznt have aname it iz still a baby. but only after 6 mths becuz it dont have a heartbeat and cant move till then. itz just tissue not life like us. same with people on life support. weshould pull the plugz on them cuz they are hard on r meidcare and not a real lifes like us.

The Pedgehog said...

I'm sorry, I didn't understand a word of that. I don't think that was words.

Anonymous said...

Anti-Semitic? For real?

Abramawicz, I'm not sure if you read very well. My only allusion to the Jewish faith was that you, personally, are a stunning example that all Jews, as well as members of other faiths should look to for guidance in these dark and troubling times. I mean, your unbridled display of compassion and mercy toward the plight of women was simply stunning.

You are a fear-mongering, guilt-shifting, accusation-wielding fool.

I'm not an anti-Semite, I'm an anti-asshole.

-E

Anonymous said...

PEDGEHOG said

{And abortion is never murder. Murder means unlawful killing. Abortion is legal. Simple.}

So, Abortion is Murder in the following countries -

Afghanistan, Andorra, Angola, Antigua, Argentina, Benin, Brazil,
Brunei, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Columbia, Congo, Ivory Coast, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Gabon, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshal Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Myanmar, Nauru, Nicaragua, Niger, Paula, Paraguay, Phillipines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Togo, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Vatican City.

Do you agree?

Anonymous said...

check out my blog:

http://whattheycallchoice.blogspot.com/

The Pedgehog said...

"So, Abortion is Murder in the following countries - do you agree?"

Yes. In those countries, in the eyes of the law, abortion is murder. It doesn't mean that I agree that it SHOULD be.

Just because something is legally classified as murder doesn't mean I agree with that law. People just use the phrase "abortion is murder!" as an inflammatory anti-abortion slogan, but they're misusing the word. It means unlawful killing.

So yes, in countries where abortion is illegal, it is murder. Strictly in the legal sense, not in the ethical or moral one.

The Pedgehog said...

Oh and anon 11:48, I checked out your blog. You need to learn to make paragraphs. It shouldn't be that hard, when all you do is cut and paste.

Anonymous said...

So Pedgehog - In an ethical and moral sense, you have no objection to anybody saying that Abortion is Murder if they hold that opinion?

The Pedgehog said...

I have no objection to anyone saying anything. Doesn't mean I agree with what they're saying. It's called free speech, which is why I keep letting your sorry ass back to comment here.

Anonymous said...

{Oh and anon 11:48, I checked out your blog. You need to learn to make paragraphs. It shouldn't be that hard, when all you do is cut and paste}

Pedgehog,7:08, thank you for your wisdom and insight regarding my blog. I will make the neccessary changes to it.

"MEMORARE, O piissima Virgo Maria, non esse auditum a saeculo, quemquam ad tua currentem praesidia, tua implorantem auxilia, tua petentem suffragia, esse derelictum. Ego tali animatus confidentia, ad te, Virgo Virginum, Mater, curro, ad te venio, coram te gemens peccator assisto. Noli, Mater Verbi, verba mea despicere; sed audi propitia et exaudi. Amen."

Anonymous said...

Pedgehog, 7:13 -

{It's called free speech, which is why I keep letting your sorry ass back to comment here.}

Thank you, I appreciate you letting me post on your blog.

"MEMORARE, O piissima Virgo Maria, non esse auditum a saeculo, quemquam ad tua currentem praesidia, tua implorantem auxilia, tua petentem suffragia, esse derelictum. Ego tali animatus confidentia, ad te, Virgo Virginum, Mater, curro, ad te venio, coram te gemens peccator assisto. Noli, Mater Verbi, verba mea despicere; sed audi propitia et exaudi. Amen."

Anonymous said...

For all "Pro-Choice" Christians:

"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 62).

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Gospel of St. Matthew 16:18-19)

This is so that any Christian who reads this no longer has the excuse that they did not know the Vicar of Jesus Christ infallibly bound the Church's teaching on abortion.

abramowicz said...

BeccaTheCyborg:

Rashi's commentary in the Talmud is not condoning abortion on demand. In fact if you look at what Maimonides writes, you'll see that abortion is only permissible to a Jew if a mother's life is in danger. How many mother's lives are in danger that go to your local abortion clinic? I would be surprised if it is 1 in 1000.

Concerning Exodus 21:22, I'm failing to see how you can condone abortion with this text. In this section of the Torah, G-d is ordering anybody who kills a child in the womb to pay monetary damages to the mother. Obviously the death penalty here wouldn't apply because this type of killing would be as a result of an attack on the mother, and not direct intentional killing of the child in the womb. The very fact that G-d orders monetary damages to be paid says that killing an unborn child is a criminal activity.

The Pedgehog said...

I don't know much about the Jewish faith, so I'm going to leave that one alone. But anon, your message to pro-choice Christians is incredibly presumptuous. Isn't the whole point that we're all big ol' sinners, so we should leave the judging up to God?

What business is it of yours who calls themselves a Christian, and why?

Anonymous said...

Pedgehog, you said:

{But anon, your message to pro-choice Christians is incredibly presumptuous. Isn't the whole point that we're all big ol' sinners, so we should leave the judging up to God?

What business is it of yours who calls themselves a Christian, and why?}

* We should leave condemnation up to God, that is, eternal destiny. God is sovereign and has appointed Jesus Christ to condemn or not condemn. However, Christ did leave the Church the authority to judge matters, especially between believers.

Matthew 18:15-17 states " But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican."

This verse tells us who is the final authority on issues of dispute between believers. If Christian A is Pro Life, and Christian B is Pro Abortion, then to settle our dispute we must consult the Church. The Church has infallibly bound Abortion as contrary to the moral law. Dispute settled. If a believer will not hear the Church in this matter, they are to be treated as a heathen, or in other words declared anathema.

True, we are all "big ol' sinners", however, when a Christian persists upon glorifying mortal sin and is unrepentant, the Church has authority to excommunicate that person and demand repentance for that particular sin. In Catholicism (and Orthodoxy), committing mortal sin cuts a believer off from the sanctifying grace of Jesus Christ, cuts a believer off from the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the believer must recieve Absolution for the sin from the Church until being admitted back to communion with Jesus Christ. We wish that everyone who participates in an abortion will go to the Church to recieve Absolution and as Jesus Christ told Mary Magdalene "Go and sin no more".

The Pedgehog said...

I still don't think it's your place to go around and say this or that makes someone not a Christian, or whatever. How would you like it if that judgement was turned around and pointed back at you?

Religion and spirituality are very personal and as far as I'm concerned, are between a person and whatever deity they subscribe to. If someone comes to you for spiritual guidance on the subject of Christianity and abortion, feel free to let them know what you think about it. But no one here asked you for advice on their own spiritual beliefs. So, again, you're being presumptuous by letting us all know who's a good little Christian and who isn't.

Amy O said...

Christians who aren't Catholic don't need a pope to interpret the bible for them. They can do that on their own. Thanks for the info, but next time you direct something at all Xtians, maybe you should stop, think a little bit, and direct it at the Catholics.

Also, if you are trying to persuade people to 'see the light' of Catholicism and 'Christianity' you are going about it the wrong way. Try loving your neighbour, instead of condemning them.

Anonymous said...

Pedgehog, you said:

{I still don't think it's your place to go around and say this or that makes someone not a Christian, or whatever. How would you like it if that judgement was turned around and pointed back at you?}

Oh, by all means turn around and point the finger at me. If I'm found to be in error, and we consult the Church, and I'm found to be in error I'll repent. What makes someone a Christian is whether or not they have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And what makes somebody an orthodox Christian is being in communion with the Church Jesus Christ founded.

{Religion and spirituality are very personal and as far as I'm concerned,}

Great, but my comments were directed at Christians. Orthodox Christianity is not a strictly personal matter, but also involves adhering to the hierarchy Jesus Christ instituted to rule and govern His Church.

{If someone comes to you for spiritual guidance on the subject of Christianity and abortion, feel free to let them know what you think about it.}

Which is what I am doing. I was simply offering information directed at Christians on the Church's teaching regarding abortion.

{But no one here asked you for advice on their own spiritual beliefs.}

I don't need to be asked for advice to display the Church's teachings.

{So, again, you're being presumptuous by letting us all know who's a good little Christian and who isn't.}

What am I presuming?

Anonymous said...

amy o, you said:

{Christians who aren't Catholic don't need a pope to interpret the bible for them. They can do that on their own.}

Yes, if you're a follower of the heretic Martin Luther. And certainly we Catholics can interpret the Bible on our own, however, when we encounter an area of disagreement in the Scriptures, we simply follow the Bible in Matthew 18:15-17 and consult the Church for final judgement on the matter. And of course, we can be guaranteed that this decision is the decision of Jesus Christ, as He promised Peter and the Apostles to bind and loose in heaven whatever they bound and loosed on earth. This promise extends to the Successors of the Apostles that have an Apostolic ordination.

{Thanks for the info, but next time you direct something at all Xtians, maybe you should stop, think a little bit, and direct it at the Catholics.}

I directed that post at all Christians because the Bishop of Rome is the universal teacher of all Christians. Regardless of whether or not a Christian is willing to accept the binding decisions of the Pope, Peter's successor is the Christian's authoritative teacher. Nearly 2,000 years and counting.

{Also, if you are trying to persuade people to 'see the light' of Catholicism and 'Christianity' you are going about it the wrong way.}

I was not trying to make people "see the light of Catholicism" nor "Christianity". I was offering the information on the Church's teaching to Christians who may happen to read this blog.

{Try loving your neighbour, instead of condemning them.}

A) I do love my neighbour. I wish each and every one of you to experience the grace of Jesus Christ.

B) I didn't condemn anyone. Condemnation is sentencing a person to eternal Hell. I did not, nor will I, ever condemn somebody, because I have not been bestowed with that authority. Jesus Christ has that authority. The hierarchy of the Church cannot even eternally condemn a person. However, what we can do is judge an individual's sin based on the Church's authoritative teaching because of the authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ. The Church has bound on earth that abortion is a grave mortal sin. This teaching is also bound in heaven by Jesus Christ. Anyone who rejects the Church's teaching on this matter is in danger of eternal condemnation.

The Pedgehog said...

"What am I presuming?"

That anyone here gives a shit?

Anonymous said...

Pedgehog, you said:

{That anyone here gives a shit?}

If you don't give "a shit", then why are you responding to my comments?

The Pedgehog said...

Who knows, maybe I'm dumber than I look.

Anonymous said...

Pedgehog, you said:

{That anyone here gives a shit?}

I'm rather surprised that a person as learned, knowledgeable, and full of wisdom wouldn't post any rebuttals to my comments. Come on, Pedgehog, I know you can do better than that.

