Georgia Bishop's Stance on HR 536

[johnnykins]

Wow, a three letter word tells you all you need to know about what I think, who I am, etc. Johnny, you are the KING…

I’ve been in these forums awhile. Every so often, I see the likes of you. I have no problems with questions about my comments, as long as they don’t become personal (being labeled as irrational, foolish, etc.). Just because my ideas don’t coincide with yours? Mighty arrogant, johnny.

Yeah, I took your bait. My bad.
No. Your mistaken notion, not mine.
Yeah, once again, I took your bait. My bad. Enjoy your time in these forums johnny. I hope you find as many arguments as you need to make you feel as intellectual as you need. I am sorry for my part in helping you to this end. I’m taking my ball and going home!

Have fun!

QED

 

[GodsGadfly]

When did Catholics adopt the pagan virtue of “prudence,” anyway? Show me a martyr that was “prudent”.

John Paul II says very clearly in Evangelium Vitae that, while it is not wrong to support “incremental” steps against abortion, we should always fight for an immediate outlawing of all abortion and contraception. To adopt incrementalism as a philosophy, to say that outlawing abortion is imprudent, is, in the words of JPII, “cowardice” unbecoming a Christian.

We are supposed to lay down our very lives for Christ, and we’re not even willing to lay down a little bit of our great comfort as “acceptable” members of American society?

1. As for these two bishops, let’s consider whom we’re talking about:

a. In 2004, then-Archbishop Donohue, Bishop Jugis of Charlotte and BIshop Robert Baker signed an agreement that no pro-abortion politician could receive communion within the Archdiocese of Atlanta and its metropolitan Sees. BIshop Boland of Savannah refused. His priests preached against denying communion to people. A priest I knew personally (and witnessed many a heresy from) bragged about giving communion on Saturday evening to a woman who had had an abortion on Saturday morning with no confession. A very liberal priest in the Diocese of Savannah (who, the last time my parents spoke to him, had bragged about getting a grant to prove Jesus didn’t actually exist) told us of how our pastor, and the Bishop, and several other priests in the Diocese had come over from Ireland after being driven out for their liberal ideas, and “they still give the Vatican a hard time.”

b. Bishop Gregory, who established the canonically illicit “Law Review Board,” stacked with blood-stained pro-abortion politicians like Leon Panetta and Anne Burke.

Why is there any surprise or debate about this?

 

[johnnykins]

When did Catholics adopt the pagan virtue of “prudence,” anyway?

well, St Ambrose was pretty wordy about it, as was Augustine. Here’s a site on Ambrose: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.i.ii.xxv.html

Show me a martyr that was “prudent”.

I think they all were who had a choice. They surveyed the issues and prudently chose martyrdom over eternal death.

John Paul II says very clearly in Evangelium Vitae that, while it is not wrong to support “incremental” steps against abortion, we should always fight for an immediate outlawing of all abortion and contraception. To adopt incrementalism as a philosophy, to say that outlawing abortion is imprudent, is, in the words of JPII, “cowardice” unbecoming a Christian.

True, but inapt. Tedster specifically indicated he would be imprudent - that’s not incrementalism, but foolishness. As I posted earlier, Tedsters comment was NOT concerning what is and is not imprudent - rather that he would chose imprudence.

We are supposed to lay down our very lives for Christ, and we’re not even willing to lay down a little bit of our great comfort as “acceptable” members of American society?

OK, but again, inapt.

1. As for these two bishops, let’s consider whom we’re talking about:

a. In 2004, then-Archbishop Donohue, Bishop Jugis of Charlotte and BIshop Robert Baker signed an agreement that no pro-abortion politician could receive communion within the Archdiocese of Atlanta and its metropolitan Sees. BIshop Boland of Savannah refused. His priests preached against denying communion to people. A priest I knew personally (and witnessed many a heresy from) bragged about giving communion on Saturday evening to a woman who had had an abortion on Saturday morning with no confession. A very liberal priest in the Diocese of Savannah (who, the last time my parents spoke to him, had bragged about getting a grant to prove Jesus didn’t actually exist) told us of how our pastor, and the Bishop, and several other priests in the Diocese had come over from Ireland after being driven out for their liberal ideas, and “they still give the Vatican a hard time.”

b. Bishop Gregory, who established the canonically illicit “Law Review Board,” stacked with blood-stained pro-abortion politicians like Leon Panetta and Anne Burke.

Why is there any surprise or debate about this?

You are making a prudential judgment to not trust these Bishops. I have no issue with that per se. You have analyzed the facts and as you know them, and understand them. Unfortunately, Tedster has stated he wouldn’t do that - even if that were the prudent - wise - thing to do.

You’re simply confusing different problems.

 

[GodsGadfly]

Hi, thanks for replying!

