Divisive Tactics Among Traditional Catholics

[littlequestion]

There are too many efforts by extremists of both left and right to divide up Catholics and encourage fighting. We see people all the time who demand that we take a side, and lately there have been several polls set up so that the nicnames of the voters show. There is no reason for everyone to know which way a particular individual votes, especially on a loaded question like “Is a certain group or certain prominent Catholic politician be excommunicated?”

I have noticed that this is a favorite tactic of left-wing Novus Ordo who are more concerned about promoting nonCatholic politics than about remaining faithful to Catholic doctrine, but it is also a favorite tactic of extremist Traditionalists who also include emotional “limust test” topics like the abortion & homosexuality issues in their views without regard to the actual complexity of these issues in real life as well as in actual Catholic history and doctrine.

I was once in a forum outside CAF in which actual Catholics were calling for people to be challenged at the reception of Communion. This was during the homosexual marriage vote in California, a time when extremists were going into churches to cause disturbances. The people who were doing this were not life-long Catholics and they did not understand the Traditional separation of our Catholic life and the worldly life. They actually began to join with atheist homosexuals in some of the groups in order to identify who the “liberal” Catholics were (anti-racist for them equalled Obama supporter which equalled pro-abortionist, a completely illogical continuum) and someone started posting the Google images of private addresses of the people they identified as their “enemies”!

This is why we must always avoid voting in internet polls that identify our nicnames with our votes. I can be for Obama, for example, for some good reasons while being totally against his stand on issues like the life-death questions (euthanasia lately equalling abortion as a seriously active concern, IMO) If I were to vote in a poll about Obama and were identified even though I might wisely avoid posting my opinion in an area where I should fear confrontation in my church, my name could then be lumped in with the pro-abortionist feminist Catholics, for example, and I would be fighting a persecution I did not even qualify for.

So, we may be blessede when we are persecuted, but i think we should be persecuted for the right reasons and we should not hand ammunition to the kind of people who thrive on persecuting others.

Anyone can call themselves Traditional. In some boards that don’t respect the Pope as much as CAF does, I have seen people calling themselves Traditional because they are picky about Latin liturgy but they actually have posted their ideas that the reduction of the human body to commodity status, even unto the point of cannibalism, is not expressly prohibitied by the Church ergo is ok!!! I have seen that the people promoting those discussions have in several cases promoted themselves as extremely Traditional, and it is obvious that they are just having a great time confusing noncatholic readers who stumble across their threads.

I am suspicious of people who claim to be Traditional who are involved in a lot of really modern cultural questions, who can entertain such bizarre notions, and who are quick to divide their critics into “us/them” factions within the Church.

Heavy metal music, satanic culture, it is all pretty obvious and you do not have to be Traditional Catholic to have the sensitivity to see it. Novus Ordo Catholics also have many shades of integrity and are rightfully offended when they see the Traditional label held up as a guarantee of doctrinal integrity while it is also being stuck on all kinds of individual abberations.

Please do NOT vote in polls set up to reveal who voted.

 

[Lormar]

Little Question

The ones who are being divisive are not traditional. This is why Patrick Eastin told those who had no traditional sympathies or leanings to stay away.

I have tried on several occasions to point this out, threads being set up that can only be a source of friction - only to receive snide comments such as “play nice.”

Since the moderator was changed, there has been a marked difference here. I lurked here for quite some time before signing on, and I did so precisely because things had changed here. Now it seems that they are going back to the way it used to be.

 

[littlequestion]

I know. Patrick Eastin was recently replaced by Jo Benedict, who used to have a thread up calling all of us Trads “anti-semitic”.

Regarding the polls, I look at things like when a so-called traditional lists a set of metal-rock culture things as interests when they put one up that collects names…

I also know that the present moderator kept a fallacious link up for a long time which fueled attacks on reasonable trads while she herself called us all antisemitic and made no distinction between doctrinal Traditional Catholics and the sede extremists and pseudo-trads.

But since then, the Pope has made some significant decisions and CAF is not going to be able to continue supporting such disingenuous tactics.

I will probably be banned for having been so blunt, but Ms. Benedict and Mr. Eastin both know that I am right. CAF does not have the right to cntinuously support the disgusting and misleading witch-hunts against decent Catholics.

