Ryan Haber:

I'm an atheist and I don't agree with you on much, but Lourdes is a beautiful place even though I do not subscribe to any of the religious stuff surrounding it. I have a small house in Pau which is not too far from Lourdes, and I've been there several times.

test

Paul C.,

Right. Very true. Nothing to add to the substance of your post, but a tangent.

"The Song of Bernadette" is an AWESOME movie. It ranks with "Blackhawk Down," "Children of Men," "The Quiet Man," and maybe "My Cousin Vinny" as an all-time favorite movie. It definitely wins best-in-class, in my book.

Lourdes, along the same tangent, is an incredible place of peace. If you happen to be in the neighborhood of southwest France, I HIGHLY recommend a drop-in. In fact, if you are nowhere near France, but have about $700 available to you, I highly recommend GOING to southwest France. The beautiful countryside alone would merit a trip, but Lourdes set in a massive parking lot would still be worth a hundred trips. Well, really, even if you haven't got $700, I recommend putting away just $1 a day and in two years' time, going to Lourdes. Airfare is swingable for about $600 during the off-season if you fly into Toulouse or Marseille, and then a train ticket for $10-50 will get you the rest of the way. I know a convent near the train station in town, about 8 blocks' walk from the holy Grotto, at which the hospitable sisters take guests and provide a night in their hostel and three (excellent) meals for about $45, depending on how badly the euro's clobbering the dollar.

Go to Lourdes: healing, peace, mercy. Even in the summer, with the crushing crowds, long lines for everything, and relentless hawking of souvenirs, the place has a substratum of peace that is imperturbable and thoroughly saturates whatever passes through it.

Ryan,
I would like to add to your post (as if it wasn't long enough). I find that there are a number of ways that I arrive at belief in God and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

1). There is personal observation. As we have discussed already, the universe is very orderly. It follows a set of rules (like Gravity) and is built of a common set of sub atomic particles and uses a common set of ratios like pi and phi. This could not have happened randomly

2) What we learn from other credible sources. None of us have met Julius Ceasar, but I suspect no one questions whether he existed. That is because we have multiple accounts from credible witnesses to tell us about him. We have similar information on Jesus. We have multiple eyewitness accounts (the Gospels and the Apostle's epistles). We have tradition passed on by the church.

3) We also have the chain of history. An example I like is the story of Bernadette at Lourdes. She was a simple, illiterate peasant girl, living in the poorests of circumstances when she was visited 18 times by the Virgin Mary in 1858. She faced tremendous oposition from the local leaders, her parents, and in fact the local priests until the miraculous nature of the event made it obvious to all but the most hardened that what she said was true. (The creation of the stream, her identification of the Immaculate Conception and of course, the multitude of healings at the site of the Apparitions). (As an aside, I highly recommend the book/movie, "The Song of Bernadette" for those interested in the story.) Events like this and multitudes of others throughout history show the continuity of God's grace on the Church through time.

4) There is logic and consistency to the teachings of the Church. I find that as much as I challenge the teachings (in part through looking at what others write in this blog), I still find that they are whole and reasonable.

5) Finally, there is the personal experience that believers have of the benefits of their own faith. I think this is only really understandable to those that have had similar experiences. As my faith has grown, I have understood the effects of faith described by others much more clearly.

Ryan Haber,

Thank you for your reply. I have saved it on disk and will read it again, and reply to you offline from On Faith. I think we are not exactly on the same wavelength, but close.

God bless,

Arminius

Thanks, Paul C. Very good responses, yours.

Arminius,

Thank you for your kind encouragement.

You are absolutely correct. Nonbelievers also equate faith with "belief that God exists," which is absolutely incorrect. Belief that God exists is not an act of faith, but is deducible by reason - the Greek philosophers deduced, in the midst of all their mythologies - that one and only one god could possibly exist. About his nature, they could discern little. The Chinese philosophers, especially in the Daoist and Confucian traditions, neither of which is exactly theological, also discerned the existence of a single god of whose nature they could say little else.

Nonbelievers (and most believers, unwittingly) typically equate "knowledge" with "natural scientific knowledge," and "reason" with "the natural scientific method" thereby making things like faith seem unreasonable, when in fact they are merely unscientific. But reason and science are not identical.

There are any number of other methods for knowing things, and they are able to yield varying degrees of certainty about their respective disciplines. For instance, mathematics - a discipline that is not scientific, but upon which science is founded - yields a much higher level of certainty about its conclusions, for the most part, than do the natural (let alone the human and social or historical) scientific methods. Mathematical conclusions are not demonstrable with microscopes or laboratory experiments as in the natural sciences, nor by polls and observation as in the social sciences. Nonetheless, the results of mathematical reasoning yield genuine knowledge and are trustworthy.

Apropos my religion, the axioms I (and the Catholic Church) take are firstly those found in logic, e.g., the principles of noncontradiction, causality, identity, etc. Everything must be built on sound reasoning.

There are secondly more naturally religious axioms, that while absolutely axiomatic - dogmatic, one would say - are not irrational therefore. Rather, there are sound reasons for accepting them, even if sound reason neither proves nor disproves them. The reasons for accepting them are mainly historical, secondly philosophical. Lastly, there are experiential and existential reasons as well. These, while logically the weakest, are as in all things, personally the strongest. This arrangement is also not irrational. I have only a few logical reasons for believing that my sister loves me and they are not conclusive to the point of barring other possible explanations for the data; I have several experiential reasons, and therefore have a rock-solid conviction that she does. This conclusion isn't irrational - it is how we think about most things most of the time, and it is the stuff (observation and experience) of which the scientific method is made.

Religious Axioms upon which the Catholic faith rests:

1) Observable fact of Natural Order - in the act of creating the world, the Creator built into it order, rhyme and reason that are observable.

2) Experiential fact of sin - we're all broken, and when we're honest with ourselves, we know it. Moreover, despite all our efforts, we always seem unable to fix the problem. At best, it's like playing whack-a-mole. The brokenness we each experience in ourselves, our families, etc., is sufficient to explain most of the brokenness in the world (natural disasters excepted). By the abuse of free will, the first humans sinned and went against the order built into the natural world by its creator. Each human being since has repeated the abuse of free will provided he has lived long enough to have the chance. We have proven powerless to fix the damage of these repeated abuses.

