If you read only one book this year, make it this one.

If you read only one book this year, I hope it will be:

What We Can't Not Know, by Professor J. Budziszewski

Not only will I be re-reading it myself, it will also be required reading for my older children.

I think I may be obsessed with it.

It takes me an inordinate amount of time to read a book these days, and in the past several months, I have been stealing every spare moment to read this one. I finally completed it. All along the way, I have been wanting to blog about what I have learned, and yet I knew I should finish it before I posted about it.

For years, I have had a vague notion of the natural law. And throughout the year or so that I have written this blog, I have alluded to natural law time and again, each time learning a little more about it myself. But I needed more.

Why?

Well, all the discussions we have had on this blog with our leftist/secular/atheist friends like College Student, L, Miss Gwen, MaiZeke, Michelle and Peter, have left so many of us Catholics frustrated, and even baffled. If you're like me, you have asked yourself a thousand times, "Did I read that right?" "Is that what she really wanted to say?" "He couldn't really mean that, could he?" and "How did we get to this place?"

I have often been kept awake at night, going over some of the positions and arguments of those whom we debate. The overriding sentiment of my heart and mind in the throes of the most troubling exchanges is: "But she knows that isn't right!" and "He can't not know that!"

Professor B helped me make sense of what we see playing out here on the Bubble, and even among our own friends and family. It is charitably written (Professor B himself was once a committed atheist), but clear and honest, pulling no punches. He covers the natural law tradition in a way that is understandable and then applies it to the cultural situation in which we find ourselves today.

It's important to note: The book is written for a Christian audience (or those who are "half-persuaded"), and not for atheists and secularists (although I cannot wait for that book, Professor B!). However, he does invite the secular left to read along if they are interested in how we Christians discuss this subject among ourselves. He says this to those on the other side of the culture war:

[Y]ou are not part of my expected audience. But that does not mean that I want to hide the book from you; you are welcome to be a fly on the wall and listen in. Nor does it mean that I don't want to talk to you; this particular book is not a good vehicle of that hoped-for conversation, but by all means let us talk. But let us be honest too. We are on different sides.

Some people consider it "uncivil" to say so. They think the "culture war" is the fault of people who admit there is a culture war, and that the very use of terms like "culture war" demonizes people on the other side. In their view, we must pretend that we all want the same things. But we don't all want the same things, do we?

No, we don't. And lemme tell you, that type of honesty and clarity is so refreshing in this politically correct, morally confused world. While it can be unsettling and overwhelming to be presented with a true picture of the problem that lies before us, it is necessary to know what we are up against. The book is also balm for my own soul, personally, as it confirms that what we have been doing here in the Bubble has a good purpose.

The book is divided into four main sections:

I. The Lost World 

(includes just what it is we can't not know)

II. Explaining the Lost World 

(includes the "four witnesses" to the natural law and some objections)

III. How the World was Lost 

(this is the section you must read; I'll get to that in a minute)

IV. Recovering the Lost World 

(includes the "public relations" of moral wrong and moral right)

My hope is that each and every one of you would have your own copy of the book to read for yourself and to have available for your children. But, realistically, I know that is not going to happen. So, here is my proposition to all of you busy folks who, like me, find it very difficult to commit (in time or finances) to yet another book. I originally read What We Can't Not Know on my Kindle. However, I recently bought two "real" copies of the book: One for me, and one for all of you.

Here's how I want it to work: I will mail the book to anyone who is committed to reading at least Section III of the book ("How the World Was Lost") in no more than seven days (it should take you much less time than that -- less than a day, actually -- but I want to give everyone a good week to get to it*). Then, your only other task is to mail it to the next person on the list, whose address I will supply to you. If you are interested, please email me at littlecatholicbubble@gmail.com, and I'll take it from there.

Catholics, I think it's that important. Understanding what Professor B lays out really is the key to understanding the morally chaotic world swirling around us. Please get this book. Or email me and I will get it to you.



*Of course, if anyone wants to read the whole book in those seven days, feel free! I just want to make sure the book keeps moving to those who want to read it. And don't be shy if you've never commented before but still want to receive the book. E-mail me!


-

Answering "Choice" (who describes herself as "intolerant of intolerance, and proud of it")

This is long, but bear with me.


