In his interesting post about what the Anglicans are doing to arrest the decline in Church going (they might also do something about the want of knowledge of the Bible among our children, quite a few of whom attend Church schools – as indeed might we Catholics), Struans linked to a poll with the quite unastonishing news that when surveyed, many sinners would prefer the Catholic Church to endorse their sin rather than to condemn it. I would be tempted to add that, ‘in more news, the Pope is a Catholic’, except that in view of recent posts, that might indeed be a controversial view. Is there anything more likely that the children of this world will prefer to follow their sins? Were that not so, what need would there have been of Christ, and why would he have had to suffer as he did? It is equally unsurprising that the United Nations, a body which has singularly failed to do anything useful to save the people of Syria from the disaster unfolding there, should have turned its fire onto an easier target – the Catholic Church.
In a recent report, which launched an excoriating attack on the Vatican’s handling of the child abuse scandal, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, took the opportunity to attack other elements of the teaching of the Church, in particular it stance on contraception, gay rights and gender equality. I am not getting into the rights and wrongs of the Vatican’s response to the child abuse scandal, and those who want the Vatican’s reaction can find it here; but it is worth spending some time on the other aspects of the report, because, like the poll Struans mentioned, it shows the extent to which the world and the Church are diverging.
That a Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is part of an organisation dedicated to ensuring that there should be fewer children in the world, and supports abortion, should criticise a Church which, whatever its failing, actually support the idea of there being more children and opposes killing them in the womb, is only one of the ironies of the situation. There has been, for at least the last twenty years, a consistent attempt by the abortion zealots at the UN to remove the Vatican from the organisation, and this is, perhaps, ‘pay-back’ for the efforts the Church has made in obstructing that agenda.
A recent UNESCO reporthighlighted the importance, in eduction, of promoting abortion and gay rights. It has not, of course, condemned those of its own members who have laws against sodomy and abortion, as that would have required its leaders to show some leadership, so, instead, it takes aim at the Catholic Church which, rightly, it recognises as one of the major obstacles to the global implementation of measures making abortion a compulsory ‘right’; it is also in the forefront of the fight against the lazy assumption that more contraception is a good way of securing sexual health; heaven forfend anyone advocate fidelity and abstinence. As anyone acquainted with most African cultures knows, the pill does nothing to save women from infection, and men do not like using condoms, so the idea tends to fail even in its own terms.
The Church offers a radically different view of the importance of human life, and of the value of the individual. It does not deny the reality of poverty in many parts of the world, exactly the parts where, often, it is one of the few aid agencies at work, but it does not partake of the view that the fewer humans there are the better. Its vision of the rights of the child include a right to life, as well as, through its social teaching, the right to a better quality of life.
No doubt the fight between the Church and the world will continue. But Churches, such as my old one (Anglican) which have already aligned with the world on the contraception issue, will suffer less from the assaults of the UN. The latter might do better promoting dissident Catholic groups who agree with the world and its priorities than it will putting out reports which clearly promote one agenda; not least one not shared by so many of its own members. It might also care to look up its own stance on religious freedom. There must be a word to describe a bureaucracy so bloated that its right hand is not aware of the existence of its left hand.
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Well, if they can get your lot out of the way, then they can pursue their agenda without the most powerful opponent.
I am not, repeat not, saying that abuse in your church is unique, but how stupid of the UN to leave itself open to this attack when there are serious questions about how some bishops have dealt with this. I suppose they couldn’t stop themselves – any chance to knock your church, eh?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I understand that Geoffrey, and yes, I think few would wish to defend what some bishops did, although there are explanations for some of them based on then then understandings of paedophilia.
You are, I suspect, right, they couldn’t help themselves.
LikeLike
Geoffrey RS Sales said:
Dogs returning to their vomit – the lot of ’em.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I am afraid so.
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
“world and the Church are diverging”
Esp with that New Earth only 6,000 years old nonsense. I am absolutely shocked at recent poll showing 38% Americans ascribe to Genesis Creation. The sad part about that is the fact that people lose church interest because of such preaching and they now miss two important parts of faith: hearing the Gospel and being part of a Christian fellowship.
I avidly follow Paleontology and Dinosaur news and there are so many exciting discoveries being made almost everyday. The FACT 50 million year old lizards have nothing to do with my attempts daily Christian living. In astronomy too galaxies are continually forming and obvious Creation not a one time event.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Truthfully, I hear that very seldomly anymore, although I suppose some are still preaching it. I agree that it is nonsense.
However it is no more nonsensical than believing everything came from nothing by accident. Which I know, Carl, is not what you’re saying.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, we can all believe that everything came from nothing for the sake of nothing before returning to nothing for no reason at all. 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
Well said 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
🙂 thank you Neo.
LikeLike
NEO said:
🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
And there was I thinking I’d be dealing with Scientologists this evening – oh well 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
I was sorry to hear of the (justified) postponement, they would certainly have had their hands full. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
A disappointment, but as you say, inevitable. At any rate, the flooding in the Thames valley might have had the effect of keeping people away.
LikeLike
NEO said:
That’s true as well, your flooding sounds frightful.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It is very bad indeed in parts of the country. If the Government is not careful it will end up looking like GWB after ‘Katrina’.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Yep. And unlike GWB, who had to work through incompetent locals (mayor of NO and governor) they’ll have little excuse.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, their own incompetence stands forth.
LikeLike
NEO said:
It does but then career politicians are good at talking, and have never tried doing, and don’t understand it.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
They think that once they have delivered a speech promising something, it is the same as doing it. An odd breed – and I have been close to one or two.
