Pedophilia is Fine, but Hold the Abortion

[mystieus]

Run time: 02:10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoInZ7Hd37E   Posted on YouTube: May 20, 2010 By YouTube Member: lauraflanders Views on YouTube: 24   Posted on DU: May 21, 2010 By DU Member: mystieus Views on DU: 2183

 
In another story from Arizona, but one that's attracting less attention than that state's check your documents anti-immigration law, a nun in Phoenix has been ex-communicated after approving a live-saving abortion. Sister Margaret McBride was excommunicated for approving an abortion without which, doctors say, both the woman and her 11-week-old fetus would have died. According to Thomas Olmsted, the Bishop of Phoenix, approving an abortion is an excommunicating offense -period...

[harry_pothead]

1. Yet another reason I'm glad I'm not part of the Catamite Church.

[patrice]

2. Why do people always skip mention of all of the innocent children killed in our wars?

[Angry Dragon]

4. I am having a little trouble understanding

the point of your statement

[liberation]

8. Red herring maybe?

[patrice]

12. rofl - Could you be just a little bit more transparent? nt

[patrice]

11. And if it is okay to harm innocent defenseless children in war, then it is possibly okay also to

harm innocent defenseless children by any other means, so WHAT is the broadcaster's beef?

[Angry Dragon]

15. Thank you for getting back to me

It is not okay to kill innocent people, whether children or adult. But that was not what the video was about. It was about it was okay to excommunicate a nun that was trying to save a life of the mother instead of strictly following church dogma. In the eyes of the church it is okay to abuse young children , promote the perps, and hide them, but it is not okay to save a life after looking at all the options.

[patrice]

13. See #10 below. I posted it in reply to myself instead of to you.

[patrice]

10. OP/video is about hypocrisy: Abortion is grounds for excommunication, but pederasty isn't.

That's hypocrisy because both harm the innocent and defense-less and yet one is hidden and protected while the other is justification for excommunication. That's the point of this broadcast.

I find the broadcaster suspect that she did not include another very obvious hypocrisy of the very same type: harming and killing innocent defenseless children in war is honored and admired. We go billions into debt to finance actions that cause this harm to innocent defenseless children and, yet, there are those who honor war but can't tolerate a woman's private decision to have an abortion. They're against the harm done to the innocent defenseless fetus/child by abortion, but not against the harm done to innocent defenseless children in war.

It's soooooooooooo obvious that having to explain it to you, and someone calling it a red herring downthread, also the fact that it was left out of this broadcast in the first place, all of that seem quite odd to me.

It seems very odd that the hypocrisy is recognized in one instance but not the other. It seems very odd not to recognize: if someone is against (Baby Killers) harming innocent harmless babies by aborting them from the womb, why aren't they ALSO against harming innocent defenseless children by pederasty and ALSO against harming innocent defenseless children in war?

If someone is against harming innocent defenseless children with pederasty, why aren't the also against harming innocent defenseless children in war?

If we're against harming innocent defenseless children, if that's our reason for being against either one or both pederasty and/or abortion, then why aren't we against ALL acts that harm innocent defenseless children?

It's just so fucking PC right now to rage on and on against Catholic pederasts, but ignore OUR own murders of the innocent and defenseless in Iraq and Afghanistan (currently) for political expediency.

In short, I'm suggesting that this broadcaster, and the poster below who suggests that this point is a red herring, and perhaps you, are guilty of the very hypocrisy that they (you?) criticize in some Catholic bishops.

[Angry Dragon]

17. If you want to attacked me for my beliefs you are free to do so

however you have no idea what I have in my heart and soul. All I did was ask you a question because i was unsure of what you were saying. Should I have attacked you for your vagueness?? That thought did not cross my mind.

As far as what I would like to change in this world would fill all the libraries in the world and then some.

I have been attacked by the catholic church for over 45 years, since my teens, just because I was brought up in a faith that was not theirs'. Is that right or fair?? As far as attacking the catholic church i feel it is fair game. On numerous occasions they have held themselves out as the universal church, the only true path to everlasting life, as the only church personally chosen by god himself to spread the true word. I feel if a church is going to state that then they better be able to stand up to any and all questions. If they get pissed because someone asks something of them then they better retract themselves.

I have no time for the catholic church, they are ignorant and arrogant. They put the church before god. They destroy the souls they say they are trying to save. They are against abortion, yet masturbation is a sin, sex before marriage is a sin, sex education is a sin, everything to then is a sin. If they are so worried about abortions then they need to find ways to help people avoid getting into a situation where that becomes an option.

When it comes to war it is just greed. If a politician thinks war is the answer I say then let them fight it if it is so important to them. Are there times when killing is justified?? Yes. If one is being attacked then one has the right to defend themselves. Is it wrong to kill innocents no matter their age?? Yes.

