Why do many take "don't judge" to mean that we should start judging "conservative" orthodox Catholics?

[Peter_Plato]

In Spanish there’s a saying that goes “Una golondrina no hace verano”, which translates “A swallow (bird) doesn’t a summer make”.

Probably of Greek origin. The first known use of the phrase was by Aristotle in Book 1 of Nichomachean Ethics.

Therefore, the human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue. And if there are more virtues than one, the good will express the best and most complete virtue. Moreover, it will be in a complete life. For one swallow does not make a spring, nor does one day; nor, similarly, does one day or a short time make us blessed and happy.
Source: interlog.com/~girbe/ethics1.html

I gave you statistics, which are basically thousands of reports compiled over decades and compared with the use of mathematical tools, you give me a few news snippets.

There will always be liars. But the force of thousands of reports will always smash the few anecdotes about those few liars.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Even so, the argument is an ad hominem if it is being used as an argument for gay marriage or in support of gay rights. Basically, it boils down to: Those who oppose gay rights are homophobes or haters, therefore they are wrong on the issue. Even if this were true about every individual who opposes gay rights, it would still be fallacy to conclude, therefore, gay behaviour should be approved morally and politically.

It should be pointed out, conversely, that by labeling all opponents to gay behaviour as homophobes and intolerant that taking such a perspective is, itself, prejudiced, and merely serves to dodge the moral and political issue by producing a logical fallacy in place of an actual argument.

 

[Brendan_64]

prefers modern church buildings etc

Me neither, but each to his own I guess.

 

[livingwordunity]

Even so, the argument is an ad hominem if it is being used as an argument for gay marriage or in support of gay rights. Basically, it boils down to: Those who oppose gay rights are homophobes or haters, therefore they are wrong on the issue. Even if this were true about every individual who opposes gay rights, it would still be fallacy to conclude, therefore, gay behaviour should be approved morally and politically.

It should be pointed out, conversely, that by labeling all opponents to gay behaviour as homophobes and intolerant that taking such a perspective is, itself, prejudiced, and merely serves to dodge the moral and political issue by producing a logical fallacy in place of an actual argument.

Well said.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Me neither, but each to his own I guess.

I guess so.

 

[ishii]

That’s really interesting, thanks for posting that.

Those also subject to latae sententiae excommunication would include politicians who have voted in favour of abortion legislation, thus facilitating abortion. It would help sometimes if the Church would speak out and make this very clear, as many Catholic politicians seem to be under the illusion that because it is ‘politics’ and their party wants them to, or their constituents want them to, that it is OK for them to vote in favour of abortion legislation.

If these pro-abortion politicians are excommunicated by latae sententiae, then someone forgot to tell the various archdioceses which give them legitimacy by giving them platforms for speeches. Talk about a mixed message.

Ishii

 

[livingwordunity]

If these pro-abortion politicians are excommunicated by latae sententiae, then someone forgot to tell the various archdioceses which give them legitimacy by giving them platforms for speeches. Talk about a mixed message.

Ishii

St. Cyprian of Carthage called killing a baby in the womb murder (and so did JPII).

“The womb of his wife was smitten by a blow of his heel; and in the miscarriage that soon followed, the offspring was brought forth, the fruit of a father’s murder.” - St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 48

 

[ishii]

If a person supports abortion then they aren’t a liberal Catholic, if a person supports abortion then they aren’t a Catholic at all. If a Catholic supports abortion then they have excommunicated themself.

What do you mean by, “support abortion” ? If a person votes for a pro-abortion politicians, are they automatically excommunicated? If so, could you supply the document where it says this in Catholic moral teaching? And, if they are excommunicated, what is the process by which they are allowed back into the Church? I am not sure, but I think Project Rachel encourages women who have had abortions to be reconciled by prayer and repentance. I am not aware of any excommunications.

St. Cyprian of Carthage called killing a baby in the womb murder (and so did JPII).

“The womb of his wife was smitten by a blow of his heel; and in the miscarriage that soon followed, the offspring was brought forth, the fruit of a father’s murder.” - St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 48

With that in mind, its even more outrageous that some archdioceses would give the pro-abortion politicians a platform to speak and the legitimacy that comes with that.

Ishii

 

[Brendan_64]

What do you mean by, “support abortion” ? If a person votes for a pro-abortion politicians, are they automatically excommunicated? If so, could you supply the document where it says this in Catholic moral teaching?