To understand what you are about to read, first go here and here. After Calah posted the shocking yet hopeful story of her first pregnancy, a woman named "Choice" came on to challenge her. So far so good. But it took a turn, and I have secured permission from Calah to respond here to some of Choice's comments, which I have reprinted below. Choice's words are in black, with my thoughts in blue italics:



My primary goal here is not to insult all of you [judging from what follows, might it have been your secondary goal?]; it is to provide a dissenting viewpoint that is too frequently lacking in these types of blogs. [What types of blogs are "these types of blogs"? Calah's blog is a personal blog, with her personal thoughts. She has lived both sides of the cultural divide, and she has come down on the side of Catholic wife and mom. As for dissenting viewpoints, we faithful Catholics live in a country that dissents from our viewpoints. Heck, even most American Catholics dissent from Church teaching. So, please don't worry that we are not exposed to dissenting viewpoints, as it's orthodox Catholic viewpoints that we rarely hear.]

If our deepest-held convictions go unquestioned and unchallenged, then we may as well forfeit our reasoning minds and walk this earth on autopilot. [If you are familiar with Catholic patrimony, then you know we adore questions, challenges, and reason. In fact, we believe that faith and reason are "like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth". We're the folks who founded the university system, after all. And we relish in philosophy, both pre-Christian (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) and Christian (Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Newman, Chesterton, et al.). We also love science; it was from the heart of the Christian culture that the natural sciences were nourished and then flourished. Given all this, I can only imagine that you are confusing Catholics with anti-intellectual sects.]

Leila: Either life is sacred or it is not. Your distinction between human creations of God and non-human creations of God is arbitrary. [Actually, it's not arbitrary at all. There is a definite line between humans and other creatures. It's so clear and obvious that even my four-year-old can tell the difference between a human and a pig, or a human and a dog, or a human and a mosquito, or a human and a plant. Nothing arbitrary about it. To say it's arbitrary is like saying there is an "arbitrary" distinction between a horse and a tree.]

Why would God populate the earth with creatures, and decide that one species is sacred and others can be tortured and killed? (If you don't believe that the animals you eat for food are tortured, educate yourself and your loved ones on factory farming). [First, God does not want his creatures to be "tortured"; in fact, my Church teaches that animals are to be treated humanely. But yes, animals are here in the service of man. Man is the only creature on earth made in the image and likeness of God, with an intellect, a will, and an eternal soul. By the way, do you eat fruits and vegetables? If so, what right do you have? Why is your life superior to theirs?] 

I’m sure several of you will want to cite the Bible to disprove that argument, but save your breath. The Bible is not a source of evidence. It is a work of fiction [Do you have evidence of that?] written to influence the lives of religious constituents, in the pursuit of power and money. [Really? Who was pursuing the power (since most of the early Christian leaders were martyred during the time the New Testament was written and compiled; dead people don't have a lot of earthly power), and who's got the money?] I could no more sanely cite a Mother Goose tale as evidence for my arguments. [Thank goodness your primary intent is not to insult us. ;)]

In my opinion, the entire religion of Catholicism has served much more as a tool of imperialism than a guideline for moral living. [Then why does the Church have no army, and why does she still insist on teaching the highest moral code in the world, while the world mocks her for it?]

Have you ever wondered why the use of contraception is so strongly discouraged by the Catholic faith? [Why yes, I have! In fact, I've studied and taught that very subject for 15 years now, so I've gone past "wondering" about it.] It is not to respect the “sanctity of life,” or to keep intact the “holy act” of intercourse. [It's not?] Those are the feel-good reasons they have instilled in you to cover up the true and original intent of these rules. [This is new to me: A liberal claiming that Catholic sexual doctrine is couched in warm fuzzies? I thought your line about Catholic sex was that the Church is cruel and oppressive?] This stipulation of your faith was designated to increase the Catholic population. Think about it. [Because clearly I've never thought about any of this before...] A group of people [can you specify the group of people?] set out to utilize a religion to amalgamate and brainwash [!!!] their constituents.

But how to increase the likelihood that your religion and your brainwashing will be as effective and as widespread as possible? Simple. Teach them that they need to reproduce as many times as possible, and that any prevention of reproduction is a sin. Ta-da! Your numbers grow stronger and you gain more power. [Ah! The "breeding minions for the Pope" argument! Well, bummer, that's not been an effective strategy, since most Catholics use contraception happily and scoff at Church teaching (if they've ever even heard of it).]

If the Catholic church truly believed all human life to be sacred, would the Pope have sanctioned the Crusades? [To which of the eight crusades over hundreds of years are you referring, and do you know the differences among them?] Would it continue to wage war against homosexuality [Wait, "waging war"...you mean teaching that homosexual acts are sinful, but that homosexual men and women must be treated with full dignity?] when those efforts could be spent saving lives in third world countries? [Do you not realize how many Catholics are saving lives in the Third World and all over the globe? Who will fill the void if the Church goes away? Whose "efforts will be spent" running the soup kitchens, hospitals, homes for the dying, medical clinics, relief agencies, orphanages, schools, etc.? Will you and your friends give up your lives and step in if Catholic charities disappear?] 

