Pope Pius XII on voting
#11
(10-16-2012, 06:25 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I'm not sure that a couple of posts on the subject count as "taking potshots at those concerned with abortion."

One potshot at pro-lifers is too much on a Catholic forum and you've made at least 2-3 now.

Whose side are you on?
Reply
#12
(10-16-2012, 04:55 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: You never give up do you? :LOL: I totally agree with the Holy Father of pious memory. The problem is that if you think that voting for the pro-abort pagan, Romney, is 'to work effectively for the true good of the people, as loyal defenders of the cause of God and of the Church', I've got some land in Nunavut I'd like to sell you as a winter vacation home.
It's not just abortion, there is also the contraceptive mandate also.
Reply
#13
(10-16-2012, 11:15 PM)Poche Wrote:
(10-16-2012, 04:55 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: You never give up do you? :LOL: I totally agree with the Holy Father of pious memory. The problem is that if you think that voting for the pro-abort pagan, Romney, is 'to work effectively for the true good of the people, as loyal defenders of the cause of God and of the Church', I've got some land in Nunavut I'd like to sell you as a winter vacation home.
It's not just abortion, there is also the contraceptive mandate also.

Not just? Am I missing something here?


Reply
#14
(10-16-2012, 07:31 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-16-2012, 06:25 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I'm not sure that a couple of posts on the subject count as "taking potshots at those concerned with abortion."

One potshot at pro-lifers is too much on a Catholic forum and you've made at least 2-3 now.

Whose side are you on?

I'm not sure that I'm on anyone's side. I'm anti-choice if that's what you mean. I do think one can criticize pro-lifers, though. For instance, the whole movement is based around the idea that the individual has a "right to life." Their hearts are in the right place, perhaps, but basing one's position on liberal arguments is problematic.
Reply
#15
(10-17-2012, 03:29 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-16-2012, 07:31 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-16-2012, 06:25 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I'm not sure that a couple of posts on the subject count as "taking potshots at those concerned with abortion."

One potshot at pro-lifers is too much on a Catholic forum and you've made at least 2-3 now.

Whose side are you on?

I'm not sure that I'm on anyone's side. I'm anti-choice if that's what you mean. I do think one can criticize pro-lifers, though. For instance, the whole movement is based around the idea that the individual has a "right to life." Their hearts are in the right place, perhaps, but basing one's position on liberal arguments is problematic.

The way you skew things is legendary.  Please explain how human dignity and the command to preserve and foster human life has its root in anything other than traditional Christianity.
Reply
#16
(10-17-2012, 04:23 AM)Walty Wrote:
(10-17-2012, 03:29 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-16-2012, 07:31 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-16-2012, 06:25 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I'm not sure that a couple of posts on the subject count as "taking potshots at those concerned with abortion."

One potshot at pro-lifers is too much on a Catholic forum and you've made at least 2-3 now.

Whose side are you on?

I'm not sure that I'm on anyone's side. I'm anti-choice if that's what you mean. I do think one can criticize pro-lifers, though. For instance, the whole movement is based around the idea that the individual has a "right to life." Their hearts are in the right place, perhaps, but basing one's position on liberal arguments is problematic.

The way you skew things is legendary.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm skewing things.

(10-17-2012, 04:23 AM)Walty Wrote: Please explain how human dignity and the command to preserve and foster human life has its root in anything other than traditional Christianity.

The whole idea that the individual has "natural rights," including a natural right to life, is inherently liberal. This was the whole problem with Maritain: he tried to fill the language of natural rights with a Christian content. Consider what St. Thomas says about the killing of the innocent:
ST II-II q64 a6 Wrote:I answer that, An individual man may be considered in two ways: first, in himself; secondly, in relation to something else. If we consider a man in himself, it is unlawful to kill any man, since in every man though he be sinful, we ought to love the nature which God has made, and which is destroyed by slaying him. Nevertheless, as stated above (Article 2) the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in relation to the common good, which is corrupted by sin. On the other hand the life of righteous men preserves and forwards the common good, since they are the chief part of the community. Therefore it is in no way lawful to slay the innocent.