Anonymous said...

Pedgehog, you said:

{Who knows, maybe I'm dumber than I look.}

No, Pedgehog, your not dumber than you look.

The Pedgehog said...

What am I supposed to rebut? I don't really know anything about theology or any of the stuff you're talking about - as far as I know, everything you're saying is true. Maybe you're not a pompous ass for going around telling people what it takes to be a proper Christian. I don't really feel like refuting stuff I don't know anything about.

Anonymous said...

Pedgehog, you said:

{What am I supposed to rebut? I don't really know anything about theology or any of the stuff you're talking about - as far as I know, everything you're saying is true. Maybe you're not a pompous ass for going around telling people what it takes to be a proper Christian. I don't really feel like refuting stuff I don't know anything about.}

Ok, fair enough. I probably would have said the same thing a few years ago, in all honesty. I'll pray for you Pedgehog that you'll be search for the truth. Someday maybe you'll recieve the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ together with me, the medicine for immortality.

The Pedgehog said...

Alright, you do that. I'll let you know if I come around.

Anonymous said...

Pedgehog, you said:

{Alright, you do that. I'll let you know if I come around.}

Pedgehog, if you don't mind telling me, do you believe in any type of a God? Or are you an Atheist?

The Pedgehog said...

I don't like labels. I'm not religious. My beliefs about the divine could best be described as pantheist.

Anonymous said...

Pedgehog, you said:

{I don't like labels.}

No need to label yourself.

{My beliefs about the divine could best be described as pantheist.}

If you describe yourself as a pantheist, and have a sincere desire to find truth, then I ask you to pray to the "God that is All" and ask for truth. I'll be praying for you. Maria will be praying for you. Pray for me. God bless.

The Pedgehog said...

Sorry, I don't pray.

Anonymous said...

Pedgehog, you said:

{Sorry, I don't pray.}

No need to apologize. I'll pray for you that much more. I can tell you have an open heart, and God willing if my inclinations are right, Jesus Christ will reveal himself to you as he did for me 3 years ago. It's hard to believe in someone we can only read or hear about, but when we see Him with our own eyes it's easy. Keep an open heart, He blows His mercy upon those that are willing to listen.

The Pedgehog said...

Uh huh.

abramowicz said...

Anonymous:

I'm starting to wonder who is more retarded, Pedgehog or yourself. I think it's a pretty close tie, but I've got to give you the upper hand.

Mercy? The last thing these people need is mercy. You Christians are complete wimps. Give your mercy to somebody else, idiot.

How can a man give you his flesh to eat? Jesus didn't rise from the dead. It's just a story his followers made up to get rich off of. He's dead. DEAD!

You're an idiot, so is your Pope.

The Pedgehog said...

Man it would suck if everyone was just nice to eachother. Good thing you're here, abramowicz, to say hateful things.

Do you realize how ridiculous it is for you to toss around baseless accusations of anti-Semitism, and then pop back in to insult someone else's religion?

abramowicz said...

The only things that are ridiculous here in this comment board are all of the attacks against me, and all of this crazy Catholic Church and Pope stuff.

Anonymous said...

WOW Pedgehog, your blog is suddenly really popular again with the hate-mongering religious types... one of you going to crucify me too now for that comment? and Pedgehog you are an amazing, nice, funny and brilliant person, do not let these individuals let you think for a moment you are dumb.

The Pedgehog said...

You said the following things unprovoked:

"you're an idiot. Get a life and stop helping people kill babies."

"Go do yourself a favour hunnie, why don't you see if the doctors will abort your life, it would be the one abortion I'd agree with. If your not that bold then move outside of your hick city and stop depriving a village of a good idiot. Then you'll fit in with all of the other backyard- barbequing, beer- bellied slobs in New Brunswick. And get an exercise bike while your at it. From the look of you in that picture, you could sure use it."

And you think it's ridiculous that you're being attacked? Well, things sure aren't like the good ol' days, when you could go around being a misogynist asshole without getting called on it.

Anonymous said...

Nicely put, Pedge.

-E

Anonymous said...

Abramowicz, you said:

{I'm starting to wonder who is more retarded, Pedgehog or yourself. I think it's a pretty close tie, but I've got to give you the upper hand.}

Name calling accomplishes nothing, Abramowizc. Please, let's refrain from such tactics and engage in meaningful conversation.

{Mercy? The last thing these people need is mercy. You Christians are complete wimps. Give your mercy to somebody else, idiot.}

Sorry, but mercy is exactly what these people need. Grace I guess would have been a better term, as mercy cannot be accepted by a person without first accepting God's grace. I don't believe that I, or any other Christian, is a wimp because we speak a message of forgiveness, love and mercy. Being a wimp I believe is failing to stand up for what you believe in. Speaking for myself, I would be willing to die for the Catholic Church, yet at the same time also proclaiming the message of the Church which is forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ. If that qualifies me as a wimp in your books, so be it.

{How can a man give you his flesh to eat? }

It's interesting that you say this, because a multitude of Jews asked Jesus this same question when He first proclaimed that eating His flesh and drinking His blood would give a believer eternal life. Many who heard him were astonished that He could teach such. Even His Apostles said "This is a hard saying". Many people left Him after He proclaimed this. However, on the eve of His crucifixtion, when he became our Paschal Lamb and fulfilled what the Jewish Day of Atonement represented, Jesus together with His Apostles showed what He meant by eating His flesh and drinking His blood. He broke bread and gave it to them and said "This is my body, which will be slain for you". Then he passed a cup of wine and said "This is my blood, the cup of the New and Everlasting Testament". Jesus commanded His Apostles to perform this in rememberance of Him. The Church has taught this same truth for the last 2,000 years, and the many Eucharistic miracles confirm that we truly do eat and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Throughout the centuries, there have been miraculous occurences of Eucharistic hosts that have changed into real flesh in appearance, bled real visible blood, scientifically proven hosts and wine that have been examined and indeed are proven to be real flesh and real blood from a man that is most likely Semitic. And many of these miraculous hosts are still available to see today. If they were just bread, they would have deteriorated long ago, but because of supernatural intervention they have preserved, in at least one case about 1300 years.

{Jesus didn't rise from the dead. It's just a story his followers made up to get rich off of. He's dead. DEAD!}

Well, Jesus' followers didn't "get rich". In fact, men like St. Paul, who was a respected Pharisee, left very comfortable and respectable positions in order to follow Jesus Christ, whose Church he heavily persecuted initially and was intent on capturing and putting Christians to death. And ultimately, St. Paul was executed in Rome because of his belief in Jesus Christ. Indeed it would be strange for a man to allow himself to be executed, rather than admit that he was lying and that he didn't have a supernatural encounter with Jesus Christ. But, St. Paul isn't the only one. 11 of the 12 Apostles were executed because of thier Christian faith, and the only one who wasn't, St. John, was thrown into boiling oil but miraculously escaped unharmed. And the second generation of Christian leaders were mostly martyred. St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, along with the first 10-13 Bishops of Rome. I would find it hard to believe that these men didn't have a true conviction that they witnessed Jesus Christ rise from the dead, when they were willing to sacrifice thier lives for that truth. I find it difficult to believe that these men were basically trying to get rich and collaborated in making up a lie in order get rich, when they were willing to go to early deaths for beliefs which were heavily persecuted. I encourage you to browse the internet for some of the many sightings and encounters throughout the last 2,000 years of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and many of the Saints in heaven. I think you'd be rather surprised by the weight of evidence which is on Christianity's side. Start with the most recent ones, such as Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Zeitun, etc. Many Christians, Muslims, Athiests, etc. witnessed these events and testify to the truthfulness of them. In these two cases I listed above, the events were witnessed by thousands and thousands of people.

That's all for now, God Bless. Your in my thoughts.

jedstah said...

So wait a minute, you're both against abortion, and now you're fighting over whos religion is more Pro-Life?

It's like "Did I just walk into a bar and a conversation about who has the larger genitalia?"

I kind of wonder, if you take six Pro-Life people in the same room, would they sit an argue about it?

I know if you have a room full of Pro-Choice people in a room, they all agree on it. I know this for a fact because I've been in that room more then once.

I think both abramowicz and Anonymous should get off of their religious high horses and stop trying to force feed your ideals beliefs on other people. Who's own beliefs follow the Canadian legal system.

And must we really bring the grade 5 jokes about weight into a this conversation? I mean, come on. At least she's brave enough to post a picture of her self. Where as you stand behind your tough-guy-internet-keyboard-typing bible-thumbing-alias. Acting like a fool.

And honestly, if you don't like abortions, don't get one. It's as simple as that.

And to Pedgehog, keep up the good fight. You're way awesome!

-JF

Anonymous said...

jedstah, you said:

{So wait a minute, you're both against abortion, and now you're fighting over whos religion is more Pro-Life?}

No, not exactly jedstah. Abramowizc made a few comments towards me which were not exactly pleasant, and which encouraged a response. However, his comments were not about which religion is more ProLife than the other, but rather more about the founder of our religion and the current head of the Church on earth. I'm not sure why he decided to poste these comments on an issue which has nothing to do with the Pro-Life movement, so I'll let him answer that one.

{I kind of wonder, if you take six Pro-Life people in the same room, would they sit an argue about it?}

Obviously not, because as you stated, they are all Pro-Life. The Pro-Life movement is about recognizing the sanctity of human life. With Catholicism, in particular, there are no differing views. Any view that differs from the Church's official teaching is considered heresy and the individual promoting the view is subject to excommunication if unrepentant. The Catholic Church is the major and most significant sect driving the Pro-Life movement.

{I know if you have a room full of Pro-Choice people in a room, they all agree on it. I know this for a fact because I've been in that room more then once.}

Have you sat in a room with every Pro-Abortion individual? Probably not, therefore your claim is without merit. Until you've interviewed every Pro-Abortion individual and can verify that they all hold the exact same views on abortion, then it would be wise to refrain from making such a claim. Or, until there is a central universal authority who proclaims the stance of the Pro-Abortion movement, your claims really don't mean much.

{ think both abramowicz and Anonymous should get off of their religious high horses and stop trying to force feed your ideals beliefs on other people.}

I can't speak for abramowicz, but I certainly am not on a religious high horse. Neither am I trying to force feed my ideals or beliefs on anyone else. Could you please define exactly what a religious high horse is?

{Who's own beliefs follow the Canadian legal system.}

Fortunately, jedstah, our Canadian legal system is not the highest authority on earth for a Catholic. We recognize this country's laws only as far as they don't come into conflict with the Canon Law of the Church. The Holy See is our highest authority. Countries laws change, and can be wrong. Facist Germany is a great example of a country whose laws Catholics could not faithfully recognize as valid (those that came into conflict with Catholic Tradition and Canon Law). However, the Catholic Church's Holy Tradition never changes, and the Holy See is the Chair of Peter which will exist until the end of time. While governmental regimes come and go, the Chair of Peter has remained strong for 2,000 years despite immense persecution.