I have ever said this. I was talking about politicians who vote in favour of abortion legislation, not voters who vote for politicians who vote in favour of abortion legislation (although if the politician’s support for abortion was one of the reasons that they were voting for him, then yes they would be excommunicating themself)…

And, if they are excommunicated, what is the process by which they are allowed back into the Church? I am not sure, but I think Project Rachel encourages women who have had abortions to be reconciled by prayer and repentance. I am not aware of any excommunications.

Any person who has an abortion excommunicates themself.

CCC 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,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 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.

The Catechism is very clear. Any person who procures an abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae. And any person who carries out an abortion, or cooperates in the process (including giving a person a lift to the abortion clinic etc) also incurs excommunication latae sententiae. It would also apply to realtives who expresssed support or encouragement for the person to have an abortion. It would also clearly apply to politicians who vote in favour of abortion legislation.

It would not apply to voters who vote for such politicians, unless of course part of the reason they were voting for a politician was because that politicians supported abortion.

I’m not sure what the exact procedure is for having a latae sententiae excommunication lifted, but I believe that it involves the person’s bishop.

This link has some interesting information on the subject

catholicdoors.com/faq/qu80.htm

 

[LogosSokratikos]

I guess I’m using a higher standard since I’m comparing these anti-gay hoaxes to the fact that in 2,000 years Christians have never had to fake their own persecution.

So you have a standard higher than that of science? Higher standard of evidence than the evidence compiled by a large amount of police organizations and social scientists, many of whom are Christian? LOL

Ok, let me hear it. What is your higher standard and how did you discount the statistical evidence I provided? Please be specific. And what better statistics can you provide as counter-evidence?

 

[LogosSokratikos]

Probably of Greek origin. The first known use of the phrase was by Aristotle in Book 1 of Nichomachean Ethics.

Even so, the argument is an ad hominem if it is being used as an argument for gay marriage or in support of gay rights. Basically, it boils down to: Those who oppose gay rights are homophobes or haters, therefore they are wrong on the issue. Even if this were true about every individual who opposes gay rights, it would still be fallacy to conclude, therefore, gay behaviour should be approved morally and politically.

It should be pointed out, conversely, that by labeling all opponents to gay behaviour as homophobes and intolerant that taking such a perspective is, itself, prejudiced, and merely serves to dodge the moral and political issue by producing a logical fallacy in place of an actual argument.

I agree that it would be an ad hominem to use the persecution to support gay marriage. It would be irrelevant. Nevertheless, it would not be an ad hominem to use the statistical information regarding the discrimination (etc) against a specific group to support protections for that specific group.

If there were violence (in the wide sense) against, say, red-heads, we would need to start entering protections for red-heads specifically, if need to do so is required. Take as a comparison the student rules in a school: they don’t have to specify everything under the sun, but whenever some students invent a new bullying method against someone, a specific method against a specific subset of individuals, it requires new law typification.

That’s what’s always done. That’s why the business of the legislative branch is never over: there’s always something new.

And BTW only those interested in the perpetuation of a form of violence could be interested in going against legislation aimed at stopping that violence. Lack of charity. “Who am I to judge gays?” (who said this?), well then stop judging them and enabling the bullies by opposing the laws that will stop them. If you are against the specific protections for gay people, you are automatically in favor of the discrimination to continue.

 

[livingwordunity]

So you have a standard higher than that of science? Higher standard of evidence than the evidence compiled by a large amount of police organizations and social scientists, many of whom are Christian? LOL

Ok, let me hear it. What is your higher standard and how did you discount the statistical evidence I provided? Please be specific. And what better statistics can you provide as counter-evidence?

Where did you show proof of Christians creating an anti-Christian persecution hoax?

 

[LogosSokratikos]

Where did you show proof of Christians creating an anti-Christian persecution hoax?

I did not do such a thing. Nice loaded question fallacy.

On the other hand I did say:

<<**So you have a standard higher than that of science? Higher standard of evidence than the evidence compiled by a large amount of police organizations and social scientists, many of whom are Christian? LOL

Ok, let me hear it. What is your higher standard and how did you discount the statistical evidence I provided? Please be specific. And what better statistics can you provide as counter-evidence?**>>

Please show what your higher standard for the acceptance/rejection of statistical information. Don’t worry, I’m not waiting standing up, I am sure you have nothing defensible against the actual evidence provided by law enforcement agencies and compiled by social scientists.