LikeLike
NEO said:
They are, and we are watching one of them tear the country apart, mostly because he either doesn’t understand or doesn’t like, the rule of law.
But he makes pretty speeches.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, pretty lies have always worked – until they don’t.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Indeed so, and so it is proving once again, I think.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, although as the career of Tony Blair shows, it can be very profitable for the individual politician.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Yep, it can. But I have little problem with him being well off, as long as he gets off my lawn, so to speak.
Although I will admit that I’m relieved that everybody was sick of FDR by ’45, so he can’t run again.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, that had a good effect.
LikeLike
NEO said:
It really did.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Stopped Clinton being there forever.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Indeed, and Obama may have stopped her. I think so but, it’s not a done deal yet.
Actually, if Obama keeps imploding at his recent rate, Biden may be the incumbent, although I’m not sure its much of an improvement.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I should hope that, rather as with Agnew, Biden might serve as a warning 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
I would think so. The rumor was, for a while, that he was specifically chosen to make Obama unimpeachable. That may or may not be true but, is telling. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Charles II used to say that his brother and heir was the best guarantee against assassination attempts. Perhaps, but it occurs to me that the assassin would be a shoo-in to cop an insanity plea 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
And if not, we still have jury nullification 🙂
And no second and third tries for the prosecution.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Quite so. Biden was stupid enough to plagiarise Neil Kinnock – another unprincipled windbag.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Indeed, he can’t even pick a good source to plagiarize.
But hey, “Get a shotgun, and fire through the door” and you too can go to jail for killing your neighbor’s girl scout selling cookies. Geeez!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, that would have marked him out as an idiot – even in a Convention of Idiots 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
Indeed it would!!! 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It might make an interesting piece for your blog – pick the worst Veep – indeed a whole series! But Biden would still be right up there.
LikeLike
NEO said:
It might be at that, especially as we start the campaign this year, there are sure some real winners there. I think Biden would end up in the top 5 certainly, maybe with Henry Wallace, Agnew (although a lot of his problem was his mouth) and some others. I’ll look at that one. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Wallace, most certainly, and how fortunate FDR dumped him in ’44! I have forgotten Wilson’s Veep, but recall thinking him a bad lot 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
I have as well, but have a memory of agreeing with you, too bad TR went over to the dark side that year. Taft would have been really good, I think. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, he would have been. We may have opened a vein of ore for your blog here 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
May have. BTW it was Thomas R. Marshall, amongst other things he’s the guy who said, “What the country needs is a good five cent cigar.” For a progressive he doesn’t sound overly bad, of course after the stroke, he let Mrs. Wilson cut him out of things, so it’s hard to tell. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
So, not all bad then? Yes, it was the letting Mrs W rule the roost which marked him off as a wrong ‘un.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Well, he was decidedly a Progressive, tried to shove a new constitution through when he was Governor of Indiana and such. But no, he doesn’t sound too bad, really, and was supposed to be a reasonably nice guy.
Re: Wilson, I don’t think him exactly wrong, he was urged to force the issue and didn’t want to set a precedent, that’s an tenable position, although the cabinet should have fixed it. But then, I can see Hillary doing the same thing.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, the cabinet should have done its duty – though Mrs W was quite formidable by all accounts.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Yes, that what all the accounts I’ve seen say as well, as was Wilson, so I wonder how strong his cabinet really was, although I seem to remember Elihu Root was in it, and he wasn’t exactly a shrinking violet.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
One of the weaknesses of the system is the weakness of the cabinet. It was so in eighteenth century England, of course.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Yes, it is. The power of a cabinet officer is wholly dependent on his personality, as it was in England at the founding. Still, anything else can make a very fractious team.
Same with the VP, of course. Otherwise Adams might have killed Jefferson 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Very much so. Aaron Burr, now there’s one to conjure with!
LikeLike
NEO said:
Indeed, nearly the only one who really needed to be hanged!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
An extraordinary career, to be sure.
LikeLike
NEO said:
It surely was that!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Some quite interesting ones once one gets started 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
It is, I’ve become rather interested in Marshall, quite an interesting chap really. This could well be fun, don’t know about readership but, when did that ever stop me 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You might be surprised, you know. Some of them are interesting, and we all like to choose who the worst was 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
That’s true, and I think this is going to happen. You just don’t get to that level (usually) without being memorable in some way or another. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
That is the case, and for all the obscurity into which so many of them have slipped, it tells us something about the President who chose them.
LikeLike
NEO said:
That is so, there was always a reason, often a good if political one for the choice. And yes, it tells us quite a lot about the President as well.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I think I am looking forward to some interesting posts at your blog 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
I think you may be. 🙂 You’ve certainly got my interest. One would almost think you were a teacher, or something 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Quite so 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
🙂 Of course, I can be easily led on this sort of quest!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
That’s because you have the aptitude and appetite for it!
LikeLike
NEO said:
That’s true, of course.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
History is a good school for those interested in politics and how we got to be this way. Mind you, that was in the days before all this empathy stuff.
LikeLike
NEO said:
I think it still is, although maybe not so much for campaigning anymore but, it still has its place in execution, I hope.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I hope so. I recall when I was in Fulton MO. both the Clinton and the Bush teams phoning for Churchill quotations. Now they’d just Google 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
Yep, they would, as do we. I have a Churchill quotations tab on my toolbar, although I don’t really use it that much. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Seems an age ago now. I recall faxing back some documents to the UK and being very impressed 🙂
LikeLike
NEO said:
It does. I recall being very impressed with myself when I picked up a client with a Telex number. I think we still have a couple of fax machines around here, of course we use our computers to generate the rare one now 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, odd, or perhaps not, the speed with which ‘new’ technology goes out of date.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Nearly logarithmic in our lifetimes.