3) Historical fact of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and of his claims to divinity, and of his various other teachings

4) Historical fact of the rapid growth of the Catholic Church from those first days, in spite of intense opposition from nearly all quarters

5) Historical fact of the perseverence of the Catholic Church, in spite of any number of external pressures and demonstrable internal incompetance

6) Having accepted the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, his teachings gain an axiomatic value, to wit, concerning

a) Goodness of Man - despite most of the sensory evidence, certainly that from reading the WaPo, human beings are in fact good in their nature. All the sins in the world don't wreck, but merely obscure that. Man was made capable of union with God and retains that capacity, and has only lost the fact of union with God.

b) The Blessed Trinity - 3 Persons sharing 1 divine nature and Being, neither the three divided nor confused, yet distinct and united.

c) The Hypostatic Union - the 2nd Person of the Trinity assumed human nature, uniting it to his own without blending the natures or dividing the person, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, who was fully Divine and fully Human in every way essential to either of those natures.

d) Creation and Revelation for Communion - that the Blessed Trinity, perfect and perfectly content in its own being, out of sheer goodness created the world (all else that is) in order to reveal himself and share himself with it, so that it and its members might share and delight in his goodness, love, and joy. Some of his creatures he endowed with free will so that they might more intensely, in a personal way, experience and reciprocate his love, and thus his joy.

e) God entered into his own creation in the person of Jesus of Nazareth in order to reunite, in his own person, divinity and humanity so that whichever humans would attain union with him would regain the union with God lost by violation of his plan for our happiness.

f) The Church was founded by Jesus of Nazareth in order retain his authority so as to continue his work.

So, Arminius, those are the objective axioms of the Catholic Faith, some more historically oriented, some more experientially oriented - but one of them contrary to reason, and all of them susceptible to rational discussion, and even theoretically disprovable thereby.

They are not why I believe the Catholic Faith.

We each of us experience the world in such-and-such a way, and our experiences lead us to knowledge beyond themselves. A girl beat by a nun for not knowing her multiplication tables grows up believing nuns to be cranky brutes. The believe is not exactly rational, but it is understandable to be sure, and one can see how she arrived at the conclusion.

In my own life, I grew up in a mess and have in my own turn made a mess of things. Low-grade domestic violence, deception, adultery, promiscuity, hypocrisy, divorce all play into my past. Each of these things became odious to me, but I found myself powerless to break out of them. Moving out of my parents home removed me from the shouting and fighting, but didn't remove the shouting and fighting from me. The trend follows for the other factors I mentioned.

But in a series of events that I can only categorize as personal experiences of the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, I began to find the means to shift my life, experience healing, encounter joy. It has been a stepwise process, but each step has led me to see how the things taught by the Catholic Church are true in my life: divorce is bad and painful, forgiveness renders it unnecessary, sharing life with Jesus renders forgiveness possible. Promiscuity is draining, hurtful, tiresome, and addictive; sexual self-control is freeing, opens possibilities for deeper relationships, and is possible through shared life with Jesus.

Step-by-step I found myself accepting the teachings of the Catholic Church without evening meaning to, starting with several of the "hard teachings" and working my way, or being drawn, inward to the central, core, supposedly "esoteric" teachings. All this has happened in my life while all the while I was being raised Catholic by parents who hadn't discovered those realities themselves! That bit is one last mark of grace, of God's hand at work. These experiences don't prove the Faith, not even to me, and certainly not its historical claims - but they have shown me that the Catholic Church is a teacher who has a lot of wisdom, and has led me to give her a fair and sympathetic hearing, like I would an algebra or Spanish teacher. Now, I occasionally find myself forearmed with her wisdom and able to avoid pitfalls before discovering their disastrous effects the hard way!

God is so mercifil, Arminius, so merciful. And at last this little post (lol) brings us to the correct understanding of "faith". Atheists think it is an act of faith to believe that God exists when in reality it is as much an act of faith as believing that the ground under my feet is stable. There is so much experience by so many people, despite occasional counter-evidences, to validate either point that to call them acts of faith is ludicrous. It is not an act of faith to believe that God exists.

It is an act of faith to believe that God loves me. In the wake of drug addictions, random acts of violence, terrorism, domestic violence, ageing bodies and broken spirits the easiest thing in the world is to believe that God exists - and is punishing us. But to believe that God LOVES us, and not just us, but ME personally, and each and every other "me" in the world (all 6,000,000,000 of us, even the starving Chinese and AIDS-ridden Africans) - to believe that is HARD. It is HEROIC. It is impossible without an act of grace by God. God has to reveal himself in love before we can believe such a thing.

"Lord, I believe! Help my unbelief," (Mk 9:24) should be the constant prayer of every Christian. And the amazing thing, to which I can testify from my own experience and the experience of numerous family and friends, is that God will reveal himself to those who seek him.

In a more personal forum (you can email me at withouthavingseen at gmail dot com) I will give you more personal details, but I think it suffices to say that my story is not unique, and its elements are very common.

Arminius, I've always enjoyed your posts, because you are a courteous writer with an open mind and a kind heart. God bless.

Roy:
Lets be clear. Where did you get the data that says American Catholics as a group support the death penalty and pre-emptive war but not abortion? The church's teaching is very clearly against both abortion and capital punishment (in all but the rarest cases). There is in catholic thought, the concept of a just war to stop injustice ( WWII might be a good example). Whether that applies to Iraq or any other situation is a matter of opinion. Individual people who deviate from Catholic teaching are taking those positions as individuals and do not represent the Catholic Church in these matters. Which brings us to your obviously inflamatory remark that the Catholic Church has lost its ability to censor its flock because of the pediophile scandal. First of all, you do understand that only a small percentage of priests were involved in this regretable scandal, and at lower rates than experienced in the general population. The biggest issue, in my mind, is that some of the bishops didn't act aggressively enough in removing pediophile priests when they were identified. That is now being actively addressed. This failure on the part of some bishops, does not in any way lead to the conclusion that they should stop doing their jobs. In fact, it is a call to action that they must step up more aggressively in leading the flock back toward Christ and must be more active in removing deviant behavior from the flock. Just as they should have removed pediophile priests for the flock, they should also be distancing themselves from politicians, who profess to be Catholics but take public positions in direct contradiction to known Catholic teachings. Sure, politicians are free to support abortion. They are just not free to support abortion and then call themselves in communion with the catholic church. It is fair and right for the bishops to enforce that. The bishops are not damning them to Hell as you suggest, just telling them that they are no longer in communion with the Church as long as they actively oppose its doctrines. This is common sense. It is then up to the politicians in question to decide what is important to them. They either take the advice and admonishment of the bishop and ammend their actions, or they choose to leave the communion of the church.

