Open Thread

Movie Recommendation for Today:
"The Ninth Day"

NPR Film Review link below:

"German Filmmaker Tackles the Holocaust in 'Ninth Day' "
by Pat Dowell

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4674934

Saint for August 18:

St. Jane Frances de Chantal
(1562-1641)

https://www.americancatholic.org/features/saints/saint.aspx?id=1111

I might be in some trouble with Peter after this but...here's Carl Truemen again, on top form as well:

https://www.reformation21.org/counterpoints/doubting-on-your-part-does-not-constitute-a-crisis-of-faith-on-mine.php

Here is a shocking story of sexual abuse by some Christian Brothers in Australia. Up to 30 of the children abused later took their own lives as they tried and tried to come to terms with what happened to them. The story includes the usual denials and cover-ups that we have come to expect from the Catholic Church.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/dont-let-christian-brothers-stay-quiet/story-fn56avn8-1226114786723

Newlach

Your post will be met with a deafening silence from certain bloggers on here. It didnt involve abortion.

Or did it?

Newlach,

Shocking indeed. But the Catholic church doesn't have a monopoly on abusing the young. I came across a ghastly story on Pharyngula about the abuses in christian teen homes.

https://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/new-bethany-ifb-teen-homes-abuse

If we are into recommending films can I recommend Children of God.

BBC:"Up to a million pilgrims from across the world have gathered in the city for events which will culminate with an open-air mass on Sunday celebrated by the Pope." (World Youth Day)



That's a whole lot of people. Even more, if you count the protestors. :)

Does it ever seem as if you were wiser when you were younger? Have you ever read about comforting or championing your “inner child?” Well, when I tried to do that, my inner child ended up comforting me. I remembered how easy I used to be.

When I was in the fifth grade, I asked the priest: “How do you know this is the truth?” And he said, “It’s a very old book.” That didn’t satisfy me of course. A friend recently told me that the priest didn’t know the answer. I think, more than that, he didn’t know how to answer Me.

The confessional has been mentioned in regards to priests keeping secrets of abuse, and the confessee feeling absolved. However, most paedophiles are not likely to admit their acts (often not even feeling responsible for it - to themselves – they ‘blame’ the child). I don’t think it’s being “confessed” very much at all. As we now know, abuses were known about and hidden (priests moved around) for a long time. I think it took a long time for contemporary society to realize what childhood sexual abuse does to a person. I’m not even convinced everyone in the field of psychology knows the extent of the effects.

I have a problem with the burqa and other head-coverings on women (that I won’t go into again here). It was turning me off God, but I decided to let it turn me off religion instead. I only really delved into religions as an adult - and I never strongly doubted the existence of God or my connection with God until then!

Oh, mscracker: I forgot Flannery O’Connor’s stuff can be…gloomy :-/ (And I haven’t read Wise Blood.) I can see how the BBC mods would’ve been suspicious, not being familiar with American Literature like you supposed, plus their being quite skittish and all. :) No insult to the mods intended.

3. At 17:54 18th Aug 2011, Andrew posted a good link.

A couple of things:
“…a view of truth which sits perfectly with the coffee house Christianity of the comfortable West; I am not sure if it could have inspired the Apostle Paul to remain confident through all the trials and tribulations he had to endure in the first century.”

Carl Trueman might be certain, but I’m not certain Paul remained steadfastly inspired and confident throughout. He may have finished the race (we suppose), but he was still as human as any saint alive today and enduring the Western coffee house on one day and the Crucifix the next (talk about temptation for inspiration!).

“It puts those of us from good homes with idyllic upbringings at something of a disadvantage in later life.”

They are at a great disadvantage. It must be like having stood next to the roller-coaster instead of having taken a seat on it. One thing to do with suffering is to use it to understand others. There aren’t many who can live vicariously, without at least a semi-comparable experience. Luckily for those with idyllic upbringings, suffering can come at any time of life. Then after that they may really know what peace and happiness is. (And their writings, songs and artwork will likely be much more interesting!)

Can anyone provide a good reason why the British government shouldn't open formal negotiations with Argentina and Spain about the future of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar respectively?

newlach, #4;

That story does look dreadful, though it's not exactly award-winning journalism. But in fact the question of abortion (RJB's post, #5) is indirectly related to it. Christian Brothers were among those who took in thousands of orphaned or 'illegitimate' British children, sent to Australia between 1947 and 1967. Some of them had bad experiences, but others flourished. Overall it wasn't necessarily the most humane thing to have done - but it was more humane than killing so many children conceived in the same sorts of circumstances, in the womb, from 1967 onwards.

Theophane (@ 12) -

That story does look dreadful, though it's not exactly award-winning journalism.

I would express that differently. "That story does look dreadful" should read "That story IS dreadful, in fact, it's totally satanic."

Why are you trying to take the edge off a clear and undeniable instance of evil? Who cares what "kind of journalism" it is? Are we only allowed to believe in the reality of evil if it is reported eloquently?

I have a great deal of sympathy for your position concerning abortion. I do think that the 1967 abortion act has been abused, and that social abortions seem to have become the norm. However, taking a stand on one thing does not somehow justify being lax about other evils. God is against all forms of evil. Period. (Romans 1:18).

What the Christian Brothers did was evil, pure and simple. Assuming the facts are correct (and I have no reason to assume they are not - and if they are, please show me the evidence), then what this institution did was as bad as any other example of evil we can possibly read about. No amount of "good works" can balance out the record or somehow "excuse" these "quite obviously good people" from a rather unfortunate moral lapse!! (Which is what it sounds like you are trying to say).

I don't know why you feel the need to try to defend a religious institution anyway, as the Bible makes patently clear that the people of God can commit the most appalling crimes. Just being a member of the "right set" does not automatically confer righteousness. Righteousness comes from God, not from membership of an organisation. I think that is pretty basic stuff biblically. It is not about outward conformity, but inner transformation.

Your attempt to try to "take the edge off" the seriousness of this case is not doing your cause any good at all, Theophane. Even people who are moderately sympathetic to some of the stuff you say are likely to be alienated. I know this is the case, because I am one such person!