{Where as you stand behind your tough-guy-internet-keyboard-typing bible-thumbing-alias.}

I don't really think it is fair to label Abramowicz as a bible-thumper, because, (assuming my inclination that he is an Orthodox Jew).....I haven't seen him quote the Torah once as of yet, and Orthodox Judaism isn't solely a Bible based religion. So let's be fair to him here.

{And honestly, if you don't like abortions, don't get one.}

jedstah, this is poor reasoning. Catholicism teaches that human life begins from the moment of conception. Therefore, to knowingly destroy an innocent human life is equivalent to murder. So, what you're saying to us, is - If you don't like murder, don't commit one. If viewed from our perspective, you'd have to admit that while your statement is definitely true, in no way should we stop fighting an unjust law. Keeping our values and beliefs about human life in mind, think of these statements:

"If you don't like rape, don't rape somebody."

"If you don't like theft, don't steal from anyone."

"If you don't like pedophilia, don't be a pedophile."

"If you don't like murder, don't kill anyone."

If any of the above (rape, theft, pedophilia, or murder) were legalized, should we simply stop complaining and just not do it ourselves? Of course not.

May the peace of Jesus Christ be upon you.

jedstah said...

Oh, I can play the break it down game too!!

[Have you sat in a room with every Pro-Abortion individual? Probably not, therefore your claim is without merit.]

Did I say "every". No need to put words in my mouth. I said "a room full". Thanks!!! And by the way, I've spoke to people on both sides. I'm extremely Pro-Choice. But I have friends that are extremely Pro-Life, I respect them because they respect me and we respect the fact that opinions vary. Also, the majority of them, would take offence to your religious views on abortion, and here we go, again, probably argue with you.

[but I certainly am not on a religious high horse. Neither am I trying to force feed my ideals or beliefs on anyone else. Could you please define exactly what a religious high horse is?] .... [May the peace of Jesus Christ be upon you.]

Really? I see what you did! You lied! And please don’t do it again. Did you go beg for forgiveness yet? And please don’t force feed me anymore. Thanks!!!

[Catholicism teaches that human life begins from the moment of conception.]

He said, she said, they said. I say Masturbation! FTW!

["If you don't like rape, don't rape somebody."

"If you don't like theft, don't steal from anyone."

"If you don't like pedophilia, don't be a pedophile."

"If you don't like murder, don't kill anyone."]

You're missing the point, if you get raped, you didn't want too. If someone gets murdered, they had no control over. You choose to steal, you choose to be a pedophile, and you choose to get an abortion.

Comparing stealing, and pedophilia to rape and murder, is like comparing abortion to monster trucks. It just doesn't make any sense what so ever.

[jedstah, this is poor reasoning. Catholicism teaches that human life begins from the moment of conception. Therefore, to knowingly destroy an innocent human life is equivalent to murder. So, what you're saying to us, is - If you don't like murder, don't commit one. If viewed from our perspective, you'd have to admit that while your statement is definitely true, in no way should we stop fighting an unjust law. Keeping our values and beliefs about human life in mind, think of these statements:]

Try committing any crime within Canada with religious justification. And see how that holds up. Canadian Law is the highest law with in Canada.

Canadian Law > Holy Law.

Oh and no why no comment to who has the largest genitalia? Just curious!

-JF

Anonymous said...

Pedge, I bet you weren't expecting a good-size religious argument when you made your latest update, eh?

To all the pro-lifers here - Give me one good non-religious argument against abortion. Just one. All I ask. Don't say a word about any holy book, or invoke the name of any diety or holy personage. I've got a shiny new quarter here that says it's impossible.

To Pedgehog - fight the good fight. You remind me of the Maggot Punks (Google is your friend here) of Wichita, Kansas, who mix pro-choice with a sort of Nigerian-scambaiting approach to dealing with the "Fanatical Fundy Freaks."

One of these Tuesdays I'll have to come on down to see the lunacy for myself. What time does the show usually start?

Anonymous said...

Oh, and you might want to check this one out:

http://www.maggotpunks.com/2008/ByTheBook37.PNG

The Pedgehog said...

This is definitely the most comments I've ever rececived on one post - I love that it's probably the most boring post on the blog, too.

I had never heard of the Maggot Punks - they sound awesome. Wichita is nuts. I definitely am in awe of Dr. Tiller and everyone who works at his clinic - that is some serious front line shit.

Rock on Jedstah, fight the fundies. We miss you here in crazyland, buddy. :)

And for anyone looking to come down to see the "show", Tuesday mornings, early as you can get here. Last year there were people throwing eggs at the protesters from the parking garage. Not saying I condone that sort of thing.

Anonymous said...

jedstah, you said:

{Did I say "every". No need to put words in my mouth. I said "a room full"."

* But, jedstah, you are implying here that if you randomly selected a group of people that are pro-abortion, and put them in a room together, that you would recieve the same opinions from each member regarding the issues involved. Until you have interviewed all pro-abortionists, you cannot make such a claim. I wasn't reffering to your specific group meeting.

{we respect the fact that opinions vary.}

That's fine. However, Catholicism and Christianity in general has no room for a variation of opinion on an issue the Church has authoritatively and officially made a pronouncement on. The Church is not a democracy. It is a theocracy.

{Also, the majority of them, would take offence to your religious views on abortion,}

Once again, that's fine. However, if the people you are reffering to are Christians, and take offence to the Church's authoritative pronouncement on abortion, they are heretical Chrisitians. The person who holds to the Church's teaching is an orthodox Christian.

{Really? I see what you did! You lied! And please don’t do it again. Did you go beg for forgiveness yet? And please don’t force feed me anymore. Thanks!!!}

If asking for Jesus Christ's mercy to be on you is force feeding you, in your opinion, then yes I am guilty of lying. However, the pillar and ground of truth in Christianity is the Church, and it is also the Church which is given authority to forgive and retain sins. The Church encourages Christians to ask for God's mercy upon unbelievers. Therefore, I have no need to ask for forgiveness.

{He said, she said, they said. I say Masturbation! FTW!}

I'm not quite sure how this statement is a rebuttal to my position on the beginning of human life. Comments such as these do not in anyway build up dialogue between the two of us.

{You're missing the point, if you get raped, you didn't want too. If someone gets murdered, they had no control over. You choose to steal, you choose to be a pedophile, and you choose to get an abortion.}

So, as I said, if the Canadian law stated that theft was legal, should all dissenters simply drop the issue and not protest against it?

{Comparing stealing, and pedophilia to rape and murder, is like comparing abortion to monster trucks. It just doesn't make any sense what so ever.}

Well, first off, I'm failing to see how comparing pedophilia to rape or murder is a bad comparison. Also, according to the 2,000 year law of the Church, theft is also a grave mortal sin. One mortal sin cannot be said to be less than another mortal sin, as both immediately cut one off from the grace of Jesus Christ and everlasting life.

{Try committing any crime within Canada with religious justification. And see how that holds up. Canadian Law is the highest law with in Canada.

Canadian Law > Holy Law.}

And as I stated, I as a Catholic cannot recognize any law as valid when it conflicts with the Holy Tradition and Canon Law of the Catholic Church. I can recognize a Canadian law as valid only if it does not conflict with Catholic teaching. I recognize the authority of the Catholic Church to be above all earthly authority, and the Bishop of Rome singularly as the sole sovereign over all the earth, being the very Vicar of Jesus Christ. As I said, government rise and collapse, but for the last 2,000 years the Catholic Church remains, as Jesus Christ promised that the gates of death will never be able to overcome the Church. This promise extends also to the Chair of Peter, which is found in the Holy See.

{Oh and no why no comment to who has the largest genitalia? Just curious!}

I didn't comment on this, because this honour would obviously go to me. Catholics have more babies than the average family for a reason, you know!!!

Anonymous said...

"To all the pro-lifers here - Give me one good non-religious argument against abortion. Just one. All I ask. Don't say a word about any holy book, or invoke the name of any diety or holy personage. I've got a shiny new quarter here that says it's impossible."

* Sure, here goes. Human life begins at conception. All Human life is equal. Therefore, all Human Life deserves equal dignity. Abortion strips away the equal rights of each Human life. If each Human life is equal, then no human life may take away the rights of another human life.

Expand on this.

The Pedgehog said...

All humans have the right to bodily autonomy. The end.

The Pedgehog said...

"{Oh and no why no comment to who has the largest genitalia? Just curious!}

I didn't comment on this, because this honour would obviously go to me. Catholics have more babies than the average family for a reason, you know!!!"

That's because you don't use birth control, and treat your women like broodmares. I don't think it would matter if you DID have the largest genitalia, because she's not really supposed to enjoy it, right?

Anonymous said...

Pedgehog, you said:

{That's because you don't use birth control, and treat your women like broodmares.}

True, orthodox Catholics do not use birth control. That we treat our women like broodmares is purely your opinion, and would be objected to by Catholic women themselves. In fact, the most glorious and honoured Saint of the Catholic Church is the Virgin Mary, who holds a position above all other men, exempting her son Jesus, within the Church. Some of the most revered saints of the Church are women - St. Therese of Avila, St. Faustina, St. Anne, St. Bernadette, and so on.....some of them transmiting the most important words of God in thier time. Your conclusion is off-base.

{I don't think it would matter if you DID have the largest genitalia, because she's not really supposed to enjoy it, right?}

Wrong. Sexual intercourse, as the Church teaches, is a gift from God and is encouraged to build love and unity between husband and wife. Sexual intercourse, for sure, is to be enjoyed and is to be looked upon with reverance. Sexual intercourse is one of the greatest gifts God has provided to mankind. However, with that being said, sexual intercourse isn't solely for a man and a woman's pleasure. That act of love between husband and wife must also be open to the possibility of conception, which is the natural positive consequence of the act of sexual intercourse and humanity is in no way entitled to disrupt this natural order. Hence, the restriction on artificial birthcontrol. Would you like me to send you a free copy of Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body"? It's clear that you have a major misconception about the Church's understanding of human sexuality.

The Pedgehog said...

I'm talking about how the Church treats actual women, not saints. And for the record, putting a woman on a pedestal =/= treating her as an equal.

And no, I don't need to read your propaganda, thanks. I've seen the results of the Church's views on human sexuality, and they're not pretty.

Anonymous said...