Ms Benedict did not even post the link that this thread’s predecessor was moved to “Concierge” when she moved it here. She wants those names on those polls. The poster who is posting them is a heavy-metal freak, how Traditional is that?

CAF is sacrificing any integrity it can claim to have. Those of us who have in fact faced these kinds of people in our own churches know how to protect ourselves from their political tactics.

Traditional Catholics don’t need CAF. We have the Pope.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

I have noticed that this is a favorite tactic of left-wing Novus Ordo who are more concerned about promoting nonCatholic politics than about remaining faithful to Catholic doctrine, but it is also a favorite tactic of extremist Traditionalists who also include emotional “limust test” topics like the abortion & homosexuality issues in their views without regard to the actual complexity of these issues in real life as well as in actual Catholic history and doctrine.

I have absolutely no idea what you’re getting at here… Is this supposed to be a rant?

Homosexual acts and the act of abortion are evil. The magisterium has firmly placed its position on these. There is no gray area there.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

There are too many efforts by extremists of both left and right to divide up Catholics and encourage fighting. We see people all the time who demand that we take a side, and lately there have been several polls set up so that the nicnames of the voters show. There is no reason for everyone to know which way a particular individual votes, especially on a loaded question like “Is a certain group or certain prominent Catholic politician be excommunicated?”

I have noticed that this is a favorite tactic of left-wing Novus Ordo who are more concerned about promoting nonCatholic politics than about remaining faithful to Catholic doctrine, but it is also a favorite tactic of extremist Traditionalists who also include emotional “limust test” topics like the abortion & homosexuality issues in their views without regard to the actual complexity of these issues in real life as well as in actual Catholic history and doctrine.

I was once in a forum outside CAF in which actual Catholics were calling for people to be challenged at the reception of Communion. This was during the homosexual marriage vote in California, a time when extremists were going into churches to cause disturbances. The people who were doing this were not life-long Catholics and they did not understand the Traditional separation of our Catholic life and the worldly life. They actually began to join with atheist homosexuals in some of the groups in order to identify who the “liberal” Catholics were (anti-racist for them equalled Obama supporter which equalled pro-abortionist, a completely illogical continuum) and someone started posting the Google images of private addresses of the people they identified as their “enemies”!

This is why we must always avoid voting in internet polls that identify our nicnames with our votes. I can be for Obama, for example, for some good reasons while being totally against his stand on issues like the life-death questions (euthanasia lately equalling abortion as a seriously active concern, IMO) If I were to vote in a poll about Obama and were identified even though I might wisely avoid posting my opinion in an area where I should fear confrontation in my church, my name could then be lumped in with the pro-abortionist feminist Catholics, for example, and I would be fighting a persecution I did not even qualify for.

So, we may be blessede when we are persecuted, but i think we should be persecuted for the right reasons and we should not hand ammunition to the kind of people who thrive on persecuting others.

Anyone can call themselves Traditional. In some boards that don’t respect the Pope as much as CAF does, I have seen people calling themselves Traditional because they are picky about Latin liturgy but they actually have posted their ideas that the reduction of the human body to commodity status, even unto the point of cannibalism, is not expressly prohibitied by the Church ergo is ok!!! I have seen that the people promoting those discussions have in several cases promoted themselves as extremely Traditional, and it is obvious that they are just having a great time confusing noncatholic readers who stumble across their threads.

I am suspicious of people who claim to be Traditional who are involved in a lot of really modern cultural questions, who can entertain such bizarre notions, and who are quick to divide their critics into “us/them” factions within the Church.

Heavy metal music, satanic culture, it is all pretty obvious and you do not have to be Traditional Catholic to have the sensitivity to see it. Novus Ordo Catholics also have many shades of integrity and are rightfully offended when they see the Traditional label held up as a guarantee of doctrinal integrity while it is also being stuck on all kinds of individual abberations.

Please do NOT vote in polls set up to reveal who voted.

Maybe it’s just me, but since you’re concerned with things divisive, tossing around terms like “left-wing Novus Ordo” seems a tad divisive by itself.