American Catholics support capital punishment and pre-emptive war out of one side of their mouths and then spout "thy shalt not kill" out of the other when it comes to abortion. The loudest are neocons who won't vote for Obama anyway. Archbishops have no business threating politicians with eternal damnation until the Chruch follows the Ten Commandments itself and stops molesting little boys.

I believe that God is accessible through reason. God is of course too great for us to be able to absorb directly, but we can see him through his works. For instance, we can understand that there is a God because the universe is so orderly. It is illogical to assume that order comes from chaos.

Ryan Haber:

First, let me commend you for your learned and polite posts. Others here could profit by your example.

Next, re Marc Edward,s comment, "Reason and faith have nothing in common." You should know that the non-believers equate their stand with reason, and equate faith with the lack of reason.

Yet Marc has a point, nonetheless. One can reason about any subject, of course, including belief. But any reasoning stands upon something that is a given. That given is also called an axiom, and an axiom by definition cannot be proved. Like Euclid's 'The shortest distance between two points is a straight line'.

So I ask you, and with respect, what is the 'given' for your faith? What the the rock you really stand on? I am not going to blast you on this, I am genuinely curious. Because....

I am a believer, a Christian, not Roman Catholic. My rock is this: I know that God IS, and I know that He is with me, and I know that He is with you too. This belief has absolutely no basis in reason. I am not bothered by this.

After the rock is established, then reason can be applied, and applied well. But any 'proofs' found here are internal, and cannot be applied by reason to anything outside.

Arminius

I do have a blog. It's mostly ramblings spiritual and religious, sometimes economic or political-sounding, in response to local stimuli. Never polemical though. Believe it or not, I don't really like debates. The address is

www withouthavingseen dot blogspot dot com

I currently work as a writer and hope to resume my grad studies shortly.

Marc Edward:

Oh, it's not related to the main post, but strikes me as so important that I just cannot pass up a comment you made. I take the time because you are such a regular and reasonable contributor to these boards, whom I respect.

You wrote to CCNL, "Reason and faith have nothing in common."

Oh, no, no, no. See, that's become quite common to think ever since the Enlightenment. And before about AD 160 it was certainly the case. The peoples of the world never tried to reconcile what their priests and philosophers taught them - let alone what their astronomers, for instance, taught them. At most, the priests used astronomy and other natural sciences, to gain credibility for their religion, say by predicting eclipses. Shaman's stories embedded tribal wisdom in folkloric language. But the Greco-Roman pagans never tried to model their laws after their gods' behavior, never tried to show that the two interconnected. To them it was patently obvious that the two (religion and daily practical living) had nothing to do with each other. Religion punctuated the day and reinforced morals, as in the shaman's days. But nobody took all those stories about Zeus and Athena seriously - that is obvious by any reading, not only of the Cynics, but of Herodotus, Plato, Thucydides, and the rest of the classic thinkers.

The Israelites were different. They did structure even the finest nuances of their day around the will of the God who they believed revealed Himself to them. Their rabbis even thought out the implications of his 10 or so commands and fleshed them out into 600 or so more. But there wasn't a desire to show how that reasoning, essentially relgious, integrated with reasoning unreligious, mundane, or secular.

That changed with Justin Martyr. A respected philosopher and professor in Rome, he was charged with being a Christian and sentenced to die. His last words, handed down to us in various forms, are the first effort in the history of humanity to show that not only was his religion reasonable, rather than superstitious, but that reason itself is something religious, you might say, rather than purely mundane and secular.

Ever since then, the underlying project of Christian intellectuals (an endeavor endorsed over and over again by the Church) has been to show that our religion is compatible with and fortifies reason.

Now, that proposition might be mistaken, but it is a proposition that literally tens of thousands of men and women from AD 160 to the present have spent their careers demonstrating. Let's not merely dismiss it out of hand because we aren't familiar with their reasoning.

In short, their reasoning goes like this. The stories about Jesus aren't meant to be just stories, but actual histories - accounts of things that happened in the real world. He taught us about the real world - not always things scientifically demonstrable, but things real nonetheless. There is only one real universe, and as such, all its parts and aspects cohere with each other in an integral and real way. Different sorts of knowledge and different methods for finding knowledge teach us about different parts and aspects of the one reality.

We Catholics, at least, are not interested in headtrips, flights of fancy, or nice myths. My life is too busy (despite my recent, ample posting) to waste time talking about Zeus.

Our religion is meant to tell us about reality and help us to live in it. If it helps us to live in reality better, then you'd expect us to be better at it and happier as a result. If it fails to teach us accurately, then best just to get rid of the rot. No more time for a pope than a Zeus, if he's got nothing more to say than Zeus.

A good case can be made that he's got a heck of a lot more good to say than Zeus about how to live well.

Marc Edward:

I've never really thought of myself as a conservative. I was first attracted to the Church because of her teachings on social justice. Dorothy Day and Bl. Miguel Pro are two of my role models. Of course, if one identifies anyone that opposes abortion as "conservative," then guilty I am, and I happily stand in the "conservative" company of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Dorothy Day (who regretted her own and opposed the legalization of abortion in the US), Martin Luther King Jr (and still his wife and daughter), and Mahandas Gandhi.

My extended family is a lot of union workers, mainly in Michigan and Ohio. My first sister is a public school teacher, and my youngest sister is severely handicapped. My dad, a lawyer, frequently takes pro-bono work for people who cannot afford adequate representation. Our local (and liberal) government's mishandling and even abuse of my sister has taught us that for all their talk about "education" at least our local democratic politicians are really not on our side. My mom brought us kids to work in soup kitchens and the like, has given anything she was ever asked for, and reading newspaper articles at the table, leading us in critically analyzing them - both for the author's intent and bias, and to mine the actual facts from the accounts. At my Jesuit college I worked as a volunteer coordinator in the social justice office. My mother is not religious and my father is an evangelical Protestant, although not a conservative one.

For myself, I think that the best way to American workers is through trade barriers (who supports THAT anymore?) and strong labor- and trades-unions whose members' basic rights (to assemble, protest, etc.) are protected by competant and non-political police forces.

I never wrote that I oppose, on principle, government wealth-redistribution programs. Not at all. Particularly when they represent the desire of the people, I think the government, as agent of the people's will, is precisely the right organization to build social programs and policy. That is hardly the condition of our nation. A sometimes majority of 52% or 55% hardly constitutes a consensus of eager donors. What I oppose is the government forcibly extracting wealth from some people, to give it to others (after collecting from it salaries for themselves), in order to look good and get re-elected. That is worse than brigandry, or highway robbery. At least brigands are honest thieves, and announce clearly what they are doing: stealing from the rich to keep for themselves. It would go a long way to convince me of their good intentions if the wealthy elites who engineer such programs would redistribute a bit more of their own wealth - say, whatever proportion of mine they care to redistribute, with the same tax breaks I get. Lol! Can you imagine the likes of George Sorros or Bill Gates paying 30% of their income in taxes?

