Referendum this coming Friday 25th May in Ireland

[klmt123]

St. Patrick needs to save those babies in Ireland from abortion!!!

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Reading things like Evangelium Vitae, and “Living The Gospel of Life: A Challenge to [U.S.] American Catholics” and this "ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II
AT THE COMMEMORATION OF THE FIFTH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE ENCYCLICAL “EVANGELIUM VITAE”
( To the 6th General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (February 14, 2000) | John Paul II )
a person would get objective ideas on how The Holy Spirit directed The Church on these things and directions to make the Gospel of Life, an integral concern for all pastoral care; and the many
faceted works of The Church, and reaching out to institutions and facets of society with
And the situation hasn’t changed. Yes, what is called for is a monumental task; but with
so many nay sayers; and passivity — the effort remains fragmented and only done with
brief efforts; or even practically unheard of in a vast number of parishes.
Those of us who made this a large part of their life’s work in Evangelizing The Gospel,
can only keep praying, while asking, seeking, and knocking, for more to join the effort
to raise awareness of the need for this sustained ‘sign’ bearing much more fruit that
was exhorted by John Paul ii.

---

I noticed this thread citations of evil works done by the sins of persons in the Church,
with various examples that created scandal. Theses sins of humankind are not
a result of the Divine Revelation through Christ — but sorrowful misuses of power.
May we cooperate with Grace for true witness; and overcome these things.

---

If what John Paul ii asked for were accomplished to a much higher degree with
more cooperation throughout the Church; the dangers to The Sacredness of Life
in Ireland would have been opposed with great compassion by instruments
of God over the years with a good chance that keeping the 8th Amendment;
would be much better supported.
While we will rejoice if life wins; and be sorrowful if life is attacked even more;
we should learn from this to be a greater 'sign for a culture of life.

 

[Sophia]

Again, it’s not that I didn’t care enough to prevent it. But rather that I felt the lesson learned was of more value to the child.

No difference. In your value system allowing the act is superior to preventing it - regardless of the consequences.

And here is the second part… a good parent doesn’t let a CHILD perform acts with lethal consequences. Keyword - a CHILD.

Since it was you, who started your post with the word “child”, you cannot complain that I used your example. By the way, compared to God we are “children” (seriously retarded children), and we shall never grow into an adult. So God has no excuse for his non-intervention.

When parents have adult offspring who are criminals, there comes a point where the parent can no longer prevent them from doing what is dangerous, illegal, immoral, etc.

The “parent-child” relationship here is irrelevant. If and when we see an impending act of terrorism, which we could prevent, and allow to happen, we are not in the position to whitewash our “permission” by referring to the “sanctity” of free will. Even if that person is our own grown-up child.

Hold on. Are you saying that you’re superior to God because you’d act to prevent evil, and God apparently wouldn’t?

I am talking about everyone, you included. Anyone who allows a terrorist act in the name of “free will” is on the same level of “morality” as the terrorist.

 

[Vonsalza]

So, what is the problem? If allowing abortion is superior to preventing it - in the name of “free will”, then why do you attempt to supersede God’s will?

The only time you can be certain of “God’s permissive will” is when it’s already happened. And even then, there’s no reason to think that it can’t change again as it did the first time. Again, God’s permissive will inherently points to the action of other actors.
If you really think about it, the argument there in nonsensical. It dumbly requires that God’s will not be served on one side of the decision.

As a matter of fact, the “problem of evil” has no solution.

I always appreciate the irony when someone who rejects the existence of God on an empirical basis tries to tell me a “fact” about something else that’s also metaphysical like evil… Really. I do. No deliberate snark there.

As a matter of value, it does. Free will. Now you’re free to axiomatically accept or reject, sans penalty. I’m sure you can guess which side I’m on.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Why does your profile say that you’re Catholic?

 

[Sophia]

The only time you can be certain of “God’s permissive will” is when it’s already happened. And even then, there’s no reason to think that it can’t change again as it did the first time.

Last time I heard, God is unchanging and unchangeable. (So much for the success of supplicative prayers.)

I always appreciate the irony when someone who rejects the existence of God on an empirical basis tries to tell me a “fact” about something else that’s also metaphysical like evil…

I don’t know who was the one who rejected God’s existence on an empirical basis. It was not me, so I cannot comment. Now, I do not deny that someone, eventually might have a good explanation for the problem of evil. I cannot guarantee it, since I am not omniscient. But one thing is certain, all the attempts so far ended in miserable failures. And the free will defense is one of them.

Moreover, the word “evil” is an adjective, which describes a certain type of “behavior”. It is not an “object”, metaphysical or otherwise.

