| Author |
 Topic  |
|
JRJ
Mary's Servant
USA
136 Posts |
Posted - Jun 14 2009 : 10:16:13 PM
|
For those Catholics - including Chris R, Denise, Justin, Lil Flora, Antonio, me - who are trying to grasp: What is our duty? What do we do? Not do? What is justified? What CAN we do?? I offer the website http://www.helpersbrooklynny.org/. Msgr Philip J Reilly has so much to offer us, and can be trusted - this Priest has been outside the abortuaries from way back. The videos help explain the work of the Helpers Of God's Precious Infants. I will pray for all of us tonight. As Antonio said, these are heavy questions. I know that I am so angry at the injustice that a child may be dismembered (without benefit of anesthesia) just because he or she is inconvenient. Msgr Reilly's work was brought to my attention in an EWTN program and his crystal-clear teaching has been very helpful to me in forming my conscience on abortion.
Jennifer |
 |
|
|
Chris R
Mary's Servant
USA
259 Posts |
 Posted - Jun 15 2009 : 10:08:25 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Antonio A
Also Chris, you and I and Justin, and Jennifer and Denise, we are Catholics because we believe that Holy Mother Church is here to teach us how to go through life. If that isn't the case, why be a Catholic at all? Why not allow our consciences to guide us through life with what our consciences think it's best?[/blue]
I thought I could get through this discussion without being forced to render a disclaimer. Nope... Accordingly....
I am a Catholic who believes in and submits to every teaching of the Church. I am absolutely convicted of the truth of Ecclesiastical authority. While I seek to understand, I do not fail to submit and obey. I interpret any problem with Church teaching on my part to mean that I still have not completed my intellectual and spiritual development. Accordingly, on any discussion wherein I present arguments that are counter to the teachings of the Church (and no matter how agressively I undertake the task), I would ask any reader of my contributions to understand where I'm coming from. Specifically, it is a given for me that the Church's teaching is right & that any alternative positions are wrong. I seek only to improve my understanding -- NEVER is it my goal to win the argument. Indeed, any time I challenge the Church's teaching, my sincere goal is to lose the argument! |
Edited by - Chris R on Jun 15 2009 3:06:55 PM |
|
|
|
JRJ
Mary's Servant
USA
136 Posts |
Posted - Jun 15 2009 : 5:08:38 PM
|
I do hope I have not seemed to judge you, Chris R. If I have, I am truly sorry. I think you were just being honest and provoked an excellent discussion. I applaud your willingness to say what so many of us feel. My emotions are with you and Justin, and I would not imagine either of you would go against the Commandments. Justin, in saving his son's life, has lived with a self-control I admire and will remember when I am tempted in my own, much less vital challenges. I really liked your last phrase: "my sincere goal is to lose the argument!" Well said!! For me, too.
Jennifer |
|
|
|
JRJ
Mary's Servant
USA
136 Posts |
Posted - Jun 15 2009 : 5:12:22 PM
|
And another thing (sorry, guys - woman here, ya know??) - It seems to me that we on the side of life are on the defensive because our culture is saturated with media that promote death and turn reality on its head. No wonder Chris R felt a need to explain/disclaim. This defensive posture even led some pro-life leaders to mistakenly call the killer of Dr. Tiller a "terrorist." Not so! Terrorists target the innocent. Dr. Tiller was no innocent. He lived a life of unspeakable violence.
Jennifer |
|
|
|
Antonio A
Maryhead
823 Posts |
Posted - Jun 16 2009 : 3:08:42 PM
|
Hi Chris,
"I thought I could get through this discussion without being forced to render a disclaimer. Nope... Accordingly...."
And I thought I could get through the discussion without insulting anyone, sorry.
I am a Catholic who believes in and submits to every teaching of the Church. I am absolutely convicted of the truth of Ecclesiastical authority. While I seek to understand, I do not fail to submit and obey. I interpret any problem with Church teaching on my part to mean that I still have not completed my intellectual and spiritual development. Accordingly, on any discussion wherein I present arguments that are counter to the teachings of the Church (and no matter how aggressively I undertake the task), I would ask any reader of my contributions to understand where I'm coming from. Specifically, it is a given for me that the Church's teaching is right & that any alternative positions are wrong. I seek only to improve my understanding -- NEVER is it my goal to win the argument. Indeed, any time I challenge the Church's teaching, my sincere goal is to lose the argument!
This is a very good clarification and I did imply just that. Sometimes we have heavy moral questions, but that does not necessarily mean we are not being loyal to church teaching. One thing is to say, "I have problems I struggle with but I'm right, and the Church is wrong," and another is to say "I have problems I struggle with but the Church is wrong and I'm right." Many dissenters and modernists take this very position and do not seem to understand that puts them at odds with the Church's magisterium and even with their eternal salvation.