There are so many holes in the Catholic ‘sanctity of life’ argument. “Life is sacred…unless it’s a different species…or a different religion….or people who think differently than we do. Then it’s okay to torture and kill.” [Can you please cite some official Church teaching on that? I've never seen it. It seems like you have very little information about what Catholicism actually teaches, but a lot of opinions.]

The bottom line is that this earth is as we see it. [Well, except for the parts that we don't see.] There is a lot of love, there is hatred, there is pain, and there is beauty. But we shouldn’t need some imaginary man in the sky or some sexually-repressed, oddly-outfitted man in Rome to tell us to live our lives as good people. [How do you know the pope is sexually repressed? Do you publicly say the same of celibate Buddhist monks, by the way? "Oddly-dressed"? This is the level of discourse you want to bring to the blogs of those you are trying to reach? I think Papal vestments rock, by the way.] Our relationships with others, our empathy, and our nature as human beings should encourage us to do so. [And yet somehow, humans still act barbarically.] Not because we fear eternal punishment or strive for eternal reward, but because being a decent person is the right way to live. [Says who? I thought godless evolution was about survival, not virtue or decency. Sometimes to survive, we must cheat, steal, lie and kill, correct? Besides, who defines what's "right"?] 

We are animals, just like any other, who reproduce because it is written in our genetic code (which there is actually proof of). [Yes, Catholics believe that God hardwired us to reproduce. With the added bonus that we can freely love, as an act of our will.] Life can be a beautiful thing, babies can grow up to be presidents or researchers or peacemakers. But life can also be painful and horrible. Babies can grow up to be criminals and rapists and serial killers. [True. Sin is a horrible thing, and we deal with the ugly effects of our own and others' sin all the time.] 

What about the millions of children starving and dying of preventative diseases all over the world? Why are you not campaigning to save their lives if life is, in fact, sacred? [What evidence do you have that I and my Church are not?] Why is your primary concern to get as many children into the world as possible [umm, it's not my primary concern, nor is it the Church's], when welfare programs are already spread too thin, there are already so many children living in squalor and poverty, and there are parents who abuse their kids? [Are you saying that because poverty and sin exist, we must agree that unborn children can be killed and discarded? How does that follow?] 

Why the focus on quantity, not quality? [I'm focused on "not killing innocent people" not "quantity". And sadly, "quality of life" has become a liberal buzz word for abortion, euthanasia, and eugenics in general, which deserves its own post.] How about instead of bringing more souls into the world, you adopt and care for those that are already in existence who desperately need love and assistance? [Clearly you don't know your audience. In the name of fairness, I invite you to read this recent post, which will teach you more about Catholic pro-lifers. Oh, and aside from what you will learn there, it's worth noting that conservatives are also consistently more generous than liberals in charity donations as well].

I would assert that your allowing these souls to suffer [I'm allowing it?] in order to produce children genetically related to you is just as disrespectful to the sanctity of life as a woman who chooses not to carry a pregnancy to term. [If you are equating the two, you are morally confused. You also don't realize how many of those in the "Catholic Bubble" have adopted children.]

If some superior being had wanted us to reproduce endlessly, he or she would have made the resources of this earth limitless to satisfactorily provide for all of those lives. [The resources of this world are plenty abundant to provide for all of humanity. Sin, corruption and misguided policy keeps resources from people.] But they are not, and we cannot all pop out one child after another without society and the earth at some point caving under the weight of this ceaseless breeding. [For more on the myth of "ceaseless breeding", go here for a quick primer.] This does not make me loveless; this makes my definition of love one based on reality rather than religion. [What is your definition of love? Go here for what other atheists told me about what love is for them.]

So go on living in your bubble and feeling all warm and fuzzy about the way you conduct your lives. [Actually, the lifelong struggle to live a virtuous Christian life requires great sacrifice and entails great suffering. However, the interior peace and joy is worth it.] Go on crusading [for] the thousands of unborn children who aren’t brought into this world every day [you mean, who are willfully killed by abortion], while you pay thousands of dollars every year to companies who torture and kill other of God’s “sacred” creatures for the sake of your taste buds. [First, we've covered that the Church does not sanction torture of man or beast. Second, animals are not "sacred". Third, humans are meat-eaters. I don't know if I can apologize for that?]