It would be nice to talk to me before you lump me into a group that I do not belong to. I would try to do the same for you.

Just for the record, I think bp, halliburton, transocean should all be tried for murder and kidnapping. I will say that on every post that I run across on the oil gusher. Everyone in the bush administration should be tried for war crimes. To me no elected official or government employee is above the law. No church is above the law, saying that they hold god's law above mans' law just does not cut it for me. If they want to live among men then they need to obey mans' law.

If you want to talk I will listen.

[olegramps]

23. Right on and I would like to add:

The Catholic Church's condemnation of contraception is the condemnation of the most important means for limiting abortion. It must also be added that it is the most effective means of not spreading AIDs other than absolute abstinence which has the Catholic Church priests have shown to be an unmitigated failure resulting in sexual perversion.

They think nothing of terrorizing children with the threat of eternal damnation for "inappropriately touching themselves." I consider this to be psychological terrorization and abuse of children that is intolerable. I am married to a Catholic and I was empathic on two important points before we were married since I was well acquainted with the devastating results of some of the Catholic Church's teaching. Firstly that our children would not be subjected to going to confession and that it would be totally voluntary and in fact discouraged until they were an adult. Masturbation was to be considered to be ABSOLUTELY a normal sexual practice and not only normal but that its absence was regarded by the vast majority of health care professionals to indicative of abnormal behavior. As stated by the sex researchers, a parent should be concerned if their adolescent is not masturbating rather than that they are.

It is a primary duty of a parent to protect their children from teaching that could be detrimental to their health and wellbeing and I had seen the results of fanatical teachings that had resulted in what is termed "scrupulosity". People caught in the grips of this form of anxiety consider every mundane thought be worthy of their eternal damnation. In its extremes it can drive people to the point of suicide.

These requirements eliminated enrollment of any children in Catholic Schools. She had come to the realization of the irrationality of a number of Catholic teachings and totally agreed upon these conditions. That this was nearly 50 years ago demonstrates that it isn't just today's Catholics that are out of step with their church's doctrines. Catholics were making up their own minds on a number of these issues years ago, but remained Catholics as part of their family heritage. It has only been more recently that a number of Catholics have become more vocal in their opposition or have chosen to just abandon the Catholic Church as being hopeless unable to reform its medievally inspired doctrines. Pope John XXIII open the door to reform, but his successors, like vampires retreating from the light of truth have crawled back into the Dark Ages.

[bulloney]

20. Right to Life intentionally leaves out things like war and health care out of its mission statement

Right to Life is basically a political arm of the Catholic Church, although they'll deny it.

The cynic in me says they do this so they can continuously endorse Republican candidates for office, which is what they do every election. Every Sunday before Election Day, Right to Life inserts flyers on windshields of parked cars in the church's parking lot. 99% of the candidates they endorse will be Republican.

They'll even endorse candidates like state legislators and local county office candiates. What can a state legislator or a county commissioner do regarding abortion laws in this country? But, RTL's endorsements are overwhelmingly Republican, so it fits right in their real agenda.

If RTL should ever address other "life" issues, it would muddy the water too much. They wouldn't be able to endorse their "pure" Republican slate of candidates. In fact, they would probably have to--perish the thought--endorse more Democrats.

In the eyes of RTL, George W. Bush is "pro life." Yeah, the same George Bush who lied us in a war that has bankrupted this country morally and financially while killing thousands of innocent people. The same George W. Bush that calls the uber-wealthy "my base."

RTL has all the credibility of a kleptomaniac in a jewelry store in my books when it comes to "life" issues.

[HisTomness]

3. This is great news!

I would say two lives were saved!

[AmericaIsGreat]

6. Maybe even three

Perhaps the nun will realize what a load of crap Catholicism is and leave it. That's saving a life in a way.

[HisTomness]

19. That's what I was getting at :)

[BeatleBoot]

5. Did Teddy Kennedy's Resurrection Mass offend you?

I'm sorry if it did.

[Francisco]

7. Well said

bunch of hypocrites

[scentopine]

9. I sent them some cash - Grit is worth supporting!

[patrice]

14. They're too PC for my money. Obvious omission of the hypocrisy of harming children in war.

This broadcast was probably a paid for hit-piece.

[scentopine]

18. Ah - you have hit a topic that fires me up...

pro-lifers believe abortion should begin after birth.

To the right wing christian nut jobs I ask,

"when you kill a young child in war, is this OK, while abortion is not?"

"when you bomb a village and kill young children before they've had a chance to accept jesus as their savior, do the kids go straight to hell just like the women who has an abortion?"

"when you bomb a pregnant woman from a predator drone, are you committing an abortion?"

