Fracus in the 'Hood

Catholic blogosphere has been a cavern for those of us robbed of our faith so the archdiocese can keep people who reject it coming every week to drop money in the basket.

Whatever style of writing you're attracted to, Church militant, snark, sarcasm, humor, gentility, intellectual - talented Catholics are growing like wheat on the internet.


Every once in a while, something dramatic happens. We're always up to our necks in manure here in Boston so I usually miss it. (I just found out the cafeteria at The Cafeteria is Closed opened and some kind of donnybrook took place that shut the blog down.) But yesterday over at Terry's digs, I found out Vox Nova has the pins for Mark Shea. Mark has posted a hilarious summary HERE.

I don't know where we are losing the folks at Vox Nova. No matter how many times you attempt to enlighten them, it seems like they have their story and they stick to it... no matter how silly it gets.

Likening Vox Nova to a Debate Club at Aushwitz is pointing out the immorality of debating butchering babies alive as a choice for pregnant women in our country. Their boo-hooing about being called antisemites is buffoonery.


They want to continue to insist their writers are not prochoice but they freely admit they are against activists who work towards the repeal of laws that license people to kill children.

There are only two positions about choices when a woman is pregnant and it isn't rocket science.

You have to have two things to choose from to make it a choice.

When it comes to the definition of the word 'choice' as it relates to abortion, if you are lobbying for a society that offers women two options when they are pregnant and one of those options is killing their child, you are pro-choice.

Once you take away that option the word choice is not applicable.

They also claim repealing the law would put the baby butchers out of a job. I scoured their archives to find talking points on keeping prison wardens gainfully employed by keeping a steady stream of people on death row strapped down for lethal injections and into the electric chair. Shockingly, I stand here empty-handed.


When you read the thread, you'll see these 'pro-life' Catholics (who can't seem to figure out baby butchers would be needed in obstetrics) have the audacity to claim activists working towards the repeal of the law should have complaints filed with their employers (or potential employers).

And no, before you go "are you saying he is doing the same thing as these." The point is, if people are misbehaving, causing problems, and after constantly confronted and told why they are in error, if they keep trying to act like bullies on the internet, they should not be surprised if people who would hire them would be contacted and told to take note. Livelihood is important, but on the other hand, Mark IS working against the livelihood of others with his constant false witness about VN and the people on it. It affects us, too. Why should we not encourage him to behave betters, so he can be a good witness for the faith instead of a witness of a heckler?

Yeah. Because what kind of a good witness is it to expose Catholics who are misleading their readers.

Painful.

Karlson later makes a vulgar and sophomoric reference to body part that resides in a gentleman's trousers by calling a fellow commenter in the thread named Richard ,"Dick". Must be the latest fruit of the loom from all his studying of Buddha.

Catholics who sell their prochoice convictions by saying rather than working to repeal laws that make it legal for people to kill other people, we should all focus on financially, emotionally and spiritually supporting pregnant women in crisis are playing games. Under the Obama administration, abortion has increased. They don't even have the decency to be honest about it. So you can throw that theory right out the window.

These things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it's symbiotic to stop the killing and support women so there is no legitimate reason to filibuster on Roe v. Wade.

Pro-lifers are always on the front lines assisting women. You know who you never see there?

Pro-choice Catholics.

Here's some savvy advice for practicing Catholics: For Lent, give up wasting precious brain cells reading their intellectual dishonesty.

The Grinches at Catholics United

Hope your Christmas day was filled with joy, laughter, love and the presence of our newborn King.    We had a great day here at Camp McKinley.      I don't know about you, but I'm not psyched up for this 'blizzard'.   I don't know how to operate my snowblower.  :O)    Guess today's the day I'm going to learn!

Meanwhile, here's something to warm the cockles of your heart...

I somehow missed this, but apparently Chris Korzen and James Salt of Katholycs United responded to Bishop Olmsted's stripping of Catholic status and excommunication over the abortion at St. Joseph's Hospital by asking him to reverse his decision and saying he's too much of a hardliner and out of touch with many Catholics.