Keep telling yourselves that sex before marriage is okay as long as you hurry up and get married before the baby comes [I've never told myself that, and neither has the Church], that divorce is okay as long as you pay the church an adequate sum of money to pretend the marriage never existed [clearly you don't know the difference between divorce and annulment; even civil authorities make the distinction], that parts of the Bible are necessary for everyone to follow but others can be swept under the rug if they inconvenience you [Evidence? Examples? Make sure you know what you are talking about, or this could turn into a whole new post], that torturing and killing is okay as long as it’s a member of a species or a thought doctrine other than your own. [What's the obsession with torture? Sigh. Speaking of "sweeping under the rug" (or dumping in the trash) and "torturing and killing", could you go here and be the first pro-choicer on this blog with the integrity to defend what you see?] 

In short, keep living in your Catholic bubble if it’s too painful for you to think outside the brainwash that comes prefabricated in the neat and tidy package of religion. [Glad you are not trying to insult anyone. By the way, are you aware that most of the people you are talking to have already lived the life you advocate, and have come to the Church after living the Planned Parenthood way? We don't actually live in a bubble, but judging from the vast ignorance of all you've said, you just might.]

But keep your brainwash to yourselves and let the rest of us live as we see fit as well [except the innocent unborn, right?]. I will never protest your right to live your life as you please [Can the unborn have that right, too?]. Stop protesting my right to do the same (and yes, 'my life' includes my decision whether or not to bear children) [translation: "my decision whether or not to kill children". And FYI, my right to protest is protected under the First Amendment. Why do you demand that I stop protesting? I don't believe you have that right.].

+++++++

Choice, it is my hope that from here on in, you will speak less from ignorance and more from knowledge and truth. You claim to be "proud" of your "intolerance of intolerance", but to some of us it seems more like a convenient way of excusing your anti-Catholic bigotry (which is nothing new or enlightened) or your (willful?) ignorance about facts which are easily known if pursued. 


To my fellow Catholics and others of good will, I put Choice's words out there to show you, once again, the cultural divide. 


And though Choice called the following "vitriol", I will once again post the words which summarize exactly what you see going on here:





"The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love." -- Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP


Read a follow-up conversation with "Choice", here.



.

Why is the Left Ignoring Church Burnings and 'Near Genocide' of Christians?

Many of you are familiar with Lisa Graas and her work, both from her comments here and from my blog roll. She is an amazing lady, and the story of how we met 13 years ago (my first internet "friend"!) is a story in itself. We have quite a history together, and now we both have blogs, ha ha ha. Lisa, a convert to Catholicism and a disabled single mother of four, also writes for David Horowitz's NewsRealBlog. As you know, I don't post on politics too often (although I am a political animal at heart), but I asked Lisa to write this guest post for me because she is practically alone out there writing on this topic. 

Please, please, if anyone on the left can explain why the Left's dislike of Christianity is so strong, and yet their defense of Islamists so vocal (despite Islam's violent hatred toward liberal moral values), I would be so grateful. I have some ideas of why leftists cast their lots with Islam over Christianity, but I would love to hear it from someone here.

+++++++

From Lisa Graas....

On the Left, the end justifies the means. Abortion, which many acknowledge is not a good thing, is 'necessary' in order to protect the 'greater good' of 'choice'. Rationing of healthcare, which they also acknowledge is not a good thing, is set forth as a 'solution' to serve the 'greater good' of 'universal coverage'. Even our Catholic compatriots on the Left have become caught up in this erroneous thinking that 'the end justifies the means', having adopted the confused thinking that the 'greater good' is equivalent to the 'common good'. So it is that the vulnerable are trampled underfoot, even with assistance from within the Catholic community.

One of the most powerful leftists in history, Josef Stalin, killed millions to serve the 'good' of the state.*

Millions died as a result of Stalin's famine and purges which came about due to the leftist ethos that 'the end' (in this case, the goal of 'equality') always 'justifies the means'. What Stalin might have believed was the 'common good', in reality was a reflection of 'the greater good' being sought, no matter the means.

Is it this belief -- 'the end justifies the means' -- that accounts for the silence of leftists in America today as the Islamic Egyptian army attacked Christian monasteries? After all, this news would have spoiled their good feelings as they cheered the 'revolution' in Cairo's Tahrir Square.

Is it this belief that 'the end justifies the means' that urges the Left to press continually for America to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq even as the Christian community there faces 'near genocide'? (Have they even heard of Adam of Baghdad?)

I think it is...and the silence continues even now as the Left continues to be actively engaged in defending the 'good name' of Islam while refusing to raise so little as a whimper about the burning of 69 churches in Ethiopia with 10,000 Christians being now displaced as they flee Muslim wrath.

Obama's White House team and the mainstream media have turned a blind eye to the spilling of innocent Christian blood.