I often remember my dad’s company which had the rarest of telephonic devices, a telephone answering system, a 45 rpm record for the outgoing message, and a wire recorder for the incoming messages, and as I recall cost something like $50/month in the ’50s.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
And that was when $50 was worth something.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Indeed, at a guess about $200 or so now.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, at least that.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Yeah, I haven’t really looked it up-too discouraging. I always try to remember it’s only the scoreboard, sometimes it helps. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, I would do much the same. A few years back I realised that my monthly salary was what they paid me a year when I started – that felt odd.
LikeLike
NEO said:
I know, the first year I made 50K (lots of hours that year) it struck me that dad, the general manager of a million dollar company never made 20K and was one of the highest paid people in town. But what the 70s did to him was ugly.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Sorry to hear that about your dad; mine was another victim of that decade, indeed he never reached the end of it.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Mine did, so he got see his outstanding retirement erode almost completely. Not as bad as the 30s, but a hard decade.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, a hard decade. Here, if you were in a union, you weren’t too bad, but tough luck if you weren’t – and you got the bonus of suffering power outages whilst the unions pushed for more money – and people ask why I supported Maggie; I ask why they didn’t?
LikeLike
NEO said:
We had less trouble with the power as long as you could afford the bill, and the unions were doing a pretty good job of killing manufacturing.
I can remember asking that question, substituting Reagan, of course.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The unions here did a pretty good job of wrecking their own show – not that their leaders did badly out of it.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Same here, leadership got quite rich, the members got screwed, even if they did vote for it. It still echoes, that is the main cause of Detroit’s problems.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, we had similar problems, and even if we haven’t anything as bad as Detriot, it wasn’t for want to trying.
LikeLike
NEO said:
The worst part was that it was foreseeable, at least in part, FDR and George meany both warned against public employee unions. Too bad we didn’t listen.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It was, but like so much that is evil, mankind has to experience it first.
LikeLike
NEO said:
That is true, and how we learn best.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It is so. It has been good to have a chance to chat – and I hope you have enjoyed as much as I have. Now I have to make preparations for the morning – so enjoy the rest of your day. C
LikeLike
NEO said:
It has been, happens too seldom, and yes, I have enjoyed it greatly.
i’d say happy preparing but the words seldom go together well. I’ll do my best, and good night.
Neo.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
My thanks to you 🙂 C
LikeLike
NEO said:
And you C 🙂 Neo
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
I do accept God as Creator . He just began with amoebae that’s all.The Word(Mind) becomes flesh. The nothing from nothing is beyond my comprehension so I don’t try to manufacture explanation except the Mind(God) is always. The world of faith and the world of science are of 2 different planes, one not contingent upon the other. Faith is not in the realm of empiricism. All seems fairly simple to me.
LikeLike
NEO said:
In concept, absolutely. The execution is something else, of course. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Quite so.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
That is my view too.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I’d be entirely with you on this one, Carl – nothing science knows is incompatible with our Faith.
LikeLike
Tom McEwen said:
Sorry Carl, but I deal with scientists at the academy and we do not talk about those things, we talk about the universe and the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the complex balance of the big bang, what happened at 1x10minus47 seconds, the measuring of gravity waves using lasers, the creation of a new stars in Orion’s belt, the background micro-wave radiation of the big bang, the red shift of the universe, Fusion and the conversations always end up on God. Science always leads to God. God is something that fills every alley you go down. My Rooster was a dinosaur and he was the meanest thing I ever met, a Tyrannosaur Rex if he can fight like a rooster he is very very bad, but remember all dinosaurs taste like chicken.
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
Well that’s great to hear. Religion and science are on different planes and incongruent at every level. In Christ is not an empirical matter. Fighting still in Bible Belt states to include Creationism in biology textbooks is my area of distress. I agree science leads to God. Too much math and brainy stuff not to have architect. When I eat the dinosaur meat from KFC I prefer honey over Bar-B-Q sauce.
LikeLike
NEO said:
There is a word, or more properly a phrase, in good Anglo-Saxon English, it is however very inappropriate in civilized society. The UN has become, not only useless, but a cruel joke on us all.
In a further piece of other news, nearly all means of chemical contraception have (more or less anyway) proved to have caused cancer in the women using them, making them, I would think, a poor choice for the woman as well as for her soul.
The story of AIDS (or the Slim disease, as it is locally known) is one of the most horrendous stories in mankind’s horrendous history of self-destruction. And since for the last six years we haven’t been pushing the palliatives, we can expect a recurrence.
Abstinence always works, although it works far better with the women’s rights that Christianity promotes (as few others do).
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Quite so, Neo. We can go our own way – knowing where it must and will lead, or we can do the hard thing, follow God’s Law; not surprising which the UN goes for/
LikeLike
NEO said:
Yep, like most: “the easier wrong rather than the harder right”. Sad, really. Some pretty good men tried pretty hard to give the world a chance.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
They did, Neo – but the world will go where it is going, alas.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Indeed so.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
The CC is being persecuted?
Sauce for the goose
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Where do you stand on these issues, Bosco? Are you in favour of same marriage, abortion and contraception? I know little of what the Calvary Chapel teaches, so it would be enlightening to know. C
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
`By the way, the email i sent pastor Steve came back failure.
The calvary chapel has no teaching, except out of the bible. We are free do do as we see fit. We try to follow the 10 commands as our guide, but when one is saved, the HS deals with our hearts and convicts us if we go wrong.
Same sex marriage? Wrong, bad, perverted. This is standard.