 

[livingwordunity]

Except that it’s come to light that often the anti-gay persecutions are hoaxes that are perpetrated by the alleged victims themselves. Here’s the most recent example:

Family Says No Tip For Server Being Gay Was A Hoax
Waitress in anti-gay receipt flap reportedly issuing refunds to donors
Lesbian waitress fired amid anti-gay receipt hoax accusations
post #8:

Also

Lesbian couple pleads guilty to faking hate crime

I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen, but if it is so frequent why would some need to fake getting persecuted? By contrast, Christians have never had to fake any of our persecutions.

In Spanish there’s a saying that goes “Una golondrina no hace verano”, which translates “A swallow (bird) doesn’t a summer make”.

I guess I’m using a higher standard since I’m comparing these anti-gay hoaxes to the fact that in 2,000 years Christians have never had to fake their own persecution.

So you have a standard higher than that of science? Higher standard of evidence than the evidence compiled by a large amount of police organizations and social scientists, many of whom are Christian? LOL

Ok, let me hear it. What is your higher standard and how did you discount the statistical evidence I provided? Please be specific. And what better statistics can you provide as counter-evidence?

Where did you show proof of Christians creating an anti-Christian persecution hoax?

I did not do such a thing.

I rest my case.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If there were violence (in the wide sense) against, say, red-heads, we would need to start entering protections for red-heads specifically, if need to do so is required. Take as a comparison the student rules in a school: they don’t have to specify everything under the sun, but whenever some students invent a new bullying method against someone, a specific method against a specific subset of individuals, it requires new law typification.

This where your argument falls apart completely. Why would red heads merit special protection over and above the protection that “being human” warrants?

I don’t agree that a new bullying method requires a new law typification because the reason red heads should NOT be bullied has nothing to do with the colour of hair, NOT because they are red heads, but, rather because they are human. Being a red head is irrelevant to their protection.

If a new typification is created then red heads are accorded special status under the law. They are no longer protected because they are human but BECAUSE they have red hair, which is discriminatory to other hair colours since an irrelevant feature about them has become morally and legally relevant when, in reality, it should never have been.

Suppose “special protection” is accorded to those with red hair, does that now mean blondes or brunettes can be targeted for mistreatment? Does it mean that someone who refuses to dye their hair red or view red hair as desireable is discriminatory or being a "red"ophobe? Or that businesses can now be compelled to cater to “red heads” according to whatever red heads demand that that might entail? Could bakers then be legally compelled to bake red cakes to satisfy red heads because failure to do so was construed by a red headed customer as discriminatory? After all, chocolate (brunette) and vanilla (blonde) cakes are offered by the bakery.

What of bald-headed persons? Should bakers of cakes be legally compelled to offer cakes with bald figurines if that is what a bald customer demands? Why not? According to your analysis, if bald individuals levied sufficient legal power and could demonstrate that “baldness” is not accorded due dignity, then why could this trait also not be accorded special typification and bald persons have a similar right to make demands on businesses to provide “bald” products, not merely to serve the market but because some new typification law says they MUST? Where will this stop?

 

[LogosSokratikos]

What of bald-headed persons? Should bakers of cakes be legally compelled to offer cakes with bald figurines if that is what a bald customer demands? Why not? According to your analysis, if bald individuals levied sufficient legal power and could demonstrate that “baldness” is not accorded due dignity, then why could this trait also not be accorded special typification and bald persons have a similar right to make demands on businesses to provide “bald” products, not merely to serve the market but because some new typification law says they MUST? Where will this stop?

It’s not a question of reaching enough political pressure. It’s a question where there is objective information where, in the hypothetical case of bald people (or redheads, or whatever) being persecuted for being bald, can only be protected by laws specifying baldness or you can word it differently to include even more cases and have the law say “all scalp/hair conditions”. The fact that you would be against any mention of the word “bald” in a law to protect people actually shows it is very probable you have some personal dislike for bald people. And that is the reason society has a problem with “conservatives”: the fact that they can’t stand any legal protection for people who are gay, because really, if there is no hatred of gay people, why should you jump at that and not other words?

Bottom line:
Why should the word “homosexual” irritate you in a law that protects people?

I mean, I wouldn’t give a rat’s rear if a law that protects people specifies redheads or bald folks! Why the ire?

 

[ishii]

I have ever said this. I was talking about politicians who vote in favour of abortion legislation, not voters who vote for politicians who vote in favour of abortion legislation (although if the politician’s support for abortion was one of the reasons that they were voting for him, then yes they would be excommunicating themself)…

Any person who has an abortion excommunicates themself.

CCC 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,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 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.