 

[littlequestion]

A. (2 posts up) to say something is complex is not the same thing as to approve it.

B. The reference to left-wing Novus Ordo is not meant to be divisive, but we cannot have discourse without identifying each other. What would be divisive would be to go into a Novus Ordo forum and demand that everybody vote, publicly, on some issue that could identify one side or the other. My opinion does not divide, but a demand that others choose sides does divide. Especially if I were collecting a list of who chooses which side, which is what the present moderator is allowing that excommunication poll poster to do.

 

[Heliotropium]

I am Catholic

I am neither Traditional or liberal

I do not question the Churches doctrine

I do not pick and choose which doctrines I like

I will always do my best to adhier to the Churches doctrine until the end

Pax

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

A. (2 posts up) to say something is complex is not the same thing as to approve it.

It’s complex, but also sinful. Calling something complex seems to imply that there is gray area. It may make one think that there is the necessity for moral relativism on these issues, where there is certainly none in the Church.

You cannot stop people from making polls in this fashion. That’s absolutely impossible. Many times these questions are meant to be a survey question rather than a divisive one.

 

[littlequestion]

It’s complex, but also sinful. Calling something complex seems to imply that there is gray area. It may make one think that there is the necessity for moral relativism on these issues, where there is certainly none in the Church.

You cannot stop people from making polls in this fashion. That’s absolutely impossible. Many times these questions are meant to be a survey question rather than a divisive one.

You can stop people from making polls that collect names. Just remove that option. CAF can do that.

As for the complexity, I’m sure you must be aware that some abortions are necessary for the health of the mother and the Church has always permitted them, and also that the modern idea that a person is a homosexual by birth means that a man can mentallly identify himself as homosexual but if he never does any homosexual acts, he does not sin. And there always have been physical hermaphrodites among us.

We have never had problems with sexual identity of adults in religious orders before the modern propaganda created the fallacy of “congenital” sexual identity beyond physical man/woman. We have always had just men and women, and the question of sexual sin is related to an activity, not a person’s identity. In the creed, you should know, we declare adherence to the belief in “forgiveness of sins” as dogma which means that a man or woman who repents of homosexual activity is no different than any who have repented of heterosexual fornication and as Catholics we are required to respect that.

 

[tweetymom]

To tell you the truth this sounds like a very angry thread. I really can’t figure it out, cause it sounds very confusing to me.

If I vote in a poll here or elsewhere, I am not ashamed for my name to be mentioned in whatever way I voted. If i were ashamed I wouldn’t vote. How can yoy be ashamed on who you are? I just don’t get this whole thread.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

You can stop people from making polls that collect names. Just remove that option. CAF can do that.

As for the complexity, I’m sure you must be aware that some abortions are necessary for the health of the mother and the Church has always permitted them, *and also that the modern idea that a person is a homosexual by birth means that a man can mentallly identify himself as homosexual but if he never does any homosexual acts, he does not sin. And there always have been physical hermaphrodites among us. *

We have never had problems with sexual identity of adults in religious orders before the modern propaganda created the fallacy of “congenital” sexual identity beyond physical man/woman. We have always had just men and women, and the question of sexual sin is related to an activity, not a person’s identity. In the creed, you should know, we declare adherence to the belief in “forgiveness of sins” as dogma which means that a man or woman who repents of homosexual activity is no different than any who have repented of heterosexual fornication and as Catholics we are required to respect that.

Ah, I see where this is leading now. Why do you hide it behind words?

No, this idea that the church allows abortion in cases where the mother is in danger of death is falsehood. That’s an abomination. I don’t know where you heard that information, but it’s erroneous.

CCC:

Abortion

**2270 **Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”

“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.”

Also, homosexuality isn’t a biological genetic disposition of any person. That is political propaganda and utter foolishness, just the same as a man cheating on his wife isn’t genetic(as some have claimed recently). That’s called pseudoscience.

It is, truly, only a spiritual and/or psychological disposition. The homosexual person can heal from this through Catholic counseling and prayer. The homosexual act, regardless, is sinful, but so is lust for same sex persons, as it is for any person.

 

[littlequestion]

To tell you the truth this sounds like a very angry thread. I really can’t figure it out, cause it sounds very confusing to me.

If I vote in a poll here or elsewhere, I am not ashamed for my name to be mentioned in whatever way I voted. If i were ashamed I wouldn’t vote. How can yoy be ashamed on who you are? I just don’t get this whole thread.

