Tag Archives: blasphemy

The Dangers of Apologetics

"[I]f a Catechumen ask thee what the teachers have said, tell nothing to him that is without. For we deliver to thee a mystery, and a hope of the life to come. Guard the mystery for Him who gives the reward. Let none ever say to thee, What harm to thee, if I also know it? So too the sick ask for wine; but if it be given at a wrong time it causes delirium, and two evils arise; the sick man dies, and the physician is blamed. Thus is it also with the Catechumen, if he hear anything from the believer: both the Catechumen becomes delirious (for he understands not what he has heard, and finds fault with the thing, and scoffs at what is said), and the believer is condemned as a traitor. But thou art now standing on the border: take heed, pray, to tell nothing out; not that the things spoken are not worthy to be told, but because his ear is unworthy to receive. Thou wast once thyself a Catechumen, and I described not what lay before thee. When by experience thou hast learned how high are the matters of our teaching, then thou wilt know that the Catechumens are not worthy to hear them. "

– St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Prologue 12)

"Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you." – Matthew 7:6

Treacherous Tongue?

Rand of A Form of Sound Words says:

"DARN it to HECK! I can’t believe Billy believes that load of CRAP. I mean JEEEZ, what is he thinking. I tried and tried to talk some sense into him, but OH MY GOSH, he’s stubborn."

"I apologize in advance to all the good and faithful Christians reading the above phrases and are offended. Your reaction is appropriate. I still felt it was important for me to post it as an example. You see, in the above four little phrases, we have a remarkable four blasphemies, and one gross word that any civil human would avoid using (non-Christian’s included)"

Which word? "Thinking"?

"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." – H. L. Mencken

Sacrilege and Medical Science

Fabian of Report from Greater Tokyo has responded to Jerry's stem cell primer.

"On the medical science issue, once upon a time, it was considered sacriligious to cut open a human corpse. Early doctors' methods were notoriously unreliable, and early post-mortems were unlikely to either find the exact cause of death or provide immediately useful data for medical research.

However, although no one knew exactly how that research might be beneficial in the future, we know now that it was invaluable to almost every modern surgical technique.

Similarly, although we don't yet know which way stem cell research may take medical science, and we don't even know of any specific benefits, but it seems reasonable to believe that there will be some tangible medical benefit in the future. If the anti-stem cell research people had won back then, modern medical surgery would still be at the amputate and cauterize stage. Stuff as basic as resetting a broken bone would be life-threatening, and almost certainly result in long term problems.

Comments? Criticisms? My gut reaction is to say that cutting open a corpse is not the same as destroying a living creature. Whether killing that creature is killing a person or not is a matter for debate, but that a living thing is killed is not."

Thoughts? 

Taking Sides

So, the bishops of Atlanta, Charlotte and Charleston have joined
the rank
s of those who refuse Communion to pro-abortion Catholic public figures.
Again, I wonder aloud how many are for, against, or on the fence. I’m sure someone
in the vast horde of Catholic geeks on the Net has taken the trouble to keep a tally.
I suppose I might have to get off my lazy butt and do it myself. *sigh*