Pedgehog, you said:

{I'm talking about how the Church treats actual women, not saints. And for the record, putting a woman on a pedestal =/= treating her as an equal.}

Then please, Pedgehog, enlighten me as to why the Church does not treat women as equal to men. You're quite wrong. I suppose most likely your first attack will be on the male-only priesthood. And the answer is, that because Jesus Christ ordained men to the priesthood, the Church simply follows Jesus Christ and does the same. And, of course, since Jesus Christ was a male, and the Priest acts in persona christi, then logically only males can be ordained to distribute the sacraments. Please enlighten me, though.

{And no, I don't need to read your propaganda, thanks. I've seen the results of the Church's views on human sexuality, and they're not pretty.}

It's not my propaganda, it's Pope John Paul II's, who is widely respected as both a theologian, philosopher, and humanist by both Catholics and non-Catholics. But that's fine. But please, tell me of the results of the Church's view on human sexuality? I want the results of those who followed the Church's teaching, and not those who commited heresy against the Church's teachings. Enlighten me, once again.

Made from recycled fiber said...

I would like to ask Anonymous to not speak for Catholic women, as a woman who was raised in the Catholic tradition we are treated as "broodmares". If you do not believe me ask my great-grandmother who had 19 children. And also within Catholicism, the only women who can be great are the virgins, leaving the rest of us to have the babies.

I also find it amusing that you are claiming that only Orthodox Catholics do not use birth control, because apparently you are now picking and choosing what to follow within the Catholic tradition, because any TRUE Catholic would never use birth control without the knowledge that they are going against religious teachings, Popes and the bible.

And Pedge I am awed by your ability to face up to confrontation here and at the clinic. You're brilliant.

JF's fiancé

The Pedgehog said...

There are different rules for men and for women. That's one way that the church does not treat them as equals. The bible is full of rules, you don't need to read very far to find one that's specifically aimed at either sex. But it's not even that, it's the way the church has historically (and still does) feared women's power. The Inquisition, anyone? There is, as JF's fiancee alluded to, a pronounced madonna/whore complex in the church. Women are not seen as complex people like men - they are either virginal saints you can place on a pedestal and gaze up at in wonder, or as wives that you can beget 19 or 20 little Catholic munchkins on.

The church condemns women who make choices about their own bodies and sexuality. It puts enormous pressure on young women to remain virgins until they are married. When that's something your church tells you "good girls" do, it's not a choice for you. The church is the biggest slut-shamer there is. It is afraid of powerful women, afraid of homosexuals, afraid of anyone who challenges the profitable male-dominant power structure.

As for the results of the church's views on sexuality, you yourself mentioned that the church has been around for a long time. Obviously it has a huge influence on people. It has it's fingers in a lot of nasty pots - like all the Catholic countries where abortion is outlawed, and subsequently thousands of women die every year from botched back alley and self-inflicted abortions. How about abstinence-only sex education, that's doing tons of good stuff, right? (sarcasm!). How about condemning condom use in Africa? Really helping out with the ol' AIDS pandemic, aren't they? How about consistent messages of hatred against homosexuals? Ever heard of Matthew Shepard? He was beaten to death for being gay. He's not the only one.

If the Catholic church didn't have such a huge influence on the majority of the world, I wouldn't give a shit about their backwards beliefs. But they do, and I do. Defend it all you want; the church hurts women and their allies because they are intent on taking away women's choices. I have nothing against individual religious beliefs, but the church as an organization is a disgusting and outdated monolith of abuse, control and hatred.

Feeling enlightened yet?

Apple said...

haha, i heart pro lifers, "all humans are dignified and have a right to life . . . unless you disagree with me!! abort all who dissent!!!1111"

haha, i heart the catholic church, "aids in africa is bad, but condoms are worse!!!!1111"

Alex said...

Wow Pegs. This is some crazy shit for sure. Intense, but I like it!

As for this 'abramowicz' cat, I would like to note that he was sooo above the whole situation that he was going to be "out"... but then mysteriously he was back with even more silly banter about crazy religiosity. What a guy. Why do parents allow their children on zeee interwebz to spout insanity such as this? I think mommy and daddy should up the parental controls on the family computer.

Aside from that, keep up the good fight! You are le sweet!

On another side note, big ups to all the escorts who have to put up with crazies like these every week...

Lock said...

Peghog, the sad thing about all of the examples that you mentioned is that catholics such as anonymous will just say that if those people had followed the rules then they would not be dead/infected/pregnant.

Anonymous "Then please, Pedgehog, enlighten me as to why the Church does not treat women as equal to men. You're quite wrong. I suppose most likely your first attack will be on the male-only priesthood. And the answer is, that because Jesus Christ ordained men to the priesthood, the Church simply follows Jesus Christ and does the same. And, of course, since Jesus Christ was a male, and the Priest acts in persona christi, then logically only males can be ordained to distribute the sacraments. Please enlighten me, though."

To me that still reads as women not being equal to men. Men=yes, women=no. Why? Because it says so in the book that I trust as infallible.

It must be nice to have that kind of order and certainty in your life. It must feel good to know that you are right and that those who disagree are going to get their comeuppance. However, a lot of us don't have that trust, so we have to navigate life based on what we think or feel is right. Your use of biblical arguments is irrelevant because the people you are arguing with don't consider them to be valid.

Now, since I have someone with your knowledge available to me, could you tell me where it is in the bible that Jesus said that humans should create a hierarchical, authoritarian structure that has spent most of the last 1500 years attempting to gain as much power as possible? Also, how do you deal with the period when there were multiple popes (three from 1409-1415!)? Isn't that strange? Does it make you wonder about whether or not you should trust the current pope? What about church sponsored atrocities like the Spanish Inquisition? They tortured and killed a lot of conversos. How about how Jesus wasn't even 'officially' the son of god until the council of Nicaea? Even if you dislike Luther, what do you think of the indulgences that the church was taking in the 16th century?

I know that you can sort of ignore that stuff given that whatever the current administration says overrules anything that came previously, but if the truth according to the church changes doesn't that mean that what they're telling you now could be wrong? (e.g, if the church was wrong about the inquisitions, but changed it's tune later, could it be wrong about aids in Africa now? Do you think about things like that or do you just assume that god will sort things out?)

Anyway, thanks for giving me the opportunity to use comeuppance in a sentence.

Anonymous said...

Made from recycled fiber, you said:

{I would like to ask Anonymous to not speak for Catholic women, as a woman who was raised in the Catholic tradition we are treated as "broodmares". If you do not believe me ask my great-grandmother who had 19 children. And also within Catholicism, the only women who can be great are the virgins, leaving the rest of us to have the babies.}

I didn't speak for Catholic women. I said Catholic women would object, such as my wife and many other Catholic women throughout my family and extended family, as well as my parish. So, I'm interested, how did your grand-mother feel abused by Church teaching? Did somebody from the Church's magisterium force her to have 19 children? Just wondering. And where did you get the mistaken notion that only virgins can become great in the Church? Also, what do you believe is attaining greatness?

{I also find it amusing that you are claiming that only Orthodox Catholics do not use birth control, because apparently you are now picking and choosing what to follow within the Catholic tradition, because any TRUE Catholic would never use birth control without the knowledge that they are going against religious teachings, Popes and the bible.}

A True Catholic would be an Orthodox Catholic. An orthodox Catholic is one who follows the Church's teachings. A heretical Catholic is one who picks and chooses which Church teachings they want to follow, and have not been formally excommunicated. Your paragraph doesn't make one bit of sense. If I was "picking and choosing", I would cease to be an Orthodox Catholic, and would be a heretic of the Church, which is what the word heresy means.

Anonymous said...

{There are different rules for men and for women. That's one way that the church does not treat them as equals.}

Examples please.

{The bible is full of rules, you don't need to read very far to find one that's specifically aimed at either sex.}

Every organized government on earth is "full of rules".

{But it's not even that, it's the way the church has historically (and still does) feared women's power. The Inquisition, anyone?}

You seem to have little understanding of the Inquisition. Not one of the Inquisitions were targeted at women. They were targeted at heretical Catholics.

{There is, as JF's fiancee alluded to, a pronounced madonna/whore complex in the church. }

Which is completely false.

{Women are not seen as complex people like men - they are either virginal saints you can place on a pedestal and gaze up at in wonder, or as wives that you can beget 19 or 20 little Catholic munchkins on. }

Once again, you have a poor understanding of Catholic teaching. You really need to pick up a Cathecism.

{The church condemns women who make choices about their own bodies and sexuality.}

Nope. The Church condemns women who make choices about children's bodies which result in death. The Church also condemns women who make choices which inflict harm on thier own bodies and disrupt nature by artificial contraception.

{It puts enormous pressure on young women to remain virgins until they are married. When that's something your church tells you "good girls" do, it's not a choice for you. }

Actually, the Church restricts sex outside of a marriage on both men and women for several reasons. First, sex builds union between a man and a woman. Without a commitment on both sides, this unifying aspect of sex is spat upon. Secondly, since the natural consequence of sex is the possibility of conception, the Church wants children to be raised in an enviroment where they are nutured by both Mother and Father, and be raised in an unbroken family. These are just a couple among many reasons why the Church prohibits sex outside of marriage for both men and women. Also, the Church does not "choose" whether or not a girl has sex. The local bishop cannot stop somebody from having sex. However, what the Bishop can do is excommunicate the individual if the communicant refuses to repent for thier sin.

{The church is the biggest slut-shamer there is. It is afraid of powerful women, afraid of homosexuals, afraid of anyone who challenges the profitable male-dominant power structure.}

The Church is not afraid of powerful women (the most powerful woman is Mary, Mother of the Church), is not afraid of homosexuals (we welcome those struggling with homosexuality with open arms), and certainly isn't afraid of anyone who challenges the so-called "profitable, male dominated power structure". In my previous post I gave you the reason why the clergy is male-only. The clerics act in persona Christi........Christ was a man, and ordinated men to the episcopate. The Church is not free to change this structure.

{As for the results of the church's views on sexuality, you yourself mentioned that the church has been around for a long time. Obviously it has a huge influence on people.}

2,000 years and counting. It has converted nation upon nation. The Roman Empire spent nearly 300 years trying to supress it, but failed. What was once the centre of Christian persecution, Rome, has been gloriously transformed into the centre of Christianity, The Holy See.

{It has it's fingers in a lot of nasty pots - like all the Catholic countries where abortion is outlawed, and subsequently thousands of women die every year from botched back alley and self-inflicted abortions.}

I fail to see how women who act contrary to the law of the Church, and get an abortion that is botched, can be blamed on the Church...since it outlaws abortion to begin with.

{How about abstinence-only sex education, that's doing tons of good stuff, right? (sarcasm!).}

It does great things for those who follow the teaching.