Please be careful, in reading blogs, about how you make your logical deductions. If I write "X is true" it only follows that I believe "not X" is false. It does not follow that I hold "A" or "B" to be false, or even that I think "not X" is a senseless position. If I oppose abortion because it assaults human dignity, how does it follow that I believe any number of other things that Republicans also happen to believe? Gandhi was a Hindu and opposed abortion... oddly enough, nobody ever mistakes me for a Hindu... lolol.

My main project on these blogs, and my purpose for contributing to them when I have time, is to clearly enunciate the teachings of the Catholic Church as they are relevant so that others may hear them in clear and accessible language. Corollary to that purpose is to defend them when wrongly criticized (you'll note I've never defended Bernard Cardinal Law, formerly of Boston, for instance, because I cannot think how I would possibly do it if I cared to). Additionally, when those teachings are misrepresented, I try to clarify them, as is the case in my response to Mr. Stevens-Arroyo's post. The content of his previous posts about women's ordination, et al., ranged from interesting but trivial to boring. This particular post, however, strikes me as absolutely insidious - even treasonous. I try to make sure that my posts don't convey a sense of anger. In this case, I wanted there to be no misunderstanding. I am angry about his post.

Still, I verged dangerously close to ad hominem, and that was wrong, and for it I apologize.

"Please Invest the Time":

You're right. The Catholic Social Teachings are a wealth of beauty and truth. I don't oppose any of them. As a matter of principle, I believe and support whatever the Catholic Church professes and teaches to be true. The social teaching of the Church makes up a big part of how she won my heart. I spoke (and speak) about abortion in particular a great deal because it is SEPARATED falsely from the other Catholic social teachings, and because it is the one in which most is at stake at this point in American history - except perhaps for the issue of global debt.

Speaking of global debt, I am so conservative that I favor the immediate and complete cancellation of ALL international debts held by developed nations against underdeveloped nations. Of course the details need working out, and I am uneducated enough about economics to let my betters do the planning on that point. Ha! How's that for a conservative. You hardly hear a radical liberal advocating that! But you know who does advocate it as well?

The Pope.

A pro-abortion candidate like Sen. Obama speaking in in a Catholic institution should be boycotted by the faithful and discouraged by the local bishop. Mr. Obama can't even guarantee one's right-to-life, the most basic of all rights. You see all rights are contingent upon a warm, breathing, live body.

My prolife vote goes to McChange not CHANCE! Mr. Obama, you do have a Catholic problem. And it's not going to go away simply with your rhetoric and supposed "charisma".

Bravo Ryan Haber!!!!

GOD BLESS YOU!!

1) if your posting on this blog is more than an inch when it appears, you are probably rambling.

2) if you truly believe all this talk of God is rubbish, why are you posting at all. Perhaps it is the same arrogance that leads you to believe you must "inform" us all of the non-existence of God that also leads you to believe He does not exist.

To Foo, et al.:

Anyone who claims that a person cannot be both religious and rational is clearly ignoring the historical data. If faith and intelligence are mutually exclusive, how do you explain such brilliant figures as St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Galileo Galilei, Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Max Planck, etc.? Even the forefathers of modern philosophical atheism, René Descartes, Immanuel Kant, GWF Hegel, etc. were quite pious.

Rather than indiscriminately accusing every religious person of idiocy, one may wish to actually read the works of some of the above-mentioned authors and see how truly intelligent men address their religion and reason.

Howdy Concerned
Think you're barking up the wrong tree. Reason and faith have nothing in common. More to the point, why try to destroy another person's faith? It helps them and fails to harm you, by and large. If people are so afraid of death and too infantile to accept the world will get along just fine once they are gone, well let them have their illusion of a "wonderful" afterlife.
Personally my solution is to not teach my children a bunch of baseless and illogical ideas. At a young age whey wanted to know where we go when we die, I told them what different religions said and that I had no idea what to believe, and they have all decided we will be re-incarnated.
You might think that religion(s) give people a reason to hate and persecute, but without religion people would just find new reasons (the communists in the USSR and China killed plenty of their own people and justified it with a belief system no better or worse than religion)
Later!

It will be so nice when everyone finally wakes up from the fantasies of religion. I can understand how the majority of average sheeple are either (a) indoctrinated early or (b) succumb to psychological pressure during a time of personal crisis, but what I can't understand is how any person who considers themselves intelligent, rational, and in control of their lives can claim to be religious. Once you've divided the world into "smart rational people" and "religious idiots", one has to consider where the powerful politicians of the world lie on this issue.

I think a lot of the high-profile ones in the US who got there on their own smarts (Obama for instance) probably really are smart rational people, but they can't admit it to *anyone* or they'll never succeed in politics in the US. I'd really love to know the percentage of US Senators in this camp, if they weren't lying about it to keep their jobs.

Paul C,

For many a millennium, we have been force fed the mumbo jumbo of current religions. This must be countered by repeating for many a millennium the reality and truth. Deal with it!!!

CCNL:
What is the point of copying the same post into every single thread? Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss the question at hand rather than to go into the same unsupported Atheist spiel. Why not add to the discourse rather than simply copying over the bile that has been addressed over and over in other threads. You have more and better things to add than this...

Mr. Obama simply has to mention the "fems" (flaws, errors, muck and stench) of the major religions and then never mention religion at all in the future.

to wit: the "fems",

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

The muck and stench in Judaism you ask?

Belief that that the Jews are god's chosen people and its resulting consequences.
simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

The muck and stench of Catholicism you ask?

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

The muck and stench of non-Catholic Christian churches you ask?

Adulterous preachers and atonement theology.

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."
The caste/laborer system and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

The muck and stench of Hinduism you ask?

The caste system and cow worship/reverence.

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, muck, stench and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

I would just like to suggest that those interested in Catholic social justice take the time to read the original documents and commentary available on the Vatican website and elsewhere. If you find the Encyclicals difficult to read (and they can be), there are plenty of books and articles that provide in depth explanations and commentary. (Start with a Catholic bookstore, but Barnes and Noble and Borders sometimes carry this material, too.) I also suggest several publications, most notably Commonweal and America. Then decide for yourself which candidate is truly more in line with these teachings -- and I will even refrain from stating who I believe is. The truth is that, Mr. Haber is undoubtedly knowledgeable and deserves respect. However, I have noticed several omissions and gaps in his recitations that are quite critical. I neither have the time (where do you get the time?) nor inclination to correct those here. I am concerned, hover, that, he like those he criticizes, is biased when he discusses the tenants of Catholic social justice. (One example, his discussion of subsidiarity fails to discuss the significant role that three Holy Fathers ascribed to government.) Furthermore, Catholic social justice address so many issues, not just abortion, as important as that is. I fear that the other teachings are lost because of the (not inappropriate) emphasis on abortion. This is not intended to bash Mr. Haber, but please, take the time to read on your own.