“well, St Ambrose was pretty wordy about it, as was Augustine”
Which brings to mind Chesterton’s comment that Augustine may have abandoned his Manicheeism but he never abandoned his Platonism. . . .

Where is the prudence in “sell all you have and give to the poor”?
Where is the prudence in “let the dead bury their dead”?
Where is the prudence in “Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men”?

I understand what you’re saying: prudence means wisdom, and, wisdom means doing what’s best.

However, when Catholics today argue for incrementalism they cite “prudence,” meaning not wisdom but “practicality.” 'm not confused; I’m just using the term the way it’s used today.

It is much more accurate in contemporary parlance to say “wisdom”.

A person might say this law isn’t “prudent” in terms of political expediency: like, “We don’t want to aggravate the Feminists in an election year,” or “People wll riot if we pass this law.” This is the very kind of reasoning JPII rejects in Evangelium Vitae.

This kind of prudence is not divine wisdom (that of which the Fathers speak) but it is the pagan or secular virtue of trying to get along with people.

The wisdom of God is foolishness to the world. You do what the world considers crazy or extreme because it’s what God wants you to do, and you ignore the world’s naysaying.

 

[Tedster]

True, but inapt. Tedster specifically indicated he would be imprudent - that’s not incrementalism, but foolishness. As I posted earlier, Tedsters comment was NOT concerning what is and is not imprudent - rather that he would chose imprudence.

That is your mistaken notion. What I said was “If you can give me an example of how this measure might be an imprudent measure that is moral, I would still back it (the measure), because life is more sacred than prudence.”

How can you imply that I would be imprudent? What you call foolishness is exactly what GodsGadfly is saying. “The wisdom of God is foolishness to the world. You do what the world considers crazy or extreme because it’s what God wants you to do, and you ignore the world’s naysaying.”

If that’s the case, I’m proud to be God’s fool. Thanks for the clarification GodsGadfly! Unfortunately, johhny will only see though man’s eyes and will throw out what is moral and just for the sake of “prudence”.

 

[johnnykins]

Hi, thanks for replying!

“well, St Ambrose was pretty wordy about it, as was Augustine”
Which brings to mind Chesterton’s comment that Augustine may have abandoned his Manicheeism but he never abandoned his Platonism. . . .

Where is the prudence in “sell all you have and give to the poor”?
Where is the prudence in “let the dead bury their dead”?
Where is the prudence in “Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men”?

I understand what you’re saying: prudence means wisdom, and, wisdom means doing what’s best.

However, when Catholics today argue for incrementalism they cite “prudence,” meaning not wisdom but “practicality.” 'm not confused; I’m just using the term the way it’s used today.

It is much more accurate in contemporary parlance to say “wisdom”.

A person might say this law isn’t “prudent” in terms of political expediency: like, “We don’t want to aggravate the Feminists in an election year,” or “People wll riot if we pass this law.” This is the very kind of reasoning JPII rejects in Evangelium Vitae.

This kind of prudence is not divine wisdom (that of which the Fathers speak) but it is the pagan or secular virtue of trying to get along with people.

The wisdom of God is foolishness to the world. You do what the world considers crazy or extreme because it’s what God wants you to do, and you ignore the world’s naysaying.

A discussion on the meaning of “prudence” is certainly a reasonable discussion - just as a discussion on what is or is not prudent once we’ve reached agreement on the meaning. I have no problem with either. It is the very reason why I suggested a look at the definition of “prudence” which was roundly rejected.

Neither I nor anyone else on this board apparently knows why the Bishops have taken the position they have- they did not offer a reason. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at this time that they have a prudential reason for it.

 

[johnnykins]

That is your mistaken notion. What I said was “If you can give me an example of how this measure might be an imprudent measure that is moral, I would still back it (the measure), because life is more sacred than prudence.”

How can you imply that I would be imprudent? What you call foolishness is exactly what GodsGadfly is saying. “The wisdom of God is foolishness to the world. You do what the world considers crazy or extreme because it’s what God wants you to do, and you ignore the world’s naysaying.”

If that’s the case, I’m proud to be God’s fool. Thanks for the clarification GodsGadfly! Unfortunately, johhny will only see though man’s eyes and will throw out what is moral and just for the sake of “prudence”.

Oddly, Tedster, GodsGadfly understands exactly what I’m saying - and I agree with him. You continue to misapprehend English.

 

[Tedster]

Oddly, Tedster, GodsGadfly understands exactly what I’m saying - and I agree with him. You continue to misapprehend English.