Theophane (@ 11) -

Can anyone provide a good reason why the British government shouldn't open formal negotiations with Argentina and Spain about the future of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar respectively?

I was going to make a comment about this, but given the more sombre nature of this thread so far, I wouldn't want this to be a distraction from the question I commented on in #13. So perhaps later...

@9. marieinaustin:
I knew someone who worked in the prison system with offenders who preyed on children.Some offenders excuse was that they were offering something special to the child.They truly believed that they were giving attention & love to a child who was often from a single parent home & was especially needy. The human mind can get pretty twisted.
I hadn't thought of Flannery O'Connor as gloomy, but she surely shows a darker side of human nature.I think her style of writing sort of shocks one into thinking.

Weekend Movie Recommendation:

The Chorus (2004)

Les choristes (original title)

Something along the theme of how to treat those involved in the UK riots, this takes place in a French reform school.Really moving, worthwhile film.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372824/

Saint for the Day: August 19
St. John Eudes
(1601-1680)


""In his parish mission work, John was disturbed by the sad condition of prostitutes who sought to escape their miserable life. Temporary shelters were found but arrangements were not satisfactory. A certain Madeleine Lamy, who had cared for several of the women, one day said to him, “Where are you off to now? To some church, I suppose, where you’ll gaze at the images and think yourself pious. And all the time what is really wanted of you is a decent house for these poor creatures.” The words, and the laughter of those present, struck deeply within him. The result was another new religious community, called the Sisters of Charity of the Refuge. "
Full text in link below:
https://www.americancatholic.org/features/saints/saint.aspx?id=1112

I knew an oral hygienist who volunteered at the prisons. She said the child sex abusers were always beat to pulps and needed the most face/teeth work done - over and over.

I wonder if this (what I heard) is true: Not everyone who was sexually abused abuses (of course, that part’s true), but every sexual abuser was once sexually abused. In any case, the human mind can get pretty twisted (very true), but that’s one type of human-criminal (convicted or not) that I don’t have the slightest sympathies for.

@18.marieinaustin;
I'm no psychologist but would guess that for many child-abusers that may be true.However, older kids can simply be seen as easy sexual prey by some sorry individuals.I don't think some who seduce teenagers are necessarily pedophiles but simply sexual opportunists.
We have many young teenage girls in the school system who are pregnant by older men.My son's former English teacher took a job teaching pregnant middleschool students(6th-8th Grade),11 to 14 years old.There were enough of these kids to create a fulltime job for the teacher. Thankfully, she was a great choice for the job, but what a sad situation.

Caught some of Garrison Keillor on Sunday, when he said, regarding that irrepressible American optimism:

“37% of Americans believe that they aren’t going to die and that their taxes will be lowered.”

LSV;

I'll grant you, OK - that story doesn't just LOOK dreadful, it IS dreadful. But i would certainly defend my right to call into question the standard of journalism. For this sort of stuff;

"FOR the boys hunted by the sickening nest of paedophiles that ruled Ballarat's St Alipius school, there was no escape.

They were trapped in an evil maze of aroused, leering priests and brothers drooling..."

Only one priest from this school has been accused of these crimes. The prosecution alleged that other Christian Brothers knew about it and were even present when it occurred - but none of the related articles indicate the Christian Brothers' response to this very serious allegation. At the end of the article a reference is made to another convicted criminal priest - but in fact he had nothing to do with the Christian Brothers at this school.

From the Scottish Catholic Media Office message for Communications Sunday, which mscracker posted on the "Papal Nuncio" thread;

"...the media is not simply a news-gathering or truth-seeking organisation. Newspapers, broadcasters and websites can have their own agenda and favourite narrative, even when such a narrative is shown to be exaggerated or mistaken."

A "favourite narrative" of numerous organs of the broadcast and print media seeks to portray the entire Catholic priesthood as, at best, 'suspect', of having commited criminal acts against children. Many of us who are in the Church can see plainly that such portrayals are egregiously unfair, and can also see that, intended or otherwise, they erode the ability of the Church to speak out on matters of absolutely vital importance, such as the civil rights of unborn children.

"No amount of "good works" can balance out the record or somehow "excuse" these "quite obviously good people" from a rather unfortunate moral lapse!! (Which is what it sounds like you are trying to say)."

I never said anything about "good works", "excusing" anything, or "quite obviously good people". I don't mean to "take the edge off" the crimes of this priest, but i will try to defend the Church when i believe criticism is excessive or unfair - because i believe the Church retains a very important role, and a voice which urgently needs to be heard.

St. Mary McKillop, Australia's first Saint, braved the wrath of the Church authorities by exposing a priest who had abused children in the 19th century. I sincerely hope that all Catholics, and all people of good will, would be as courageous as she was.

@22. Theophane :
Very reasonable remarks.I wish there was some way for folks to have charitable dialogue on the issues without all the drama & hostility.But if one approaches with an attitude hostile to the Church, or religion in general-good luck.
I try to stay away from the subject matter because it just adds fuel to the fire.It does little, it seems, to discuss some subjects rationally.
Try discussing circumcision on some forums for parents & you'll see the same sort of thing blow up.Some blogs have simply banned the subject because conversation always becomes uncharitable & ends up in name calling.
You have a good weekend & God bless!

Theophane (@ 11) -

Can anyone provide a good reason why the British government shouldn't open formal negotiations with Argentina and Spain about the future of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar respectively?

Coming back to this subject, could you let me know what you think of this article on the subject of the Vatican and the Falklands War.

Also, concerning Gibraltar, could you explain why you think the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) should not be respected.

I assume that if you think Britain should consider handing Gibraltar over to Spain, then you would be willing to urge the Catholic Church to hand over the Vatican to Italy? That is only fair, don't you think?

We can't have corrupt double standards now, can we?

I wonder how Theo feels about the government of Morocco repeatedly calling for Spain to transfer the sovereignty of Ceuta and Melilla? Perhaps in an era of increased security needs, Spain may benefit from UK help patrolling this area

The trouble Theo has encountered with his argument re-abortion is that there is a huge elephant in the room, namely, child abuse by clergy. Everyone sees it apart from him.