As a matter of value, it does. Free will. Now you’re free to axiomatically accept or reject, sans penalty. I’m sure you can guess which side I’m on.

Also without any “snark” I am always amused when someone uses the expression “free will” as a generic panacea (or a Jolly Joker), which is supposed to answer any problem.

Well, it does not explain it. First, the expression “free will” can mean several things. Not even the professional philosophers can agree on a common definition. Some consider it synonymous with “freedom to act”, while others assert that it is enough to “freely will” something even if the decision is impossible to carry out.

For the “problem of evil” there are several attempts of explanations. Read the “The tale of the twelve officers”, available here: The Tale of the Twelve Officers Very useful article.

This is the first paragraph:

It was, of course, sad to hear that Ms. K had been slowly raped and murdered by a common thug over the course of one hour and fifty-five minutes; but when I found out that the ordeal had taken place in plain sight of twelve fully-armed off-duty police officers, who ignored her terrified cries for help, and instead just watched until the act was carried to its gruesome end, I found myself facing a personal crisis. You see, the officers had all been very close friends of mine, but now I found my trust in them shaken to its core. Fortunately, I was able to talk with them afterwards, and ask them how they could have stood by and done nothing when they could so easily have saved Ms. K.

Read the rest, and weep…

Why does your profile say that you’re Catholic?

Because that is what I am. When one gets baptized, it leaves an “indelible” mark on one’s soul, and therefore “once a Catholic, always a Catholic”. (Quite unlike the Protestant “once saved, forever saved”.)

 

[7_Sorrows]

have they tallied the votes yet? it should be 9 or 10 in Ireland by now.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

The only time you can be certain of “God’s permissive will” is when it’s already happened. And even then, there’s no reason to think that it can’t change again as it did the first time.

Last time I heard, God is unchanging and unchangeable. (So much for the success of supplicative prayers.)

Kind of my point. How on earth could you ever identify a spot in time where “God’s will” wasn’t being served.

The only “change” I was referring to was whatever you were using as a marker. Like an abortion law. If you did a bit more than skimmed over it, I imagine you would have picked this up.

Vonsalza:

I always appreciate the irony when someone who rejects the existence of God on an empirical basis tries to tell me a “fact” about something else that’s also metaphysical like evil…

…But one thing is certain, all the attempts so far ended in miserable failures. And the free will defense is one of them.

I wasn’t aware it failed. I suppose you have some proof of this claim of failure (which I bet will tie-in to the irony I’ve referenced immediately above)? Must be darn good, since proving negatives is already a difficult thing to do… And proving a negative for a non-empirical subject, no less…

But please. Elucidate.

Moreover, the word “evil” is an adjective, which describes a certain type of “behavior”. It is not an “object”, metaphysical or otherwise.

It’s more than one part of speech…

From Oxford;
Evil -
Noun
“Profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.”

I wish you luck informing Oxford that their dictionary needs your revision.

Also without any “snark” I am always amused when someone uses the expression “free will” as a generic panacea (or a Jolly Joker), which is supposed to answer any problem.

In its absence, there’s only automation.

Well, it does not explain it. First, the expression “free will” can mean several things. Not even the professional philosophers can agree on a common definition.

For the learned, that would make it difficult to launch a formal critique. However, you don’t seem to feel so constrained by uncertainty as our philosophical betters. A la - “all the attempts so far ended in miserable failures. And the free will defense is one of them.”

Again, you wanna walk that back any, in the name of academic consistency?

For the “problem of evil” there are several attempts of explanations.

I’m familiar. I’ve paid both secular and religious schools good money to explain a few to me.

 

[ProVobis]

Polls will close at 10pm on Friday. Counting will begin on Saturday with the results expected to come in later on in the day.

Ireland abortion referendum results: What will happen if Ireland votes yes | World | News | Express.co.uk

 

[7_Sorrows]

ok. thanks for the tip. so we might know tomorrow morning here in the U.S.

 

[Rob2]

In my opinion the Church is partly to blame for this. The scandals involving the Church has led to the sentiment that the Church has betrayed the Irish people.

Unfortunately I have to agree with you .

Compared with other times , the bishops have had to take a back seat in this referendum because they know that their voice meets deaf ears in many of the Irish because of the backlash from the sex-abuse scandal .

It’s just over an hour now to the close of the polls , and from what I have come across in the last month the news is not going to be good .

If the Irish vote for a change , with what has been happening in the last decade or so , I have been wondering whether any part of the Church has gone into such rapid decline over such a short time as the Church in Ireland .