{How about condemning condom use in Africa? Really helping out with the ol' AIDS pandemic, aren't they?}

First, off, the Church condemns sex outside of marriage, which is the greatest portion of the problem in the AIDS pandemic. Secondly, the Church also actively promotes research to find a cure for the AIDS virus.

{How about consistent messages of hatred against homosexuals?}

Really, could you please show me from an official Catholic document a "message of hatred against homosexuals"? The Church condemns the act of homosexual intercourse, not people with homosexual inclinations.

{Ever heard of Matthew Shepard? He was beaten to death for being gay. He's not the only one.}

And where is the official document or statement from the Church's magisterium which orders beatings for gay? I can't seem to find it. Could you please direct me to where I can obtain the information? The Church can't control those who commit heresy against Catholic teaching. Sorry, but we allow each member of the Church to have free will......we can't stop every single person from committing sin and falling into heresy.

{If the Catholic church didn't have such a huge influence on the majority of the world, I wouldn't give a shit about their backwards beliefs. But they do, and I do.}

You previously told me you didn't give a shit about what the Church teaches. I'm confused.

{Defend it all you want; the church hurts women and their allies because they are intent on taking away women's choices.}

Women's choices to do what? To kill children? Of course we are against that "choice". The Church is also against a woman's choice to commit murder, a woman's choice to commit theft, and so on. Some "choices" have a negative impact on society, and it's those choices the Church is against. And I'll keep defending it until the day I die. I'd rather defend an institution which cannot be destroyed and has existed for 2,000 years, over a country's law which has only been in existence for just over 20 years.

{I have nothing against individual religious beliefs, but the church as an organization is a disgusting and outdated monolith of abuse, control and hatred.}

You should be thanking the Church for its endless battle for human rights, and its defense against Islamic forces throughout history who have tried to conquer your ancestors. Instead you consider it disgusting and outdated. Obviously the Church is not outdated, as 1 out of every 6 people on earth are a member of it.

{Feeling enlightened yet?}

Sadly, no. The more this dialogue continues, the more I am reinforced in the Church's doctrinal authority.

Anonymous said...

{haha, i heart pro lifers, "all humans are dignified and have a right to life . . . unless you disagree with me!! abort all who dissent!!!1111"

haha, i heart the catholic church, "aids in africa is bad, but condoms are worse!!!!1111"}

Could you please direct me to the documentation from the Holy See where these two statements are made?

The Pedgehog said...

You seem to think that just because the church doesn't come right out and say something, then it must not support or even influence that belief. The church as an organization exists only to consolidate power for itself; it deliberately sets up systems and rules to maintain the ignorance and fear inherent in the majority of its followers. No it doesn't come out and say (for example), "hate the gays". But it does, through its teachings, both instill a fear of what is "unnatural", and a clear idea of what fits that definition. Ignorant people do not differentiate between sins and sinners. I am not saying that all the church's followers are ignorant, but it benefits the church when they are.

Please do not dismiss the Inquisition as something that only affected "heretical Catholics" (as if that is an excuse to torture and murder thousands of people anyway). It was a direct effort to make people afraid of those who questioned the tyranny of the church, and those who simply chose to be different. Women with power were its number one target, whether you believe the whitewash or not. Please read the Malleus Maleficarum for an enlightening list of things a woman could be blamed (and burned) for, if she did not fit the model of good Catholic. Follow any religion you want, but when you torture and kill people for not believing, you SIN. And yet the church did that. Still think it's infallible?

I don't want to argue in circles with you about it, because you're just going to continue making excuses for the church. Maybe if you were in the shoes of the millions who have been victimized by it, you might see it in a different light, but I won't hold my breath. Just know that maybe you should look a bit deeper than the literature the church itself hands you. Because just because they don't come out and say "we want to keep women in their place", doesn't mean that isn't part of the agenda.

You're the one who needs an organization in between yourself and "god". What are you afraid of, that you can't talk to her yourself?

Anonymous said...

lock, you said:

{To me that still reads as women not being equal to men. Men=yes, women=no. Why? Because it says so in the book that I trust as infallible.}

First, off, we don't trust in that teaching because "the book that I trust as infallible" says so. Catholicism is not a Bible only religion. We trust so because we believe that the Magisterium of the Church is charismed with infallibility when pronouncing judgement on an issue involving faith and morals. And, as I said, we do not believe that a woman is unequal to a man because they are not ordained to the episcopate. For example, we do not believe that the average layman is less than equal to the Virgin Mary because one is a man and Mary is a female. Although all people are equal to Mary, Mary played a special role in God's plan of salvation. In the same way, all men and women are equal. The clerics of the Church play a special role in God's plan of salvation, but in no way are they above any woman sitting in a pew. In truth, the woman who sits in the pew may achieve salvation, while a priest may be excluded from eternal salvation, depending on thier faith in this life and whether they have worked good or evil in this life.

{It must be nice to have that kind of order and certainty in your life. It must feel good to know that you are right and that those who disagree are going to get their comeuppance.}

I feel blessed every day to think that the Lord allowed me to be included in His Catholic Church. But, actually, I feel very sadened that some of those who disagree with the Church may be excluded from eternal salvation, which is why I continuosly include them in my prayers.

{However, a lot of us don't have that trust, so we have to navigate life based on what we think or feel is right.}

And the result of what people "think or feel" is right is often tragic. I'm sure that Adolf Hitler thought and felt that exterminating the Jewish race was in best interests of his people. Unfortunately the Church cannot condone doing what somebody thinks and feels is right when it is morally unethical.

{Your use of biblical arguments is irrelevant because the people you are arguing with don't consider them to be valid.}

I didn't use any biblical arguments to argue my pro-life views with unbelievers.

{Now, since I have someone with your knowledge available to me, could you tell me where it is in the bible that Jesus said that humans should create a hierarchical, authoritarian structure that has spent most of the last 1500 years attempting to gain as much power as possible?}

Nowhere....but I thought you didn't believe the Bible is valid?

{Also, how do you deal with the period when there were multiple popes (three from 1409-1415!)? Isn't that strange? Does it make you wonder about whether or not you should trust the current pope? }

There were not multiple popes. There was one valid Pope, and an array of invalid Popes. That's not strange......the Church has been dealing with heretics who unlawfully try to ascend to the Chair of Peter long before 1409. And no, it doesn't make me lose trust in the current Pope, as according to canon law he was the rightful successor to the Chair of Peter.

{What about church sponsored atrocities like the Spanish Inquisition? They tortured and killed a lot of conversos.}

I agree with the process of Inquisition of heretics. What I disagree with is Monarchs like King Ferdinand upsurping authority over the Inquisition from the Holy See, and excessive practices of torture that were not ordered by the Holy See. Also, if you somehow are trying to discredit Papal Infallibility by this, you really need to learn the teaching of Papal Infallibility. The dogma of Papal Infallibility does not say that the Bishop of Rome will be sinless. What Papal Infallibility says is that when a Bishop of Rome defines, declares and pronounces doctrine on an issue of faith and morals, the teaching is infallible. The application of that teaching is not infallible, nor does Papal infallibility keep the Pope from being a sinner. Pope Benedict XVI goes to confession once a week.

{How about how Jesus wasn't even 'officially' the son of god until the council of Nicaea?}

The Church's Holy Tradition, which is infallible, already taught that Jesus was the Son of God long before the Council of Nicaea. The Church, however, officially defined the doctrine in light of the heretical interpretations that were being taught by some Bishops of the Church.

{Even if you dislike Luther, what do you think of the indulgences that the church was taking in the 16th century?}

Indulgences are a valid practice which stem from the Church's magisterium having the authority to bind and loose. What I disagree with, like Luther did, is any of the Church's clergy acting contrary to the Church's conditions for the granting of an indulgence, and asking for money in order to release the indulgence. Demanding payment for an indulgence is contrary to the Church's doctrine on Indulgences. Luther was right in opposing this abuse. However, where Luther and the Church disagree is in the many heretical doctrines he taught, which were untraditional, unscriptural and defied logic.

{I know that you can sort of ignore that stuff given that whatever the current administration says overrules anything that came previously, but if the truth according to the church changes doesn't that mean that what they're telling you now could be wrong?}

More misconceptions. The Church declare or define any teaching which is contrary to a teaching previously defined, or is contrary to the Church's Holy Tradition. The Church's official teachings on faith and morals never change, nor will they. Therefore, I don't have to worry that what they are teaching is wrong.

{(e.g, if the church was wrong about the inquisitions, but changed it's tune later, could it be wrong about aids in Africa now? Do you think about things like that or do you just assume that god will sort things out?)}

The Church's teaching on the inquisitions that it sanctioned were not wrong. That is why we still to this day have the Holy Office of the Inquistion, now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I totally agree with inquiring with an individual who is accused of heresy. What I disagree with is state involvement which acts contrary to the teaching of the Church, or individual clerics acting contrary to the teaching of the Church when performing an Inquisition.

{Anyway, thanks for giving me the opportunity to use comeuppance in a sentence.}

lol.......no problem. Indulgence granted. :)

Anonymous said...

Pedgehog, you said:

{You seem to think that just because the church doesn't come right out and say something, then it must not support or even influence that belief.}

No, I think that the Church only officially supports doctrines and teachings which it actually teaches, rather than what some people may interpret it as teaching or believing that misconceptions about what the Church teaches are true.

{The church as an organization exists only to consolidate power for itself;}

Really? The Church certainly doesn't teach this.

{No it doesn't come out and say (for example), "hate the gays". But it does, through its teachings, both instill a fear of what is "unnatural", and a clear idea of what fits that definition.}

Hmmmmm. Well, that's certainly not my experience. When I was an Athiest, I probably could have been classified as homophobic, however, since I became a Catholic I've been much more understanding and have actually built up friendships with individuals both in and out of the Church struggling with homosexuality. I'm able to look past a homosexual's lifestyle and see them invidually as people created as my equal and in the image of God. I'm able now to see that when I commit a mortal sin, I'm just as unworthy to eat and drink the Lord's flesh and blood as they are.

{Ignorant people do not differentiate between sins and sinners.}

I agree. Ignorant people don't.

{ I am not saying that all the church's followers are ignorant, but it benefits the church when they are.}

No, it doesn't benefit the Church at all. It benefits the Church for a member to not be ignorant, so therefore heretical views are not espoused about the Church, and each believer may give an account for his/her faith. It's usually the "ignorant" Catholics who practice and teach heresy, or who try to condemn practices or teachings which the Church does not condemn.

{Please do not dismiss the Inquisition as something that only affected "heretical Catholics" (as if that is an excuse to torture and murder thousands of people anyway).}

It didn't affect anyone other than baptized Catholics. No Inquisition inquisited non-Catholics. As I previously addressed, torture was not condoned by the Church's teaching. The Inquisitions were primarily called on for the Catharist herersy, the Albigensian heresy, the Conversos who reverted to practicing and teaching doctrines contrary to the Church, and the Protestant heresy which publicly taught and practiced doctrines contrary to the Church. The people involved were Catholics.

