Thursday, May 10, 2007

Beware ye supporters of the right to choose…


You risk ex-communication.

You have been warned.

39 comments:

Damo said...

It's good you wrote 'you risk communication' because it is not exactly clear what course of action Ben advocates as regards this issue - that is, does he maintain the line of collegiality pursued when advising the U.S. bishops request for guidance, or on the other hand is he indirectly telling pro-choice Catholic politicians they shouldn't approach the altar at communion time (unless they want to get a slap in the jaw!).

Important to keep in mind here that Cardinal Norberto Rivera has said he has no intention of excommunicating anyone.

geez said...

Right to choose what?

Shh. Don't even mention the word. So when it happens, it doesn't really happen.

Anonymous said...

Related Headline:

Link:
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/10/23/165511.txt

Jewish Court Excommunicates Lieberman
CNSNews.com
Tuesday, Oct. 24, 2000

CNSNews.com
Tuesday, Oct. 24, 2000
A rabbinical court in Brooklyn, N.Y., has taken the unusual step of excommunicating Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrat vice presidential nominee.
The New York Torah Court stated that he caused grave scandal for the Jewish religion because "while claiming to be an observant Jew, Lieberman has been misrepresenting and falsifying to the American people the teachings of the Torah against partial birth infanticide, against special privileges and preferential treatment for flaunting homosexuals, and against religious intermarriage of Jews."

Rabbi Joseph Friedman, a spokesman for the rabbinical court, said in a statement that Lieberman has "flagrantly violated our sacred Torah by his Senate votes upholding partial birth infanticide and legitimizing homosexuality, which abnormal and unhealthy behavior the Torah strongly condemns as sinful and immoral."

As you can see the Jewish community also denounces abortion and homosexuality. It's not only a Catholic issue. But again, Beatroot will only focus on Catholics when it comes to specific religious groups denouncing homosexuality and abortion. It is simply against the teachings of Catholicism and Judaism. Should this be surprising?

Naomi

geez said...

Theologian Hans Kung remains not only a Catholic, but also a priest, although he has lost his license to teach as a Catholic theologian


-despite his not believing in traditional Christology, including the Virginal Conception of Christ

-despite evidently not believing in the empty tomb of Christ and a physical resurrection

-depite not believing in and publicly opposing papal infallibility

-and he was recently invited as a priest in apparently good standing by the Pope to lunch and to discuss the state of the world.

geez said...

To be fair, the entire Jewish community does not "denounce abortion and homosexuality." To suggest that it does is even more ridiculous than to suggest that the entire Catholic community does the same. And the definition of the word "denounce" has to be taken into further consideration as well.

geez said...

But speaking about Jews...

It now looks like Norman Finkelstein will be denied tenure at DePaul (Catholic) University in Chicago.

But not because of his position regarding any Catholic doctrine...

http://counterpunch.org/weber05092007.html

Anonymous said...

Geez,

To state it more clearly, both the Torah and Bible (sacred teachings of the Jewish and Catholic peoples) forbid and do not encourage homosexuality and abortion. It's a religious matter, and opposition to such practices are more visible in countries where religion is strongest. So, to accuse-criticize an ethnic group or citizens/government of a given country of being unfair and too strict about abortion, or homophobic when it comes to gays, is ridiculous. This is what the liberals in the EU parliment have done with Poland.

Naomi

geez said...

You mean to state it *differently* than you previously did, Naomi.

Also, I am completely at a loss as to why it is ridiculous to be critical of any government's policies.

beatroot said...

Naomi

So, to accuse-criticize an ethnic group or citizens/government of a given country of being unfair and too strict about abortion, or homophobic when it comes to gays, is ridiculous. This is what the liberals in the EU parliment have done with Poland.

The EU parliament has every right to ‘accuse-criticize an ethnic group or citizens/government of a given country of being unfair and too strict about abortion, or homophobia’ if those ‘ethnic group or citizens/government of a given country’ voted via referendum to enter the EU in the first place. The Poles chose to make their EU bed, now they better get used to laying in it.