 

[Sarcelle]

This not an apt analogy.

A more fitting analogy is warning someone that if they stick their hand into fire they will get burned.

The person goes ahead and sticks a hand into the fire and as predicted gets burned. Now was it you punishing this person by burning him or her or is it a consequence of this individual’s decision?

An individual can choose to be with God or without. If God is the source of all that is good and right and a person chooses to be without that source than they will no longer enjoy what is good and right.

It’s a consequence not a punishment.

 

[Sarcelle]

I still have faith though in the future of the Church in Ireland.

There will always be a faithful remnant.

 

[Rob2]

I still have faith though in the future of the Church in Ireland.

There will always be a faithful remnant.

So true .

We must never give up .

 

[ATraveller]

Essentially, abortion is a non-negotiable for the secular Left. Abortion is a sacrament.
Emphases mine:

If the cliché holds, Ireland will vote “Yes” […] It would vindicate the island’s political and cultural establishment (from the leaders of both major parties to the members of U2) and bring Ireland into alignment with the general secular-liberal consensus

At the same time, it would put an end to an all-but-unique experiment in Western public policy: an attempt to combine explicitly pro-life laws and generally pro-family policy making with a liberalized modern economy and the encouragement of female independence and advancement.

[The] Irish experience […] demonstrates the unsurprising truth that pro-life laws reduce abortion rates. Irish women do obtain abortions, traveling to the [UK] or using chemical abortifacients. But even an expansive estimate for the Irish abortion rate places it lower than most comparable European countries — and at about a third the rate of England and less than half of the [US].

This low abortion rate coexists with other indicators […]: one of the highest birthrates of any European country, at 1.92 births per woman compared to the 1.58 fertility rate for the [EU] as a whole; a low out-of-wedlock birthrate compared with the [UK] and other Western European nations; the lowest divorce rate in Western Europe […] considerable public spending in direct support of parents — considerably more than the officially pro-life and pro-family political party in the United States tends to support.

Ireland’s maternal mortality rates are consistently low, not high, relative to its neighbors and similar countries. It has a female work force participation rate slightly below the Western European norm, but it has around the same share of women in management as Switzerland or Norway or Belgium, and the World Economic Forum’s latest “gender gap” assessment placed Ireland eighth-best in the world in terms of achieving social and economic parity between the sexes.

Opinion | The Irish Exception - The New York Times

 

[Brendan_64]

The scandals involving the Church has led to the sentiment that the Church has betrayed the Irish people.

Sadly, I think you could have a point there. But is that really a good enough reason to go out and vote for hundreds of thousands of children to be brutally slaughtered?

 

[Sarcelle]

From what I see on the news and from what I’ve read is that people are trying to weaken the Church’s hold on Ireland. Church teaching should be done away with including the ban against abortion.

Voting yes is one way to do it.

 

[ATraveller]

That’s the method used in England with the CofE (possibly also in Wales and Scotland) according to Peter Hitchens. The CofE was in a weak state after 2 world wars plus spineless leadership. The attacks on the CofE were relentless. It was divorce that was the first attack in the English context.
And this referendum won’t be the last for the Irish Catholic Church and other Christians. There will be more.

 

[Brendan_64]

As far as the slaughter of innocents goes, King Herod was an amateur compared to abortion providers.

(Apologies to Sarcelle for jumping to a false conclusion about what you posted)

 

[Sophia]

I wasn’t aware it failed.

In that case you could prove (positively) which one of the attempted defenses for the “problem of evil” was successful. I gave you the analysis in the “Tale of the twelve officers” for twelve attempts. You can start there. Did you take time to read it?

I only said that the attempted solutions failed. What is there to prove?

“Profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.”

And also: (adjective) profoundly immoral and malevolent.
Since there is no proof of a “supernatural force”, it is just an empty definition. The expression “evil act” is rational. The expression “evil supernatural force” is - at best - a poetic phrase.

In its absence, there’s only automation.

Since there is no common definition of “free will”, its absence is also undefined. But I will help you. There is no such thing as “total, unrestricted, unbridled free will”. Our freedom to act or even “will” is always restricted. Why is it a problem to have some more restrictions on it, if that restriction would only affect undesirable actions? There is a good old saying: “sometimes less is more”. Less freedom to commit evil acts is more desirable than more freedom to do the same. If you wish to deny that, you will need to prove that “evil acts” are better than “benevolent acts”. Good luck to do that.

I’m familiar. I’ve paid both secular and religious schools good money to explain a few to me.

And which one(s) did you find compelling? They are collected in the link I provided. Just point out the ones to me.