In a nutshell, they do a convoluted jig around the 'moral analysis' relied upon to perform the abortion.   The teaching of the Church is that it is never permissible to perform an abortion no matter what the circumstances, even when the abortion would improve the health of the mother.   If a pregnant woman is in a health crisis, medications, operations, procedures that will improve her health are permissible, even if those procedures risk the life of her unborn child, but never an abortion.

It's a tough teaching in the circumstances these individuals were in, but it is the teaching.     The administrator of the Catholic Hospital was there to uphold the teaching.  You tell her we'll do what we can to stabilize the situation until the baby can survive outside of the womb, give her the best medical care available, get the prayers and novena's going.  If the pregnant mother of four made the choice to pursue an abortion, we don't chain people to their hospital beds and she has the option of arranging a transfer to a non-Catholic hospital.

This is why you see a dance around calling the procedure an abortion in their 'moral analysis', as in this Condomweal piece here.

 “ “The procedure performed at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center on November 5, 2009, cannot properly be described as an abortion. The act, per its moral object, must accurately be described as saving the life of the mother. The death of the fetus was, at maximum, nondirect and praeter intentionem. More likely, the fetus was already dying due to the pathological situation prior to the intervention; as such, it is inaccurate to understand the death of the fetus as an accessory consequence to the intervention.”

There are numerous flaws in this analysis.  The procedure was an abortion with the direct intention of killing the child.   The child in utero was not dying and saying 'more likely' that it was is 100% conjecture.  But the most compelling observance of their moral poverty was their description of the 'death of the fetus as an accessory consequence to the intervention".

When dilating the woman's cervix, inserting the vacuum to the living child within her womb and tearing the child into small enough pieces to go through the tubes and into the jar, they approached the procedure with the intention of permitting the child to live.  In the course of this medical intervention, the dead child was an unintended accessory consequence and therefore, it is 'bogus' (as Korzen calls it) to describe the procedure as an abortion.

The hospital has the support of the Catholic Health Association, the U.S. Catholic community foremost healthcare authority, Catholics United says. Gotta love that.    (They also have the support of the reliable contradictors of Catholic teaching .  The crew at the National Catholic Reporter.   James Martin conveniently gathers the links of the people adrift from One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church at Condomweal here.  Vox Nova here.)


Taking a quick glimpse at other press releases at "Catholics United", it's quite a peculiar focus for a Catholic group.  In fact, I couldn't find anything that actually defended Catholic teaching.  When they "unite", they "unite" behind people people who procure and legislate abortion or pour ants over the Catholic Crucifix to blame Catholic teaching for the HIV caused by irresponsible sex.

I doubt they were edified with Bishop Olmsted's response --

The Phoenix Diocese issued the following statement: "Unfortunately, St. Joseph's hospital and 'Catholic's United are not in union with Bishop Olmsted and have no claim to being considered authentically Catholic, nor do they speak for the church in any way."

Why don't they just use the take away the right of "Catholics United", the "National Catholic Reporter" and the "Catholic Health Association" to use the name "Catholic" to set up an alternate 'magisterium'?  

Take the ax to the root.

Here's something you won't see at Condomweal Magazine, Vox Nova and America Magazine

The Vatican has issued a clarification on the mess made out of the Pope's statements on condom use.

It is comprehensive in addressing every inanity by theorists proposing this was the green light for people having irresponsible sex. The focus of Christendom, society and the State is liberating people chained to immoral and sinful practices.

The response of the entire Christian tradition – and indeed not only of the Christian tradition – to the practice of prostitution can be summed up in the words of St. Paul: "Flee from fornication" (1 Cor 6:18).

The statement also affirmed that the Pope was not separating the unitive and procreative meaning of human sexuality.

So much for irresponsible priests like Fr. James Martin who claimed the Pope's statements are a "game changer".

My favorite part was addressed to the luminaries who were frantically asserting the teaching of abstinence was now trumped with the 'pastoral approach' of the "the lesser of two evils":


S

ome commentators have interpreted the words of Benedict XVI according to the so-called theory of the "lesser evil". This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 75-77).

An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed...


In conclusion, in the battle against AIDS, the Catholic faithful and the agencies of the Catholic Church should be close to those affected, should care for the sick and should encourage all people to live abstinence before and fidelity within marriage.

I'm very relieved the Holy See responded to the pandemonium so thoroughly.