{It was a direct effort to make people afraid of those who questioned the tyranny of the church, and those who simply chose to be different.}

Although each Inquisition had different reasons for being called, it was primarily to stop Catholics from teaching and spreading heresy against the Church's official teachings. The Church allows differences of practice, which is why there are 23 rites of liturgy in the Church, but does not allow heretical teachings and practices to be promulgated in the Church.

{Women with power were its number one target, whether you believe the whitewash or not. Please read the Malleus Maleficarum for an enlightening list of things a woman could be blamed (and burned) for, if she did not fit the model of good Catholic. Follow any religion you want, but when you torture and kill people for not believing, you SIN. And yet the church did that. Still think it's infallible?}

Thanks, I'll read it, and research the author. Now, I ask you to read the Cathecism of the Catholic Church, so you will have a proper understanding of what Church and Papal infallibility is. Infallibility does not mean that each Catholic is guarded from performing sin. Infallibility means that any teaching which is defined, declared or pronounced on an issue of faith or morals is without error. Application of that doctrine is not infallible, nor does this mean that individual bishops or priests will somehow be safeguarded from committing sin. And yes, I still think it's infallible.

{I don't want to argue in circles with you about it, because you're just going to continue making excuses for the church.}

Fair enough, you'll just keep making excuses to be outside of the Church anyways.

{Maybe if you were in the shoes of the millions who have been victimized by it, you might see it in a different light, but I won't hold my breath.}

Way to inflate numbers. But, perhaps if you actually learned what the Church teaches, you would stop misrepresenting the teachings of the Church. Perhaps if you'd read about the thousands of men and women who have given thier lives up to martyrdom for it, you wouldn't be so hostile. I won't hold my breath, either.

{Just know that maybe you should look a bit deeper than the literature the church itself hands you.}

I happen to be an avid reader of the literature the Church hands me. In fact, it was my study of Church and Jewish history which was responsible for my conversion to the Catholic Church.

{Because just because they don't come out and say "we want to keep women in their place", doesn't mean that isn't part of the agenda.}

Well, until I can somehow steal Pope Benedict XVI and all of the Magisterium's brainwaves, I'll have to trust that what they actually officially teach is what they actually teach.

{You're the one who needs an organization in between yourself and "god".}

Nope, I don't NEED it. God commanded me to adhere to it. The Church isn't between me and God....the very head of the Church is God.

{What are you afraid of, that you can't talk to her yourself?}

Oh, no, I'm not afraid at all. I'm just recognizing that God is the head of His Church. Since He built the Church and promised to be it's Head for all of time, I figured that I should probably listen when He speaks. And if by "her" you mean the Mother of God, I talk to her daily, when I ask for her supplications and intercession.

Anonymous said...

......and Godwin's Law has just been invoked, thus declaring this argument over.

Abortion - still legal, like it or not.

Made from recycled fiber said...

Anonymous said:
{So, I'm interested, how did your grand-mother feel abused by Church teaching? Did somebody from the Church's magisterium force her to have 19 children? Just wondering.}

My great-grandmother was at 17 forced to marry my great-grandfather a "respected" Catholic by a Catholic Priest as well as her father a "respected" Catholic, because my great-grandfather was widowed and needed a mother for his children. Also the only reason she had the 19 children, was because she made a deal with my great-grandfather that if he stopped drinking (he was a violent, abusive alcoholic) then she would have as many children as he wanted. So if you can read this and not see her as oppressed or being used by men and the church, then I truly pity you.

Lock said...

"Nowhere....but I thought you didn't believe the Bible is valid?"

It's as valid as any other collection of information, especially if you consider it within the contexts which its elements were written. You can take practically any piece of information and twist it to an end. You just pick and choose a bunch of them and dismiss the others that conflict with the end that your working towards. So three popes can be labelled anti-popes and a new pope can be appointed. It's all about interpretation.

Personally, there are a few parts of the bible that I find compelling, but that's also true of dozens of other works (). The difference is that you simply believe what you are told (I guess your faith means that you have to) while I believe that everything should be questioned and that nothing, especially non-public institutions, should have authority over a human. In biblical terms: I have eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and it was delicious. However, I am now fully responsible for my decisions, good or bad, just as Hitler and those involved in his 'government' or the pope and the catholic church are responsible for theirs.

"I didn't use any biblical arguments to argue my pro-life views with unbelievers."

I wasn't talking about abortion. I don't care what you think about abortion. I was talking about this:

"...because Jesus Christ ordained men to the priesthood, the Church simply follows Jesus Christ and does the same. And, of course, since Jesus Christ was a male, and the Priest acts in persona christi, then logically only males can be ordained to distribute the sacraments."

I asked all of those questions because I'm interested in your linear, unified view of the world. I'm interested in how you managed to give up all of your will to another entity. I wasn't looking for any answers, I just wanted to see how you would justify the different bits of information that I threw your way. I wondered if you would simply fall back to the stock church answers on each of those instances or if you would show that you had the capacity to think on your own. I guess you can't because that would be at odds with the faith that you have in the church. I mean, if you thought about things and then came to different conclusions, you'd just have to confess/repent them. So it would really just be a rather pointless exercise for you.

Please don't worry that I'll miss out on "eternal salvation." I don’t worry that you're wasting your life following a pointless set of rules. That's your choice to make. It just bothers me when the rules that you follow and the church that you support, or any other organization for that matter, are hurting and limiting other people.

I know that you will ask for examples, but there isn't really a point in me bringing any up because you will simply deny all of them regardless of their merit, so here's an alternative question for you: I can see positive and negative aspects in my own politic and moral position(s). I can also see positive and negative aspects of the catholic church. Do you think that the catholic church has any negative aspects?

Anonymous said...

made from recycled fiber, you said:

{My great-grandmother was at 17 forced to marry my great-grandfather a "respected" Catholic by a Catholic Priest as well as her father a "respected" Catholic, because my great-grandfather was widowed and needed a mother for his children. Also the only reason she had the 19 children, was because she made a deal with my great-grandfather that if he stopped drinking (he was a violent, abusive alcoholic) then she would have as many children as he wanted. So if you can read this and not see her as oppressed or being used by men and the church, then I truly pity you.}

Ok, first, in what way was she "forced" to do so? Under the threat of death? What exactly do you mean by forced? If she was "forced" to do so by the Catholic priest, then this priest informally excommunicated himself. The Church does not allow forced marriages, or marriages to be performed under duress. Did your great-grandmother seek annulment? She certainly would have met the criteria for annulment. The Church teaches that an invalid marriage has taken place when one party has been forced into it against thier will, and therefore the "Catholic" priest and "Catholic" great grandfather participated in heresy against Catholic teaching. The Church does not guarantee that all of its members and clergy will remain sinless.

Also, your great grandfather was committing mortal sin by being a drunkard. Rather than your grandmother trying to cut deals with him to get him to stop drinking, she should have been urging him to repent and seek the sacrament of reconcilliation. So, these this Catholic priest and catholic man couldn't be classifield as orthodox Catholics, when they were so openly disobedient to the Church's teaching. Also, how was your great grandmother "forced" to have 19 children, when she agreed that she would follow that path on the condition that your grandfather stopped drinking? It sounds to me like your grandmother proposed the deal, rather than your grandmother.....therefore how could it be the Church's fault for her having 19 kids when she proposed this is something she would do?

Anonymous said...

lock, you said:

{It's as valid as any other collection of information, especially if you consider it within the contexts which its elements were written.}

But earlier you told me the Bible wasn't valid, so I assumed you meant that in all respects it couldn't be considered valid.

{You can take practically any piece of information and twist it to an end. You just pick and choose a bunch of them and dismiss the others that conflict with the end that your working towards.}

Which is why were so severe in the excommunicating Protestants. They wanted to pick and choose what they believed from the Church's teachings, then try to twist a collection of books to suit thier interpretations and use it as the final doctrinal authority. Which makes little sense, since the Church was the institution that declared which books comprised the Christian scriptures and which books were not to be included.

{So three popes can be labelled anti-popes and a new pope can be appointed. It's all about interpretation.}

There have been more than 3 anti-popes. It's not about interpretation, it's about authority residing in the Magisterium of the Church.

{Personally, there are a few parts of the bible that I find compelling, but that's also true of dozens of other works }

I highly agree.

{The difference is that you simply believe what you are told (I guess your faith means that you have to) while I believe that everything should be questioned and that nothing, especially non-public institutions, should have authority over a human.}

Well, unfortunately lock your statement is false. I do not "simply believe what I am told". Our faith, once we become a believer, requires us to adhere to formally defined dogma, dogmas which are irreformable because of the charism of infallibility graced upon the Church by Jesus Christ. Christ appointed Peter to be the primary sheperd of the Church on earth, and the Apostles and men they ordained to be our Pastors and hierarchy. Every organized society needs an authoritative magisterium, otherwise we have complete chaos. Think, for a second. If the fathers of the American constitution wrote the constitution and simply left each American to interpret it for themselves without any hierarchy of authority for interpretation and application of the constitution, we'd never have a convicted criminal, as each person would simply interpret the constitution to suit thier particular situation.

{I asked all of those questions because I'm interested in your linear, unified view of the world. I'm interested in how you managed to give up all of your will to another entity.}

Where does the Church teach that Catholics must give up free will? Nowhere.

{I wasn't looking for any answers,}

It's rather strange to ask a question when not looking for an answer.

{I wondered if you would simply fall back to the stock church answers on each of those instances or if you would show that you had the capacity to think on your own.}

I did give the Church's answer, as I thought about it, and agreed with the Church. My answer also happened to be the Church's answer.

{I guess you can't because that would be at odds with the faith that you have in the church. }

No, actually, I'm not at odds with the Church because I agree with the Church. This is why I became a Catholic.

{I mean, if you thought about things and then came to different conclusions, you'd just have to confess/repent them. So it would really just be a rather pointless exercise for you.}

No, if I thought about things, came to a different conclusion than the dogma of the Church, I would have two options. Option 1: Leave the Church or Option 2: Dig deeper and see if I have misunderstood the Church's doctrine.

{Please don't worry that I'll miss out on "eternal salvation."}

I wasn't.

{I don’t worry that you're wasting your life following a pointless set of rules. That's your choice to make.}

I'm wasting my life. So, what if I'm having fun? If your right, we've only got but a few years left anyways and then what? We'll cease to exist, so it won't matter what we've done regardless, and our memories of this life will vanish. However, if I'm right, I'll hopefully spend eternity in eternal bliss, while you could potentially spend eternity in misery.