I don’t know how old you are, but there have been mobs that attack people.based on how they vote. That is why it is against the law to identify who people vote for in the USA.

People in Catholic churches have jobs. They are teachers and such, and if they are posting that they support SSPX which IS accepted by the VAtican, there are people in this forum who will take that vote and show it to other people in their church and lie about them because there have been so many lies published about SSPX. They can lose their jobs because the polls that are posted are not set up in an honest manner. People believe lies and rumors and quickly demand that someone get fired because of such lies and rumors.

You might not be ashamed to vote a certain way, but do you want your family to be subjected to that?

Jo Benedict, the new moderator of this forum, has called all traditional catholics “anti-semitic” and I was unpleasantly surprised that she replaced Patrick Eastin. So you are right, this is an angry post. I am angry that CAF is running such a blatantly hateful and sneaky agenda as it is against Tradtional Catholics by allowing people to keep posting the excommunication lies and handed the forum over to someone who has made it very clear that she hates us.

 

[tweetymom]

I don’t know how old you are, but there have been mobs that attack people.based on how they vote. That is why it is against the law to identify who people vote for in the USA.

People in Catholic churches have jobs. They are teachers and such, and if they are posting that they support SSPX which IS accepted by the VAtican, there are people in this forum who will take that vote and show it to other people in their church and lie about them because there have been so many lies published about SSPX. They can lose their jobs because the polls that are posted are not set up in an honest manner. People believe lies and rumors and quickly demand that someone get fired because of such lies and rumors.

You might not be ashamed to vote a certain way, but do you want your family to be subjected to that?

Jo Benedict, the new moderator of this forum, has called all traditional catholics “anti-semitic” and I was unpleasantly surprised that she replaced Patrick Eastin. So you are right, this is an angry post. I am angry that CAF is running such a blatantly hateful and sneaky agenda as it is against Tradtional Catholics by allowing people to keep posting the excommunication lies and handed the forum over to someone who has made it very clear that she hates us.

Well sorry to hear all that, but I still wouldn’t hide my name in who I vote for or what I vote for. Ans bythe way I am 71, and I have seen a lot of anger in my life time.

 

[littlequestion]

Ah, I see where this is leading now. Why do you hide it behind words?

No, this idea that the church allows abortion in cases where the mother is in danger of death is falsehood. That’s an abomination. I don’t know where you heard that information, but it’s erroneous.

CCC:

Also, homosexuality isn’t a biological genetic disposition of any person. That is political propaganda and utter foolishness, just the same as a man cheating on his wife isn’t genetic(as some have claimed recently). That’s called pseudoscience.

It is, truly, only a spiritual and/or psychological disposition. The homosexual person can heal from this through Catholic counseling and prayer. The homosexual act, regardless, is sinful, but so is lust for same sex persons, as it is for any person.

re homosexuality, read my post. I said exactly what you are saying. “fallacy” means “falsehood”.

re abortion, read what you quoted. A “direct abortion” as a “means or an end” is not the same thing as an abortion necessitated by the question of saving the mother. The mother is also a human being, a person, equal to the infant. What is prohibited is an elective abortion, an abortion that is not necesary, it is “direct”, it is not part of an effort to save the mother. It is done as a means to less burdensome life or as an end in itself (something that seems bizarre until you think about stem cells) but abortion to save the mother has always been allowed.

Furthermore, pro-life activists are sometimes attempting to interfere in the removal of already dead foetuses. If a woman’s baby has died in the womb, which is a common thing among people who experience miscarriage, she may have to go to an abortion clinic if her body does not “spontaneously abort” within so many hours of the last heartbeat. They don’t always do it in the hospital.

Thus, a Catholic can be against so-called “pro-life” political actions while still opposing “direct abortion”. The pro-life people have so completely over-simplified the problem that they cannot even distinguish between natural miscarriage and direct abortion, and they have utterly dehumanized women insofar as they have not allowed for the cases of serious threat to the life of the mother in some pregnancies.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

re homosexuality, read my post. I said exactly what you are saying. “fallacy” means “falsehood”.