He attempted to pre-empt that criticism this time..... and ended up putting his foot even further in it.

And secondly,

"...the media is not simply a news-gathering or truth-seeking organisation. Newspapers, broadcasters and websites can have their own agenda and favourite narrative, even when such a narrative is shown to be exaggerated or mistaken."

The Church lost its right to pontificate about the media when it gave a Papal Knighthood to RUPERT MURDOCH!!

Theo also doesnt see the irony of bringing up Mary McKillop - a woman who "braved the wrath of church authorities" when she exposed an abusive priest.

She was actually excommunicated.

As I say, he just doesnt get it.

It's hard to take Theo seriously when he doesn't even believe his own propoganda from one month to the next. In June he was very clear- sexual abuse was a "particularly foul 'unintended consequence' of the sexual revolution" - going as far to claim Polish society had been saved from sexual abuse by communism. Now he draws our attention to Australia's first Saint who stood up to the Catholic Church & sexual abuse in the Victorian era.

RJB made a very astute comment in June

You might then understand how gauling it is for someone like myself to read posts by Theophane and MCC apportioning blame for the abuse on hippies, gay people, the parents, the police, liberals, secular society, everybody and their auntie except the archaic, unaccountable, clerical, pious, Latinate, Pharisaic church which they would have us return to.

Vatican II Council had the honesty to see what was happening and what our church had become. Its attempts at reform have been fought against tooth and claw by one powerful man - Ratzinger! He listens to no-one and has now managed to silence the Bishops, intimidate the Cardinals, excommunicate the theologians, give the mop-buckets and brasso back to women and totally ignore one of the greatest scandals in the history of the Catholic Church.

If we want to take an honest look at societal shifts- WAR has been the agent of change. We only have to look at the difference in society from the 1910's to the 1920's to see how WW1 shook things up. Then to be followed a generation later by WW2, it's little surprise society now appears structured differently- re-arranged by the bomb & the gun- children & society acclimatised to the reality of one parent families. An upshot being however, the impact of both wars on western society now places greater value on equality & human rights.

There's a misplaced association, however, between liberalism & crime. Previous generations upheld as bastians of high moral value culled & slaughtered on a scale only comparable to the European wars of religion. In a media age we have to contend with sensationalism, but this also existed in the Victorian era. In the 1850s and early 1860s there were panics about street robbery, known then as 'garrotting'. And in the Economist, an article quotes a book called Hooligan: A History of Respectable Fears by Prof. Pearson, providing examples before that:

"In London, 1815 sees the foundation of the Society for Investigating the Causes of the Alarming Increase in Juvenile Delinquency in the Metropolis. 1751 sees Henry Fielding's "Enquiry into the Causes of the Late Increase of Robbers" (Fielding fingered "too frequent and expensive diversions among the lower kind of people"). The seventeenth century saw moral panics about violent and rowdy apprentices, as well as about organised fighting among gangs (wearing coloured ribbons to identify their troops). Professor Pearson ends with the sixteenth century and puritan fears about, if not gangsta rap, popular songs that treated criminals as heroes.

Many social conservatives pinpoint an increase in crime with a corresponding dip in religious observance, however, there's a closer correlation between crime & people bringing TV's into their homes- A constant stream of graphic violence & companies bombarding us with 'must buy' products. This is a revealing insight into how the advent of TV affected Bhutan- Fast forward into trouble

Since I've been infesting this blog, about 6 months or so, this is at least the third time, from memory, that Will has posted an open thread, with the opening caveat: "I don't often post an open thread..."

Yes you do mate. You do it quite often. Update the 'cut and pastes' please.

At each and every occasion the subject that has dominated has been the RC church, and its relative benefits and shortcomings.

This is a little boring and predictable.

Perhaps 'open threads' may be a useful ploy for the busy journalist, but it is clear that we, as contributers, do not have the discipline or inclination to open up genuinely 'new' areas of discussion.

We need direction. We are weak.

newdwr -

...it is clear that we, as contributers, do not have the discipline or inclination to open up genuinely 'new' areas of discussion.

Speak for yourself, mate.

William -

Following on from newdwr's comment about Open Threads, I would just like to express my opinion by saying that I think they are a good idea. So thanks for posting them.

And if newdwr thinks that people are not willing to kick off discussions, then I would like to direct his attention to post #109 on the 20th July Open Thread, in which I introduced a new story.

Furthermore, newlach offered something new in post #112, to which I replied in #113.

Neither of these subjects concerned the Catholic Church, and I notice that newdwr failed to contribute to either of these 'new' discussions.

So what the heck is he complaining about, I wonder?

Hey newdwr, you might like this- The scale of the Universe

On a different subject- many moderates; on either side of the religious divide feel religious fundamentalists (of which Abrahamic religions make up a large proportion) are a destructive, de-stabilizing force on this planet & should just be put on an island somewhere far away from those capable of rational thought & left to tear each other apart. Let them fight & work out who's the most authentic before God & the least 'coffeehouse'. Maybe then, the rest of humanity can be left to get on with their lives in relative peace.

They could discuss it in the island’s coffee houses. They could have debate, improv, stand-up and open-mike nights. And send postcards back to civilization with the latest scores.

The coffee would at first be imported to the island, then locally grown. It would become the RICHEST coffee in the world. ;-)

Priest or pastor,
everyone talks faster.

In The End, the pro-coffee house Christians of course appear to win, but for some reason they die at a much younger age.
---------------------

An outsider’s note:

After I stepped in here and posted, I looked around and thought I’d interrupted a Catholic or Christian Community Forum. I thought: Oops - I must’ve posted my Garrison Keillor on the wrong blog.

Compared to posts here, my theological musings, although colorful and appearing in the rushes, mostly end up on the cutting-room floor.