Its about control and power. If a right winger bombs a village and kills a bunch of children, the right winger is in control and doing god's work. If a women decides to terminate her pregnancy, that is a decision being made without the consent of the "god whisperers" and this lack of control over life and death infuriates the right wing control freaks.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. In Catholic hospitals the life of the baby HAS ALWAYS taken precedence over the life of the mother.

I guess unborn souls are worth more than living souls. Looks better for the bottom line when it comes to the soul counting.

[bulloney]

21. I would love to meet a father who was in a situation where he saves the mother or the fetus.

I'd love to see if the church, via the hospital, has ever explained to the father that his wife will have to die in order to save the baby. And that father will have to raise that child--and possibly several other children if they had any before this situation--by himself.

I wonder if anyone has ever been placed in that situation, and what was the father's decision. And what were the mother's thoughts when the hospital explained that she would have to die to save the baby.

Anyone have any examples where that occurred?

[kag]

22. A friend of mine was...

albeit it many years ago. When she, herself, was being born, her mother was in some sort of life-threatening condition. (Sorry I don't have a lot of particulars.) Her father had to sign something that said "If there is a choice between saving one or the other, I want you to save..." According to this friend he fairly easily chose that he wanted his wife saved. Obviously they both survived, or she would not have been around to tell me this story. She didn't seem to mind, either. They already had three kids, and she believed that he made the right choice.

Sorry this doesn't say a lot about the church, but that story has stuck with me for years, and has helped form my own opinions on abortion.

[BrklynLiberal]

25. It is the doctrine of the church.

http://webspace.webring.com/people/np/paul_tobin/abortion.html

The Church is adamant on ensuring that its teachings on abortion reaches the laity. Thus we find the excerpt below from a book, Moral Problems in Hospital Practice (1947), with the official Catholic imprimatur, presenting the issue on abortion in a question and answer form:

Q If it is morally certain that a pregnant mother and her unborn child will both die, if the pregnancy is allowed to take its course, but at the same time, the attending physician is morally certain that he can save the mother's life by removing the inviable fetus, is it lawful for him to do so?
A. No, it is not. Such a removal of the fetus would be direct abortion. <8>

The Catholic moral theologian, Bernhard Haring wrote a book Das Gesetz Christi (1967) in which he tried to defend the papal pronouncements on abortion from 1884 to 1951. He asserted that these pronouncements were in reality "a salutary admonition to the medical profession to develop its practice better." <9> In elaborating this idea, that abortion is not allowed under any circumstance, the Catholic priest David Granfield provides the chilling ruling of the church: "Two natural deaths are a lesser evil than one murder."<10> As de Rosa commented in his book Vicars of Christ:

Because mother and child have an equal right to life, they must both die. If any statement revealed the ethical bankruptcy of a biological morality, this is it. <11>

In cases where only one, either mother or child, can be saved, the Church again, against all human reason and compassion, decreed that it is the child that takes precedence. The reason is not so much to save a life but, due to the Augustinian teaching that unbaptized babies will suffer eternal damnation, simply to allow the baby to be baptized.In fact, according to Bernhard Haring, the mother is obliged to undergo such operations (such as caesarean section, severing the pelvic bone of the interpubic disk) to secure the child's life to allow its baptism. There is, of course, no excluding the possibility that the mother will die due to the operation. Haring has, unwittingly, provided an answer to Pope Pius XI's rhetorical question: What could ever be a sufficient reason to justify the direct killing of a human being? His answer: to provide baptism for the newborn. For he asserted in his book that a "maternally right thinking" mother should risk her life to enable the baby's baptism. <12>

This position has not changed in recent years, in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor (1993) Pope John Paul II stressed that abortion is intrinsically evil and no exceptions are to be made to allow for it.<13>

In his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II seems to be claiming infallibility in his absolute pronouncement against all forms of abortion for whatever reason:

In effect, the absolute inviolability of innocent human life is a moral truth clearly taught by Sacred Scripture, constantly upheld in the Church's Tradition and consistently proposed by her Magisterium. This consistent teaching is the evident result of that "supernatural sense of the faith" which, inspired and sustained by the Holy Spirit, safeguards the People of God from error when "it shows universal agreement in matters of faith and morals".
...
Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral.
...
The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. "Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo... Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action".<14>

..:mad: :puke: :grr: :nuke:

In most cases, the husband/father is not even given a choice as the previous poster described. The decision is made for him.

[BrklynLiberal]

24. Another blog that discusses this situation

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/catholic_hospitals_favor_death.php

Totally consistent with the Calvin quote from Sunday Sacrilege:

If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it.

Misogyny at its best..er, worst

[BrklynLiberal]

26. k n r