Nix the anger. You started this post out of anger. It’s a wonder I or anyone else want to actually talk about your topic with the way you treat them. If you have a problem with the forum, make a suggestion, but don’t post a topic that is in itself a rant to assail anyone who answers you.

re abortion, read what you quoted. A “direct abortion” as a “means or an end” is not the same thing as an abortion necessitated by the question of saving the mother. The mother is also a human being, a person, equal to the infant. What is prohibited is an elective abortion, an abortion that is not necesary, it is “direct”, it is not part of an effort to save the mother. It is done as a means to less burdensome life or as an end in itself (something that seems bizarre until you think about stem cells) but abortion to save the mother has always been allowed.

The mother is not equal to the infant. That’s wrong. There is no necessary elected abortion. Elected abortion in and of itself is evil. That’s an excuse. What is being done is the mother is deciding that her child is not as worthy to live as she is. She is not trusting in God. Many times these cases are not as dire as doctors make them out to be. Since it becomes a liability to the doctor, pro-abortion doctors take the easy way out. Your position is not a catholic position on abortion. Killing the baby to save the mom is never okay. It’s not the baby is innocent and has never been given a chance to live on earth. The mother has lived life. Look at St. Gianna Beretta Molla, the Church’s stance is her stance. ALL elective abortion is prohibited. If you don’t believe this, you don’t believe what the magisterium has put forth. Period.

Furthermore, pro-life activists are sometimes attempting to interfere in the removal of already dead foetuses. If a woman’s baby has died in the womb, which is a common thing among people who experience miscarriage, she may have to go to an abortion clinic if her body does not “spontaneously abort” within so many hours of the last heartbeat. They don’t always do it in the hospital.

She never has to go to an abortion clinic. The abortion clinic will remove the baby whether it has died or not to collect money. She should always go to a hospital. They do always do it in the hospital.

Thus, a Catholic can be against so-called “pro-life” political actions while still opposing “direct abortion”. The pro-life people have so completely over-simplified the problem that they cannot even distinguish between natural miscarriage and direct abortion, and they have utterly dehumanized women insofar as they have not allowed for the cases of serious threat to the life of the mother in some pregnancies.

Pro-lifers love the woman and the child. It seems that you easily disregard the innocent infant inside the woman, who could ultimately become another woman someday.

Pro-life is pro-life. If you believe in Catholics for Choice, it is a heresy. You play word semantics too much. Semantics are semantics, but I can see through to your purpose in this statement based on your own words. Your views are those of a cafeteria catholic, since you yourself state that you believe in the liberal feminist agenda, elective abortions for certain reasons(which only you yourself assert as okay), and that homosexuality should be acceptable for some reasons. This is moral relativism and is against the precepts of the Roman Catholic faith, headed by the Supreme Pontiff in Rome.

You are either in communion with the Church on these ideas or you are not, but you cannot reason with words around it. Either you agree with the Church or not, but the Church does not agree with your stance as you have stated it.

 

[Rence]

re abortion, read what you quoted. A “direct abortion” as a “means or an end” is not the same thing as an abortion necessitated by the question of saving the mother. The mother is also a human being, a person, equal to the infant. What is prohibited is an elective abortion, an abortion that is not necesary, it is “direct”, it is not part of an effort to save the mother. It is done as a means to less burdensome life or as an end in itself (something that seems bizarre until you think about stem cells) but abortion to save the mother has always been allowed.

**Wait, I think you might be confused. You’re absolutely right that certain medical procedures to save a woman’s life even though she was pregnant was always allowed by the Church. But it STILL is. It’s not considered an “abortion” because the primary intent is to treat the woman for a specific medical condition. For example, if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, it was and is allowed to remove the fallopian tube…even if an embryo is in it. That’s not an abortion. An abortion is purposely removing/killing a fetus as a primary intervention. You can’t just remove the embryo and not remove the fallopian tube.

If a woman has a cancerous or diseased uterus, and she finds herself pregnant, she could in the past and still can now, remove the uterus, even if there is a fetus in it. That’s not an abortion. An abortion would be removing the fetus, but leaving the diseased uterus in the woman.