Hey marie, If only the religious fundamentalist had a track record of pacifism & irreverent humour the stand-up / open-mike nights might have a chance ;)
In reality, even if we just zone in on the Abrahamic faiths, their mutual bigotry & hatred would probably lead to bloodshed before the coffee machine was even plugged in. If only they could recognise how 'coffeehouse' everyone is. How can we can we not be, we're only human afterall, not Gods. Instead of empathy & understanding, the rabid pursuit of the fundamentalist for purity leads to anything but purity. Fundamentalism being an excuse for some of the most heinous crimes against humanity. It's as if the holy book of the fundamentalist has replaced their soul & humanity. A quiet, contemplative, peace loving Buddhist who won't kill an insect has a greater chance of entering God's heaven than many who profess his name in various stripe of fundamentalist, be they Jew, Christian or Muslim.

Hey, Theophane, I know it's only been two days, but are you going to follow up your post #11 concerning Gibraltar and The Falklands?

You did introduce this subject and your silence is leaving me in quite a state of suspense!

I am truly intrigued as to why you brought up this subject.

Or was it just a bone you threw to the dogs to keep the little yappers quiet?

Hey Ryan,

In recent years, people seem to be turning to, or back to, their religions. The problem IMO is it’s in a tighter, clingy way, with more fear than humour.

I find this helpful, attributed to Saint Isaac of Nineveh: “Be at peace with your own soul, and heaven and earth will be at peace with you.” It’s a good reminder to not become like…anything I dislike, by letting it get to me. Jesus said, “Not what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” In my experience I have to agree with that, as it’s never easy to get the self-inflicted taint off.

Hey Marie, nicely put, I agree in many ways, however, there's an interesting article about secularism in Der Spiegel. It could be seen as evidence of religious moderates stepping away from religion as a physical entity & exploring their spirituality in more esoteric terms- leaving outward, public worship to far right elements who know how to pander to their audience

Interesting article Ryan, thanks for the link.

I liked the description of an increase in religiosity as an optical illusion - a smaller but more aggressive grouping who appear larger than they are.

I also found it worrying that there would be anywhere in the states which would bar non-believers from public office - surely an offence against human rights and a complete anathema to a country which proports to separate church and state.

Hey Dave, those 2 points stood out for me as well, along with this..

"...Many evangelicals have simply become more aggressive and more political."

This heightened public profile may be contributing to the shrinking numbers

LSV, #24;

Greetings! I hope all is well. The article. In his hastily arranged visit to Argentina in June 1982, Blessed John Paul II sought to allay Argentine fears that his prior visit to the UK indicated partiality towards the UK in the conflict;

"If during that apostolic visit – which was meant to be, and in fact was, a continuous prayer for peace, as much as a service rendered to the cause of ecumenism and to the Gospel – my thoughts and my affection were also with you, my presence today is intended to be visible proof of such love in an historical moment as sorrowful for you as this one is."

I take him at his word - you of course are free to think otherwise. He went on to say;

"Therefore, at this moment mankind must once more ask itself about the absurd and always unjust phenomenon of war, in whose scenario of death and pain only the negotiating table, which could and should have prevented it, remains valid."

Professor Stephen Hawking once lent his voice to an advert, if i remember rightly, in which he said that humanity must "keep talking". It just occurs to me that one could look at the Crimea as a possible model for a solution which might be acceptable to all sides. It is an autonomous republic within the Ukraine, with a majority ethnic Russian population, and retaining a base of the Russian Baltic Fleet. The Russians have an arrangement whereby they lease this base from the Ukrainians - perhaps the British could negotiate more favourable terms for retaining a military/naval presence in the Falklands/Gibraltar?

The Treaty of Utrecht, er, '1713'. Need one say very much more? If you wanted to treat it as sacrosanct, you would have to press a British claim to the Balearic island of Minorca.

You ask;

"I assume that if you think Britain should consider handing Gibraltar over to Spain, then you would be willing to urge the Catholic Church to hand over the Vatican to Italy?"

The Italian State has never been in possession of the Vatican, and makes no claim to sovereignty over it. The crucial difference, it seems to me, is that the Vatican's independence in no way 'sours relations' between it and the Italian State.

LSV, #35;

"I am truly intrigued as to why you brought up this subject."

It relates to the crowds of pilgrims who have been in Madrid for this weekend's World Youth Day. Disputes over the sovereignty of Gibraltar and the Falklands have at different times soured Britain's relations with Spain and Argentina, but i believe that, regardless of confessional differences, with God's help mutually agreeable solutions could be found. The first step might be to believe that this is possible.

Theophane -

Thanks for your response.

Any thoughts about JP2's silence regarding the evils of the Argentine Junta? Any thoughts about those who were tortured and who disappeared? Or is silence on this issue acceptable in order to appease "Catholic Argentina"? It seems totally pointless to speak against the evil of war, while at the same time turning a blind eye to the vile oppression and murder of Argentine citizens, many of whom, I am sure, must have been Catholics, and therefore the Pope's pastoral responsibility. What sort of "shepherding of the flock" is that?!

As for the Treaty of Utrecht, yes it was in 1713. And your point is??

Funny how Catholics claim that their church is the only true one precisely because of its longevity and historical pedigree. As it's old, can I take it therefore that it is no longer relevant - a bit like the "old" Treaty of Utrecht. Or does "old" only mean irrelevant when it suits your argument?

Furthermore, Spain's possession of Gibraltar obviously goes back to before the Treaty of Utrecht. Therefore, according to your reasoning, its claim is irrelevant, being so antiquated.

As for the Vatican and Italy, the comparison is perfectly sound. Spain has no right to Gibraltar, as Italy has no claim to the Vatican. It's irrelevant what the different parties think. That's the legal position. Simple.

By the way... would you be happy for Morocco to claim back Ceuta and Melilla (a good point that Ryan brought up)?

Sorry to be so belligerent, but I still can't see why you brought up this issue. Why should one country cede its territory to another, just because that other country decides to make a claim for it and may feel sour about it? Please explain why you think Spain has a valid legal claim to take over another country's territory.

Theophane -

I've just seen your post #42 after I posted my last one in which I repeated my question.

