IntenseDebate - SUZANNE

6 years ago @ BIG BLUE WAVE - The Medicalization of ... · 0 replies · +4 points

I have heard conflicting opinions on whether premature expulsion is licit.

7 years ago @ BIG BLUE WAVE - Science and Logic are ... · 0 replies · +3 points

When the rights of blacks and the rights of whites conflict, whose rights take precedence?

When the rights of men and the rights of women conflict, whose rights take precedence?

The answer is: nobody's. Because no human being is more important than another.

When rights conflict, we don't consider WHOSE rights conflicts, but WHICH rights conflict.

That the right to life is more important than the right to bodily autonomy. The cost of renouncing human life is permanent and irreversible. The cost of pregnancy is temporary.

If the unborn is a human being at 7 weeks-- which you seem to think is murder-- why would be it not be murder at 6 weeks 6 days? It's the same human being. Moral worth is intrinsic, not acquired. A human being has the same moral worth throughout their lives. That's the meaning of equality.

8 years ago @ BIG BLUE WAVE - VIDEO: Brian Lilley De... · 1 reply · +1 points

The Rebel is commentary. There's no attempt to be a neutral source. One of the Rebel's criticism's of the mainstream media is their apperance of neutrality when in fact they're really left-wing.

8 years ago @ BIG BLUE WAVE - VIDEO: Brian Lilley De... · 3 replies · +3 points

Brian was issuing commentary. Commentary is when you editorialize on the news. Journalism is supposed to report the news in a fair fashion. Come on, you're not even trying.

8 years ago @ BIG BLUE WAVE - Why Pope Francis Did N... · 0 replies · +1 points

" the official position of the Church about the ontological status of a fetus was that “the soul only enters the child's body after 40 days of pregnancy”."

Not true. If anything, the theory of delayed animation was on its way out in the 17th century as per Donald DeMarco's history of abortion in the Catholic Church.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/vi...
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/vi...

"We should not put a label on Pascal and deny all his ideas because, in the XVII century, he was considered “almost heretic” by the Church"

You're using Pascal as an authority when he wasn't perfectly orthodox. If you're going to attack a body of Catholic knowledge, it helps to use an authoritative Catholic source.

"I repeat: ethical values must be universal (must be objective), based upon Reason (for instance, reason does not justify feminine excision, and does not support abortion too) , and timeless (not submitted to a specific zeitgeist). Otherwise are not “ethical values” in the true sense. "

And universal values have particular application. That's what casuistry is all about: a proper application of values to specific cases.

"Ad hominem does not solve the problem."

That was not an ad hominem. It was a criticism of your method.

8 years ago @ BIG BLUE WAVE - Why Pope Francis Did N... · 2 replies · +1 points

Jansenism was a tendency that was condemned by the Church. I think rather than go by a writer who had heretical tendencies, maybe we should refer back to the Magisterium.

The whole purpose of casuistry was to know the correct doctrinal decision in a given circumstance. A judgement is universal insofar as it applies in a given case. I think your problem is that your definition of relativism is based on your personal judgement, not the Church's understanding of morality. So far you invoke Pascal, but Pascal isn't the magisterium, nor is his Jansenism reliable.

"The idea that each confessor (or priest) is entitled to his own subjective “moral minimum”, is not acceptable. "

Total non sequitur and I didn't say anything to that effect.

8 years ago @ BIG BLUE WAVE - Why Pope Francis Did N... · 0 replies · 0 points

Don't use a secular dictionary to define a theological idea:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03415d.htm

8 years ago @ BIG BLUE WAVE - Why Pope Francis Did N... · 6 replies · 0 points

There is strictly no explicit and clear proof of anything you say. It's all based on reading into his motives. Casuistry is the opposite of relativism, it's establishing a moral minimum, which is the opposite of many an act good in every situation. Francis did not want to judge priests who were making an effort to rid themselves of sin-- a perfectly Catholic stance, whereas, he was trying to give Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt, so no, he didn't actually judge him.

If you're going to insinuate wicked motives on the Holy Father, it has to be based more than on ambiguity and your projection.

8 years ago @ BIG BLUE WAVE - Why Pope Francis Did N... · 0 replies · 0 points

"Casuistry is a branch of moral theology developed at the end of XV century by the Jesuits that gave a chance to Jansenists to attack the Church, as it approached the cases of conscience as mere “juridical matters”

A moral minimum is necessary for the judgement of every confessor. If a confessor doesn't know the moral minimum, he doesn't know if he can or needs to absolve him.

"Francis wants to change the Church doctrine by means of a cultural “war of attrition” (cultural war against orthodoxy). This is quite obvious and evident"

I don't think so. He simply has not contradicted Church teaching.

8 years ago @ BIG BLUE WAVE - Dear Republicans: Dump... · 0 replies · 0 points

Many people think Trump is going to be faithful to his policy positions. I think this is what is driving the support. They are sick and tired of electing politicians who don't do what they say they're going to do.

The thing is, while Trump MAY do what he sets out to do, he will be a bull in the China shop. He has the strong potential to alienate allies. His personality does not lend itself to the compromise and co-operation necessary in the real world of politics. You need someone who can negotiate in that world, and to me, his personality suggests he can't. People don't care about that, they care about someone having the policy objectives they do and doing what they want to do. He makes me think a lot about Trudeau. Although my opposition to Trudeau was largely ideological, it was also in terms of his intelligence and personality. I would have strongly preferred Mulcair because he knows how to deal with people, how to get things done. Trudeau is clueless as far as I can tell.

I also think Trump is somewhat of a phoney. Trump as a Christian pro-lifer? He thinks his electorate was born yesterday and unfortunately, many Christian pro-lifers are buying it.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Description

Connect with SUZANNE

People I'm following

SUZANNE