What 'crime' did these Christians commit to 'merit' the torching of 69 churches, a Bible school and an orphanage?

The violence erupted after a group of Muslims falsely accused Christians in the area of desecrating the Quran. 

Those on the far left would say, "These attacks were justified because a Christian probably really did desecrate the Qur'an."

Those who are just left of center will probably either look away or resign themselves to calling our mention of it "Islamophobic", which I have come to realize is the 21st century leftist version of 'Der ewige Jude'.

The wise understand that book burning leads to the burning of people, but truly....it takes a hardcore leftist to argue that in our quest to protect books from damage, we must sometimes burn Islamophobic churches and kill Islamophobic Christians.

Those on the Left, tell me where I'm wrong, because I desperately want to be wrong on this.






*To address the problems of hunger and poverty, in 1928 Stalin initiated the first of five "Five-Year Plans" that he would implement during his long reign as the leader of the USSR (the others would cover the periods 1933-37; 1938-42; 1946-50; and 1951-55).  This first Plan nationalized all aspects of Russian industry and commerce, with the goal of quickly industrializing the economy and collectivizing agriculture. Collectivization meant the confiscation of all private land and the organization of agricultural production by state-run "collective farms." The idea that drove this program was Marx's fantasy of social equality and social justice. In practice it meant that 25 million peasant farmers would not be paid any wages for their labor, but would instead produce their agricultural output entirely for the state, which would in turn allow them to keep a modest share for their own survival needs. Stalin's vision entailed the systematic replacement of small, unmechanized farms with large, mechanized alternatives that would theoretically produce food much more efficiently. In practice this meant that a nation which had once been Europe's breadbasket would experience famine and chronic agricultural scarcity for the next sixty years, until the system collapsed.

Answering L, for clarity's sake

An anonymous commenter known as "L" left a comment yesterday that I thought was worthy of its own post, as it covered many topics that begged to be addressed. 


Her comments are in red italics.


I agree with college student about sex since the beginning of time and will one up that with "read up on human history." After all it was a long, long time ago that the Catholic Church itself was waffling on the sticky issue of "ensoulment" (for college student, this was the notion that a fetus did not have a soul until 40 days gestation for a male or 90 days for a female... because the church, like most folks at the time, did not see females as equal.) 


L, thank you so much for this opportunity to publicly correct this very common error. The issue of "ensoulment" was a theological concept, a pondering put forward by theologians at the time. There was never a time when the Catholic Church condoned abortion. The Church, regardless of the "ensoulment" discussion, has always and everywhere taught that abortion is an inherent evil. Moral truth does not change. 


Has there been sexism in the Church through the ages? Because her members are human, and sinners, yes. There have been sinners of every stripe in the Church, as much yesterday as today. To read what Pope John Paul had to say about sexism and the dignity of women in general, please read his Letter to Women. If you truly desire the Catholic response to this concern, it's worth your time.


Some Popes denounced any abortion regardless and some said it was okay as long as they did it before ensoulment. 


Some popes "said it was okay"? When you make a statement like that, you really need to cite your evidence. The truth is that no pope ever -- at any time, in any era -- taught that abortion was okay.

There have always been drugs, teas, tinctures to induce abortions - even hundreds of years ago. It is WELL DOCUMENTED. 


You are absolutely correct. Not only has abortion existed hundreds of years ago, but thousands of years ago. Catholicism has stood against abortion since Christ founded the Church over two thousand years ago; after all, abortion (and infanticide) was quite common in pagan Rome. No one on this blog, nor any Catholic I know, would dispute the fact that abortion has always existed. Murder, rape, theft, lying, cheating, and myriad other sins have also always existed. There is no new sin under the sun.


Ever since men have had the upper-hand over women, there has always been rape, incest, domination and subjugation throughout history. But here, in modern times we have a voice to say "NO MORE."


The wording here makes me think of the first part of this story. You are correct that sinful men have oppressed (and continue to oppress) women. Rape, domination, and subjugation are evil and unjust, and I thank God that we live in a nation where we do have a voice to fight that evil and assert our innate human dignity. If you "read up on human history" (to borrow your words), you will see that Western civilization has provided women the greatest freedom and dignity, as well as the loudest voice with which to oppose misogyny. In most cultures outside of Western civilization, women are still systematically and/or legally dominated, subjugated, dehumanized, raped and even murdered. I encourage you to investigate why Western civilization has been so good for women, while other civilizations have continued to oppress and misuse them.

What about suffrage? Thank you feminists. NOt Being the PROPERTY (not partner) of one's husband? Thank you feminists. Being able to breastfeed in public? Thank you feminists.