I'm afraid you still haven't answered it, because what is the connection between Spain's spurious claim on another country's territory and a load of young people descending on Madrid for their Catholic event?

You seem concerned about a political problem, and seem to view its "resolution" (although there is nothing to be resolved) as somehow necessary in order to achieve some spiritual goal.

Which leads me to wonder whether you are expressing a position of the Catholic Church or are these just your own musings?

If the former, then the Catholic Church needs to learn to keep its nose out of politics, especially political issues that are none of its business.

newdwr,

https://ncronline.org/news/accountability/german-catholics-are-weary-says-jesuit

What planet do you think Cardinal Sodano is from?

LSV;

"Any thoughts about JP2's silence regarding the evils of the Argentine Junta?"

It was not his place to 'take sides' in this conflict.

"Spain has no right to Gibraltar, as Italy has no claim to the Vatican. It's irrelevant what the different parties think. That's the legal position. Simple."

In other words, it's irrelevent what Spain thinks. That is your opinion, but not mine.

"You seem concerned about a political problem, and seem to view its "resolution" (although there is nothing to be resolved) as somehow necessary in order to achieve some spiritual goal."

You think there is nothing to be resolved; i think damaged or strained relations with other countries should at the very least be addressed. Another difference of opinion.

"Which leads me to wonder whether you are expressing a position of the Catholic Church or are these just your own musings?"

These are certainly just my own thoughts, and i hardly think you would expect me to apologise for expressing them. Spain has its own issues to resolve with Morocco - fine. I hope they can "keep talking" too.

Theophane (@ 46) -

In other words, it's irrelevent what Spain thinks.

Of course it's irrelevant. In the same way that it would be irrelevant if Norway wanted the UK to return the Shetland Islands to them, or if the UK wanted the Republic of Ireland to return its territory to them.

If I wanted to take possession of your house, do you think that my thoughts on the matter would be "relevant"? Of course my thoughts would be totally irrelevant, since I have no right to what is yours.

Clearly you must have some reason to think that Spain has a right to take over the territory of another country. I would be interested to know what the basis of this claim is. If the only basis to the claim is that Spain used to control this territory, then I guess England should put in a claim for Calais, since we used to own that town! Perhaps Denmark should put in a claim for a good chunk of England, since it owned it in the ninth century, called "The Danelaw"!! In fact, it's about time the USA entered into negotiations with the UK regarding the future of the thirteen colonies!!!

Theophane (@ 46) -

Oh I forgot about this one...

It was not his place to 'take sides' in this conflict.

I wasn't talking about the Falklands War, but the evils of the regime INSIDE Argentina.

It was encouraging to hear on today's programme that TV in N Ireland may soon be advertising services connected to a woman's reproductive needs. The commercials would not be aired on UTV, but they would allow women to see where to access accurate information. The virulent anti-abortionist interviewed on the programme was forced to defend the accusation that some agencies in Northern Ireland "lured" pregnant women seeking abortion advice to their offices with a view to making them go through with the pregnancy (delay, delay, delay then too late to abort).

When will abortions be available in Northern Ireland?

newlach,

Those tactics sound eerily familiar to what is going on in the USA. There are some so called 'pregnancy counseling centres' run by evangelical churches. They are so misleading and disingenuous that New York city recently passed a measure (supported by its Republican party mayor, no less) to force these centres to be more honest about their business.

Not just New York and Northern Ireland

https://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/aug/02/abortion-pregnancy-counselling-found-wanting

I find it strange that governments have to legislate to force some evangelicals to be honest. It does not say much for their adherence to their own beliefs. I say strange, but not surprised.

newlach (@ 49) -

The virulent anti-abortionist interviewed on the programme was forced to defend the accusation that some agencies in Northern Ireland "lured" pregnant women seeking abortion advice to their offices with a view to making them go through with the pregnancy (delay, delay, delay then too late to abort).

Try and imagine this scenario...

Suppose your mother had told you that when you were in her womb she had actually been seriously considering having an abortion, but she was "deceived" by one of those nasty evangelical groups into going ahead with the pregnancy.

How would you feel now about that "dishonest" anti-abortion group?

Resentment and anger or gratitude and appreciation?

I look forward to your reply.

(I know what my answer would be! Tragically millions of totally innocent people don't get the chance to consider this question.)

Academics from the University of Texas published a study into the correlation between teenage sexual activity and delinquent behaviour. The main results were that teenagers in committed sexual relationships were less likely to show delinquent behaviour, while those who had non-dating sexual relationships were more likely to do so.

https://www.springerlink.com/content/458751464t18g546/

https://www.utexas.edu/news/2011/08/17/harden_teen_delinquency/

I'm curious how those advocating abstinence until marriage would respond to this one. No doubt many of them would be happy to tout the finding that non-dating sex correlates to delinquent behaviour. But that would mean referring to a study that also shows committed teenage sexual relationships to correlate to lower delinquency. How to pick the bits they like while not having to deal with the bits they don't like?

"The virulent anti-abortionist interviewed on the programme was forced to defend the accusation that some agencies in Northern Ireland "lured" pregnant women seeking abortion advice to their offices with a view to making them go through with the pregnancy (delay, delay, delay then too late to abort)."

I've listened to Sunday Sequence debate on iplayer, newlach, and have found, again, that listening to that whole is better than reading a selective part.

Nice bit of spin though.

LSV

I do not think many people on hearing such news would pop the champagne. In fact, I presume that in many cases of pregnancy abortion is considered by the women concerned but not gone through with. The important thing is that women have access to good information and are not swayed by scaremongering such as claims that abortion increases their risk of getting cancer.

If dear Mumsy said to me what you ask me to suppose (I'm not sure that I can suppose it!) my feelings towards her would be unaltered. But imagine if foetuses could not be aborted - how many of the 200,000 or so unwanted foetuses aborted annually in the UK would developed into serious criminals? And another thing, a woman who aborts a foetus may have a child at a more suitable time - for most people they are cheap and easy to make, as it were.

"...cheap and easy to make..."

Says everything I need to know about your 'argument'.

