tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post286977301633897538..comments2023-09-26T04:38:00.780-05:00Comments on Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings: The Least of Thesehank_F_Mhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09851295792702162861noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post-42858587408599649912008-09-03T10:00:00.000-05:002008-09-03T10:00:00.000-05:00Typical hierarchy hokum. The issue is not does the...Typical hierarchy hokum. The issue is not does the hierarchy oppose abortion; but when does a cell become a person? Seeing they have lost the latter(personhood)they switch the battle to "does the church oppose abortion?" I might point out that Slattery protected, and had as his assistant a priest accused of sex abuse, which I believe is true because I saw this priest looking at pictures of nude teen-age boys in a bookstore.What would old Slattery know of the family since he has sworn never to have children? They get in the way of his holiness. JackMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362724995392108962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post-63209403354079170492008-09-02T21:17:00.000-05:002008-09-02T21:17:00.000-05:00LouieSubmit a NominationLouie<BR/><BR/>Submit a <A HREF="http://episcopalspinealert.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Nomination</A>hank_F_Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09851295792702162861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post-64168778893495096662008-09-02T19:29:00.000-05:002008-09-02T19:29:00.000-05:00they read this in church this past weekend.i sort ...<A HREF="http://www.dioceseoftulsa.org/article.asp?nID=573" REL="nofollow">they read this in church this past weekend.</A><BR/>i sort of surprised me that the responses were so rapidly forthcoming. i thought the bishops would respond next summer this time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post-84299790100363298302008-09-02T18:25:00.000-05:002008-09-02T18:25:00.000-05:00Thank you. I thought what you thought but needed t...Thank you. I thought what you thought but needed to be assured by an 'expert.' JackMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362724995392108962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post-4823969451256869812008-09-02T18:18:00.000-05:002008-09-02T18:18:00.000-05:00A thing to remember about polls is they are a snap...A thing to remember about polls is they are a snapshot in time, not a predictor, but that stops no one from using them as a predictor. <BR/><BR/>People change their minds, so today’s true values may not be tomorrow’s or next weeks.<BR/><BR/>We will assume in your example the polls were taken the day before the election and no one changed their mind.<BR/><BR/>The true value of the population as a whole is<BR/><BR/>Obama 51% McCain 49%<BR/><BR/>With a three per cent margin of error a poll taken a sample would produce results in the following range.<BR/><BR/>Obama 48 – 54 % McCain 46 – 52%<BR/><BR/>Poll “A” is better because it’s answers are in the margin of error and thus a closer snap shot of the true value.<BR/><BR/><BR/>That poll “B” got lucky in predicting is irrelevant, since it is nowhere near a snapshot of the true values. <BR/><BR/>This is why averaging from several polls and running polls are important. Even the best poller can have a bad day and produce bad numbers.<BR/><BR/>Often the poller will tell you the difference is statistically insignificant. Meaning they are polling so close together you can’t be sure who is ahead on the true values.hank_F_Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09851295792702162861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post-68977848264272365862008-09-02T10:36:00.000-05:002008-09-02T10:36:00.000-05:00Ah, my friend, we agree basically. I oppose aborti...Ah, my friend, we agree basically. I oppose abortion as you do. But you agree that the one cell embryo has "potential" not actuality.<BR/><BR/>If you have one more minute.<BR/>Assume:<BR/>Poll A has McCain 51%, Obama 49%<BR/>Poll B has McCain 42%, Obama 58%<BR/><BR/>Actual election totals:Obama 51% McCain 49%<BR/><BR/>Poll B got the winner. Is it "Better."?<BR/>Thanks. JohnMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362724995392108962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post-90678470914582322552008-09-01T17:27:00.000-05:002008-09-01T17:27:00.000-05:00JackI really hate those discussions that go on for...Jack<BR/><BR/>I really hate those discussions that go on for thirty posts alternating repeats of the first two posts. I try to avoid them.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Of course things change. But there is an irredeemable level of doctrine that cannot change. Abortion is an evil and must not be committed is one of them. The unanimous teaching of the early Councils and Fathers of the church who the addressed the subject is that abortion is not permissible. While sometimes they mention it in passing sometimes it is “fire and brimstone” preaching but any way there is no opposition in the Church. <I>What to do to prevent abortions and how deal with it when it happens is not a </I>doctrine<I> and has changed many times over time and will change again.</I> See the full Cathlidoxy link above He traces that repeated denunciation of abortion from the first century. Supporting the idea that abortion is possibly permissible would require statements from several orthodox Fathers of the Church or better yet recognized orthodox Councils establishing that at least it was an issue of contention. In the forty years this has been a hot issue no one has been able to do so, despite a strong incentive in some quarters, so I think it can’t be done.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thomas Aquinas’s <A HREF="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5.htm" REL="nofollow"> review of matrimony</A> in his Summa Theologica. I skimmed through it. The items that concerned him are not exactly those of today, he talks of the procreating, raising, and educating children as the <I>principle</I> goal of marriage, which means he would recognize other lesser goals. More inference than exact statement but his comments seem to imply that a “unitive principle” is a legitimate goal. It does not seem one can find grounds to reject a “unitive principle.” Of course that is only 800myears or so not a thousand. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Note the arguments proposed inthe quotes in my main post. They are saying that while some persons had inadequate view of human embryology they still rejected abortion. I would think that if, for the sake of argument, we take your understanding of human embryology, the undifferentiated one cell embryo still has enough human potential to fall under the "no abortion" doctrine.hank_F_Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09851295792702162861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post-73316789373296685142008-09-01T10:16:00.000-05:002008-09-01T10:16:00.000-05:00Frank, you are a real nice guy. Unfortunately in t...Frank, you are a real nice guy. Unfortunately in this case you did not respond to anything I said. But have a good day. JackMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362724995392108962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post-61870066384664493662008-09-01T06:30:00.000-05:002008-09-01T06:30:00.000-05:00Joe you bring up a lot of points, some of which go...Joe you bring up a lot of points, some of which go well beyond what I was trying to say.<BR/><BR/>Readers should check out <A HREF="http://johnhh.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow"> Liberal Catholic News Sports Music</A> where you make your case very vigorously.<BR/><BR/>Ignoring the central issue, which, but for the grace of God, we will never agree on, there are several other points that I should have brought out better. <BR/><BR/>Amy Wellborn’s comments are worth considering. We are not talking about displinary action, we are talking about teaching. That is one of a Bishop’s primary duties. As Paul told Timothy “in season and out.” I know, it is out of season, which means it is more important than ever. How many of the people in the pews who disagree with Church teaching never had it properly explained to them?<BR/><BR/>As a number of people have commented the Bishops in the US for the last thirty years or so have not been the most forceful in making public statements that are not politically correct... Well golly shazam, they are speaking on something that might get them disinvited from in-crowd events. I think we can agree there are several other areas to which they should extend their teaching. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Speaker of the House Pelosi is not just another blogger. If she were another blogger maybe some one would object in her comment section but no one would feel obligated to give her comments any weight that did not come from facts and logic. But she is a senior government official two heart beats (Bush and Cheney) away from being the President. When she appears on a public forum such as Meet the Press, where she was invited because of her official status, not her charm, it is incumbent on her to remember she is a senor government official.<BR/><BR/>When she speaks of any group of citizens she should strive to be accurate. She made a factually incorrect statement that could have been prevented if her research assistant had done thirty minutes worth of work. Because she is a senior government official, with a government paid research staff, in many circles her comments will be assumed to be correct. It is incumbent on the leaders an effected group and knowledgeable persons to publicly correct mis-statements of this type so that they do not be come accepted general knowledge and effect government policy.<BR/><BR/>As Archbishop Chaput wisely pointed out there is a Church and State issue and the separation of Church and State goes both ways. Remember Thomas Jefferson used the term “wall of separation” in a letter to the Danville Baptist Church to assure them the government would not interfere in the church. If the government tells a church what it’s doctrine should be it is “establishing religion” in a far more substantive manner than Zion Illinois having cross on the city shield recognizing the cities origin. You think the doctrine is incorrect but it is not the role of the government to change it to something you like. She didn’t cross the line but she is close. Speaking out now will save many problems later.hank_F_Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09851295792702162861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post-87790255023422542942008-08-31T16:24:00.000-05:002008-08-31T16:24:00.000-05:00JackThis is the right place. Thanks for leaving a...Jack<BR/><BR/>This is the right place. Thanks for leaving a comment. I will post a few points to this evening or tommrow. I have to run now.hank_F_Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09851295792702162861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9146340.post-13537146740447404152008-08-31T15:20:00.000-05:002008-08-31T15:20:00.000-05:00I am trying to comment on your "Least of Them" pos...I am trying to comment on your "Least of Them" post. Don't know where so will try here.<BR/><BR/>I am Catholic but the Church has been known, even by many of its members,to engage in rather blatant sophistry. <BR/>The Church has changed its position on abortion. Chaput and others are playing word games. An example : in early 19 century your hand could be cut off for stealing a sack of apples. Today, such punishment would be considered absurd. So the position on stealing apples has changed in my opinion. The Church has changed the punishment for abortion over the years; showing to any reasonable person its position on abortion has changed. The Biblical injuctions are mixed.<BR/><BR/>See how Chaput is clever. The Church has always opposed abortion as it has heresy. You were once burned for heresy; now the Church, I assume, I'm not sure of Wiegel and Chaput, opposes any physical punishment for heresy.<BR/>So the Church's position has not changed? Ah, you clever Catholics!! No wonder we have a bad reputation with many.<BR/><BR/>I have explored this issue at length on my blog. So a short version. The Catholic primitive does not understand that the issue is not life vs. murder. The issue is, is one cell a person? Not is that one cell life. My hair is life, human life, but not a person. A heart waiting to be transplanted is human life; it is not a person.<BR/><BR/>Frank you are into polls. The OVERWHELMING majority of catholics do not believe a few or one undifferentiated cell(S) is a person. OK, the usual response: The Church hierarchy is right and the opinion of the majority---well, pitch it!<BR/><BR/>Of course, I have explained all this before but one further observation. The Church for over 1900 years taught that sexual intercourse was only for procreation. A few decades ago they slipped in the "unitive" principle not to look crazy.<BR/><BR/>In sum them. Yes, the Church has always considered abortion wrong; just as heresy. But Ms. Pellosi is right, maybe not technically. But in a real sense she is right: we no longer burn for heresy. I am not sure, but I suppose Chaput and Wiegel, and the other primitives do not favor the death penalty or life imprisonment for destroying one cell. But maybe they do.<BR/><BR/>I am Catholic but not a blind follower of word game players who play such games to protect the superiority of their celibate/virtual eunuch status.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362724995392108962noreply@blogger.com