Oh, how I love the suffragists! Thank you, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Victoria Woodhull, Sarah Norton, and so many other strong, courageous women! The early feminists knew that the violence of abortion was a crime against both women and children and an affront to human dignity. Their stories are compelling and inspiring, and I join you in lauding these amazing women.


Now, "women as property" is a non-Christian concept, as the dignity, equality, and partnership of spouses is made clear from the beginning: 

1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone." The woman, "flesh of his flesh," i.e., his counterpart, his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. 

1662 Marriage is based on the consent of the contracting parties, that is, on their will to give themselves, each to the other, mutually and definitively, in order to live a covenant of faithful and fruitful love.  [Catechism of the Catholic Church]

Breastfeeding, in public or otherwise? You've come to the right place! God Himself designed breastfeeding, which is so beautiful that it's actually theological: 

…[Breastfeeding] benefits the child and helps to create the closeness and maternal bonding so necessary for healthy child development.  So human and natural is this bond that the Psalms use the image of the infant at its mother’s breast as a picture of God’s care for man.... [Pope John Paul II's Address on Breastfeeding, 1995]

So, thanks be to God for breastfeeding! And thank you to the seven courageous and devout Catholic mothers who founded the La Leche League in 1956 to support nursing moms when the rest of society had turned to bottle feeding. Even if modern feminism never existed, Catholics are all over breastfeeding.



You may hate contraception and abortion and the using of sex as a cheap way to fill carnal and sinful desires (secular people don't like a lot of this lifestyle either) But stop with blaming feminism. 


I hope you are correct that secular people don't like that lifestyle either. But what part of  secular/liberal philosophy will lead to the cessation of that lifestyle? Can you show me in feminist literature where the "free love" mindset is being fought against or repudiated? Help me understand why modern feminist thought is not an accessory to the sexual mess we find ourselves in today.


Stay out of FoxNews type talking points. 


That came seemingly out of the blue! But let's address it: Fox News talking points on what? Contraception? I have never heard a FoxNews reporter or commentator oppose contraception. I assume they use contraception at the same rate as the general public. In fact, I remember when Sean Hannity (a Catholic) fought on air with a priest, vehemently defending his own use of contraception!


Or perhaps you believe that Fox News has talking points in defense of Catholic moral teaching? It's quite the opposite. Bill O'Reilly (a Catholic) has bashed John Paul II and the Church's teachings on sex more times than I care to remember. I was so offended that I stopped watching Fox News for years because of it. Fox News is most definitely not a mouthpiece for the Catholic Church.


These are effects of the human condition, they don't exist because some women don't want to get pregnant and take a pill to keep from doing so. 


You are absolutely right that sin is part of the human condition, a result of the Fall. And as we humans have the strong tendency to be drawn toward sin (virtue ain't easy!), any mindset or philosophy that facilitates or encourages sin is best avoided. There are better alternatives, which keep us happy and healthy.  :)



L, in conclusion, I can't assume that your misrepresentation of the Catholic Church is due to bigotry or malice, so I will assume it's just that you didn't know. I like your passion, I think we do have points of agreement, and I do hope that you will continue to comment. However, if you are going to make your case against Catholicism, please check Catholic sources to make sure you first understand what Catholics believe. That way the debate is fair and honest, and readers can see both sides presented with integrity. I truly appreciate it.

“The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden.”  

G.K. Chesterton

Sophie and others: Am I being unclear?

I admit confusion and frustration. There is a pattern happening with several readers, and I am not sure why it's as common as it is.


To understand what I am going to say next, please go to this post, then scroll down and read Sophie's first comment from February 3, at 3:24pm. Then read all subsequent comments up to the point of her exit from the conversation.


Done? Okay....


Please note that either I or another commenter addressed each of her questions. We did not ignore her points nor did we scoff at them and then refuse to answer. We even addressed her points when she changed the subject.


It's (now familiar) exchanges like those that make me scratch my head. 


Specifically, let's look at the way it ended:


Sophie (not to be confused with Sophie Fletcher) said:


Reading through previous posts, it's obvious that your requests for debate are purely rhetorical. Little Catholic Bubble is a perfect description of the site. The wider world's ethical and medical views are simply ignored. I can't see the point in requesting comments when you have no interest in anyone's views but your own.


I responded: 


As for whether or not I want to hear other opinions on the blog, I have said this before: I never censor what the other side says. You can put your best case out there, and I will put my best case out there. We let the readers decide. I don't know why that translates to "The wider world's ethical and medical views are simply ignored. I can't see the point in requesting comments when you have no interest in anyone's views but your own." I am allowing you free rein to give your side of things. So, I am very confused about why you say it's being ignored here in the Bubble? Help?


