Declaring War on Abortion

[cathqat]

If you say so

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Actually, Theoketos is right.

There is no Catholic stance on whether our government is just, and we are free to disagree. To claim that there is a Catholic stance (just like on the Just War) is to pervert Tradition[/quote]

No there is a Catholic Stance on what makes a government Just and wahat makes one unjust-- The Church certianly has made Staments saying certian governments where unjust in the Past, and ours has been mentioned in them. But my point was in response to who were we to judge whether or not our government was Just and Agian I answer we have 2000 years of tradition to tell us whether or not it is Just.

Edited January 2, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]WWII may have been just (not all Catholics agreed on that, even), but the use of the A-bomb in Japan was not. It was immoral.

Crusader1234-- the A-bomb might put an end to abortion, but it would definitely not be an improvement! 

[/quote]

Well we certianly agree that they use of the Abomb was immoral, I would go so far as to say it is not possible to use an Abomb in a moral way ( but not probably for the reasons many others would say so) however I couldn't disagree more with your last statement, even the A-bomb would be an improvement over what we have now.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 2 2005, 05:30 AM']I would go so far as to say it is not possible to use an Abomb in a moral way[/quote]

Well I don't know your mysterious reasons, but I couldn't agree more.

[quote]even the A-bomb would be an improvement over what we have now.[/quote]

I'll bite. How would decimating the entire population be an improvement over the current situation?

[Don John of Austria]

Well I didn't say useing dozens of Abombs would be an improvement( thats what it would take to devestate the whole population), but at this point I think almost anything that would truly destroy the entrenched anti- catholic liberal democrats ( I mean philosophicaly not the political party) would be an improvment. I see no hope for substantial change without some sort of tremendous and likely very unpleasent shake up, one that will likely be acompanied by a great many deaths, that is unfortunate but I really see very little hope outside of such an event.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 2 2005, 05:47 AM']at this point I think almost anything that would truly destroy the entrenched anti- catholic liberal democrats ( I mean philosophicaly not the political party) would be an improvment.[/quote]

I assume you are referring to liberalism in its classical sense, then?

The problem with this scenario, of course, is that A-bombs are not selective. There would be no way to destroy liberal democrats (even if it could be morally jusitifed) with A-bombs without killing others.

[quote]I see no hope for substantial change without some sort of tremendous and likely very unpleasent shake up, one that will likely be acompanied by a great many deaths, that is unfortunate but I really see very little hope outside of such an event.[/quote]

I am sorry to hear that you have so little hope. I, on the contrary, believe there is much we can do, and I do it.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]The problem with this scenario, of course, is that A-bombs are not selective. There would be no way to destroy liberal democrats (even if it could be morally jusitifed) with A-bombs without killing others.[/quote]

Oh I agree, nuclear weapons on the whole are unselective and are almost always disproportionate in their selectivity. ( there are tactical nuclear weapons which might be selective enough but they would still be immoral to use as they are fruit of a forbidden tree).

[Socrates]

This probably will not convince certain parties, but I thought a little historical overview might shed light on this whole discussion.

The pagan Roman Empire during the early years of the Church was an institution an society filled with evil, corruption, and immorality of all kinds. Infanticide, homosexuality, bloodthirsty state-sponsored "games," and oppressive and corrupt government were all common practices. The government actively persecuted Christians.

During the time of Christ, a Jewish political party, the Zealots, fought for independence against the tyranny of Roman rule. Christ did not join in the political revolution, but said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." He even let Himself be handed over to the Roman authorities to be put to death, and never preached violence or political revolution.

The history of the early Church is not one of violent revolution, but of heroically holding fast to truth, even if it meant martyrdom. After hundreds of years of non-violent but heroic witness by the Christians, the Empire was eventually converted.

Spiritual warfare and witness to the truth at all costs is much more effective than violent revolution, which was never practiced nor advocated by Christ and the Church. Obviously, the members of the early Church did not spinelessly go along with the norms of pagan society, but did not practice physical violence, or "terror."
They did not despair, but had hope.

If today's Church members gave the same kind of uncompromising witness, and truly lived the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity, imagine what we could accomplish through the grace of Christ!

The use of violence and terror to spread religion was that practiced by Mohammed and his followers, not the followers of Christ.

[Q the Ninja]

Atom bombs are [i]never[/i] just. The participation in material evil is [i]never[/i] remote enough (they kill too many people). Ergo, it's an evil act to use one.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 2 2005, 05:03 PM'] The history of the early Church is not one of violent revolution, but of heroically holding fast to truth, even if it meant martyrdom. After hundreds of years of non-violent but heroic witness by the Christians, the Empire was eventually converted.

Spiritual warfare and witness to the truth at all costs is much more effective than violent revolution, which was never practiced nor advocated by Christ and the Church. Obviously, the members of the early Church did not spinelessly go along with the norms of pagan society, but did not practice physical violence, or "terror."
They did not despair, but had hope.

If today's Church members gave the same kind of uncompromising witness, and truly lived the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity, imagine what we could accomplish through the grace of Christ!

The use of violence and terror to spread religion was that practiced by Mohammed and his followers, not the followers of Christ. [/quote]
I could not agree more. Well spoken, Socrates!

[Don John of Austria]

Well your history is a bit off, the Zealots of Jesus Day did not fight a agianst Roman Rule , that wasn't for another 35 years or so.

[quote]The history of the early Church is not one of violent revolution, but of heroically holding fast to truth, even if it meant martyrdom. After hundreds of years of non-violent but heroic witness by the Christians, the Empire was eventually converted.
[/quote]

No thats not what happened at all-- After hundreds of years of steadfastly hanging on to the Truth the Christians where still being persectuted until a young Augustus went to meet his enemy; he was out numbered 20,000 to 100,000 and so before the battle He prayed to the God of His Father ( who was a Monohtheist but not a Christian) to reveal Himself to him and show him the Way. God answered Him with a vision of a Cross in the sky and the woeds " In hoc signo vinces" in this sign you shall conquer. His entire army witnessed the miricle and though most of them where pagans they submited to having the " monogram" of Christ painted on their shields. ( it is debated whether this was the Cross or the Chi rho) and went into battle crushing his enemy Maxentius at the battle of Milvian bridge despite being outnumbered 5 to 1. He then declared the end to persecution of the Christians in the west( the edict of M, and begn persecuting them Constantine the Greatilan) and secured simular promises from his ally Licinius who would be Emperor of the East once the other great persecuter of the Chiristians Maximinus, Licinius' men also invoked the God of the Christians at there great battle agianst Maximius. Later when Licinius turned on the Christians Constantine the Great went to to the East and defeated him securing safety, for Christians through out the Empire. Now atthe time of Constantines vision less than 10 % of the Roman Empires population was Christian so one can certianly not say that it was before this that the Empire was converted; No infact it took many years after this military victory before t he " Empire was converted" in fact the full conversion of the Empire only happened after heathen practices were formally outlawed under grievous penalty including death for pagan sacrifices.

So no really it didn't happen at all that way, conversion of the Empire happened by the Sword, a sword inspired by God. God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit

Edited January 3, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Phatmasser777]

For the 'War'(love all this hyped up war talk..so try-hard..lol) why dont you have links to abortion videos?

*Pictures Show a thousand words, but a video shows a hella lot more!*

[crusader1234]

I think that A-Bombs are wrong for more than just the fact that they kill indiscriminately.

[Phatmasser777]

Yeh, ironically the same nation that is the only one to use it for murder is the same that tries to stop other nations getting them or building more.

[Don John of Austria]

Crusader you and I completely agree, Nuclear fission is in and of itself morally objectionable.