Thank you

Howdy Nexttime!
Didn’t know my post was touchy, but feel free to point it out to me. If you don’t point out where I am wrong, how can I learn anything?
Sorry my post was long winded – I was trying to be concise so I didn’t address many of Ryan’s points.
I think an unregulated market and banking system were to a large fault to blame for the great depression, but there were other factors as well, although altogether it’s kind of off topic if you know what I mean.
As for a central bank, you might look at our first great depression which occurred for similar reasons. President Jackson believed in “easy money” – that is easy credit, and like in the depression of the 20th century the results weren’t good. I believe that the reason we have a strong central bank is to regulate a national banking system, which seems to be better for stability.
I agree with you that (1) the government tends towards the corporations and the wealthy, probably because millionaire Senators can identify with fellow millionaires and (b) corporations and wealthy folks can afford lobbyists, unlike you and I. I do see differences between the Democrats and Republicans on the issue, but I’d like to see a lot more differences. It’s one reason I don’t care too much for the Clintons.
Socialism and Fascism seem to be rather different to me, but I don’t claim to be an expert. I think you are confusing Fascism and Nazism (Nazi = national socialist). Fascism was more about everyone having to think, speak and act on the same page, brooking no differences from the official government dogma, but feel free to correct me. What do you mean by socialism? I don’t think government should try to run operations that could be handled by the private sector (like food distribution, which capitalism runs very well) but I do think some areas are not appropriate to be run in a for-profit manner, like prisons, the military, the judicial system, aid to the poor, etc. Profit motives are counter intuitive to achieving goals in some areas I’m sure you’d agree (or not).
I appreciate your advice, but the impression I get is I am not lacking in my history reading or in thinking for myself. Thanks for the mostly civil tone!

Good evening Paul
To me, Ryan’s arguments seem to back up many conservative positions – for example the belief that government ought to have no roll in helping the poor. I just call them like I see them.
I claim that making abortion illegal won’t lower the number of abortions because as far as I have read that is the case. Try “In the Land of God and Man” a mostly good book that documents how in South America, where abortion is illegal, the number of abortions is higher than in countries that have legal abortion (and birth control, and sex education). Aborting a baby doesn’t require a doctor, unless you want it done safely. You can take poison, you can induce miscarriage, knitting needles, “back alley” abortion providers, the options are near endless.
I don’t believe that most abortions occur because women are indifferent or lazy – they just don’t see how they can support a child and raise it in our system where the poor get little help, and what help they do get they have to jump through hoops for. Help prevent the “unwanted pregnancy”, and make sure that when there is an “unwanted pregnancy” these women have options for a positive outcome (medical care, housing, a job, child care, etc.) and IMO you’d lower the number of abortions.
Not sure where you are going with the cocaine argument. Certainly the “war on drugs” has raised the price of illegal drugs, which provides a ready income for criminal gangs and terrorist groups. I guess it is another example of the failure of legal solutions to what are health problems.
I don’t think the government ought to “legislate morality”. Murder and theft aren’t illegal because they are immoral, they are illegal because a society cannot function if they were legal, same way a business climate cannot exist unless government is there to enforce contracts. Your examples are interesting, and frankly the argument over legal divorce is a bit above my head as it’s something I don’t know much about. FYI I have been married for 18 years (and not committed adultery) so I understand a little about morality, while I will freely acknowledge I fall well below my professed ideals. I don’t like abortion, I just don’t think making it illegal is practical nor will it achieve the ends the pro-life folks desire.
Anything I have not addressed denotes I agree with you.

A bit touchy aren't you, Marc?

This is not Ryan H., this is a different poster.

I don't have time to cover all of your very long-winded post; however, who exactly do you think is at fault for the great depression?

Perhaps it was the privately created, government endorsed and CENTRALIZED Federal Reserve....

Honestly, if you think that the government is on your side against the major cooperations you need to cut back on the meds. And there is no difference between the Republicans and Dems on this issue.

Socialism (and/or fascism - i.e. the combo of govt. and cooperations) does not work.

Time to read up on history and think for yourself...

Marc Edward:
You are ascribing a conservative-Liberal, Democrat-Republican argument to Ryan and I don't think that's at all what he's about. I don't see him overtly positioning himself in either the Democratic or republican camp, simply stating the position from a Catholic Church point of view and in general, he does this very, very well.

As for your statements the making abortions illegal would not reduce the number of abortions, how can you justify those statements. At the very least it would make getting an abortion harder since no legitimate doctor would perform one. This would have to reduce the number of abortions. The fact that it was no longer sanctioned by the government but in fact would also have penalties, would also be a deterent Granted, it would also result in some people getting unsafe abortions. Of course, you could also make the argument that because the government doesn't control Cocaine distribution, some people overdose on it.

The biggest overall question remains: can the government legislate morality effectively? When the government does so, it establishes the norms for the society and ideally those norms put peer pressure and real punitive action in place on the populace to conform. Over the last 50 years, the tendancy in government is to reduce its legislation of morality. Laws against adultery, divorce, abortion have been swept from the books and as a result, these activities are no longer considered shameful by many in our society. I'm sure you have your own opinion about whether that is good or a bad thing. Either way, it says something about your personal morality.

On another topic you brought up: the redistribution of wealth. Catholic Social teaching is clear that we should help the needy. This can be done through governmental action or personal charity, ideally both. The trick is in the balance..

I believe all this catholic stand against abortion and contraception is not about "holiness" but more of their true father's (the devil) catholic cycle scheme.

THE CATHOLIC CYCLE

In one third world country where population explosion has become a major problem, Catholic chapels or centers offer free operation to untie the fallopian tubes of mothers after indoctrinating them that it's a SIN.

This devilish Church invent their own doctrines so parents would produce more children despite their abject poverty. With more extra children, they are forced to raise them with no proper education and decent meals and most of all, no future.

They then teach these poor people that their government is the cause of their poverty due to corruption but lo and behold those same government personnel are usually "devout catholics".