And then I added:


Sophie, right at the top of my blog, there is a link to "A Welcome to Liberals" [This is now under "Please Read First"]. Here is part of what it says, just so that we are clear:

Dear liberals/leftists/secularists/atheists:

You are welcome in the Bubble! In fact, I encourage your comments and perspective. I will give you a fair hearing, I will not misrepresent you, and I will remain respectful in my questioning and responses. I often use Dennis Prager's saying, "I prefer clarity to agreement," and I really mean it.

You should know up front that I do not dialogue in order to reach "consensus." Some issues can't be reconciled. I dialogue so that we can have clarity about what each of us believes, which facilitates understanding but not necessarily agreement. It also allows readers to see both sides presented, and from there they can form their own opinions.

If you do not enjoy being challenged in your philosophy, if you do not like being pressed to go further, if you do not like questions (and more questions), then this is not the forum for you. But if you like a Socratic-type dialogue, then make yourself right at home here in the Bubble!

Sophie's response? More skirting of the question, and insults: 

Leila: As I observed previously, Little Catholic Bubble is exactly that. It's Catholic propaganda on fertility issues. As a non-Catholic I find some of the content rather creepy and bizarre.

There's no place here for anyone who doesn't accept your core values, so I'm not surprised few dissenters take up your "challenge". What would be the point? My own participation was clearly a waste of of my time.

Thankfully, outside the bubble, you're not getting much of an audience even among Catholics. Most Catholics here use contraception, and many have abortions. I'd be surprised if the same wasn't true in the US.

Disappointed, but used to this pattern by now, I answered:

Sophie, so basically you avoided the questions.

Blessings to you, and you are always welcome here.

And therein lies my confusion. What did Sophie think going in? That I would change my mind and discover that abortion is a good, or at least agree that both sides can be "right"? 

That's not what this blog is about. I won't be changing my mind on moral truth, and I do not expect that Sophie will change her mind either. However, I did expect an honest dialogue, with reasonable questions answered, not skirted. 

It's not as if I have misrepresented my viewpoint. This blog is clearly marked as a Catholic site, and whoever visits can see immediately that I uphold the teachings of the Church. Nevertheless, I invite persons of any and all beliefs to make their case to the readers, through debate and discussion. We dissect ideas here; we do not cast aspersions and run as soon as we face a difficult question.

Anyway, as a preventative measure, I have revamped my banner links. I would love any feedback on the "Please Read First" link: Is it clear? Does it leave any doubt or ambiguity about what we do on this site?

Thanks for your thoughts.

+++++++

News note: For anyone still following the Planned Parenthood underage sex trafficking scandals, yet another disturbing video has been released, this time from New York, showing two PP employees more than happy to aid and abet child sex slavery. Time to yank taxpayer funding yet?

My imaginary dialogues with abortion rights advocates

I talk to myself, so why not talk to imaginary people? Here are some of my internal dialogues with abortion rights advocates ("AA"):


Dialogue, Thread A:

Me: Do you think the unborn are as human as you are?

AA: Yes, I do.

Me: And you still think that a mother should be able to abort that baby, who is as human as you are?

AA: Yes, I do.

Me: So, some humans have rights and others don't have any?

AA: Yes, that is correct.

Me: Doesn't that mean that one set of humans (the born) get to determine whether or not other humans have the right to live or not?

AA: Yes, that is correct.

Me: Do you think that's moral in other situations, or only with born vs. unborn humans?

AA: {I don't know how this thread ends, because I haven't yet gotten an answer.}


Dialogue, Thread B:

Me: Do you think the unborn are as human as you are?

AA: No, I don't.

Me: What do you think they are?

AA: They are potential humans.

Me: At what moment do they become fully human?

AA: At viability. {Other answers may include: At brainwaves, at heartbeat, at the beginning of the second trimester, at birth, three months after birth, etc., etc.}

Me: Is that objectively true, or is that simply your opinion?

AA:  I have thought about it at length, and that's my conclusion.


Me: So, it's an opinion?


AA: {silence.}

Me: How do you pinpoint the exact second that humanity begins, so that we don't accidentally kill any innocent people?

AA: We can't pinpoint an exact second, but it's a good estimate. 

Me: Isn't that arbitrary?

AA: Well, we have to draw the line somewhere.

Me: Why do we have to draw the line anywhere? Shouldn't we always err on the side of life in something this important and irrevocable?