Contraception? Fine and dandy as long as the two are married. The marriage bed is not defiled.
Abortion? We believe at conception the child is a human, not just protoplasm. Reaching into the womb to kill is murder. Therapeutic abortion is OK, to save the mothers life. Its up to the couple, to save mom or the baby.
These are my views. I cant speak for everyone who attends the calvary services. But ill bet this is standard amongst the saved.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Well, two out of three isn’t bad nowadays, Bosco – but shouldn’t we be leaving ourselves open to God’s wishes if we are meant to have children?
Thanks for the response.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Ah, i see you tow the Vatican line on contraceptives.Open to gods will?God leaves us to determine how many kids we have.If he wanted to intervene, he would.
That meddling CC thinks it can stick its big nose into peoples bedrooms too. Its your fault if you let them.
LikeLike
jrj1701 said:
I wouldn’t say they are sticking their nose in the bedroom, yet it has been said by a Catholic nun that sex was for procreation not recreation.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Is that so? Who said that? A nun or a priest?Sexually repressed and stiffled catholic clergy giving advice about normal sexual activity?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I think it was a celibate man called Jesus – was he repressed too?
LikeLike
joseph elon lillie said:
There is a line being drawn in the sand all across the globe. The church and the world are being driven further and further apart (we were never meant to be close to begin with).
I am one of those “crazy six day young earth creationists” (sorry to disappoint gentlemen. Maybe it does have something to do with my country of origin who knows). At any rate that same fundamentalist view of the Word that makes me take the creation story at face value also makes me take the prophetic parts of the Bible literally.
According to the Book the UN or whatever springs from it will gain more and more power and the church will be persecuted and seem to lose its political sway. This is stated over and over again throughout the Old and New Testaments and right along side of those dire words often comes the comforting words of our Savior “Do not fear”.
I guess whether you are a “young earther” or a staunch theistic evolutionist those words ought to bring you some solace.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I’ve no problem with it Joseph – not one jot of my faith depends on such matters, and I would never argue with a Christian whom I respected (as I do you) about such things – as you say, the world and all its lusts is the real enemy, so let us not waste powder and shot on each other when the real enemy is in plain view advancing on us all.
LikeLike
St Bosco said:
Who is the real enemy?
LikeLike
jrj1701 said:
Cute Bosco, we all know that the true enemy of man is the devil and his lies.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The world, the flesh and the devil, Bosco -as ever.
LikeLike
joseph elon lillie said:
Well said! I link hearts with you in this and pray for laborers to be sent into the harvest field as our Lord commanded us to. We will not win the political battle but we will win souls…you on your field and me on mine! Be blessed in and for all your labors.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
And I reciprocate heartily, Joseph. Why the Lord guides us where we are, I cannot know, but I can know where friends are and who is the enemy 🙂
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
JOSEPH: What is your opinion on this idea?I don’t think Christian living is dependant upon nor should a belief in this or that creation should make us dismissive of each other as true Christians which is a matter I find distasteful and disapprove of as ones of each side of debate accuse the other of not being in Christ. The Kingdom is spiritual and not of this world in the first place. I would never cast such aspersions on the truthfulness or one’s conversion based on any scientific inclination as opposed to Biblical(whether new earth or science) and wish others would grant me same consideration. We must unite against the real enemy as has been suggested.
I know my inclusion here my seem off topic but since topic whether church relevant to expanding generations weaned on tech Genesis would be a variable at least here in US where the early 20th
Century debate continues in the realm of textbooks.
LikeLike
joseph elon lillie said:
Hello Carl,
I have come to understand in my near 35 years of Christianity that within the Kingdom of our God there is a great diversity of thought on a great many things.
If a person comes to Christ and holds to theistic evolution or strict seven day creation theory or day age theory or the gap theory it does not change the fact that they have come to Christ. These things do affect how we view the world and understand our context but I believe in a God who is large enough to span the gap between all of us.
We are all wrong about something I am afraid and our loving Savior will take care of that on the other side. For the moment we are called to work together in unity maintaining the bond of peace. I’m OK with working with people who don’t understand everything about the universe if you are. 🙂
Shall we proceed then in changing the world for Jesus?
LikeLike
Carl D'Agostino said:
I completely agree with this, a most humble and kind understanding.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
C, I was very happy to see that you took up this hypocritical attack by the UN recently. I, like you, found them to be the culture of death zealots they have turned into over the years.