Antonio A. Obregón |
Edited by - Antonio A on Jun 17 2009 01:44:05 AM |
|
|
|
Chris R
Mary's Servant
USA
259 Posts |
Posted - Jun 17 2009 : 10:42:22 AM
|
| Thanks Antonio. It is indeed an act of true faith to submit to teachings that you don't seem to add up. I liken my position to that of my children on the occasions where I give up trying to explain a decision and finally tell them "because I said so & I am your father." Likewise, sometimes we have to accept that "because I am the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth" is a good enough answer. |
|
|
|
Antonio A
Maryhead
823 Posts |
Posted - Jun 19 2009 : 6:59:45 PM
|
Hi Chris,
On June 14 I sent this letter to the head of the Theology Dept of the high school where I work, who happens to be an orthodox Catholic. I wanted some help from him on this issue. This is what I said to him:
"Hi Chris,
I hope you are enjoying your vacation but knowing you, I'm sure you are working on some project! You can't stay still!
O.K., here is a question debated now in the Marian forum. Some believe Tiller got exactly what he deserved and that we should not condemn him because, after all, he saved all those children Tiller was about to butcher through abortion. Some of us hold the position that what Tiller did was evil and wrong, but the same can be said about his murderer.
Those who defend Tiller's killer say this: Would the Church have condemned any of us who killed any Nazis during WWII for killing innocent Jews? Even I would say the Church would not have condemned me had I lived then and had I killed Nazis who were taking Jews in concentration camps to butcher them. Well, if that is the case, why would we condemn a man whom we should see as a hero for killing the Butcher, Dr. Tiller? Why would we praise those who defended the Jews from sure extermination but we don't praise Tiller's killer who murdered him in order to save countless innocent unborn children? I would say the killer became a vigilante and that's why he deserves condemnation, but if individuals killed Nazis during WWII, were they not vigilantes? So, why do we not condemn them?
I also have a problem with Pius XII, my hero, praying for the war to stop. Had he known it was an "evil" war I would understand his prayers, but since he knew we were fighting the very personification of evil, Hitler, why did he want the war to stop if that meant Hitler would continue to butcher the Jews and eventually even imprisoned the Pope?
O.K., Chris, I need answers so I can shed some light on the issue at the Marian forum."
Today I receive his message and I will post it in another post. See what you think of his explanation. I'm still trying to digest it.
Antonio A. Obregón |
Edited by - Antonio A on Jun 19 2009 7:04:27 PM |
|
|
|
Antonio A
Maryhead
823 Posts |
Posted - Jun 19 2009 : 7:07:02 PM
|
Hi Chris,
Here is his reply to me. As of yet, I have not reply to him because I need to focus my mind to do so effectively!
Subject: RE: Moral Question
"Ok, what about this:
In the case of the Nazi, the “true” evil in which the object of our anger must focus on would be the Nazis directly (the soldiers, officers, etc.). In the case of abortion, the doctors who are performing this horrendous evil are still doing so via cooperation with the law that legally allows them to. Therefore, one could argue that the law allowing abortion is the ultimate evil in the case of abortion and it is the law that should be the focus of our anger/action. Following Aquinas’ sins against anger, using the above reasoning, to kill an abortion doctor would go again sin #2 – Anger directed at the wrong object.
This is not to suggest that the abortion doctors are not doing an evil, but they are not “the” evil in themselves, they are cooperating with an evil law. While the Nazi soldiers, though still created as “good” with dignity/etc. are the very source of the evil they represent, and therefore, could be the object of the justified anger and self-defense/preservation of human life that killing a soldier would call for. As soldiers, they also represent their state/party, therefore when they die it would still be a loss of human life, but in the sense of a soldier in a just war. A doctor is not a soldier and does not represent the state as such…his life is still “innocent” whereas the soldier is representing the state/party directly.
This is so far what I am thinking…what do you think?"
~Chris
Antonio A. Obregón |
Edited by - Antonio A on Jun 19 2009 7:08:20 PM |
|
|
|
Antonio A
Maryhead
823 Posts |
Posted - Jun 19 2009 : 7:20:30 PM
|
Hi Chris R,
"Thanks Antonio. It is indeed an act of true faith to submit to teachings that you don't seem to add up."
One day a friend of mine told me how he could not be a Catholic because there were too many questions he didn't have an answer for. I told him that there were answers for those questions, but the fact he had not found them yet, did not mean there were no answers for him. Suddenly he went quiet and finally said to me, "You know, I didn't think of it that way!"
I've come to believe that as Catholics when we refuse to listen to Mother Church as she guides us through life, we do so imperiling our own salvation. We might think we are "free" in our thinking, but in fact when we don't follow the lead of the Church we follow the lead of contemporary society, so filled with secular errors.
I liken my position to that of my children on the occasions where I give up trying to explain a decision and finally tell them "because I said so & I am your father."
Same here. I simply have to acknowledge that I don't know it all and that a 2000 year old Mother has more wisdom and more experience than I will ever have in my life time.
Likewise, sometimes we have to accept that "because I am the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth" is a good enough answer.
And the pillar of truth she is and that comes directly from the Scriptures we believe to be the word of God!