AA: {Actually, I am not sure how this thread ends, either, because I've never heard this question answered.}

Dialogue, Thread C:

Me: Do you believe that the unborn are as human as you are?

AA: Well, they are human, but they are not "persons."

Me: What is the difference? 

AA: "Personhood" of a fetus is something to be determined by each pregnant woman. Only she can decide when her fetus becomes a "person" to her. It's a woman's right.


Me: Is there any objective standard for "personhood"?


AA: Well, some say that "personhood" is determined by conscious thought and memory.


Me: So, an Alzheimer's patient in the final stages, or a severely brain-injured adult may no longer be considered a "person"?

AA: Well, some people argue that that's the case, but I don't subscribe to that. It's extreme.

Me: What is the essential difference between a post-conscious Alzheimer's patient and a pre-conscious fetus?

AA: The the fetus has never lived a real life.

Me: How do you define what is "real" life? Isn't that arbitrary?

AA: Yes, maybe, but remember, it's a woman's right to choose to assign meaning to the life within her.

Me: So, the woman gets to decide the "personhood" of another?

AA: Yes.

Me: But it still seems so arbitrary and subjective.

AA: Wait, there is an objective standard, if that's what you are looking for. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1973 that "personhood" begins at birth, and that's when the fetus gets legal protection.

Me: So the government can legitimately decide when someone is a "person" and thus entitled to the full spectrum of human rights?

AA: Yes.

Me: Are you okay with that?

AA: Yes, of course. I fully support Roe v. Wade.

Me: Would you support the government defining the "personhood" of other groups as well, like when the Supreme Court declared that black slaves were property, and not fully human (Dred Scott decision)?

AA: No! Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Me: Can you tell me the salient difference?

AA: {I don't know how this thread ends, either, since I have never heard the answer to that one.}



Okay, there you have it. Yep, that actually is what I do in my spare time, ha ha! I've got other imaginary dialogues, too, but I will save those for later. If anyone wants to complete any of the threads or tell me where I went wrong, that would be great!

You're not a monster. And nobody called you that.

Here's my frustration. I write a provocative post, challenging abortion rights advocates to answer some uncomfortable yet important questions. A fellow Catholic blogger writes a response taking issue with what she feels is an unbalanced piece. 

Fair enough, so far. 

Then, Miss Gwen comments on the other blogger's post and includes the following:

I made the mistake of commenting on Leila's blog because it was an "open letter" to pro-choice people. Of course, it turned into a giant attack with tons of questions being fired away and, as always, the judgment that I am some sort of sick, twisted monster who runs around trying to kill unborn babies and supporting genocide.

I wonder if anyone else sees my frustration? 

Where was the "giant attack"? I don't see it, and I've looked. In fact, 51 comments into my post, an abortion rights advocate (Anonymous 11:11) wrote the following:

11:11 here again. First, I want to say that I am really impressed with how civil this discussion has remained. I haven't gotten into an abortion debate in years, because it rarely stays civil.

How does Anon 11:11 see the polar opposite of what Miss Gwen saw?

Also, the "open letter" I wrote contained over 20 questions itself, but Miss Gwen makes it sound like the "tons of questions being fired away" came only after she commented, and that they shocked her. But, how is that possible?

Miss Gwen then says that, "as always," we judged her as a "sick, twisted monster" who supports genocide. I'm not trying to be difficult, but huh? Can anyone show me any evidence of that? I have re-read the comments and I see none of it.

In fact, even when Miss Gwen stated (on the Peter Singer post) that she might support an occasional case of infanticide, no one called her a sick monster. 

Miss Gwen, I thought you knew how much we like you, and that we think you are beautiful and intelligent. We have been polite to you, we have enjoyed your participation, and yes, we have often vehemently opposed your philosophies and ideas (even to the point of thinking those ideas were horrific). But we Catholics can separate the value and dignity of a person from the value of her ideas. We can love and respect you as a human being, while even hating the positions you hold. 

I don't get why you take this all so very personally. 

Think of it this way: If you and I were having a rational discussion about abortion, and you said, "I think it's monstrous that you want to force a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term," I would respond by saying, "Yes, I know that you think it's monstrous, but..." and then go on to talk more about the ideas. As long as you are not attacking me personally, it's perfectly okay with me that you think my ideas are monstrous. 

By the way, it's a sin for a Catholic to spew hatred or personal judgement at another person. So, if it happens that some Catholic attacks you personally (i.e., "you're evil" rather than "your idea is evil"), you can call him on it! Tell him to get to confession, because that sort of thing is not allowed.  :)

Anyway, thanks for hearing me out. And please let me know (anyone, on any side) if I've got it all wrong.

Blessed Advent everyone!