You also reminded me in the post of the thin wedge of contraception that led to abortion. For contraception redefined in the mind of many in society the meaning of sex and the meaning of child. Both have now simply become commodities to be played with in whatever way it will benefit folks, either for pleasure or financial gain. That slippery slope is now leading us to the inevitable euthanasia and I’m sure these folks will get plenty of support from the UN on that one as well.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
This is very true, my friend. I know the temptations, oh yes, contraception within marriage, what can be the harm? The harm is just what you describe.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
And I left the 3rd one out; which is how people now view women. All three were corrupted by that seemingly small change.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, that is also the case. Interestingly, both Jessica and Geoffrey have pieces in the pipeline on this tomorrow.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Good. I will look forward to it. 🙂
I might throw something in the drafts myself (more along the lines of Geoffrey’s post) that Jessica can release when or if she needs one.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I am sure she would appreciate that; I know I would.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
I will finish proofing it them. Though, she might need to put her keen editorial eye to it as mine seems to be failing more than it did in the past.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
If she can’t, I shall ( she’s away this evening) C
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Well that would be fine C. It is now in the drafts.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Good, I shall look now if that is fine with you.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Absolutely, friend. Let me know if it is suitable material.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I will do so now.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Done – and it is perfect. I have scheduled for Thursday at 1 UK time. C
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Thanks C.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
My pleasure. It is good to have your voice here as reinforcement. 🙂
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
The pleasure is all mine. I have butted heads with many a friend over some of these things and it gets painful after awhile. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I know that one all too well.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Thought you might.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, it is truly said that in these times the only true rebellion is orthodoxy 🙂
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
I will gladly suffer for that one and I’m sure we’ll be given our chances to do just that.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, I think so. But sometimes, as here, the enemy overreaches itself.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Well it is helpful when we can spot him in the open. He uses camouflage expertly.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
He does, indeed – that and our pride.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Yes, it is always frightening when we discover that he has hidden himself so close. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Quite so. This is why Confession is so important.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Amen. And amen to those few men who are good confessors and spiritual directors: so hard to find anymore.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
They are, but we need to recall that they are just our line to God.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
True, but I have had some that seemed to know me better than myself even with the aid of the Holy Spirit in personal examination of conscience. Alas, they are all gone now. Pray for my parish, if you don’t mind, that we might get the pastor we need and not the one we deserve as the post has yet to be filled.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I shall, and I agree. We have a 73 year old former abbot, and it cannot be long before a vacancy. Our fear is they will close us and send us off to the big church they built about a dozen miles away.o
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
That is problem everywhere if there is little growth in the local parish. The small parishes are disappearing over here at a furious rate.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It is the same here. It is all very well, but even though some of us drive the older members to church, it already isolates them from parish life; a bad situation. May the Lord send more vocations.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
We have been been doing so in my parish for about 2 years now and we have a fairly good size lot for the Charleston Diocese though we still have a fair number of African and Indian priests that have been brought in to take up the slack.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Yes, that is one answer – they may well end up re evangelising us all.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
I hope so. I’d hate to think that it turn out the other way around and we end up making them into our own image.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I concur. I think that the younger generation will be better.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
It is my thought as well. I really have been blessed with great mentors, time spent with Fr. Benedict Groeschel, and long day together with Scott Hahn: picking him up at the airport, having lunch and dinner with him and then driving back to the air terminal. He was fascinating and as impressive in person as he is in his books, lectures and tapes. God has been good to me. I suppose I can get through this famine as well. He has always sent something of His Grace to me when I needed it. And AATW has been a wonderful place to rejuvenate as well. No worries. He can see us through.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Two excellent mentors. I fear I have nothing of that sort, but yes, God will get us through, and Jess, bless her, has provided this unique place 🙂
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Indeed Jess has provided us with an oasis and a place to freely express our disagreements without (often) throwing the H bomb. It speaks to her credit and spirit. I’m proud to be associated with everyone here.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I know how delighted Jess is to have you here, a feeling I share, and one I know Geoffrey concurs in too.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Yes, I think we are all hooked. She is a remarkable young lady.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
She surely is that.
LikeLike
Tom McEwen said:
Strange my comment to Carl seemed to got on the bus to Algeria. Bye bye
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
How odd!
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I have recovered it 🙂
LikeLike
Mark said:
When I first heard about this I couldn’t believe it, what on earth I though does Rome think its doing, who doesn’t know that there was only ever going to be one outcome from submitting to the self appointed Star Chamber that is the UN. Surely Pope Francis is not that naive to think any other outcome was possible, is he? In Faith and Morals he may be infallible but in the political arena and where the press is concerned, it would appear he is woefully unprepared and/or ill advised. It occurs to me a South American apprenticeship is not the ideal preparation for dealing with the realities of his secular responsibilities.
“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
Dear Pope Francis, a little more serpent, a little less sheep, if you please.
God Bless the Our Pope.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
This one was inflicted by the self-appointed busy-bodies. But I think they over-reached themselves this time.
LikeLike
Mark said:
While that may be true, why did the Church submit to it and not politely say in the best diplomatic language “Thank you but no thank you, we are dealing with it”, these UN apparatchiks have no authority to compel attendance and cooperation. I come back to my original confusion, what was Rome thinking?
LikeLike
Struans said:
Re knowledge of the Bible, I agree, this is shocking. Whatever the errors of the past that have led us to this state, might I suggest that Christianity has a great friend in Michael Gove. Too many of these trendy leftie ‘teachers’ of the 1960s have destroyed the Christian ethos of our schools – and these people control the unions too.
Are these not good reasons enough to ensure that the man walking into 10 Downing Street in June 2015 bears a blue rosette? Heaven forbid what would happen if that fool of a man and self-declared atheist Miliband gets in there. No doubt more constitutional wrecking would ensue to try to save his record in office when it is clear that Labour has elected as its leader yet another odd personality.
__________________________________________________________
I was at a philosophical discussion group last night where an English university lecturer told me that he’d been educated by the Jesuits, who apparently defined “a lie” to be an untruth which cannot be justified. I must buy myself a Jesuit dictionary.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
I’m afraid a Jesuit Dictionary will be out of date by the time it is purchased. Seems it changes daily and they don’t always use the same one. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Quite so. Politics certainly attracts some odd people into it; one day politicians may realise this is why their parties have so few members.
I thought, from a later comment, you already had a Jesuit dictionary 🙂
LikeLike
Struans said:
I downloaded the UNESCO report PDF file and couldn’t find, via the search function, either of the words ‘abortion’ or ‘gay’.
How about some specific quotes that are disliked?
S.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You will find sections 36 56, on contraception and ‘family planning’, opposed to the teaching of the church, and quite what business it is of the UN to pronounce on such matters is a good question. There is also the nonsense in 28 about gender specific terminology.
