Young woman chooses baby's life over her own

[Kaninchen]

Kaninchen - I know it’s catholic news, but I feel sad that you feel you have to apologize for your viewpoints. We may disagree, but I can tell you that I’m not going to get into any blazing rows with you. I am far more upset that you have been treated in such a way that you feels that your views are not welcomed here. I welcome them. Opposing views lead one to think.

It isn’t that, really, it’s that one has feelings about appropriateness.

It’s a bit like holidays in Italy where the architecture of churches is such a delight. I love taking pictures of the ‘details’, the little architectural flourishes and representations that adorn them, along with the statues and pieties, and have not the slightest qualms about the mutual getting in the way that tourists do (largely Catholic, obviously) taking their pictures and I’m not a little proud of getting others interested as well (“What is it you’re so fascinated with?” “Well, if you look carefully, you’ll see an odd little marble smiley lion – or whatever – to the left of that column up there.” “Oooh Yes, ‘snap, snap, snap’.”). Not a few times, I’ve left small crowds of tourists, zoom lenses now attached, searching for oddities and snapping away, a Cathedral no longer just another stop on the tour and an obligatory photo for the folks back home.

That’s outside, the insides ‘belong’ to Catholic tourists, they are their places and Jewish photographers should defer to Catholic feelings and not get in the way.

I see CAF as being a bit like that. Barging around ‘Secular News’, ‘Non-Catholic Religions’ and so forth is one thing but some areas are, psychologically ‘inside’.

 

[catharina]

What of Catholic women who don’t feel that they can do what this young woman did?

Good question - but it’s never to be a matter of feeling.

The issue is one of faith and obedience, not of feeling.
This must be true under Jewish law as well for any number of issues.
That is, there is a teaching and obedience is the expected response for faithful Jews.

 

[manualman]

JR, I agree 100% on moral issues that involve human rights such as abortion. What I was trying to draw a distinction on was that NOT ALL moral issues rise to human rights issues like abortion, euthanasia and fetal stem cell research do.

I DO believe that contraception and fornication are sinful for ALL humans, catholic or not. But issues like this where the sin does not violate the human rights of another do NOT rise to the level where catholics should attempt to BOTH persuade morally AND coerce with the force of law. (IMO)

Issues like abortion where the human rights of another ARE affected SHOULD be addressed by catholics with BOTH moral AND legal persuasion.

We need to make this distinction otherwise the leftists critics who accuse us of simply being christian Taliban have a point!

 

[catharina]

JR, I agree 100% on moral issues that involve human rights such as abortion. What I was trying to draw a distinction on was that NOT ALL moral issues rise to human rights issues like abortion, euthanasia and fetal stem cell research do.

I DO believe that contraception and fornication are sinful for ALL humans, catholic or not. But issues like this where the sin does not violate the human rights of another do NOT rise to the level where catholics should attempt to BOTH persuade morally AND coerce with the force of law. (IMO)

Issues like abortion where the human rights of another ARE affected SHOULD be addressed by catholics with BOTH moral AND legal persuasion.

We need to make this distinction otherwise the leftists critics who accuse us of simply being christian Taliban have a point!

If they have a point abou it, their point is invalid.
We stand on the side of God’s truth, revelation, and human history, even in this nation.

As recently as the 1930s, ALL Protestant denominations stood together against all of
the fsuch sins you mentioned - to the point that even US law supported this truth.

There was NO availability of contraception. “Religions” didn’t support it.
The first to fall in the area might have been the Episcopalians.
Thus began the growth of the 2-child families in the USA.
With fornication “allowable” and protected, who could be surprised that abortion followed?

 

[manualman]

And in that culture and time, it would have been appropriate to make contraception illegal. The culture at large comprehended the truth, accepted it and was willing to live by it. This is not the case today. If you proposed such a thing today, even if you achieved such a thing today, the public at large would NOT comprehend it, would perceive it as a forcing of religious belief that they did not adhere to on them and it would constitute another barrier between Christ and culture instead of being an evangelical outreach to them.

The unbeliever sees little difference between the christian who demands that he adhere to the revelation of God and the Islamist who claims the exact same thing. You and I agree that one is true and the other phony, but the unbeliever sees BOTH as phonies. He will continue to be an unbeliever until he is converted in his heart. Until then, it is better to limit our legal efforts against his license to ways in which he seeks to violate human rights, not every single moral wrong.