You’re being confused by fanatics from both sides of the spectrum. The Chuch has always allowed, and still does allow, medical interventions that directly treat the WOMAN. The fact that is may be detrimental to the fetus is secondary, and is not the primary intent. Don’t let fanatics make you crazy over stuff like this.**

Furthermore, pro-life activists are sometimes attempting to interfere in the removal of already dead foetuses. If a woman’s baby has died in the womb, which is a common thing among people who experience miscarriage, she may have to go to an abortion clinic if her body does not “spontaneously abort” within so many hours of the last heartbeat. They don’t always do it in the hospital.

You’re right, removal of an already dead fetus is not an abortion. Who says it is?

Thus, a Catholic can be against so-called “pro-life” political actions while still opposing “direct abortion”. The pro-life people have so completely over-simplified the problem that they cannot even distinguish between natural miscarriage and direct abortion, and they have utterly dehumanized women insofar as they have not allowed for the cases of serious threat to the life of the mother in some pregnancies.

**Well, I can understand you getting upset about fanatics taking their agenda too far. The fact that your right about women going to abortion clinics for non-abortion reasons is a reason why I don’t believe in picketing outside of abortion clinics and screaming at the women going into the clinic.

Now look, I’m all about women’s rights. The unborn does not trump a woman’s health or life IMOHO. Ask some of these folks here who hate me.

Don’t blame the Church for fanatics misinterpreting the facts. I know it’s upsetting to hear some pro-lifers say antagonistic and cruel things about women. But sometimes, they are antagonized as well. In all fairness, the Church does in fact allow medical interventions to treat the woman, even if it puts a fetus at risk. They always did, and they still do. They just don’t allow direct killing/removing the fetus - which is an abortion. The reason why you’re meeting such resistance is that you keep calling it a sanctioned abortion, but it’s not an abortion, let alone sanctioned. The physicians must work to save both, but that does not mean denying treatment to a pregnant woman for an unrelated medical condition. Another example is if a woman has cancer and finds out that she is pregnant. She is allowed to receive chemo/radiation treatment for the cancer, even if the treatment puts the fetus at risk. But the physicians cannot directly kill the fetus. They can, however, prematurely delivery the baby via C-section. All actions must be made to attempt to save both. I can’t even think of a situation where a pregancy is detrimental to the life of a woman in which the Church won’t allow medical interventions to save her, but it does not include an abortion. I’m sure you’re thinking of a specific senario. Maybe we can discuss it together so that you’re not so angry about something, that frankly, the Church isn’t even responsible for you being angry at. The Church does not want women to die.

If someone says that the Church doesn’t allow medical interventions to save a pregnant woman’s life, it is false. However, the Church does not allow abortions, which are direct actions against the fetus. If you’re calling it an abortion, when in fact it’s not, the pro-lifers are going to be screaming about it. And you’re also confusing the issue with PEOPLE who are not representative of the Church.
**

 

[bluelake]

There are too many efforts by extremists of both left and right to divide up Catholics and encourage fighting. We see people all the time who demand that we take a side, and lately there have been several polls set up so that the nicnames of the voters show. There is no reason for everyone to know which way a particular individual votes, especially on a loaded question like “Is a certain group or certain prominent Catholic politician be excommunicated?”

I have noticed that this is a favorite tactic of left-wing Novus Ordo who are more concerned about promoting nonCatholic politics than about remaining faithful to Catholic doctrine, but it is also a favorite tactic of extremist Traditionalists who also include emotional “limust test” topics like the abortion & homosexuality issues in their views without regard to the actual complexity of these issues in real life as well as in actual Catholic history and doctrine.

I was once in a forum outside CAF in which actual Catholics were calling for people to be challenged at the reception of Communion. This was during the homosexual marriage vote in California, a time when extremists were going into churches to cause disturbances. The people who were doing this were not life-long Catholics and they did not understand the Traditional separation of our Catholic life and the worldly life. They actually began to join with atheist homosexuals in some of the groups in order to identify who the “liberal” Catholics were (anti-racist for them equalled Obama supporter which equalled pro-abortionist, a completely illogical continuum) and someone started posting the Google images of private addresses of the people they identified as their “enemies”!

This is why we must always avoid voting in internet polls that identify our nicnames with our votes. I can be for Obama, for example, for some good reasons while being totally against his stand on issues like the life-death questions (euthanasia lately equalling abortion as a seriously active concern, IMO) If I were to vote in a poll about Obama and were identified even though I might wisely avoid posting my opinion in an area where I should fear confrontation in my church, my name could then be lumped in with the pro-abortionist feminist Catholics, for example, and I would be fighting a persecution I did not even qualify for.

