Monthly Archives: November 2004

Conversations on the Catechism: “I Believe in Jesus Christ, the Only Son of God”

Happy Thanksgiving! 🙂

It’s time again to discuss another section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. My previous attempts at this have met with deafening silence, but I think I have more Protestant readers now, so maybe I’ll get more comments this time.

What we’ve covered so far:

"I Believe" – "We Believe" (CCC 26-184)
"I Believe in God the Father" (CCC 198-421)

Now, let’s take a look at "I Believe in Jesus Christ, the Only Son of God" (CCC 422-682). I invite all my Christian readers, Protestants in particular, to tell me what they find interesting, challenging, or contrary to their beliefs about the Church’s interpretation of this part, or previously mentioned parts of the Apostles’ Creed.

Christian Carnival 45

The
forty-fifth Christian Carnival is up at CowPi Journal
. The post hoc theme is
“The Three Dimensions of Spirituality: Vertical, Horizontal/Outward, and Inward”,
i.e. the connection between you and God, the connection between you and other people,
the connection with yourself. There are thirty-seven entries this week. Go check
them out. When you’re done, think about submitting a post of your own. If you’re
Catholic, think about submitting to the Catholic
Carnival
, too(You can send the same post to both).

Strange Bedfellows

People are going to think my life (or at least my blog) revolves around Theomorph,
but I just can’t wait to hear what he has to say about this.

Atheist supports
Ratzinger crusade against secularism

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has
enlisted in his defence of Christianity against secular Europe, the German philosopher
Jürgen Habermas [a self-described “methodical atheist”], who said
in an essay published this month that “Christianity, and nothing else, is the
ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks
of Western civilisation”.

Irrational and/or Pathological

I don’t have time right now to answer in full Theomorph’s latest intellectual challenge, but I’ll take a moment to react to this:

Many people have argued that we make laws against acts like murder, theft, and assault because we have no choice if we want to maintain a stable society. We have even created psychological definitions of "normal" behavior that label as antisocial and mentally ill the people who are prone to these acts. Hence, while there may be some people who privately have no moral qualms with murder, theft, or assault, the rest of us have no problem with imposing our "morality" on them, because any arguments they might make in favor of their morality would be labeled as not just irrational, but pathological.

However, most people do not consider the desire to obtain an abortion as irrational or pathological. In fact, there are many rational arguments that favor the use of abortion. My personal favorite is that abortion provides a balance for women against the unfair advantage of men as regards the relationship between sex and reproduction. Men can always deposit their sperm and slink away, thus avoiding all responsibility and investment; women are stuck with the pregnancy and cannot slough the responsibility or investment in any way, except by getting an abortion.

Theo might be trying to be provocative again. If so, call me provoked. This viewpoint creeps me out and makes me shudder. Since when do two wrongs make a right? This kind of "feminism" really pisses me off. Women do not have to become men to gain equality! That is not real feminism. Real feminists seek to achieve equality (such as equal pay, equal respect, and equal rights) by embracing that which is feminine and challenging society to accept them without imposing androgyny.

If men are scum that sometimes plant seed and fail to care for what grows, we must try to stop that from happening. Whether it be by law or by education, we should seek to solve this problem, not encourage women to be just as selfish and inconsiderate. Besides, using abortion to level the playing field begs the question of whether abortion really benefits women. I’m sure Feminists for Life have a few things to say about that nonsense.

Do I think abortion is irrational? Yes. Its unsound judgment. Is it pathological? Yes. It’s a symptom of a diseased society. On a visceral level, irrespective of my faith, I am disgusted and frightened by the notion of a society that sees children as an unwanted responsibility or investment to slough off. If children outside the womb are treated as unwanted and sloughed off, the parents are charged with criminal neglect or worse, depending on the means. If medical professionals treat patients as unwanted, they’re in serious trouble, too. Yet babies in the womb can be discarded without consequence. Why is that? Well, another question is being begged here.

That question is whether or not a fetus may/must be considered person and thus deserving of protection. That is a philosophical and biological question that need not involve religion. Atheists are often quick to point out that ethics and morals need not be grounded in religion. Well, if that’s really what they believe then they shouldn’t be upset if some folks find abortion immoral and/or unethical based on logical, philosophical, and irreligious reasoning. Such reasoning exists and yet secularists still reject the pro-life movement off-hand, seemingly as though it were part of some conspiracy to construct a theocracy.

Finally, there are a lot of things that humans can be stuck with in the course of their lives. Some things can be avoided. Others can’t. Some may/should be avoided. Others shouldn’t. I have a great deal of sympathy for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. However, that unfortunate situation in and of itself does not secure them the right (since Theomorph objects to "giving" rights) to end a fetus’ life. That it is a life, there is no doubt. Is it a person? That’s a question that has yet to be answered satisfactorily and that supporters of abortion rights don’t seem to want answered. So long as it’s about a woman’s body, a woman’s rights, and a woman’s choice, pro-lifers look like a bunch of Puritans itching for a witch trial. I wonder how slave owners saw abolitionists.