{It just bothers me when the rules that you follow and the church that you support, or any other organization for that matter, are hurting and limiting other people.}

And it bothers me that the views you support are hurting and killing innocent human beings.

{I know that you will ask for examples, but there isn't really a point in me bringing any up because you will simply deny all of them regardless of their merit, so here's an alternative question for you:}

I don't deny all or your examples, what I do deny is your misunderstandings of Catholicism.

{Do you think that the catholic church has any negative aspects?}

It depends upon what you mean. Historically, have members of the Church performed evil works? Yes. Has there been evil members of the clergy? Yes. Has the Church ever had fanatical members who try to use the Church for thier own selfish gain? Yes. Has a cleric or Pope ever delayed teaching when they could have quickly ended a heresy and avoided massive turmoil within the Church? Yes. Has and does the Church have members who have at times taken one teaching (like the teaching on abortion, for example) and used and taught in a way that actually hinders people from coming to God rather than showing God's mercy and forgiveness? Yes. Is the Church's official teachings on faith and morals infallible? Yes.

To give you an example of what I mean:

At the abortion clinic in my home city, I've been an active protester for a number of years. We once had a woman protesting who shouted and yelled "Spawns of Satan" and "Children of the Devil" at some of the patients going to get abortions. I took this woman aside and told her that by her shouting such things at these women is not in anyway helping or influencing them. If anything, it's making them more hostile to you and is not displaying God's love, mercy and forgiveness. We are to conduct ourselves in accordance with Christian standards. This is one way in which, although I agree with her views on abortion, she is actually shutting people out from the Kingdom of God rather than displaying the Love of Jesus Christ. Shouting and yelling about how evil people are and not displaying Christ's compassion and love is using an orthodox teaching in a harmful manner.

Anonymous said...

Persona Christi? Fuck that. It's a much more laudable goal to have clergy that resembles Christ in spirit than than to have clergy that has roughly the same physical attributes. Give me a female priest who advocates loving thy neighbor than a hateful male priest who relies on antiquated dogmatic arguments to justify hatred toward women, non-repentant homosexuals, and all other "undesirables" who don't tow the official line.

Surely, nobody (at least nobody with a capacity for free thought) believes that the mighty Catholic Church has no ulterior motives for some of its ridiculous stances. Objection to birth control? There's a neat little policy designed to ensure that there were always enough souls to tax (I mean tithe) and soldiers to fight. The objection to abortion? Same rationale. Homosexuality? See above.

First and foremost, the Catholic Church is a business. Not just any business, but a political business. The Church is imminently powerful and wealthy; a force so lucrative that its higher ups are unwilling to show any signs of dissension, for fear that its status will falter on the international stage. As well as money, the Catholic Church deals in guilt, and forced obedience. The Church is unwilling to do anything that will cause it to lose its privileged position on the world stage, so it perpetuates ritual and policies that are obsolete and harmful, rather then admit that its ascendants outlawed perfectly harmless behaviors that were detrimental to the Church.

Like any business or political organization, the first concern of the Catholic Church is and always has been, its own well-being. If the Church were truly the advocate of the people that it claims to be, it would devote its energies to accepting those people who judge not, and disassociating itself from those hateful fools who believe that the teachings of the Pope are infallible, even when the sober second thought of history has shown them to be backwards and discriminatory.

-E

apple said...

Could you please direct me to the documentation from the Holy See where these two statements are made?

June 30, 2008 10:38 AM<<

The Pedgehog covered this for the most part, but i wanted to add that the first statement was a reference to pro lifers, not the catholic church. and for proof, all you have to do is look at this discussion. Abramowicz told the author of this blog that she was an "abortion he would agree with"

the second statement is essentially the official position of the catholic church. the leaders of the church know (like everyone on earth knows) that aids has destroyed millions of lives in africa (and beginning to do so in asia) yet they refuse to support the distribution of condoms to those who need them. they do so because, in their view, condoms are not acceptable because we are supposed to be abstinent until marriage and then multiply until there is standing room only and we have to colonize mars.

that is tantamount to saying "aids is bad, but condoms are worse"

Lock said...

Anonymous: "I'm wasting my life. So, what if I'm having fun?"

That's great. Protesting at abortion clinics must be a great time. I'd love to check out the after parties. I bet they're wild.

Anonymous: "If your right, we've only got but a few years left anyways and then what? We'll cease to exist, so it won't matter what we've done regardless, and our memories of this life will vanish."

Exactly, the decisions that we make in the present are all we have. That's why they are so important. That's also why I can't understand why you're willing to just follow the party line.

Anonymous: "However, if I'm right, I'll hopefully spend eternity in eternal bliss, while you could potentially spend eternity in misery."

Misery? I thought that if you're right then it's all about a lack of god and an "eternal exclusion from the presence of the lord." So presumaply things would be similar to how they are now, but all the dogmatic religious folks would be off experiencing external bliss? I could handle that. Eternal bliss sounds hella boring anyway.

Anonymous said...

anonymous, you said:

{Persona Christi? Fuck that. It's a much more laudable goal to have clergy that resembles Christ in spirit than than to have clergy that has roughly the same physical attributes. Give me a female priest who advocates loving thy neighbor than a hateful male priest who relies on antiquated dogmatic arguments to justify hatred toward women, non-repentant homosexuals, and all other "undesirables" who don't tow the official line.}

Well, first off, you can find a female priest if you'd like, just go to the local Anglican Church or any of the other 33,000 heretical sects in existence. Unfortunately, you won't be recieving the Body and Blood of Christ, or the true teachings of Jesus Christ. But, do as you will. You seem to think that all male priests rely on "antiquated dogmatic arguments", which is false, and "justify hatred toward women, non-repentant homosexuals, and all other "undesirables" who don't tow the official line" which are all false claims. You need to pick up a copy of the Cathecism of the Catholic Church. Just ask the local parish priest......he would be more than happy to provide you with one free of charge.

{Surely, nobody (at least nobody with a capacity for free thought) believes that the mighty Catholic Church has no ulterior motives for some of its ridiculous stances.}

Its stances aren't ridiculous.

{Objection to birth control? There's a neat little policy designed to ensure that there were always enough souls to tax (I mean tithe) and soldiers to fight.}

No, actually its a "neat little policy" which complies with nature itself and holds human sexuality within its proper context. It's also a little policy which discourages sex outside of a marriage and discourages little Johnny from fucking every girl in the neighbourhood.

{The objection to abortion? Same rationale. Homosexuality? See above.}

Ok, at this point all I can say is......Have you looked into why the Church teaches what it does AT ALL? I mean, your conclusions on Church teaching are so far from the truth that at this point I'm going to pop my favourite beverage, rip open a big bag of chips and and entertain myself with the rest of your post.

{First and foremost, the Catholic Church is a business. Not just any business, but a political business.}

Geesh....wrong again. First and foremost, the Catholic Church is the Bride of Jesus Christ and the universal sacrament of salvation. Agreed, there are political and diplomatic aspects to it, but they are far from the primary purpose of it.

{The Church is imminently powerful and wealthy;}

Agreed. Though, what exactly do you mean by wealth? Sure, the Church owns massive amounts of property throughout the world, but that should be expected of an institution which has 1/6 of the world's population in communion. As far as the individual salaries of clergy and religious is concerned, I think you would be rather surprised with the low income they recieve in their positions.

{a force so lucrative that its higher ups are unwilling to show any signs of dissension, for fear that its status will falter on the international stage.}

No, we cannot allow dissension to continue amongst members when the Deposit of Faith handed on from the Apostles is contradicted and is publicly taught in our churches, not because of some fear of faltering on the international stage.

{As well as money, the Catholic Church deals in guilt, and forced obedience. }

I'm sorry if the Catholic Church's doctrine makes you feel guilty, but the Church does not force obedience. If you don't agree with the Church's doctrine, fine.......your subject to excommunication from the communion. See ya later. And for money, the Church doesn't force anyone to donate a cent.....you may be thinking of Protestant communions which require tithing, which the Church does not require.

{The Church is unwilling to do anything that will cause it to lose its privileged position on the world stage, so it perpetuates ritual and policies that are obsolete and harmful, rather then admit that its ascendants outlawed perfectly harmless behaviors that were detrimental to the Church.}

Less conspiracy theories which you fail to support, and more fact, then we'll talk.

{Like any business or political organization, the first concern of the Catholic Church is and always has been, its own well-being.}

Really.....you can verify this with documentation and historical record?

{If the Church were truly the advocate of the people that it claims to be, it would devote its energies to accepting those people who judge not,}

Judging is one of the primary charisms given to the Church by Jesus Christ. We can't accept just every wind of doctrine and every fanciful belief which pops up out of the blue. If you'd like go to a "church" who's doctrine is always changing, you can pick any of the 33,000 Protestant denominations that are available to you. Maybe you'll find a home in one of them.

{and disassociating itself from those hateful fools who believe that the teachings of the Pope are infallible}

Well, if Jesus Christ was one of those hateful fools you're talking about, who gave Peter the charism of infallibility as sheperd of the Church, then sorry, but we can't dissaociate ourself from our founder and head.

{even when the sober second thought of history has shown them to be backwards and discriminatory.}

Ok, blah blah blah, just the usual slander. When you're ready to actually debate teachings or anything with some substantial evidence, then we'll talk. Inform me when you're ready. You're boring me.

The Pedgehog said...

You know, if you're bored, you don't have to keep reading this stuff. You can leave. At least four people here have told you what they think about the church, and, as expected, you've "refuted" them with "oh why don't you read the Cathechism? Because I think you're wrong". The thing is, if people feel oppressed by the church, then that makes the church oppressive, whether it's intentional or not. Which is fine, whatever, we just won't be Catholics, and you can be, and everyone can go on their merry way. But you're the one who came here and brought it up, even though it has nothing to do with abortion. You don't think we're all bored silly by your Bride of Christ nonsense? You don't like it, stop reading it. It's the internet, there's lots of other places you can go troll.

Anonymous said...

Pedge, couldn't agree more.

All I'm getting out of this guy's holier-than-thou threadjackings are: 1. I'm Catholic, so what I believe in MUST BE RIGHT, and 2. You're wrong, and this is why, according to Catholicism.

To Captain Catholic:

Well, let's put it this way. You say abortion is wrong because your holy book and holy leaders say so, even though what you're doing is oppressive to someone else (the mother). Your God says "everyone has free will to choose right or wrong".

Well, my Bibliogram (for lack of a better word) teaches that Kodos, the holy son of Mickey Mouse, hallowed be his name, allows abortions for some, small American flags for others. See, says so right there. Therefore, it MUST be right. It's written, and I've preached it, you see?