I wonder whether Iran and Saudi Arabia will be the next subjects of this sort of report; I do not think anyone would take a bet on it,
LikeLike
Struans said:
I think you’re referring to the UN report on the Holy See – I am referring to the UNESCO report that you linked to, and cannot find these references that you claim are against your church.
S.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I am referring to the link I posted, which is where the references lie – if you check the newspapers – not least the Washington Times, you will get the full references.
LikeLike
Struans said:
“But Churches, such as my old one (Anglican) which have already aligned with the world on the contraception issue”
Perhaps I can correct this assertion by reference to these two documents:-
http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-15.cfm
http://anglicanhistory.org/gore/contra1930.html
In many respects the RC position I find odd inasmuch as I understand it. The question is one about restricting the potential for new life, and what is ‘natural’ and ‘un-natural’ in doing so – so I understand the RC view of these matters.
However, is a condom not a ‘natural’ device, in the sense of humanly developed? It is, surely, not preter- or super-natural. The question rather that RCs seem to be concerned with is in frustrating the purposes of nature. However, this gets to the nub of an issue that RCs have with sex. They seem to take a wham-bam, thank you ma’am approach. Or ‘No Sex Please, We’re British!’. Basically that ‘having it off’ is purely to be about its utility value of off-spring. Isn’t there loving pleasure in there too? Is not that also a purpose in nature, to engender – within a marriage – that togetherness that is the fruit of a vow to be as one?
A corollary of the RC position, so it seems to me, is that they think it immoral not to organise ones life to maximise off-spring. To maximise the potential for new life. At the extreme of this way of thinking, it would therefore be more moral to get a fertile young maiden married at an early age and keep her at it, popping babies, until there can be no more.
No doubt RCs will come up with some clever objections (or not so clever: “you’re just being silly”), but their general view that sexual pleasure is somehow not a purpose in itself in marriage, does lead to these conclusions, so it seems to me.
S.
LikeLike
Struans said:
And in any event, Anglicans have not ‘aligned themselves with’ as if there is one body called ‘world opinion’ to which Anglican opinion has become aligned.
It’s about a search for Truth. Or maybe the Jesuits define that world differently too. Perhaps papa Francis would know?
S.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
On this issue, contraception, it it hard to see how, even with your new Jesuit dictionary, that position can be sustained.
LikeLike
Struans said:
Not at all – it is clear from the links above that the Anglican positions at Lambeth are closely argued, so it is not about “let’s get down wiv da kids”, but rather a search for truth.
Let us also examine the Orthodox position. Below is an excerpt – the best I can find at present, although I have read better before, but cannot recall where – on this:
“The possible exception to the above affirmation of continuity of teaching is the view of the Orthodox Church on the issue of contraception. Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health.”
Source: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/controversialissues
S.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
In every church there are those who wish to compromise with the world; that does not make that position right.
LikeLike
Struans said:
And the views of of 5 men* do not make the deliberations of many many others wrong.
S.
* the number of popes of Rome since Paul VI dismissed the recommendations of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
the teaching of the church remains what it always has been – a novelty for Anglicans 🙂
LikeLike
Struans said:
the teaching of the church of Rome changes – or why does it keep issuing documents then? to keep a bit of interest going with the flagging faithful section of the city of Rome that rocks up to St. Peters every now and then?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You do have that Jesuit dictionary, I see 🙂
So, condom is ‘natural’ but a pill is not? No one aware of natural Family Planning could possibly write as you do about the Catholic view of sexual relations. Of course mutual pleasure is a good thing, but we operate on the odd view that unlike copulating animals, human beings are capable of exercising self-restraint and discrimination in their love making.
LikeLike
Struans said:
Q: who wrote the below text, as regards artificial birth control?
“The acceptance of a lawful application of the calculated sterile periods of the woman–that the application is legitimate presupposes right motives–makes a separation between the sexual act which is explicitly intended and its reproductive effect which is intentionally excluded. The tradition has always rejected seeking this separation with a contraceptive intention for motives spoiled by egoism and hedonism, and such seeking can never be admitted. The true opposition is not to be sought between some material conformity to the physiological processes of nature and some artificial intervention. For it is natural to man to use his skill in order to put under human control what is given by physical nature. The opposition is really to be sought between one way of acting which is contraceptive and opposed to a prudent and generous fruitfulness, and another way which is, in an ordered relationship to responsible fruitfulness and which has a concern for education and all the essential, human and Christian values.”
A: the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control.
Hence apparently lots of RCs take my view about the natural nature of such methods.
S.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
How on earth you see that as condoning contraception, I can’t imagine – must be too much reading of that dictionary.
Was the Anglican Church wrong before 1930, or has it been wrong since?
LikeLike
Struans said:
Been wrong? All humans are sinners. All Christians are, one would hope, engaged in a search for truth.
Shame that pope Paul VI dismissed the recommendations of his Pontifical Commission on Birth Control.
S.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I realise that for Anglicans, any time a committee recommends doing away with the age old teaching of the church it is obligatory to adapt itself to the spirit of the age, but in my view, that is the real matter for shame.
LikeLike
Struans said:
Such as with those committee proceedings coming out of V2? 🙂
You can’t win with these jibes, because Rome changes too – and you know it.
S.
LikeLike
Mark said:
But Struans you know full well that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations, that is ALL, agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful.
At your 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Church finally caved in after the vote got closer and closer in each preceding conference, and announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances which included only within marriage and where there are already a number of children. Funnily enough this fudge mirrored, or is that predicted, the progress of the women vicars vote 60 years later.
It did not take long before the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Contrast this with passing the abortion laws 40 years later, the key phrase is ‘in certain restricted circumstances’.
Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.
So questions that may occur to an outside observer might include, why was it sinful in 1929 but not in 1930, or to put it another was was the Catholic Church right up to 1930 but wrong after. Did God change his mind, as he did on the divorce in 1533. And today does the Anglican Church still insist that Contraception is only allowed in certain circumstances? i.e. within marriage. Further will gay Anglican Bishops be allowed to use a condom with their boy friend or girlfriend? (not quite sure when God changed his mind on that one).
Can my friend use a condom with both his wife and his latest lady lover? it’s OK because they have a very open marriage and no one is getting hurt because all agree extra marital affairs is a good thing, and after all it’s no one else’s business what happens in the bedroom. I have it on the best authority that God is considering this in a favourable light.
I’m sure you get the picture, once again the Anglican Church changed its doctrine to that of the prevailing Zeitgeist and modern day apologists, like your good self, continually rationalise the activities in an attempt to normalise behaviour that has been constantly held outside mainstream Christianity for all it’s history.
LikeLike
Struans said:
Before V1, all Christians agreed that Papal infallibility was not a dogma. Then Rome changed. Et tu?
S.
LikeLike
Servus Fidelis said:
Struans, excuse me for butting in on this. Does one really need a dogma (designed to stop any further theological argument) when the consensus is already there? In other words, do we need a dogma to say that water is wet or ice is cold? The same can be said of the word ‘natural’ as it was intended before our darkened minds began to fool with the notion. In your view of the ‘natural’ condom (because it was made by man) would mean that the blow-up sex doll is also ‘natural.’ And we also know that ‘natural’ implied a ‘right-ordering’ of nature. Otherwise, beastiality is certainly ‘natural’ as well. We can twist and contort these meanings ad infinitum but in the end we know in our heart of hearts that there are things that just plain and obviously wrong no matter how scientific and enlightened our new approach seems to be.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, why do you think that? All V1 did was to state the ,imits of what had always been assumed. Before Henry VIII even the English accepted that the Church was built on the Rock of Peter and that the Pope possessed the keys of the kingdom. Of course, when the king threatened the English bishops, they admitted that what they had previously held was not true, until Mary became Queen, when they turned their coats again. No use your trying to pretend that your Church has any consistency at all – the bishops evinced a fine Bray type attitude.
LikeLike
Mark said:
Strauns, you once accused me of not knowing anything about the Anglican Church, hard to believe I know but well OK, but if your reply is really what you think it is so wide of the mark, it’s embarrassing, I would expect to see such ignorance from Bosco but not you. No, on second thoughts I don’t believe you even believe that, your just being provocative.
Pity you don’t feel able to engage seriously with the argument though
LikeLike
Struans said:
A reply to SF, C and Mark:
Whilst I might have chosen another example of the principle than papal infallibility, it will do for these purposes. It is asserted that there was, prior to V1, a ‘consensus already there’ (from SF) and even that infallibility ‘had always been assumed’ (from C). This seems to ignore the strong current of conciliarism in the church of Rome, even if one concedes that the great schism resulted somehow in a ‘continuing line’ of the church being that of Rome, as opposed to the four other patriarchates of the pentarchy. I suggest that a consultation with the Old Catholics for their history might be of value. Let us not forget the fifth Lateran council, with its dissing of the so-called Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges – no wonder the reformations quickly followed.
As for Mark, perhaps you could be less quick to judge peoples motives.
Now, SF makes an interesting point about the Natural Law, and the RC understanding that ‘nature’ does not just signify somehow physical apprehension, but also purpose – and perhaps purpose, for those strongly following the Aristotelian and Thomatic school of thought, would be, indeed, the paramount part of this understanding of what it is to be ‘natural’. Before coming to teleology in more detail below, let me first deal with more of C’s remarks.
Now C, rather delightfully, brings the Vicar of Bray into it. One of my favourite folk songs. And C does have a point – what value is there in consistency? But who is to be the judge? Is consistency a rigid always staying the same (I mean a real staying the same, not the semper eadem change of Rome), or is it the case that there can be change, but – like with the semper eadem claim – there is no change of the core? So we get to a position of what is that core? Something mentioned briefly in the notes that I shared on contextual theology – but let’s not get distracted there.
Perhaps I can ask you all to read this splendid article here:
http://www.dartmouthapologia.org/articles/show/125
And in particular, let me quote this passage:
“reconciliation with other systems has characterized the Church from its beginnings. Christianity’s engagement with non-Christian thought proceeds from the Christian belief that reason and faith are complementary, not oppositional. Thomas Aquinas’ synthesis of Aristotle and Christianity is a vital chapter in this engagement. ”
So, it can be seen that, to C’s point, there has been limited consistency in the universal church, taking consistency as being any change at all, given the great influence of Aquinas’ thought on western Christianity. Yet, perhaps there has been consistency, if one takes the view that there is a ‘core’. What is that core though? Well, in this blog, we have been around the block a few times on that one, and my views are well known: it is the core of the faith of the church, expressed at the great councils of old. Let me also be generous to the Oriental Orthodox and say that they’re OK too, even though Chalcedon didn’t work out for them for various reasons. I am Chalceldoneon though, myself.
And so it can be seen to SF’s point, the development of the type of Natural Law that fills ‘nature’ always with purpose is also an innovation of the church in the west. This takes me back once again to the point about frustrating the purposes of nature. Where does that end? If not condoms, then what? Is it a frustration of nature to kill a Hereford cow to eat English beef? Surely the purposes of a cow in nature do not include providing sustenance for the English soldiers at the defences of Calais. My point about a young maiden was well made.