Some revolt (with the church's help of course) which cause more poverty and this has become a "CATHOLIC CYCLE" which I presume is routinely duplicated around the world.

To escape poverty, many go abroad adding more economic pressure to their countries of destination.

Catholic countries not only over populate, they produce extortionist rebels too. Had you wondered why there are no marxist rebels in Islamic countries but there are so many in catholic countries? It's because many of their priests support that ideology. They breed fast and then kill each other fast too. WHAT A CYCLE.

There are many things this church does which is outside our scope of detection. The devil could be using a much bigger cycle that is harder to detect. Consciously or unconsciously, all catholics is part of that grand cycle.

believe all this catholic stand against abortion and contraception is not about "holiness" but more of their true father's (the devil) catholic cycle scheme.

THE CATHOLIC CYCLE

In one third world country where population explosion has become a major problem, Catholic chapels or centers offer free operation to untie the fallopian tubes of mothers after indoctrinating them that it's a SIN.

This devilish Church invent their own doctrines so parents would produce more children despite their abject poverty. With more extra children, they are forced to raise them with no proper education and decent meals and most of all, no future.

They then teach these poor people that their government is the cause of their poverty due to corruption but lo and behold those same government personnel are usually "devout catholics".

Some revolt (with the church's help of course) which cause more poverty and this has become a "CATHOLIC CYCLE" which I presume is routinely duplicated around the world.

To escape poverty, many go abroad adding more economic pressure to their countries of destination.

Catholic countries not only over populate, they produce extortionist rebels too. Had you wondered why there are no marxist rebels in Islamic countries but there are so many in catholic countries? It's because many of their priests support that ideology. They breed fast and then kill each other fast too. WHAT A CYCLE.

There are many things this church does which is outside our scope of detection. The devil could be using a much bigger cycle that is harder to detect. Consciously or unconsciously, all catholics is part of that grand cycle.

Howdy Ryan!
What “clichés” are you talking about? Making accusations is easy, how about backing them up?
What’s your point about Japan and Germany? Was abortion legal or illegal before they went to war with their neighbors? Do you even know why Japan was at war with her neighbors? If your point was correct, we’d never have had slavery in the USA, because we “used to respect life”. We’d never have had the Tuskegee Experiments, we’d have never committed genocide against the native Americans because “we respected life”. Paying lip service to “life” does nothing to prevent evil actions. Our last three Republican presidents claimed to be pro-life, but at the same time were pro-death penalty. Moreover, Reagan and GHW Bush supported terrorists in Nicaragua and Angola, as well as tried to appease terrorists by giving them arms. Their “support for life” didn’t prevent them from taking plenty of lives. Our current President is also “pro-life”, and at the same time he promotes the torture of the innocent as well as his was has killed between 100,000 and 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. Not sure you have a leg to stand on, but feel free to develop your unique argument.
As for the Brits, they are placing limits on fertility treatments (for example limiting the numbers of embryos being implanted or created). Try reading more news – information isn’t a bad thing.
As for the effectiveness of government help to the poor, it speaks for itself. Old people used to freeze to death and die of starvation while the church was unable to do anything. You ought to read a bit about the living conditions of the poor back when the government didn’t help.
For example, when the great depression hit, Hoover (who thought a lot like you) encouraged giving (especially by the rich) because it was better than what the government would provide. Of course private charity didn’t do the job and couldn’t do the job. It took the government to put people to work and keep the country afloat until the depression was over.
Feel free to take your own advice about thinking for yourself.
Oh, and I am not surprised that people of faith give more to charity – most people of faith I know are very nice and generous as well. But I don’t get why it’s a bad thing for the government to also help out – seems to reflect Christ’s teachings, but that’s JMO.
Finally, I don’t know where you get your information, but I have seen no evidence what so ever that “pretty much everybody was against abortion” before Roe. Maybe you can tell me where you read that one.
Thanks for the (mostly) civil tone!

Marc,

You should not be one to criticize "intellect" as I have never seen more leftist cliches used in a paragraph than in your responses.

As for embryos, it is about respecting human life -- to see what happens when you do not look at the experiments by Japanese or Germans during WWII or just this week the British parliament passed a law to OK human-animal hybrids and "savior siblings" to harvest DNA for their ailing brothers/sisters.

Welcome to the brave new world!

As for the effectiveness of government welfare programs, you really must be joking! Even Clinton saw the havoc they created in specific communities and lobbied for major reform.

PS - people of faith give MUCH more to charity and disaster relief because they don't think that the nanny state will solve the problems of the world.

For numbers check out Arthur C. Brooks "Who really cares" - and this is from a Syracuse professor not a conservative think tank

Try to think for yourself, Marc, and the world will really look different from the liberal indoctrination that you have received.

PS - I will not vote for either Obama OR McCain

Really? "Ryan" seems to just use selective readings to back up his conservative, Republican positions.
He is against government helping the poor because "neighbors will do it", which is simply not true in the least. Yet somehow, while government is not suited to help the poor, government SHOULD outlaw abortion and toss any women suspected of having an abortion in jail - hardly consistant.
He seems to think that the 1/2 million or so frozen embryos should never be used for stem cell research, because they are sacred, but he has no problem with them being tossed out as so much medical waste.
Personally, I am disgusted when people cherry pick from their religions, supporting those ideas that go along with their own biases, like being against gays or abortion. Nobody in their right mind would make the 10 commandments the law of the land, yet many want to use the power of government to impose a few minor lines from the Old Testament.
I am completly unimpressed with Ryan's "intellect". He parrots positions, but his ideas are impractical to the point of being useless, and are mostly unChristian, IMO.

The reason many of us are thankful for Ryan Haber's responses is that he attacks catholic questions from a theological standpoint and has he seminary background to support his points. On the other hand, Professor Arroyo-Stevens is clearly a secular based, cultural Catholic. This piece has nothing to do with Catholicism. It is in fact a politically motivated article designed to aid the candidacy of Barrack Obama. Nothing could be more clear, despite the disclaimer in the first sentence that he doesn't endorse candidates. I am not shocked that the Washington Post would chose a secular catholic to write the Catholic America posts because that is what they know and are comfortable with. While I wish they would hire someone like Ryan to generate more theologically based discussions, I am at least content that he and others have a forum for educating others in the nuances of the Catholic Faith.

Ya Ya! For:

HABER! HABER! RYAN-HABER!

RYAN the HABER Lion!

He/Her Thinks like an ECLAT{-i-}{'ON'}, and not like an {'OFF'}!

i don't know how he has the time; however, Ryan Haber always has outstanding responses to these issues. Do you also have a blog? You should.