Antonio A. Obregón |
|
|
|
DeniseLawson
Moderator
USA
808 Posts |
Posted - Jun 20 2009 : 12:44:19 PM
|
Well - one more thing to throw into the mix here that I was thinking about this week: what if, at some point in the future - say after 65,000 abortions - or even 70,000 or 75,000 - something happened that would have made Dr. Tiller realize the error of his ways?
I read a story this week about a former abortion doctor, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who had completed 75,000 abortions but is now ardently pro-life. What happened to change his views? Well - in his case, the science advanced to the point he could see abortion for the evil it really was. You can read his story http://www.lifenews.com/state4235.html |
|
|
|
DeniseLawson
Moderator
USA
808 Posts |
Posted - Jun 20 2009 : 12:45:19 PM
|
There was a similar article about an Eastern European doctor - I think from Yugoslavia - who stopped performing abortions after he had a vision of a Catholic saint (sorry, I forget which one now) in a field amongst thousands of children playing, and in the vision he realized that all those children were the victims of the abortions he carried out.
My point is - while there is still life, there is still a chance of conversion. Somebody acting unjustly to end that life early in a vigilante act could well be the difference between that person being saved or not. Did Tiller's murder really save lives, or did it just change the identity of the person who murders those children? Will we ever know?
MTA: This post was added to get the rest of my first post in there...dunno why it didn't print - odd, really.
------------------------
Jesus meek and humble of heart, make my heart like yours. |
|
|
|
Chris R
Mary's Servant
USA
259 Posts |
Posted - Jun 20 2009 : 2:01:24 PM
|
Well - one more thing to throw into the mix here that I was thinking about this week: what if, at some point in the future - say after 65,000 abortions - or even 70,000 or 75,000 - something happened that would have made Dr. Tiller realize the error of his ways?
Well... say after 1 or 2 million dead jews, Hitler might have a change of heart... Should defense of the next million jews be set aside so that we might allow for Hitler's eventual conversion? |
|
|
|
Chris R
Mary's Servant
USA
259 Posts |
Posted - Jun 20 2009 : 2:06:54 PM
|
In the case of the Nazi, the “true” evil in which the object of our anger must focus on would be the Nazis directly (the soldiers, officers, etc.). In the case of abortion, the doctors who are performing this horrendous evil are still doing so via cooperation with the law that legally allows them to. Therefore, one could argue that the law allowing abortion is the ultimate evil in the case of abortion and it is the law that should be the focus of our anger/action. Following Aquinas’ sins against anger, using the above reasoning, to kill an abortion doctor would go again sin #2 – Anger directed at the wrong object.
I think this is pretty weak. After all, the nazis were following lawful orders given them by legitimate authority. The abortionists can only say in their defense that, without any compulsion, they undertake to kill the unborn for profit & it is justified because it isn't unlawful. Given this, I would say that the abortionists are more culpable than were the nazi soldiers. |
|
|
|
DeniseLawson
Moderator
USA
808 Posts |
Posted - Jun 20 2009 : 8:52:55 PM
|
Well - vigilante justice can hardly be justified, either. As noted elsewhere - two wrongs never make a right. In spite of the evil he did, Tiller was not a direct threat at the time he was killed to the alleged killer's family. If we're going to argue that vigilante justice was right in the case of Tiller - then in all fairness - should we not also execute all the women who willingly have abortions? What about the cases where the woman is coerced by either the sperm donor or her parents? Should the applicable person coercing her be executed as well? In my mind - if the answer is yes for Tiller, then it is logically yes for all these people as well, for they, too, have the blood of innocents on their hands.
The problem with vigilante acts of "justice", ultimately, is where does the killing all end?
------------------------
Jesus meek and humble of heart, make my heart like yours. |
|
|
|
Chris R
Mary's Servant
USA
259 Posts |
Posted - Jun 21 2009 : 12:26:55 PM
|
"Well - vigilante justice can hardly be justified, either."
Saying it doesn't make it so. We have already seen that vigilantism can be justified, even commendable when lawful authority is depraved (as in the case with vigilantism against the Nazis).... Accordingly, we can't condemn Roeder's act simply because it was vigilantism (we'll have to work harder than that).
"As noted elsewhere - two wrongs never make a right."
This is a nice maxim, but it shouldn't be used yet. We first must determine, with philosophical consistencey, that Roeder's act was a wrong.
"If we're going to argue that vigilante justice was right in the case of Tiller - then in all fairness - should we not also execute all the women who willingly have abortions? What about the cases where the woman is coerced by either the sperm donor or her parents? Should the applicable person coercing her be executed as well? In my mind - if the answer is yes for Tiller, then it is logically yes for all these people as well, for they, too, have the blood of innocents on their hands."
Now that's just silly. There's no way to inject this into the argument & to attempt to do so has no merit. Do I really need to point out that killing Tiller prevented additional murders of unborn children (an act then that can be argued to be in defense of life); while to execute women who have abortions would be an act of revenge (God's business). Women who have had abortions don't need retribution from Christians -- they need our love and acceptance & it is our duty to give it. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
George Tiller "the killer" Reaps