This may sound like reletivism, but it is not. In any age, contraception is a sin and does serious harm to the sexual union of spouses. Civil law is a prudential judgement application of moral law. If you doubt me, look up usury. It once was the case that charging interest at ALL was forbidden for christians. The principle behind that moral teaching remains, but the system of economics changed to the point where today there IS a reasonable level of interest that can be charged on a loan. The Church no longer tries to stipulate what the level is precisely, because doing so would not be received well by the culture at large and would constitute an unnecessary barrier between Christ and the culture. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t sleep well at night if MY income came from selling subprime loans and credit card accounts!

 

[Adeodatus]

We need to make this distinction otherwise the leftists critics who accuse us of simply being christian Taliban have a point!

How can they ever have a point? The so-called “students” actually study only one book: the Koran. It’s not like they sit around reading Abu Ali Ibn Sina (like Catholic philosophers do). They don’t even read their own books! We read theirs and ours.

As a Catholic philosopher, I read many things, including St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquianas. And pagans such as Aristotle and Plato. And many others. As well as works of modern science and mathematics. And of course the Holy Scripture and other spiritual works. Virtually every Catholic intellectual does the same, to one extent or another. As I said, many even read the Islamic philosophers on certain points.

The Taliban have no such boast. They read the Koran and maybe a field manual on how to fire an RPG.

It is foolish and crude thinking, worthy of the likes of the Taliban but not of civilized people, to fail to make this distinction: just because I may say that the bullet and the bayonet* can in some circumstances be legitimate inducements to virtuous conduct does not mean I am a some thoughtless ruffian.

The problem is, for many people, Liberal Democracy is their religion. So anyone who wants to ban pornography or close strip clubs gets lumped in with every ignorant hoodlum from the Third World. That’s just clumsy and crude thinking.

Now, I don’t expect most Catholics to be as astute as I am in recognizing that Democracy is actually a gross defect of socio-political organization that is ultimately inimical to the practice of human virtue, since it took me years and years to realize that and along the way I was tremendously hard-headed about it. But that is an argument for a separate thread. I will just plant this seed: would the best form of state recognize the existence of the human soul, and its nature, or would it not? And leave it at that.

• • Obviously, the reasoned word and the outstretched hand are preferable means, when sufficient.

 

[Rence]

What of Catholic women who don’t feel that they can do what this young woman did?

IMOHO, I would imagine it would be a lot easier on a woman who is carrying her first child. I’ve seen and talked to women (with or without children) who staunchly say they would give up their lives for their unborn children, or risk their lives to have children. I think the drive to protect one’s children is very strong. That’s not to say that the drive to protect onesself isn’t strong too, it IS, but in my experience, those are the answers I’ve gotten.

But the answer is, “oooh, that’s a tough one” if they have children at home and are asked the same question about abortion if their life was in danger. They look at their already-born child and the question isn’t so simple anymore. I would think the decision would be a lot harder if she had other children at home counting on her to be there for them. Or other people. Take me for example: I’m my mom’s full time care giver, and she needs me, she counts on me, without me she has no one. Getting pregnant is not out of the question for me regarding my mom as the only factor, but dying when I can do something medically to not die, is out of the question. I would never opt to abandon my mother.

Then again, there’s nothing like being told you’re going to die to remind one of their mortality. And it’s scary, that’s for sure. We do have the innate drive to protect ourselves. I would think it would take a really religious person, and a strong person at that, to ignore those drives.

As for what would happen if the woman didn’t choose to put her life at risk. You and I and everyone else knows what happens.

Actually, I should apologize for having entered this thread because any observations I might wish to make aren’t really appropriate in ‘Catholic News’ where they might be in, say, ‘Secular News’.

You shouldn’t apologize for entering any thread. This forum, as far as I know, is open for everyone. And I enjoy reading your posts and hearing about your opinions and what you think. Sharing our thoughts and opinions doesn’t have to be a constant battle, with constant bickering, you know. We won’t agree on everything, and I’m sure we may not understand each other all the time, and we may wish to be able to get the other to think like we do, but that doesn’t always happen. Does it have to be? I’ve always found you respectful and kind on this forum and I’m always glad to see you take part in threads.

it’s that one has feelings about appropriateness.

I think one can be appropriate and not agree. And like I said, the forum is open to everyone

 

[Kaninchen]

When asked about ‘why I’m on CAF’, my answer is that, after a decade and a half of internet message boards and lists, I’m not really terribly interested so much in what people believe but, rather, in the consequences of those beliefs (I leave out the fact that there are quite a lot of nice/interesting/fun people around).

Very often, when reading threads here, I find myself reflecting on the concept of ‘the war between the perfect and the good’, the balance between ideals and the ‘art of the possible’ and, not a little, on the old slogan ‘what would happen if they called a war and nobody came?’