Saying that, it is crucial that citizens of that country change their own laws by themselves. To do that Polish ‘liberals’ have to organize and mobilize a political campaign. This is something that they – unlike their conservative opponents – seem completely incapable of doing. And that political impotence and lack of political will is not being helped by ‘liberals’ sitting around waiting for the EU to come to their rescue.

tory bora said...

And let us examine more fully the range of Old Testament prohibitions (using Lego blocks as a learning device):

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html

opamp said...

it is not exactly clear what course of action Ben advocates as regards this issue

What he thinks is completely irrelevant. The canon law says that performing an abortion or a pro-abortion advocacy results in automatic excommunication.

Side note: the All-Polish Youth have sent a letter to Vatican, asking whether Polish MPs who have voted against a recent anti-abortion constitutional amendment should be excommunicated. The catch? Jarosław Kaczyński didn't vote for; he abstained.

opamp said...

The EU parliament has every right to ‘accuse-criticize an ethnic group or citizens/government of a given country of being unfair and too strict about abortion, or homophobia’

Can you quote the law which specifically gives the Europarl such competence?

For me the politicians running these campaigns are clearly oversteppping the legal bounds in order to easily score some bonus points fighting the Catholic backwardness.

beatroot said...

Yeah, Opamp - I suppose us secularists do get a bit incredulous when a catholic acts like a catholic...which is a bit silly...it's like expecting a camel to not like sand...

Harry said...

Naomi said....
To state it more clearly, both the Torah and Bible (sacred teachings of the Jewish and Catholic peoples) forbid and do not encourage homosexuality and abortion. It's a religious matter, and opposition to such practices are more visible in countries where religion is strongest. So, to accuse-criticize an ethnic group or citizens/government of a given country of being unfair and too strict about abortion, or homophobic when it comes to gays, is ridiculous.


Yes Naomi, but both the Torah and the Bible also forbid the eating of prawns. I don't see any campaigns to ban prawns from Poland. Both the Torah and the Bible also forbid wearing of mixed fabrics. So where the campaigns to stop the evil art of making blended fabrics being taught in state-funded educational establishments in Poland? How about women wearing red dresses? That's also banned in the books but not banned by law here. And don't even get me started about what Jesus said about figs.

Oh, I'm sorry, you mean we should all pick the bits of the books we like and force other people to stick to those bits. OK: I hereby order you to always observe Matthew chapter seven verse one from the new book and the second commandment of the old book. Until you can keep those rather basic rules I'll be left sticking firmly to Matthew chapter five verse 43.

Damo said...

What he thinks is completely irrelevant.

Ah, no it's not. Actually, it's very relevant as pertaining to this issue and the faithful. Canon Law is not to be taken literally, but rather to be interpreted {The Old and New Testaments, since the critical thinking of German theologians from mid-19th century was deemed also not to be taken literally, given Darwinism et al.}in a manner convenient to realpolitik, hence John Kerry was not excommunicated despite his public pro-choice position during the presidential campaign against George Walker.

Politicians in Mexico, I hazard to guess, will also not be excommunicated. That is why I outlined in my initial comment that Ben's thinking is actually quite important re. this issue - is it a matter of collegiality, which has been steadily rolled back ever since JPII's reign, or on the other hand is the bishop of Rome dictating sharpened arrows against the agents of the 'dictatorship of relativism'?

As a kind of digressions, I would suggest the vicar of Christ should threaten to excommunicate all parents who facilitate their kids going to solariums, getting manicures and pedicures, MP3 players and playstations, and worst of all - helicopter rides, all preparatory rewards for young ones on making their First Holy Communion. Isn't a tasteless wafer enough for these already spoilt kids?

Anonymous said...

As a Jew, the Torah forbids me to mix dairy products with meat, and I cannot eat pork. Also, I am not allowed to work on Friday, from sunset to sunrise. Is that law ridiculous? Will the EU parliement intervene? If so, I think you are an anti-semite.

Naomi

michael farris said...

"As a Jew ... I am not allowed to work on Friday, from sunset to sunrise"

As a Jew, you should know that the Jewish sabbath (Shabbat) is observed from before sundown Friday until Saturday night.

Nice try, though. Better luck next time.

walter sobchak said...