"And another thing, a woman who aborts a foetus may have a child at a more suitable time - for most people they are cheap and easy to make, as it were."
********
That's a disturbing arguement from a male vantagepoint.

Movie Recommendation for Monday:

(Not a soppy, saint's biography.Very well done & relevant to caring for the poor-"deserving" & non.)

Monsieur Vincent (1947)
Pierre Fresnay


https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039632/

Hi Ryan,

37: “religious moderates stepping away from religion as a physical entity & exploring their spirituality in more esoteric terms- leaving outward, public worship to far right elements who know how to pander to their audience”

Yes, I believe it’s happened before and before. Check the last century. :)

From your link: “In the states of South Carolina and Arkansas, those who deny the existence of a supreme being are not even permitted to hold public office”

Wow. I find there’s a lot I’m not aware of.

If anything, I would think maybe they have a hard time receiving the support, from their locals, that they need to get into office. I didn’t know anyone wasn’t permitted. Yipes. I'll want to learn more about that - not that I'll be able to do anything about it.

In my experience, the main reason a lapsed continues on topic - of their brand of in this case Christianity – is because s/he hasn’t resolved her/his own feelings about it (it being most likely the parents’ beliefs). It all might be more about child psychology than it is about religion. IME, becoming a temporary revert helps organize one’s opinions as an adult, but reverting certainly isn’t the only way through (just the most thorough. It helps to really walk in the shoes, etc.).

There’s the other reason to continue on about religion: Politics. Religion is most often, not always, just a tool there, so unfortunately everyone has to keep up on the various religions in order to understand the spin.

--------------------

IMO, Christianity (in any form) can be a life-preserver. However, for many people, once they’re no longer drowning, they continue to wear the jacket, trying to make it fit in with life, and to make life fit it. When in reality the Bible Does Not Cover… a lot…if one really wants to move forward, know oneself, and start living (perhaps again). It has been a comfort in the past, but it just doesn’t cover it for me. I’m close to numerous people who keep trying…Christianity sola!

Oh sorry. Did I just offend everyone on either side? Not intended.
Good Monday - morning to some!

@61. marieinaustin:
Not offended.Hope you're having a great Monday, too!

56 peterm2

Is not the great rise in the global human population evidence that children are cheap and easy to make, as it were?

A foetus has a heartbeat at 5-6 weeks. There are preventative measures available to avoid pregnancy, Lsv is right to point out the abortion act has been open to abuse. We need a system of sex education to rival countries with low abortion rates such as the Netherlands. I feel abortion should be a last resort- eg, where medical advice takes precedence, or in incidents of child abuse. Yet, while it's all well & good to be an armchair idealist, often what humanity needs is pragmatism, compromise & to equip people with the facts & confidence to make their own ethical decisions- often more effective than outside prescriptive dogma. The role & importance of sex education is often obstructed and/or undermined by parents, as well as some religious Institutions, thwarting efforts to approach reality in a mature way.

It's important to keep in mind many countries with anti-abortion laws are full of back street illegal abortionists. It's a social issue, one that affects Latin America, for example just as badly, but perhaps with more serious physical consequences for the mother- since illegal back street abortionists pose a greater threat to a mothers health. The problem doesn't go away just because you legislate against it.

Here's a quote from an essay by Leon Kass which which 'cheap and easy' put me in mind of;

The human soul comes to us never in its generality, always in its particular embodiments, each with our own special manifestations of the glories and miseries of being human, each with our particular — yes, unique — trajectory from living zygote in the womb to lifeless body in the grave. The only human life we can live and celebrate is not universal but parochial, and not a single moment of it will ever come again. True love loves uniquely the one whom it has been given to me to love: my beloved — like my father or mother of blessed memory, or my family and friends — is not replaceable.

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unique-worth-of-an-individual-human-life

If you're unfamiliar with the work of Leon Kass I'd highly recommend reading his commentary on Genesis and 'the Hungry soul', on the relationship between human flourishing and eating.

PeterKlaver

The study you refer to is very interesting and raises important questions about the value of marriage. I forget the precise words, but the report mentions that in US federal social security legislation it is accepted that sex outside of marriage is psychological and physically harmful to the teenagers concerned. I think those advocating abstinence would prefer to emphasise those studies that have been used to frame existing federal policy.

newlach

You know, and I know, that what is in question, is what you mean by ...”they (children/people) are cheap and easy to make...”, and the way you use this as your premise for, ”...have a child at a more suitable time...”.

There are implications which follow from this kind of statement; which, if you are a humanist, you should have spotted.

Peterm2

When I wrote: "for most people they are cheap and easy to make, as it were" I thought I was stating the obvious. Some couples require costly medical intervention to conceive, but most do not. Also, an abortion will not affect a woman's future fertility.

Take, for example, the case of a young woman who has a one-night stand and falls pregnant. The man responsible vanishes from her life and she realises that she is pregnant. I see nothing wrong with this woman having an abortion and at a later date settling down and having children with someone she loves (a more suitable time).

Would you like to expand on what you perceive as the implication of what I wrote?

newlach

Apart from the fact that your comments demonstrate no understanding what-so-ever of the multitude of risks, hopes, joys, disappointments, complications, fears and so on, which are, for very many people, associated with conception, pregnancy, gynecological health and antenatal care, are you seriously suggesting that you need to have the implications of the words ”cheap and easy” writ large?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hmmm. OK. So what was wrong with it then, mods? Other than censorship I can't think what (apart from perhaps the fact that I mentioned the names of a number of high street shops).

Without quoting all the incriminating posts again from this and the "riot" thread, here's the substance of what I wrote:

Newlach seems to want to come down heavy on people who have looted easily replaceable inanimate objects from shops, and yet he has no moral qualms about the destruction of irreplaceable human lives in the womb.

Like I said in my banned post, newlach has lost all moral credibility as far as I am concerned.

So next time he comes on here on a moral crusade, I hope I remember to remind him of his own moral cognitive dissonance.

Andrew

#3

I keep forgetting to ask:

"I might be in some trouble with Peter after this but..."