This topic is very much in that area and that’s what I think I see in the minds of Catholics debating it – between what the Church says (which they agree upon) and what some see would be a vaguely possible thing to get outsiders (including many who consider themselves Catholics) not only to accept but campaign to achieve.

The trouble that I see is that discussions like this can go a number of ways but, more often than not, become ‘dialogues of the deaf’.

 

[catharina]

When asked about ‘why I’m on CAF’, my answer is that, after a decade and a half of internet message boards and lists, I’m not really terribly interested so much in what people believe but, rather, in the consequences of those beliefs (I leave out the fact that there are quite a lot of nice/interesting/fun people around).

Very often, when reading threads here, I find myself reflecting on the concept of ‘the war between the perfect and the good’, the balance between ideals and the ‘art of the possible’ and, not a little, on the old slogan ‘what would happen if they called a war and nobody came?’

This topic is very much in that area and that’s what I think I see in the minds of Catholics debating it – between what the Church says (which they agree upon) and what some see would be a vaguely possible thing to get outsiders (including many who consider themselves Catholics) not only to accept but campaign to achieve.

The trouble that I see is that discussions like this can go a number of ways but, more often than not, become ‘dialogues of the deaf’.

K, I understood your point.
Yet, in fact, there are a number of issues when
a faithful Catholic can NOT enter a debate mentality.

This is one of those issues.
I hope you saw my earlier post in respnse to yours.
See Post #22.

PS - I’m very glad you’re here.

 

[catharina]

K, PS -
another issue that allows for NO debate is that ALL
Christians owe a great debt to the Jewish Patriarchs.

PPS - in fact, add to that: to the Jewish people and the Jewish law.

 

[Kaninchen]

K, I understood your point.
Yet, in fact, there are a number of issues when
a faithful Catholic can NOT enter a debate mentality.

This is one of those issues.
I hope you saw my earlier post in respnse to yours.
See Post #22.

PS - I’m very glad you’re here.

Sorry, yes I did but forgot.

The difference is that we don’t expect anybody else to follow our codes - people may choose to do so but it’s not, to us, a necessary thing for people to do.

We’re not ‘catholic’ (never mind ‘Catholic’!)

 

[JReducation]

Sorry, yes I did but forgot.

The difference is that we don’t expect anybody else to follow our codes - people may choose to do so but it’s not, to us, a necessary thing for people to do.

We’re not ‘catholic’ (never mind ‘Catholic’!)

This is true. There is also a historical reason for this. Our anscestors believed that the Law had been given to the Jews for the sole benefit of the Jews. Therefore, it would never have entered their minds that others were mean to follow the Law. It was their misunderstanding that started our people down this road of what today appears to be moral indifference on our part.

Yet, if we look closely, there have been times when we have demanded that the world follow our codes or what we understand to be the moral law. A perfect example is the Shoah. We still hold a grudge against the Gentiles because many turned a blind eye to our suffering. We still believe those who did not come to our aid to be out of compliance with the moral law. We’re not that indifferent about the absoluteness of moral laws.

Our people still lack a universal understanding of revelation. Many of our people still hold that the Truth was revealed for our benefit, not the world. They don’t hold on to this idea out of malice, but out of custom. I know that my entire family holds on to this idea. The Law was meant for Israel. Everyone else can do as they wish, as long as we Jews observe the law. We are a people of observances, whereas Christianity revealed that true faith is a combination of observance and evangelization. In other words, if we truly believe that we have found a pearl of great price, out of great love and charity toward neighbor, we must share that pearl. This latter portion has yet to be understood by our people. It will take time for them to understand this.

But we cannot say that our people are right in their naivete, because they are not. They are not evil either. They are not holding others accountable to the Torah not because they don’t care about them, but because they don’t know that it was meant as a gift for all humanity. This is an honest lack of understanding, not a fabricated one as that of those Catholics who argue that abortion is permissible in this case or that, but then argue that you cannot question the Messiaship of Jeshuah.

When it’s convenient for them, revelation is absolute. When it’s inconvenient, it not as absolute. We (Jews, Muslims and Christians) must challenge these Catholics to be consistent or create their own religion. To be this inconsistent is to misrepresent the Catholic faith. A person of real faith: Muslim, Christian or Jew does not misrepresent his faith by adapting it to his beliefs. It’s the other way around. He adapts his beliefs to his faith. This is what our Jewish anscestors taught us as observance. You observe what has been handed down to you; therefore you do the accomodating, not the faith. This was handed down by the first Jewish Christians to their descendants. Today, modern man no longer wants to modify his thinking to the faith. In other words, he does not want to observe what has been revealed. Instead he wants to adjust revelation to his beliefs and feelings.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[catharina]

This is true. There is also a historical reason for this. Our anscestors believed that the Law had been given to the Jews for the sole benefit of the Jews. Therefore, it would never have entered their minds that others were mean to follow the Law. It was their misunderstanding that started our people down this road of what today appears to be moral indifference on our part.