I won't object to using the phrase "human dignity" to refer to the claim that we ought to love the nature that God has made, though arguably putting things in these terms makes it easier for Christianity to be co-opted by secular humanism, but I'm not sure that it can be called a "natural right to life." Rights talk is problematic for a lot of reasons, but for one thing it places far too much emphasis on the individual. It also just doesn't seem particularly traditional. Until recently, Christians did not think of their moral obligations in terms of rights. If St. Augustine and St. Thomas could say that abortion is wrong without resorting to the language of natural rights, I don't see why we need them.
Reply
#17
I think CP makes a good point here, one that is not often made. The extent to which 'human rights' talk has been baptized and marked out as the superior way of understanding human society in postconciliar Catholic thought is disturbing to say the least. It binds the Church to liberal democracy, with rights and freedom of the individual as the primary organizing principle, with broad-ranging effects. Consider the absurd spectacle of the Catholic bishops of Zambia strenuously opposing any language in their new constitution that would define it as a "Christian nation." While the support of the Catholic bishops for the new Hungarian constitution was slightly more encouraging, in practice the Church has not presented any substantive critique or alternative to liberal democracy since 25 years of human rights talk under John Paul II.

Reply
#18
The language of "rights" is not exclusive to the Enlightenment. St. Robert Bellarmine used this language in his political writings.

Quote: “Political right is immediately from God and necessarily inherent in the nature of man” (“De Laicis,” c. 6, note 1).
Reply
#19
(10-17-2012, 04:54 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-17-2012, 04:23 AM)Walty Wrote:
(10-17-2012, 03:29 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-16-2012, 07:31 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-16-2012, 06:25 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I'm not sure that a couple of posts on the subject count as "taking potshots at those concerned with abortion."

One potshot at pro-lifers is too much on a Catholic forum and you've made at least 2-3 now.

Whose side are you on?

I'm not sure that I'm on anyone's side. I'm anti-choice if that's what you mean. I do think one can criticize pro-lifers, though. For instance, the whole movement is based around the idea that the individual has a "right to life." Their hearts are in the right place, perhaps, but basing one's position on liberal arguments is problematic.

The way you skew things is legendary.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm skewing things.

(10-17-2012, 04:23 AM)Walty Wrote: Please explain how human dignity and the command to preserve and foster human life has its root in anything other than traditional Christianity.

The whole idea that the individual has "natural rights," including a natural right to life, is inherently liberal. This was the whole problem with Maritain: he tried to fill the language of natural rights with a Christian content. Consider what St. Thomas says about the killing of the innocent:
ST II-II q64 a6 Wrote:I answer that, An individual man may be considered in two ways: first, in himself; secondly, in relation to something else. If we consider a man in himself, it is unlawful to kill any man, since in every man though he be sinful, we ought to love the nature which God has made, and which is destroyed by slaying him. Nevertheless, as stated above (Article 2) the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in relation to the common good, which is corrupted by sin. On the other hand the life of righteous men preserves and forwards the common good, since they are the chief part of the community. Therefore it is in no way lawful to slay the innocent.

I won't object to using the phrase "human dignity" to refer to the claim that we ought to love the nature that God has made, though arguably putting things in these terms makes it easier for Christianity to be co-opted by secular humanism, but I'm not sure that it can be called a "natural right to life." Rights talk is problematic for a lot of reasons, but for one thing it places far too much emphasis on the individual. It also just doesn't seem particularly traditional. Until recently, Christians did not think of their moral obligations in terms of rights. If St. Augustine and St. Thomas could say that abortion is wrong without resorting to the language of natural rights, I don't see why we need them.

THAT is your big problem with the pro-life movement?  They protect the biggest persecuted minority of innocents today but their language isn't as philosophically precise as you'd like?  Come on, CP.

God's creation ought to be respected because it is made by God.  Human life is sacred and murder, especially of those who are completely innocent, is thus one of the gravest evils imaginable.

That's a summarization of the pro-life movement.  Yes, many Protestants have muddled the language, but their intentions and their desired end is substantially good and just.  For you to criticize the entire movement because of accidental semantics is really quite scandalous, I think.
Reply
#20
Very nit-picky indeed. Almost an intentional contrarianism...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)