On Faith, drop Susan Jacobin and hire Mr. Haber!

My point is that outlawing abortion is (1) impractical and (2) won't end or lower the number of abortions.
If you outlaw abortion, how do you enforce it? Go after the doctors? That ends safe abortions, so abortion would continue and you'd see a spike in deaths of women. How would the government even know if a pregnancy ended unless the government was tracking fertility?
My point is that there are good ways to lower the numbers of abortion that are much better than simply outlawinghit

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo,

Your post, for all your refusal to "endorse candidates" is certainly a blueprint for how you think Obama's views and Catholic views are compatible on a range of issues, when in fact they are not on almost any issue.

You're right that it isn't pandering to mention his past working for an organization headquartered at a Catholic parish. The rest of it, though, is very much pandering. I'll enumerate.

"He has a perfect opening to identify his call to hope with the theme of the papal visit of Pope Benedict XVI."

The Holy Father's recent visit took the theme "Christ our Hope," which is radically different from Obama's "Yes we can!" If Christ is our hope, it is precisely because WE CANNOT fix our world without His help. We humans have been the chief cause of most of our own misery, and much of the worst misery has been created by people who sincerely thought they were helping - or at least not hurting. Obama's message of hope is vague and indeterminate, a pallid optimism. The Holy Father's message of hope is solid and vibrant - Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in Him alone can we find our needs satisfied.

"The Pontiff has spoken against the war in Iraq, against the death penalty and in favor of immigration reform that unites families."

Great. He has also spoken repeated about abortion. To make it like "we Obamists are on the same page with the Pope on social justice issues," while leaving out what the Pope has called "the central issue of social justice" is a lie.

"By listing the so-called “liberal” causes -- which in fact are the teachings of the Catholic Church"

The teachings of the Catholic Church are not reducible to a series of causes, much less slogans or planks in a party platform. For instance, a central principle of Catholic social teaching is subsidiarity - that actions ought to be taken at the lowest, most local level competant to undertake them. Another key principle is respect for the dignity of each human's free personality - that is, people ought not be compelled except when failure to do so brings about harm to others. Social justice work, then, is best performed when neighbors help neighbors voluntarily. That's a far cry from the Democrat (and to be fair, increasingly the Republican) modus operandi, which is "tax people in one state to help those in another." In the process, the politicians come off looking good to one group because they have compelled (under threat of IRS audits, arrest, and even jail) another group to give up their hard-earned income for programs they don't like to help people they don't know. This process is the exact opposite of what the Church advocates and does. In my parish, we collaborate to provide support for poorer parishes (mine is not very wealthy, either - just generous) where we know people, and want to help them improve their lot, through free offerings. To equate Catholic social teaching with DNC platforms and procedures is a lie.

"Obama can show himself more in tune with Catholic social justice teachings than the ranting self-righteous Catholic right-wingers."

Well, with one or two of the social teachings. Now, Mr. Arroyo-Stevens, you aren't taking sides against self-righteous Catholic right-winger ranters, are you? Who might you mean? People who oppose the legality of abortion, perhaps?

"Obama’s call to unite all Americans around common issues might be compared to the Catholic concept of the natural law."

They're not at all alike. Moreover, the concept of Natural Law isn't a "Catholic concept" but a Greek-Aristotelian concept that Catholics have preserved because it makes sense. And it would, if codified into positive (man-made) law, outlaw sodomy (to say nothing of gay marriage), abortion, and contraception. Are those the natural-law-like common issues that Mr. Obama would like to unite us around? I welcome the thought, but doubt it.

"Natural law, after all, reflects common sense: logic will lead people of faith and people of goodwill to the same conclusions."

Perhaps, had we not all spent the last 50 years being relentlessly propagandized by the mind-molding machine euphemistically called the "television."

"A place to begin is praise for the Catholic Church in holding fast to pro-life principles before they were embraced by today’s right-wing Evangelicals."

Can it, would you? This part is as smarmy as it gets. One, pretty much everyone in the US was opposed to abortion as late as the 1950s. The 1960s-era referenda to legalize it in various states failed dramatically, except in one or two places (California and New York in particular). Evangelicals were never unopposed to abortion. The terminology you use is intended to put a split between Catholics and Evangelicals on the issue, not to applaud them for their "holding fast." Moreover, Obama has not held fast to those principles, but fought them hard. For him to praise his opponents for opposing him is ridiculous and detestable, especially when human life is on the line.

"The changing of hearts and minds (he can use the word “metanoia” here) is in the Catholic tradition that builds consensus."

Metanoia is not about compromise on a consensus. It is about conversion to Jesus Christ, and the Church has never used it in any other way. Moreover, regarding the sanctity of human life, while temporary concessions may become necessary, compromise in principle can never be permitted. Every human being is absolutely sacred by virtue of having been created and desired by the all-holy Creator. Compromise on this point is absolutely inconceivable to a worshipper of said Creator. We can tolerate Mr. Obama, but cannot compromise with the unconscienable assault on human life that he promotes. He does not disagree with us because he is not Catholic - plenty of evangelicals and non-Christians around the world agree with us - he disagrees with us for the sake of political expediency.

"How can respect for stem cells be reconciled with the opportunity to heal the suffering and cure life-threatening disease?"

You know darn well that it isn't "stem cells" we demand respect for - it is the human beings to whom they belonged. Stem cells are now being harvested with vastly greater profit from adults, to whom the harvesting does no harm; why the zeal and thirst to get cells whose promise dwindles daily that are only available by murdering unborn children?! You ask as series of questions intended to be difficult and rhetorical, but I will give you a simple and clear answer.

YOU DEFEND INNOCENT LIFE. You do not kill a human in order to heal a human. Killing our children to consume their parts for our medicinal benefit is nothing other than cannibalism.

"The Catholic answer to these difficult questions includes the obligation to build a society in which laws are based on a rationally explained social consensus."

No! The Church has always been clear that SOCIAL CONSENSUS is NOT the basis for man-made law. The basis can only be natural law - the order built into the universe. In fact, Pope Benedict just reiterated that point during his visit, that simply because a democracy chooses something does not legitimate that choice.

"Saints Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and the documents of the II Vatican Council have said secular law doesn’t have to be a carbon copy of canon law."

And they all agree that it can never violate the moral, natural law. When man-made, secular (or canon) law violates the natural moral order, it ceases to have the force and authority of law. All three of your cited sources agree unequivocally. If you don't know that, then you are speaking about what you do not know - the definition of stupidity. If you are concealing what you do know, Mr. Arroyo-Stevens, then you are worse than stupid - you are a liar.