Yet, if we look closely, there have been times when we have demanded that the world follow our codes or what we understand to be the moral law. A perfect example is the Shoah. We still hold a grudge against the Gentiles because many turned a blind eye to our suffering. We still believe those who did not come to our aid to be out of compliance with the moral law. We’re not that indifferent about the absoluteness of moral laws.

Our people still lack a universal understanding of revelation. Many of our people still hold that the Truth was revealed for our benefit, not the world. They don’t hold on to this idea out of malice, but out of custom. I know that my entire family holds on to this idea. The Law was meant for Israel. Everyone else can do as they wish, as long as we Jews observe the law. We are a people of observances, whereas Christianity revealed that true faith is a combination of observance and evangelization. In other words, if we truly believe that we have found a pearl of great price, out of great love and charity toward neighbor, we must share that pearl. This latter portion has yet to be understood by our people. It will take time for them to understand this.

But we cannot say that our people are right in their naivete, because they are not. They are not evil either. They are not holding others accountable to the Torah not because they don’t care about them, but because they don’t know that it was meant as a gift for all humanity. This is an honest lack of understanding, not a fabricated one as that of those Catholics who argue that abortion is permissible in this case or that, but then argue that you cannot question the Messiaship of Jeshuah.

When it’s convenient for them, revelation is absolute. When it’s inconvenient, it not as absolute. We (Jews, Muslims and Christians) must challenge these Catholics to be consistent or create their own religion. To be this inconsistent is to misrepresent the Catholic faith. A person of real faith: Muslim, Christian or Jew does not misrepresent his faith by adapting it to his beliefs. It’s the other way around. He adapts his beliefs to his faith. This is what our Jewish anscestors taught us as observance. You observe what has been handed down to you; therefore you do the accomodating, not the faith. This was handed down by the first Jewish Christians to their descendants. Today, modern man no longer wants to modify his thinking to the faith. In other words, he does not want to observe what has been revealed. Instead he wants to adjust revelation to his beliefs and feelings.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Wow, Brother.
Bravo and thank you.
I learned a lot from your post.

 

[Kaninchen]

Yet, if we look closely, there have been times when we have demanded that the world follow our codes or what we understand to be the moral law. A perfect example is the Shoah. We still hold a grudge against the Gentiles because many turned a blind eye to our suffering. We still believe those who did not come to our aid to be out of compliance with the moral law. We’re not that indifferent about the absoluteness of moral laws.

Actually, I tend to be quite specific about Shoah rather than judging and blaming ‘Gentiles’.

Our people still lack a universal understanding of revelation. . . .

Well, a Christian would say that and I understand why a Christian, particularly a convert, would wish to include us into a Christian scheme of things. If this were another part of CAF, my response would be rather more blunt!

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

It isn’t that, really, it’s that one has feelings about appropriateness.

It’s a bit like holidays in Italy where the architecture of churches is such a delight. I love taking pictures of the ‘details’, the little architectural flourishes and representations that adorn them, along with the statues and pieties, and have not the slightest qualms about the mutual getting in the way that tourists do (largely Catholic, obviously) taking their pictures and I’m not a little proud of getting others interested as well (“What is it you’re so fascinated with?” “Well, if you look carefully, you’ll see an odd little marble smiley lion – or whatever – to the left of that column up there.” “Oooh Yes, ‘snap, snap, snap’.”). Not a few times, I’ve left small crowds of tourists, zoom lenses now attached, searching for oddities and snapping away, a Cathedral no longer just another stop on the tour and an obligatory photo for the folks back home.

That’s outside, the insides ‘belong’ to Catholic tourists, they are their places and Jewish photographers should defer to Catholic feelings and not get in the way.

I see CAF as being a bit like that. Barging around ‘Secular News’, ‘Non-Catholic Religions’ and so forth is one thing but some areas are, psychologically ‘inside’.

Sorry I haven’t responded sooner. I’ve been gone for a few days hiking and camping.

Kaninchen, all I can really say to that post is that your respect for others and for appropriateness is awe-inspiring. Two really big for you!!