Now, I quite like Thomatic thought. So let me quote further from that link above:
“Aquinas felt comfortable undertaking such incorporation because, as he said, ‘All truth is one.’ He argued that what we learn from the natural world through science and philosophy, provided it is unquestionably true, can never contradict that which we learn from revelation, that is, directly from God”
So there is a principle, so it seems, of ‘testing’ what we perceive to be divine in the real world – this principle of something becoming ‘unquestionably true’. Is it, for example, unquestionably true that the use of condoms results in the extinguishing of humanity? Some opponents of the use of contraception used this line of argument most forcefully to demonstrate the evil of contraceptives. I’m not so sure myself.
And so we return to the more general point, so it seems to me, about who makes decisions. Why is it that there is to be one body of men, in Rome, who alone are charged with determining Truth? The decision-making bodies of the English church also have bodies of men discerning truth, yet they are dissed by RCs. How many people took part in, for example, that fifth Lateran council? Where is the work of the Spirit of God, operating through all humans in whose image we are made, imparting its sense towards these deliberations?
All roads, so it seems, go back to this argument of who calls the shots. I’ve made my views known there. It’s not a pope, and it’s not a magisterium – but I am happy to concede a role for the bishop of Rome of a primacy of honour, and no-one can stop a bishop, any bishop, from receiving the disputes of others and giving opinion on them. Let me quote Aquinas one last time:
“Aquinas once said, ‘We must love them both, those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. For both have labored in the search for truth and both have helped us in the finding of it.'”
S.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
S – no, it does no ignore it. There is a role for Bishops and Cardinals as part of the Magisterium, and it is a great (but often made) mistake to assume that Papal Infallibility is in some way opposed to conciliarism: the church has space for both.
But what does one do when there is no consensus? Does one carry on until the progressives wear down the conservatives, or is there someone in possession of the keys of St Peter who is qualified to pronounce on faith and morals with the authority to bind and loose?
You, and my Orthodox friends, argue that all the Apostles were given this power, and I do not dissent. I simply comment that it does not work. In practice all the Bishops do not reach a consensus and yet we are told there is such a power. We Catholics believe that the successor of St Peter is, in such cases, uniquely able to speak with authority.
So, however many odd-balls and committees and non-odd balls you can can cite saying ‘catholics say this’, unless the Magisterium verifies it, it is a matter of personal opinion and binding on no one.
You ask who is to judge? God, and for Catholics the Pope is his vicar on earth, and when, in the limited circumstances set out in the first Vatican Council, he speaks, he does with authority.
As for the Pentarchy, it has not existed since 451; indeed, from the time of the Islamic conquests, there were only two sees which mattered. One governed by the emperor, the other by the Pope. The first fell, the second never has and never will – despite our best efforts.
Of course we love our fellow Christians, it is why we hope and pray that they will come to see that there is a need to look to the See of St Peter for authoritative judgments in matters of perplexity. It is why I feel sorry for Anglicans with their constant debates which always result in the Catholic group losing and the liberal wing winning.
LikeLike
Struans said:
There is – you may be surprised to hear – much in your comment that I agree with, although, you will not be surprised to hear, all.
However, this ties into what I want to say in a future post on what catholicity might be, so I’ll stop here in commenting on this thread.
I would like to hear more from you, either in the comments or in a post about your assertion here:
“Papal Infallibility is in some way opposed to conciliarism: the church has space for both.”
I can see the point you’re making, I think, but how is this conciliar system manifested? Especially in the post V2 era. If pope Benedict invited the Ecumenical Patriarch and the former ABC to one of his recent shin-dig of bishops (I can’t remember what it actually was), then would that suggest that bishops who the see of Rome respects, but thinks are either ‘in error’ or ‘not catholic’ would also be invited? Some were invited to V2, I know, but that was different: observers only, not participants. Why not, after all, fully include those one respects, but are with some form of defect (according to Rome) if a pope can still over-rule?
It seems to me that these things need to be evidenced by incarnation, rather than just being words, however warm they might be.
S.
LikeLike
Mark said:
I offer as exhibit 1:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10633145/Welby-tells-Church-refusing-gay-blessings-will-be-viewed-like-racism.html
The defence rests m’lud
LikeLike
Struans said:
Is that addressed to me? You don’t seem to have mastered the reply system if so.
If it is to me, your case fails. I suppose you can’t you see that. Never mind.
S.
LikeLike
Mark said:
No not particularly, anyone who wants to see the deplorable state the CofE has got itself into. But if you think you have won, you go with it, you have certainly won against your Anglo Catholics, they have all been effectively thrown out of the Anglican Communion, so yes you have won that battle, and 10 years ago you were 80 million or so, now with Gafcon leaving, to all intent and purpose, you are 40 Million. Yes great Pyrrhic victory you have there, see I’m waiving the flags now. For some reason I am reminded of the knight in Monty Python who, although he is chopped up to bits, he keeps on insisting he has won the Battle. Well done.
LikeLike
Struans said:
Well, alright then – you think you’re right and shrug your shoulders. Let’s move on.
S.
LikeLike
Jack Curtis said:
As church and state compete, often unhappily, your lack of surprise is fitting. Equally applicable to folk preferring one or the other contender.
And the common denunciation of the Church’s message for imperfections of the messenger is usually as dishonest as it is illogical, a sigil of the political nature of such attacks.
Governments wreak much more destruction than any Christian church not serving government. And churches have often served to ameliorate that, often to the dismay of government.
So a comfortable rapprochement between U.N. (a group of governments) and the Church would indeed, surprise. How else between two of whom one prefers live children as so cogently identified, while the other prefers dead ones?.
LikeLike