The Catechism is very clear. Any person who procures an abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae. And any person who carries out an abortion, or cooperates in the process (including giving a person a lift to the abortion clinic etc) also incurs excommunication latae sententiae. It would also apply to realtives who expresssed support or encouragement for the person to have an abortion. It would also clearly apply to politicians who vote in favour of abortion legislation.

It would not apply to voters who vote for such politicians, unless of course part of the reason they were voting for a politician was because that politicians supported abortion.

I’m not sure what the exact procedure is for having a latae sententiae excommunication lifted, but I believe that it involves the person’s bishop.

This link has some interesting information on the subject

catholicdoors.com/faq/qu80.htm

Thank you for providing the documentation, Brendan 64. I suppose that it would be better to make some clarifications, though :

“To actually incur the excommunication one must know that it is an excommunicable offense at the time of the abortion. Canon 1323 provides that the following do not incur a sanction, those who are not yet 16, are unaware of a law, do not advert to it or are in error about its scope, were forced or had an unforeseeable accident, acted out of grave fear, or who lacked the use of reason (except culpably, as by drunkenness). Thus a woman forced by an abusive husband to have an abortion would not incur an excommunication, for instance, whereas someone culpably under the influence of drugs or alcohol would (canon 1325).”

ewtn.com/expert/answers/abortio2.htm

Ishii

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
And BTW only those interested in the perpetuation of a form of violence could be interested in going against legislation aimed at stopping that violence. Lack of charity. “Who am I to judge gays?” (who said this?), well then stop judging them and enabling the bullies by opposing the laws that will stop them. If you are against the specific protections for gay people, you are automatically in favor of the discrimination to continue.

Your profile indicates you are from Central America. You may not know therefore that the hate crime law was passed and signed by Obama on the basis of a false narrative of a case, the killing of Matthew Shepard – he was not murdered for being gay. Not that it is permissible to kill anyone, gay or straight, black or white, etc. You might not know about the Safe Schools program under the U.S. Department of Education, also put in place by the same president, with the appointment of Kevin Jennings. Not that there is anything wrong with appointing an openly homosexual man to a public office, but this man inserted pro-homosexual curriculum and literature in public grade schools. In short, the program ostensibly to protect gay youth from bullies served as the entry for indoctrination of children to normalize homosexuality.

FYI, I am staunchly against violence against gays (I have a close family relative who is gay). I am for the legal protection of gays as far as employment opportunities are concerned, their advancement in the workplace and in business, and that they not be discriminated in obtaining housing loans or renting a place to live. They should remain free to carry on with the adult sexual partner(s) of their choice. I am against the re-criminalization of sodomy.

However, I am strongly against the legalization of same sex marriage and adoption of children by same sex couples, based on Natural Law, what is consistent with the common and social good, and the teaching of the Catholic Church. Does the last point make me a party to discrimination of gays, worse, a bigot or homophobe, in your view?

Your honest answer, please.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The discussion on this thread in the first few pages on (in)tolerance reminded me of this quote by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen:

“America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance — it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.”
,

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s not a question of reaching enough political pressure. It’s a question where there is objective information where, in the hypothetical case of bald people (or redheads, or whatever) being persecuted for being bald, can only be protected by laws specifying baldness or you can word it differently to include even more cases and have the law say “all scalp/hair conditions”. The fact that you would be against any mention of the word “bald” in a law to protect people actually shows it is very probable you have some personal dislike for bald people. And that is the reason society has a problem with “conservatives”: the fact that they can’t stand any legal protection for people who are gay, because really, if there is no hatred of gay people, why should you jump at that and not other words?

Bottom line:
Why should the word “homosexual” irritate you in a law that protects people?

I mean, I wouldn’t give a rat’s rear if a law that protects people specifies redheads or bald folks! Why the ire?

First off, you’d have made a completely erroneous assumption about me regarding my “personal dislike” for baldness (but I’ll let you keep thinking what you want because you’ll only dig yourself in deeper.)

The “ire” is non-existent, just as there is no ire for “homosexual.” I just think we are being sold a bill of goods here by the gay agenda having picked out a weak spot for most human beings - guilt concerning sexual sin together with “who are you” to make sin an issue. Two points that will make most individuals very hesitant about speaking up. Add to that the possibility of being labeled a “homophobe” and people’s insecurities will be mostly overwhelmed and any discussion concerning rational judgement will effectively be shut down.

 

[LogosSokratikos]

The discussion on this thread in the first few pages on (in)tolerance reminded me of this quote by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen:

“America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance — it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.”
,

A most honest confession of bigotry you just quoted.

One would think the story character who stopped the stoning of the adulteress would not mind defending the weak from bullies.