That’s funny! Great comeback, Ace. You, my friend continue to imply your will upon other’s thoughts and judgments. I think I will continue fighting for the Moral right, regardless of how I am attacked for it. Nice try though.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by GodsGadfly
a. In 2004, then-Archbishop Donohue, Bishop Jugis of Charlotte and BIshop Robert Baker signed an agreement that no pro-abortion politician could receive communion within the Archdiocese of Atlanta and its metropolitan Sees. BIshop Boland of Savannah refused. His priests preached against denying communion to people

B.Bishop Gregory, who established the canonically illicit “Law Review Board,” stacked with blood-stained pro-abortion politicians like Leon Panetta and Anne Burke.

Welcome and thanks for you post. It certainly helped clear it up for me yet the bishop’s statement probably will hurt HR536.

 

[GodsGadfly]

“I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at this time that they have a prudential reason for it.”

I’m usually willing to give bishops the benefit of the doubt, but, when it comes to abortion, contraception and certain theological issues, there is little room for such benefit.

They have issued a statement explaining their position (I’ve tried to read it on the Atlanta Archdiocesan website, but it won’t download for me). If they have justifiable, wise (since I prefer to distinguish supernatural “wisdom” from worldly “prudence”) reasons for opposing it why not present those reasons?

Isn’t that part of proper teaching and pastoral care? To tell us why they take a position?

 

[Tedster]

I’m usually willing to give bishops the benefit of the doubt, but, when it comes to abortion, contraception and certain theological issues, there is little room for such benefit.

I agree 100%, GodsGadfly! It seems that johnny thinks you and he are in agreement, hmmmm.

Oddly, Tedster, GodsGadfly understands exactly what I’m saying - and I agree with him.

I wonder who is misapprehending English?

 

[GodsGadfly]

Well, they’ve “clarified” their stance. JPII said clearly in Evangelium Vitae that to say, “We can’t outlaw abortion because it’s not the right time,” or “We can’t pass this law because it will be immediately overturned,” is the sin of despair.

Well, that’s what they said.

Here’s the article: georgiabulletin.org/local/2008/01/31/clarify/

Here’s my blog entry: lewiscrusade.blogspot.com/2008/02/georgia-bishops-clarify-their-position.html

 

[johnnykins]

Well, they’ve “clarified” their stance. JPII said clearly in Evangelium Vitae that to say, “We can’t outlaw abortion because it’s not the right time,” or “We can’t pass this law because it will be immediately overturned,” is the sin of despair.

Well, that’s what they said.

Here’s the article: georgiabulletin.org/local/2008/01/31/clarify/

Here’s my blog entry: lewiscrusade.blogspot.com/2008/02/georgia-bishops-clarify-their-position.html

I’ve missed something in the posting you refer to. I can’t find the quote you cite. Are you actually quoting or paraphrasing? Additionally, it seems that the explanation offered is consistent with your own exegesis on Evangelium Vitae in the blog cite.

The statement says:

A state human life amendment (HLA) is not an effective means to achieve the goal of the legislation to gain full legal recognition of the right to life of the unborn child and bring an end to all abortion…
Since the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court reaffirmed the federal right to an abortion focusing on the woman’s health and her right to control her reproduction.[emphasis added]

Those statements look to me to be a rejection of this particular incremental step, ie., state action, - since the issue is FEDERAL not STATE.

Now in your blog, you note that incremental steps are allowable:

we may support “incremental” measures against abortion, we must not adopt incrementalism as an approach.

So, in fact your own blog seems to indicate that support of this measure on the state level is OK but not required as it is only incremental being it is at the state level only.

Finally, I take the real issue for their refusal to support this measure as being set forth in another paragraph:

If HR 536 passed in Georgia and was passed by the voters of Georgia, its enactment could be interpreted as repealing existing abortion laws in Georgia, such as the parental notification law, woman’s right to know law and the law requiring that an ultrasound be offered to a woman before an abortion. When these laws were considered by the Georgia General Assembly, they were supported by the bishops because they reduce abortions and help to educate others on the negative impact of abortion on women. Recent research published by the Heritage Foundation provides compelling evidence that incremental abortion laws were responsible for the more than 17 percent decrease in abortion during the 1990s. It is a fact these laws are being implemented in Georgia, despite misinformation being distributed by the proponents of HR 536 to the contrary. There may be a misunderstanding by some of the requirements of the laws.

Assuming the legal analysis is reasonable, this strikes me as a reasonable position for the Bishops to take: 1. The proposed law is incremental in that it deals with state law in an area where federal law controls 2.the impact on state law could be detrimental to the movement and the life of babies.

You may disagree with them on the law and it’s impact, but on its face their position is NOT unreasonable or contrary to Catholic teaching.