So, we may be blessede when we are persecuted, but i think we should be persecuted for the right reasons and we should not hand ammunition to the kind of people who thrive on persecuting others.

Anyone can call themselves Traditional. In some boards that don’t respect the Pope as much as CAF does, I have seen people calling themselves Traditional because they are picky about Latin liturgy but they actually have posted their ideas that the reduction of the human body to commodity status, even unto the point of cannibalism, is not expressly prohibitied by the Church ergo is ok!!! I have seen that the people promoting those discussions have in several cases promoted themselves as extremely Traditional, and it is obvious that they are just having a great time confusing noncatholic readers who stumble across their threads.

I am suspicious of people who claim to be Traditional who are involved in a lot of really modern cultural questions, who can entertain such bizarre notions, and who are quick to divide their critics into “us/them” factions within the Church.

Heavy metal music, satanic culture, it is all pretty obvious and you do not have to be Traditional Catholic to have the sensitivity to see it. Novus Ordo Catholics also have many shades of integrity and are rightfully offended when they see the Traditional label held up as a guarantee of doctrinal integrity while it is also being stuck on all kinds of individual abberations.

Please do NOT vote in polls set up to reveal who voted.

How do you define a ‘Traditional Catholic?’ What are others referred to?

bluelake

 

[littlequestion]

Dihydrogen,
you twist my words. and I have not assailed anyone.

I never said “necessary elective” I said “elective” abortion is “direct” which is what the Church prohibits.

And I will not argue with you about your idea that hospitals always do the necessary work related to a natural, spontaneous miscarriage because I happen to know that in some areas a woman most definitely IS referred to a clinic that does abortions for the service, if she is not in danger of complications.

The issue of abortion is not a simple matter. It is complex because it does include a range of complications involving physical health and available services. To say it is not simple is most definitley NOT the same as to say it is alright.

And the irrational throwing of the word “abomination” at people who try to tell the truth about Catholic doctrine is exactly why these polls that collect names should not be allowed by CAF. There is no reason for them to have that choice. They could allow only private polls and people could have the same discussions.

You have twisted my words and posted exactly what the Catholic church does say while you pretend it says something else. It specifically says “DIRECT” abortion, not “ALL” abortion and it does not prohibit equality of the mother’s interest. You have added the words “necessary elective” which I never used.

 

[Rence]

And I will not argue with you about your idea that hospitals always do the necessary work related to a natural, spontaneous miscarriage because I happen to know that in some areas a woman most definitely IS referred to a clinic that does abortions for the service, if she is not in danger of complications.

**And if she can’t pay for the services at the hospital. **

And … these polls that collect names should not be allowed by CAF. There is no reason for them to have that choice. They could allow only private polls and people could have the same discussions.

Before answering a poll, why don’t you just click on “results” that way you can see if the poll identifies the voters and their names? That way you can choose not to answer such a poll that will reveal your identity?

 

[littlequestion]

Rence and Bluelake, thank you, we all posted at once.

I think this thread ran off topic but c’est la vie.

The word “abortion” has been diluted in the statistics and literature by both sides. The pro-choicers in the medical field have used it in medical forms to refer to any and all pregnancy terminations, such as calling miscarriages “spontaneous abortions” and the other side has not allowed us to talk about the various kinds of abortions and have some rational education for our young women about these things.

In fact, women who have lost pregnancy to miscarriage have been refered to the Rachel project for grief counseling when that is a project for assisting women to recover from having had abortions, and of course they have intense grief and remorse.

But can’t these people see how horrible it is for a woman who has tried everything and lost her baby to be told as a Catholic to go to the post-abortion counselors, as if she had chosen to murder her child?

That is an abomination. It is the disgusting result of what the pro-life extremists have done in their emotional exploitation of this issue.

Rence, I could notice that the names are in the link, but most people never even think of the possibility that their name will show up and they don’t bother to check the profile of the person who placed the poll in many cases to see how innocent it is. There are extremists like who do want to have confrontations and kick people out of churches because they want the churches to be empty, they want the Church to collapse, and they are chipping away at it from the inside.