Yea, as a Polish Vietnam-veteran convert to Judaism, as much as I like bowling, I can't even bowl on Saturday.

Anonymous said...

As a fast typist, I had a minor typo previously which is common on any blog, it happens. More important is if Beatroot is going to answer my question? It must be noted that I observe the Torah religiously. There are laws covering my diet, when I'm allowed to work, on homosexuality, abortion, marriage, and unique lending-interest laws to fellow Jews and to the Goyim. Are the Torah's laws ridiculous, or not? As you have seen, every religion has its own form of ex-communication. Aside from our laws perhaps you dislike the way we dress along with our peyot? I invite you to attend Nozyk shul with me anytime you wish. It shouldn't be that far from where you are. Perhaps, your attitude on religious laws and issues will change. A bonus is you will be able to meet me in person. I only hope, you enjoy kosher food.

Naomi

beatroot said...

I invite you to attend Nozyk shul with me anytime you wish.

Ok. When, where?

Tory Borys said...

Naomi: For my two zlots, you can follow whatever laws and observe whatever prohibitions you so choose.

Just don't try to impose them on me.

But if you insist on being such a literalist vis-a-vis the OT and the Torah in your observances, my guess is that even you have a lot of owning up to do.

walter sobchak said...

Aren't there strict halachic rules against teaching Torah to non-Jews?

geez said...

Can somebody here provide a list of the 365 prohibitions of the Torah? I've been looking for them but can't find them.

Or is would providing that information to Goyim be illegal?

geez said...

I should have known to askmoses.com:

http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=411&o=91

geez said...

Yikes! I thought my Polish wife was a really primo Catholic. But now I have to tell her she's in big trouble because she forgot to observe these OT rules:

12:6 When her purification period for a son or a daughter is complete, she shall bring to the priest, to the Communion Tent entrance, a yearling sheep for a burnt offering, and a young common dove, or a turtle dove for a sin offering.

12:7 [The priest] shall offer [the sacrifice] before God and atone for [the woman], thus cleansing her of the blood coming from her womb. This law applies whether a woman gives birth to a boy or to a girl.

12:8 If [the woman] cannot afford a sheep, she shall bring two turtle doves, or two young common doves, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering. The priest shall then make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

beatroot said...

Of course, if you want wacky bits out of the Bible and Torah then the Leviticus (which is included in both) takes some beating. In fact, the bible is obsessed with killing people (apart from the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ of course.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)

If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)

Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

I would say that Leviticus contravenes the new Religious Hate Laws in the UK – does that mean Tony Blair (bless…) wants to ban the Bible and the Torah?

geez said...

Killing animals (and getting rid of the blood properly) was even bigger.

Think about the very real problem of disposing the blood of thousands of animal sacrifices a day.

I recall being staggered upon reading Paula Fredrikson's working description of the Jerusalem Temple in Jesus's day. (She's the convert to Judaism who predicted that there would be pogroms in Poland when Mel's gospel first showed there).

opamp said...

It's so much fun to ridicule all these Leviticus rules. Of course if you researched it you would have known that they are mostly hygienic and public order rules given for the specific conditions of nomadic living in the desert. But hey, this is so much fun!

Not to even mention that Christians don't have to obey Leviticus, because contemporary Christianity is largely descended from the teachings of a guy named Paul of Tarsus, who claimed (contrary to some disciples of Jesus) that following a Jewish religion is not a prerequisite for being a good Christian. Paul's version has been accepted as valid at the Council of Jerusalm (see Acts 15) and naturally became predominant.

Damo said...

Geez,

12:8 If [the woman] cannot afford a sheep, she shall bring two turtle doves

is a mistranslation. Scholars widely accept nowadays that it should actually read:

If [the woman] cannot afford a sheep, she shall bring two turtle doves, and a partridge in a pear tree

One theory is that the latter 'real' {actually I just made it up} version preempts 'The Twelve Days of Christmas' offering and may very well have been stolen by the author of them loveable though unrememberable - that is, when your drunk at a party and expected to sing it - litany of verses.