Why?

I'd actually already read the article; one thing I might say is that, perhaps, my cynicism is a little more all-embracing than Carl's!

newlach, #63;

"Is not the great rise in the global human population evidence that children are cheap and easy to make, as it were?"

Leaving aside consideration of your less than felicitous turn of phrase - Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical 'Humanae Vitae' was not oblivious to the important question of rising population;

"In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships."

Surely then, we should strive for a situation where all nations are able to reproduce themselves at more or less replacement levels? Poverty is usually the decisive factor in countries where populations are growing quickly; economic stability relieves the pressure on families to have more and more children. And there are effective, natural ways to regulate fertility, though they are unpopular with secularists who see the advent of artificial contraception as a great milestone in the march of human progress, instead of the profitable way of commodifying sex, which it is in reality.

Peter

It has something to do with certain comments of mine, yours, and the former bishop of Durham.

peterm2

"Apart from the fact that your comments demonstrate no understanding what-so-ever of the multitude of risks, hopes, joys, disappointments, complications"

I did not seek to demonstrate an understanding of risks, hopes etc with my comments. I was making the point that a woman who aborts a foetus can have a child when it suits her. I think my use of the phrase " cheap and easy, as it were" is appropriate, and the accelerating growth in the world's population supports my point. For a minority of couples it is expensive and difficult to conceive.

Andrew

He won't be quoted until mid September, at the earliest!

newlach

"I did not seek to demonstrate an understanding of risks, hopes etc with my comments."

That much was obvious.

Would you care to do so now? The words, ”cheap and easy”, and associated limitation of the matter to financial cost, are beginning to look increasingly tawdry.

73 Theophane

I have been reading about Humanae Vitae and some of the thorny theological issues raised by it. Once it was accepted that married couples might deliberately confine sexual intercourse to the infertile period of the woman's monthly cycle this conceded that sex was "a good thing in itself". If sex is a good thing in itself why therefore should responsible adults have to be married to share in it?

On the "Safe Method" of birth control the author writes that it was not very safe at all, adding:

"There was nothing, for instance, noticeably 'natural' about sticking a thermometer up your rectum every morning compared to slipping a diaphragm into your vagina at night."

77 peterm2

I made some comments. It is "obvious" to you that the comments were not about X,Y and Z. You then ask me if I would like to comment on X,Y and Z. Will you invite me to comment on A, B and C next time? If the word "cheap" was not included in the phrase would you feel better with it?

Theopane, post 73,

That encyclical is from decades ago. More recently, Ratzinger was less concerned with available resources.
https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/26/eu.catholicism

quote from he article:

"In his remarks to bishops gathered for ceremonies in Rome to mark the signing of the treaty that founded the EU in 1957, the Pope declared that the reluctance of women in Europe to have babies and Europe's failure to regenerate itself was putting the continent on the path to oblivion. "From a demographic standpoint ... Europe seems set on a path that could lead it to take leave of history," he warned. Europe was "losing faith in its own future".

Birthrates are at historic lows in many EU countries, most notably in strongly Roman Catholic countries such as Poland, Italy and Spain. According to UN projections, the population of the EU could shrink by 50m within a few decades."

It doesn't take an arch cynic to suspect that Ratzinger may be a bit worried with European Catholicisms declining market share, rather than with the resources needed to feed all people.

@78.newlach:
If you are referencing Natural Family Planning in your post, my daughter teaches this for our diocese & I've received training some years back.
It's a bit different from what you present & is used to achieve conception, not just space children.A number of couples who've had difficulty having children use this method.It also benefits women by helping them understand their body's chemistry & cycles.

Oh the tedium of bit part posting!


Newlach

My reference to “X, Y and Z” (as you call them), was a direct response to your “cheap and easy” argument, failing, as it did, to take into account any of these ‘human’ dimensions; they are an integral part of the discussion; and my use of the word ‘obvious’, was an expression of my incredulity at the continued failure to recognise their significance to the debate.

You have “made some comments”, yes; and I am discussing the meaning, weight and implications of those comments; let’s look at them again.

In arguing for abortion you say that it is reasonable to ”have a child at a more suitable time”, because (and this is the foundational clause in your argument) ”for most people they are cheap and easy to make”, citing the ”great rise in the global human population” as ”evidence that children are cheap and easy to make”. In addition you refer to a few for whom, ”it is expensive and difficult to conceive”.

2nd part to follow...

Newlach (part two)


I have suggested a number of things by way of reply: that conception is not as “cheap or easy” as you say; that the process, being a complex and very *human* (with all that being human entails) process, is, for many, more than financial, and far from easy; that you broaden what you are saying to include these aspects of what it means to be alive; that, because of this, and because of the implications of describing human beings as “cheap and easy to make”, you reconsider your use of these words.

In your latest reply you ask me if I’d feel better if you didn’t include the word cheap! This isn’t about a word, it’s about the import of your *words*, the import of your argument.

You haven’t made an argument about the right to choose, about the harrowing dilemma of a risk to life or about what it means to be a person; in short your argument for the initiation and termination of human life is predicated on cost and convenience - that human beings are cheap and easy to make - it’s the ultimate expression of a disposable society.

newlach, #78;

In a really super follow-up to your thoughts about "cheap and easy to make" children, we now have a puerile caricature of natural family planning from some folksy home-spun pamphlet. Not even the Wikipedia entries on natural family planning and the Billings Ovulation Method, for all the inclusion of "balancing" pro-artificial contraception information, contain such crass stereotyping.

You ask;

"If sex is a good thing in itself why therefore should responsible adults have to be married to share in it?"

Humanae Vitae answers;

"Marriage [...] is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives."

Peterm2

I do not think you are justified in claiming that my statement "for most people they (babies) are cheap and easy to make" is "the ultimate expression of a disposable society." I think that you have perhaps failed to consider many of the circumstances in which women become pregnant. In an earlier post I gave an example of a young woman who falls pregnant (68). It is important that a woman in such a situation does not feel obliged to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. If she wishes to become pregnant at a time of her choosing what is wrong with her wish?