"Obama should close by articulating his political theme repeating the expression, 'Mary’s Magnificat,' to highlight his message: 'He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly. The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty.'(Lk. 1:52-53)."

A message she uttered while carrying our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in her womb!

I am NOT here advocating for McCain, and daily grow less likely to vote for him. I am only trying to point out that your blueprint for Obama encourages a great deal of glossing-over of differences and misrepresenting truths. That is deceitful, and it is intended to legitimize a Catholic vote for him. My guess is that, fortunately, his advisors know too little of our holy Faith to even achieve such a parody; and if his advisors do, only those inclined anyway to vote for him against our Faith's moral teachings will believe it.

I don't have strong enough language for the disgusting cunning it displays. It is the sort of thing the prophets excoriated.

Marc, I will answer this one, it is called ethics and support of a moral society.

Yes, there are miscarriages; however, death is part of life (as you know, people die everyday).

Murder is a whole different story.

Would you care to extend that argument for the "naturalness" of abortions to greater society: "people die of natural causes everyday, so why shouldn't take part in that process with my AK-47 or a pre-emptive invasion? Just doing what is "natural."

It's a slippery slope once we start to attack that sacred aspect of human life...

Hey Candide, why the hatred? You seem obsessed by your hate for Catholics and Catholic conspiracy theory?

Just in case you didn't notice, the voters in Kentucky and W. Virginia (where Clinton killed Obama) were mostly protestant.

What about the Jewish voters in South Florida who will pick Hillary over Obama by a wide margin?

Are they "racist" as well?

...get real and get over your anti-catholic bile.

How was Roe extreme in any way?
The fact is there is no practical way to "end abortion". Outlawing abortion won't even lower the numbers of abortions, it will just increase the numbers of women who die from botched abortions. If you argue that life "begins at conception" as a legal principal, how do you deal with the millions of pregnancies that end every year without any abortion at all (about 1/3 of pregnancies misscarry early on). You would have a murder investigation every time a woman miscarries? How do you keep track of who might be pregnant? Mandatory government pregnancy tests?

Actually abortions have no declined under President Bush. Information is scanty because the feds stopped collecting date on numbers of abortions once Bush took over (I wonder why?). Of the studies I have read, one says abortions have gone down, one says they have gone up.

How come Obama has a Catholic problem? His social issue views are identical to those of Hillary Clinton who does not apparently have a Catholic problem. Are all those Joe Six-Pack Catholic men suddenly impressed by feminism? Are they for the first time listening to their wives? I think not. I think it is race, race, race. Catholic working class men are racist because they are in competition with blacks for entitlements, jobs, safe neighborhoods, and all that. They live in proximity to black neighborhoods and have grown up learning that blacks are bad news. That is why they have a problem with Obama. He has no problem with them.

Can someone ban the IP of the nut-job, Jacob Jovesz?

Take your meds, Jovezv! Then go ask your rabbi for some guidance/help.

"Obama’s call to unite all Americans around common issues might be compared to the Catholic concept of the natural law. Natural law, after all, reflects common sense: logic will lead people of faith and people of goodwill to the same conclusions."

That's baloney. Natural law leads to the conclusion that marriage is between a man and a woman because a natural end of marriage is children.

Natural law tells us that a fetus is a human being, that's common sense.

Natural law tells us that a newborn (even if aborted) has a right to medical care and love.

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo, your understanding of natural law is pathetic.

The abortion rate has also declined further under Bush; however, I agree with the idea that the Republicans only pay lip-service to the pro-life movement.

As for "right to privacy," this was a false and radical extension of the Greenwald v CT case. Right to privacy does NOT negate the right to life - as the life of a child and life of the mother are separate entities.

If the extreme reading of the right to privacy is extended to all members of a nuclear family, does this give the right of the head of that family any of its kill a members?

This is the extreme position that abortion of a independent life makes possible.

This is a violent act - not a "right."

"The moment calls for a thoughtful speech in a familiar setting, like Loyola University in Chicago."

If Catholic universities have any guts at all, Obama will not be invited to speak because of his "culture of death" attitude toward the unborn and just born. If he comes to our area to a catholic University, I'll be there, and I won't be saying Amen to anything he says.

b

Actually President Clinton did a lot to lower the number of abortions. Abortion rates declined throughout his Presidency.
The sad fact is that the pro-life leadership long ago sold out to the Republican party. Republicans have had complete control of government and never lifted a finger to end legal abortion in the USA. It was not in their interest to end abortion, as they would lose the political activity of many well meaning pro-life folks. The pro-life leadership cannot be blind to this fact, but as they derive their own political importance from their leadership, they turned a blind eye while the Republicans treated their followers like prostitutes.
Abortion is legal in the USA because we have a right to privacy - the legal arguments have little to do with "when life begins" or the value of life. In countries were abortion is illegal they have MORE abortions than were it is legal (read "In the Land of God and Man" for more details).
Simply put, if you want to lower the number of abortions, make sure family planning services are available, make sure kids get real honest and complete sex education. Make sure that pregnant women know that they will have the means to care for their children once they are born.

I am Roman Catholic.

Senator Obama has no problem with me.

I have no problem with him.

I simply will not vote for him or support him for *MANY* reasons the pre-eminent reason being his strong, ardent, pro-choice position. ("...... I {Obama} wouldn't want my daughter *PUNISHED* with a child she didn't want." Classy! Real nice!).

4,100 American dead in Iraq. Terrible!

50,000,000 dead Americans since Roe v. Wade. 'nough said.

As a Catholic, I am dismayed by both of our big government parties...

Obama has much too long a history supporting the most extreme cases of "abortion rights" to be considered trust worthy. Remember, it was Bill Clinton who stated that abortions should be rare but did nothing but advocate abortion on demand.

This is not to mention Obama's protestant preacher style of oratory and "charisma."

As for McCain, he is a senile old war monger who is much to much of a neo-con to be considered a valid candidate.

Perhaps the Catholics and other consistency-minded voters should start a centrist party that vetos BOTH pre-emptive war abroad and the slaughter of children via "abortion rights" at home...

I agree with Mr. Stevens-Arroyo...Obama could gain from addressing American Catholics more directly. Of greater importance, however, is that in doing so he would underscore the fact that his proposed domestic policy agenda embraces so many social justice teachings of the Catholic church, even if he has differences with the dogma of a specific denomination. Americans who are searching for "change" would do well to realize that it will more likely arise from a "metanoia" as Mr. Stevens-Arroyo suggests rather than from the divisive winner-take-all polemic which has framed debate between "religious right" and "liberal left" camps during recent administrations.