The partridge - a rather fat bird -symbolises Christ {albeit yet to be born as re. OT} and the pear tree the cross. One hypothesis I've read about is that the gifts were originally a mnemonic used by English Catholics to secretly teach the faith to their children during the period when the Catholic faith was illegal in England.

Anyhow, that's trivia - my point is, remind your wife, next time she seeks atonement, to purchase some partridges at your local pet shop next time.

P.S. All the above is a joke. Just thought I would clarify in case anybody gets angry, offended, and loses some sleep over my blatant misquoting of OT scripture. Suffice to say if you are a strict adherent, then you can comfort yourself with the knowledge that I will blisteringly burn till kingdom come for my stupid irreligious remarks.

geez said...

Thing is there are Catholics (who accuse other Catholics of being Cafeteria Catholics) who still harken back to this-or-that tidbit of the OT to "definitively prove" their arguments about this-or-that in the modern world.

Whatever's convenient. If it's not convenient, fuhgitaboudit. Seems to be very similar vis-a-vis branches of Judaism.

Orthodox are in a snit about Conservative Jews reinterpreting Torah passages about homosexuality these days.

And I wouldn't know where to find a turtle dove or a partridge.

Harry said...

opamp said...
It's so much fun to ridicule all these Leviticus rules. Of course if you researched it you would have known that they are mostly hygienic and public order rules given for the specific conditions of nomadic living in the desert.


Perhaps you can explain where and how a nomad living in the desert would find shellfish?

And if we're supposed to be following only NT rules, how come figs are for sale openly in every market in Poland? Jesus hates figs. Read the Good Book.

fig and mushroon loving geez said...

Figgin hej Harry. It was a fig tree He flipped out at, not at figs. I have no doubt JC loved figs. Sweet and good to eat. The fig tree was a metaphor for... Don't know? Can't guess? Read the Good Book. Or try the hated Wikipedia if you can't figure it out.

beatroot said...

I'm with JC on the fig issue. Nasty litle bastards.

beatroot said...

Of course, it is unfair to pick on the bible/torah…These are old documents written at a time when people thought some very strange things. The idea that the world was only 5,000 yrs old and was made at the same time as the sun and all the other bits of the universe must have seemed quite reasonable (though I don’t get this obsession with shellfish).

And anyway – the bible could have been...the Koran.

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance):... "

So guys – if your woman is getting stroppy
a) tell them off “You naughty bad woman”
b) If that doesn’t work, go sleep on the coach
c) And if that doesn’t work, well...

opamp said...

Perhaps you can explain where and how a nomad living in the desert would find shellfish?

Easy. This was in a Mediterranean region, so shellfish would be importable from the coastal areas. Or, a Jew who wandered into a coastal region could encounter shellfish there. Etc. And from the Wikipedia article on shellfish:

Jewish Kosher Law traditions forbid the eating of shellfish. A rational basis taken up by some nonreligious people is the tendency of some shellfish to feed on waste or accumulate heavy metals or toxins in their tissues. Another is that some of these dishes are consumed raw (oysters, mussels, clams and shrimp, most notably) and have the potential to cause serious illness from shellfish poisoning. Some people suffer from potentially-fatal allergies to shellfish.

(Interesting tidbit: some recommend that if you find yourself in an exotic place in the world and you have doubts about safety of local food, try finding Kosher food. It is guaranteed to be reasonably safe).

And if we're supposed to be following only NT rules, how come figs are for sale openly in every market in Poland?

First, is there "thou shalt not eat figs" provision somewhere in the NT? Second, modern Christians (Catholics included) do not take Bible literally, so we believe that the story about the fig tree is in there to make a certain point, and not to prohibit the eating of figs. Jesus' teaching was all about morality and not about eating habits.

beatroot said...

That's it. Prawns are dredgers...they hoover up all the other fishes do-do off the bottom of the ocean.

So why then do Jews - like Poles, and central Europeans in general, eat....CARP....ahhhhjrrrrghgrh ....they hoover up fish shit too, you know?

geez said...

Why do the British drink water?

Fish fuck in it.

beatroot said...

Do fish fuck?

geez said...

In their own way. A bit messy, too. Doesn't seem like any fun at all for the females. So when you're eating caviar....