 

[gam197]

Here is American Life League’s Judy Brown article…

catholicexchange.com/node/69363

Oh, but wait! Planned Parenthood certainly understands the impact of HR 536 and said so in a related news report. Metro Sprit newspaper published the statement of Mary Beth Pierucci, director of public policy for Planned Parenthood of Georgia, which says in part:

More Georgians need to understand the broad legal and medical ramifications of HR 536. Its supporters blatantly state that their intention is to outlaw legal abortion in Georgia. This amendment is so extreme that it could potentially prohibit the use of hormonal birth-control options that doctors commonly prescribe like the birth control pill and IUDs. It could even stop women from accessing in-vitro fertilization.

 

[GodsGadfly]

Sorry–it’s not in Evangelium Vitae. It’s in an address JPII gave in 2000:

“there is no reason for that type of defeatist mentality which claims that laws opposed to the right to life - those which legalize abortion, euthanasia, sterilization and methods of family planning opposed to life and the dignity of marriage - are inevitable and now almost a social necessity. On the contrary, they are a seed of corruption for society and its foundations. The civil and moral conscience cannot accept this false inevitability, any more than the idea that war or interethnic extermination is inevitable” (Address at the Commemoration of the Fifth Anniversary of the Encyclical “Evangeliumvitae”, 14 February, n. 4; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 23 February 2000, p. 4).

Quotes from JPII:
lewiscrusade.blogspot.com/2007/08/john-paul-ii-on-incrementalism.html

Quotes from the PAL:
lewiscrusade.blogspot.com/2007/08/pontifical-academy-for-life-on.html

And, no, the bill is not incrementalist; it is subsidiarist. The Church teaches that laws should handle things at the lowest level possible, and, in America, murder is a state-level crime, not a federal crime.

The statement is self-contradictory: on the one hand, they say it’s not going to take effect, anyway; on the other, they say, 'If it takes effect, it will neutralize other pro-life laws." Well, which is it? And if it’s that dangerous to existing laws, why didn’t they say so in the first place?

The main point is they’re afraid of “upsetting the cart.” They do not want to be saints. They care more about their mansions and their money than being prophets.

They’re saying that this law is useless, because the Supreme Court (which has no constitustional authority to review laws, anyway, especially state laws, other than authority it has arrogated ot itself) will never overturn Roe.

 

[johnnykins]

Sorry–it’s not in Evangelium Vitae. It’s in an address JPII gave in 2000:

Quotes from JPII:
lewiscrusade.blogspot.com/2007/08/john-paul-ii-on-incrementalism.html

Quotes from the PAL:
lewiscrusade.blogspot.com/2007/08/pontifical-academy-for-life-on.html

And, no, the bill is not incrementalist; it is subsidiarist. The Church teaches that laws should handle things at the lowest level possible, and, in America, murder is a state-level crime, not a federal crime.

Subsidiarty does not apply in the US system of laws - the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution applies. True there are certain rights reserved to the state, but this one has - like it or not - been aggregated to the Feds. So I do look at it as an incremental action within the US system - one out of 50 states trying to achieve something. You may well disagree, I have no problems with a disagreement. I’m not sure that such disagreement is the touchstone here anyway. The fact is that the right to an abortion is a federal right - whether you agree with that or not.

The statement is self-contradictory: on the one hand, they say it’s not going to take effect, anyway; on the other, they say, 'If it takes effect, it will neutralize other pro-life laws." Well, which is it?

I don’t see it that way. I read it to mean that the state act will not affect the federal right, but it will affect those state laws allowed under current interpretations of federal law. So, it’s not contradictory at all. It means they see it as a bad combination of not ending the federal right while at the same time negatively impacting certain allowed state laws.

And if it’s that dangerous to existing laws, why didn’t they say so in the first place?

They did say that - just not initially (I don’t know why - and agree they should have), but the clarification clearly states it.

The main point is they’re afraid of “upsetting the cart.” They do not want to be saints. They care more about their mansions and their money than being prophets.

That I do not know. On its face their position, as stated in the article is, IMHO, not contrary to Catholic teaching.

They’re saying that this law is useless, because the Supreme Court (which has no constitustional authority to review laws, anyway, especially state laws, other than authority it has arrogated ot itself) will never overturn Roe.

The constitutional power is there - like it or not. Marbury has not been overturned - nor has Roe after several attempts. I don’t think we need to hold the Bishops to certain jurisdprudential positions that have lost repeatedly in the courts and are of dubious, at best, applicability.

 

[gam197]

Apparently there are two bills. Saw this on pro-abortion site…

In a Feb. 5 editorial from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, writer Maureen Downey pointed out that a proposed constitutional amendment in Georgia to establish “personhood” for fertilized eggs from the moment of conception would include far-reaching consequences. As submitted by State House Rep. Martin Scott, the proposal could jeopardize some forms of birth control that work by preventing implantation of fertilized eggs, including the pill and the IUD. A second bill from Rep. Bobby Franklin would outlaw all abortions–without exception–in the state, and make any doctor who performs one subject to a felony murder charge, which in Georgia is punishable by the death penalty.