All kidding aside, the simple fact of the matter is that you cloak yourself in religion to feel protected, in that you are free to choose right or wrong with the faith that you will be judged by those choices. However, you also cloak your eyes, and you can't see that millions of people are making choices of their own and doing just fine by those choices, even though they don't agree with your beliefs. Tolerance has never been the strong suit of any stripe of Christianity. "Love thy neighbour as thyself, as long as they aren't different, in which case God says it's OK to hate". To borrow a Catholic phrase, "Jesus wept."

Religion, though, is highly critical of those who *gasp* think for themselves.

Again, as has been mentioned, you can believe what you will, but abortion's still legal, and as long as it is, then people will go to clinics. Get. Over. It. Already.

jj said...

Holy crap! What happened here??LOL

Pedgehog, it looks like you've been invaded by drooling, slackjawed idiots.

Guess what, fetus fetishists -- Dr. Morgentaler's probably getting the Order of Canada Award today! I guess the silent, non-slobbering majority has spoken!

Anonymous said...

Pedghog, you said:

{You know, if you're bored, you don't have to keep reading this stuff.}

Well, I am finding some entertainment value in them, so I guess I was wrong to say they are completely boring me. What bores me is making a claim without any supporting evidence.

{At least four people here have told you what they think about the church, and, as expected, you've "refuted" them with "oh why don't you read the Cathechism?}

No, actually if you'll read through the comments again, I refuted thier arguments with Catholic teaching. When I did point them to the Cathecism, I did so because they made claims about Catholic teaching which are so far from the truth they need to actually read what the Church teaches, rather than believing their minsunderstandings of what the Church believes.

{The thing is, if people feel oppressed by the church, then that makes the church oppressive, whether it's intentional or not.}

Perhaps I feel babies are being oppressed by Pro-Abortion clinics? Does that then mean that babies are being oppressed just because I feel so? I think you'd argue that. The same holds true with the Church.

{But you're the one who came here and brought it up, even though it has nothing to do with abortion.}

No, actually if you'll read through the entire comment board, I started by discussing abortion with you, and then the attacks on the Church began, which is why we came to this point.

{You don't think we're all bored silly by your Bride of Christ nonsense?}

Well, I was having a merry old conversation about killing babies, then added a comment regarding the Papal teaching on abortion directed to ALL CHRISTIANS, which you took the liberty to respond to, starting the entire debate on Christian doctrine to begin with. You say that the Church being the Bride of Christ is nonsense, yet you offer no refutation.

{You don't like it, stop reading it. It's the internet, there's lots of other places you can go troll.}

I consider trolling to be copy and pasting arguments that are generalized and never personally address questions which are posed to them. Anyhow, if you and all of your Pro-Abortion friends only want Pro-Abortion opinions and dialogue on your comment section, I can understand, as I can see you hate what you accuse the Church of hating, Dissenters. I'll leave, it's been fun, however. :) Perhaps when I make my way to New Brunswick we'll meet face to face.

Anonymous said...

lock, you said:

{That's great. Protesting at abortion clinics must be a great time. I'd love to check out the after parties. I bet they're wild.}

Actually they are a great time. The after parties rock.

{Exactly, the decisions that we make in the present are all we have. That's why they are so important. That's also why I can't understand why you're willing to just follow the party line.}

How are the decisions that we make important, if tommorow they are absolutely vanished from our minds and are 100 % worthless? Without some afterlife, you and I are both in an unconcious state whose accomplishments here mean absolutely nothing nor can we change our destiny. What difference does it make? However, if our view of death is right, our works here mean absolutely everything and each decision we make plays a factor in our eternal destiny.

{Misery? I thought that if you're right then it's all about a lack of god and an "eternal exclusion from the presence of the lord."}

Yes, but lack of God and eternal exclusion isn't ALL that hell is. I would encourage you to read many of the NDE stories out there, or perhaps St. Faustina's writings about her time in hell. You'll be eternally tortured, and as Jesus said the fire and worm does not die.

{presumaply things would be similar to how they are now, but all the dogmatic religious folks would be off experiencing external bliss? I could handle that. Eternal bliss sounds hella boring anyway.}

Wrong. As of now, out of God's mercy, he hasn't completely removed His grace from you. He still allows all human beings to experience love, happiness, joy, peace, etc to some degrees of extent. In Gehenna you'll be devoid of all of these things, and weeping and gnashing your teeth while crying out for the burning fire to cease but finding no aid.

The Pedgehog said...

"Anyhow, if you and all of your Pro-Abortion friends only want Pro-Abortion opinions and dialogue on your comment section, I can understand, as I can see you hate what you accuse the Church of hating, Dissenters. I'll leave, it's been fun, however. :) Perhaps when I make my way to New Brunswick we'll meet face to face."

You said you were bored. So I said, you can leave. I never said I didn't want dissenting opinions here; now you're just making shit up.

I'm not interested in meeting you face to face - I've had enough people come to my door trying to convert me, thanks. Now get outside and start drinking; it's Canada Day, douchebags, and we've got an Order of Canada nominee to celebrate. :)

Beijing York said...

Ha ha ha Pedgehog. I'd be driven to the drink if I had to read all 92 comments too :-)

I will definitely join you in a toast to Dr. Morgentaler and Canada!!!! Order of Canada on this of all days is the best news I've heard in a long time. Icing on the cake would be to hear that Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell were also awarded Order of Canada honours on this day.

jj said...

Congratulations pedgehog & everyone else at Dr. M's clinic!!! C E L E B R A T E!!!

Amy O said...

I haven't been following this for a few days and I see that it's up to 95 comments.

All I have to say to this:

{Christians who aren't Catholic don't need a pope to interpret the bible for them. They can do that on their own.}

Yes, if you're a follower of the heretic Martin Luther. And certainly we Catholics can interpret the Bible on our own, however, when we encounter an area of disagreement in the Scriptures, we simply follow the Bible in Matthew 18:15-17 and consult the Church for final judgement on the matter. And of course, we can be guaranteed that this decision is the decision of Jesus Christ, as He promised Peter and the Apostles to bind and loose in heaven whatever they bound and loosed on earth. This promise extends to the Successors of the Apostles that have an Apostolic ordination.

{Thanks for the info, but next time you direct something at all Xtians, maybe you should stop, think a little bit, and direct it at the Catholics.}

I directed that post at all Christians because the Bishop of Rome is the universal teacher of all Christians. Regardless of whether or not a Christian is willing to accept the binding decisions of the Pope, Peter's successor is the Christian's authoritative teacher. Nearly 2,000 years and counting.

{Also, if you are trying to persuade people to 'see the light' of Catholicism and 'Christianity' you are going about it the wrong way.}

I was not trying to make people "see the light of Catholicism" nor "Christianity". I was offering the information on the Church's teaching to Christians who may happen to read this blog.

{Try loving your neighbour, instead of condemning them.}

A) I do love my neighbour. I wish each and every one of you to experience the grace of Jesus Christ.

B) I didn't condemn anyone. Condemnation is sentencing a person to eternal Hell. I did not, nor will I, ever condemn somebody, because I have not been bestowed with that authority. Jesus Christ has that authority. The hierarchy of the Church cannot even eternally condemn a person. However, what we can do is judge an individual's sin based on the Church's authoritative teaching because of the authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ. The Church has bound on earth that abortion is a grave mortal sin. This teaching is also bound in heaven by Jesus Christ. Anyone who rejects the Church's teaching on this matter is in danger of eternal condemnation.


IS HAHAHAHA What tripe! No one will ever take this person seriously. How naive.

Anonymous said...

I feel like this post needs 4 more comments (three after mine) to break the 100 mark. Epic. you guys can fight for 3 more comments:)

aimee! said...

jedstah:
"Comparing stealing, and pedophilia to rape and murder, is like comparing abortion to monster trucks. It just doesn't make any sense what so ever."


I laughed out loud in my cubicle. Nice work.

Orange Tree said...

A) http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/

B) Life does not begin at conception. Life began millions of years ago and has been a continuous cycle.

C) If all life is sacred then what about the womans life? Why must you punish her for biology that she cannot control? Whatever reason a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy is between her, her doctor and her deity (if she has one). Do Not Meddle In The Affairs Of Others.

D) Just because Jane Roe is anti-choice doesn't mean that Roe V Wade is nullified. Also look at Margret Sanger, crazy as she was she had a very good point that contraception prevents abortions. Read it, Accept it.

E) A wise woman on hell/God:

"Hell is the most illogical thing one can think of.

It serves no purpose but to propagate suffering. Burning in hell is supposed to be the ultimate torture and it lasts for an eternity for temporal crimes that caused relatively minor (compared to hell) and exceptionally temporary (compared to eternity) harms.

It is contradictory to the concept of a loving God*. What kind of God is so vain and vapid to demand you worship him, even though he makes no effort to reveal himself to you leaving you to play a dangerous game of reverse Russian Roulette, and then punishes you with the ultimate suffering that serves no purpose (since it’s eternal and leaves no room for future opportunities to demonstrate you’ve learned from you ‘mistake’ of not being lucky enough to be born into the right religion or hear about the proper God) even though you are supposed to be like a child to him?

It is agonizingly clear that if this God does exist and he does employ “Hell” for nearly completely random reasons (remember kids - murdering for God gets you to heaven and rewards, but murdering for yourself sends you to hell; just read your bibles… plus the whole “luck to be born in the right religion” and “random chance that someone preaches the good word to you” bit), this God is reprehensible and in no way deserving of worship.


The fact any human being could consider hell a good thing is indicative of (at best) an infant’s level of naivety (not to mention a clear inability to employ abstract thinking to realize what an ‘eternity of suffering’ truly means), or (at worst) a completely despicable sociopath.


*I’ll be referring to the Christian God since Hell is a Christian concept.

F) Peg you and Dr. Morgentaler kick ass! Keep up the exellent work and know that there are those of us even in EUROPE who respect, understand and support what you and others like you do.

Anonymous said...

People, let's take this home.

Anonymous said...

You have to express more your opinion to attract more readers, because just a video or plain text without any personal approach is not that valuable. But it is just form my point of view

Anonymous said...

Wow, that Anonymous dude (the one who doesn't know the difference between teachings and actions, and who thinks "'cause I said so" is an argument) must be a huge embarrassment to Catholics. I laughed my ass of at the part where he makes it sound like he knows all about the Inquisition, then admits to having no prior knowledge of Malleus Maleficarum. "Thanks, I'll read it, and research the author." That's priceless! I wonder how much - if any - of his knowledge hasn't been spoon-fed to him by the Catholic Church. Poor guy. I hope he's learned to think for himself since making that spectacle of himself.