In an ideal world there would be no abortions, but this world is not ideal and we have over 40 million of them a year. For someone who refers to the "human" dimension of abortion you have shown little consideration for the women who have abortions. It seems you would rather have rape victims continue with their pregnancies or, if they abort the foetuses, live a guilt-ridden life.

I am not a supporter of abortion in all cases. I disapprove of the enforced abortions reported to take place in China, for example.

PeterKlaver, #80;

Essentially i take the Pope to mean that among the peoples of the world there are Africans, there are Asians, and there are Europeans. But if Europeans don't have children, there will not be any Europeans in the future. I would see that eventuality as no less catastrophic than if someone said that there will not be any Africans, or Asians, in the future.

Newlach

”I do not think you are justified in claiming...”

What did the words mean then? As I keep saying, in #55 you were making a general argument built on the 'cheap and easy' concept.


"I think that you have perhaps failed to consider many of the circumstances in which women become pregnant."

I think, perhaps, you’ll find it was me who introduced the complexity of circumstances into the debate.


"For someone who refers to the "human" dimension of abortion you have shown little consideration for the women who have abortions."

Actually, I referred to alternative positions: the right to choose, the harrowing dilemma of a risk to life and what it means to be a person. There is, I think, a debate to be had about these, but your accusation is hollow.


”It seems you would rather have rape victims continue with their pregnancies or, if they abort the foetuses, live a guilt-ridden life.”

It would be a pity if you felt the need to put words in my mouth to further your argument.

Congratulations to England's cricketers on their 4-0 series victory over India, lifting the game, for the time being at least, above the same sort of public profile as table tennis and darts, which it had for some time. Only sorry that Tendulkar couldn't manage his hundredth hundred on the last day; his falling just short seemed reminiscent of the great Tom Watson Open victory which wasn't quite to be.

Peterm2

"What did the words mean then?"

That an abortion will not hinder her ability to conceive at a time of her choosing.

"I think, perhaps, you’ll find it was me who introduced the complexity of circumstances into the debate."

Yes, you threw a lot into the mix - a "multitude of risks, hopes, joys, disappointments, complications, fears and so on". But for a woman contemplating an abortion there are not too many hopes and joys on her mind. And I did refer to love in post 68.

"There is, I think, a debate to be had about these, but your accusation is hollow."

On the "right to choose" issue all you said was I had not made an argument in favour of it. Hardly a solid argument! With abortions performed in western hospitals there is no "harrowing risk to life", but with backstreet ones there is. Abortion is a relatively easy and safe procedure. Encouragingly, the number or abortions happening in the world is in decline, but the number of unsafe ones remains very high (estimated at around 20 million).

You will choose the words that you wish to use.

newlach

It seems you would rather have rape victims continue with their pregnancies or, if they abort the foetuses, live a guilt-ridden life.

If the right of a women to choose is sufficient justification for abortion then there is no point talking about rape or any of the other special cases. They do not add to the justification.

Likewise, if abortion is justified in the special case it is not necessarily justified generally. You can't move from one to the other without filling in the blanks.

newlach, I don't think you're doing terribly well since the 'cheap and easy' bit. For instance, the bit to Peter Morrow about how you say he would rather have rape victims continue with their pregnancies, seems completely unjustified from what I've read in his posts.

I don't like abortions, especially late term, but I am fervently pro-choice. I should be a receptive audience to the case you're trying to make. Yet I'm rather unimpressed by your last bunch of posts on the subject.

Andrew

Good point. I may have introduced an unnecessarily emotive issue.

PeterKlaver

I am not impressed by them either and Peterm2 has made no reference to rape victims, but is it not outrageous that women cannot have access to abortion services in Northern Ireland?

newlach,

"I am not impressed by them either and Peterm2 has made no reference to rape victims, but is it not outrageous that women cannot have access to abortion services in Northern Ireland?"

As I said, I am very much pro-choice. So I don't like that for many women in Northern Ireland, the only option is to travel abroad.

But that is something different than what I posted to you about, i.e. that some of the points you're making in your pro-choice posts are not convincing at all. Worse, the bit to Peter Morrow about rape victims for example, is not just unconvincing but also pretty unfair.

PeterKlaver

The issue of abortion considered in its entirety is as Peterm2 has pointed out a complex one, and the comment I made about rape victims was, as Andrew crisply pointed out, flawed. I accept that I could have made a stronger argument nonetheless I, like you, remain committed to a woman having the right to choose. What do you consider to be the main convincing pro-choice arguments?

92.At 22:51 23rd Aug 2011, newlach wrote:

"...but is it not outrageous that women cannot have access to abortion services in Northern Ireland?"
****
I wish we could say as much in the States.We've been lacking behind the UK in civil rights before.Slavery was still legal here years after it was prohibited for Britain.

I really enjoyed reading this BBC article about Greece & the economy today:


https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14445979

My frugal Scottish grandfather used to bake his own bread & cut off half a slice at a time so as not to waste.I'm sure he'd save his loaf to the very end, just like the Greek ladies in this article. Waste not, want not.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This article is about Malaysia's diversity, where there's been "little interaction between the different races, leading to an escalation of tensions in recent years"
To quote-

There is a sense of frustration among economists like former government adviser Ramon Navaratnam.

"Our racial, religious mix can be a wonderful asset because you have the whole United Nations here," he says.

"Yet we do not know how to maximize or optimise it because of political expediency."

Gee whiz! I might should thank the delicate moderators. Reworded and trying again:

In my county (no 'r'), a woman can have an abortion courtesy of my property taxes. Last year I signed a petition against my taxes providing such funding, along with over 10,000 others, but no dice. Another option was to use abundant funds from tobacco sales. Perhaps the property taxes could’ve gone to the places that rely on charity to support the unsupported who choose the other option. (They actually do exist.) Everyone on the appeals court was a joke – no kind of appeal really. And those who spoke for the tax payers were also very weak. A year later, I’m gratefully done with it.

Quote for the Day: Wednesday, August 24
We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.
--C. S. Lewis