David Ancell / Wednesday, June 02, 2004 / Comments(0)
Those women are choosing to have abortions. Those war vicitims have no choice
Those women may be choosing to have abortions, but their innocent victims, killed in the womb, did not choose to die. Many women are pressured into abortions by family or even the father of the child. If it’s illegal, then we can stop this injustice, or at least greatly reduce it.
[Insert set of pro-life politicians here] aren’t really going to do anything about abortion.
This may be true. However, I guarantee you that not doing anything is better than what the pro-aborts will do. John Kerry interrupted his campaign and flew into Washington D.C. to vote against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Pro-life politicians did not do this and would not. While the pro-life politicians may only be able to have limited effect against abotion until Roe vs. Wade is overturned, there is definitely more damage that the pro-aborts can do. President Bush cut federal funding of abortion. I don’t think Kerry, or anyone else running, will keep that policy in force. I regret that more hasn’t been done, but electing a pro-abort will definitely do damage to what has been accomplished.
Look at how many people are being killed in the war in Iraq.
I know of no reason to believe anything other than the fact that our armed forces are taking precautions not to harm civilians. The deaths in Iraq pale in comparison to the number of abortions that have taken place in the same period of time.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Wednesday, June 02, 2004 / Comments(0)
On a couple of occasions, I have done talks for the Frassati Society, and I like to get into apologetics. I put a section into my handouts in objection and answer format. With that being said, I’d like to post responses to some arguments regarding the issues of “Catholic” politicians and my responses. Sometimes I’m able to say these directly to the person; other times, I don’t think of them until later.
If you want to quote the Pope, then quote him on everything. OR
If the bishops deny Communion to pro-abortion politicians, then they should deny it to people who support the death penalty or the war in Iraq.
If these are literally true, then they would imply that the Holy Father is incapable of having opinions on important issues (or at least expressing them publicly) without them becoming binding Church teaching. Certainly the war in Iraq is a grave issue, and the Holy Father must be taken seriously. The Church teaching on just war must be obeyed. However, is it within the competence of the Church to know all of the facts surrounding the reasons to go to war? It is not necessarily so.
President Bush may well know some things that the Holy Father does not. Of course, the reverse may be the case as well. Paragraph 2309 of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church (herein referred to as CCC from here on) says, after naming the just war criteria, “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” While one may legitimately argue that the Holy Father does have responsibility for the common good, the CCC clearly doesn’t say that only the Holy Father can determine whether the criteria for war has been met.
As for capital punishment, the CCC says this in paragraph 2267 “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” The paragraph goes on to state that the death penalty should rarely, if ever, be used, on the grounds that the state has a greater ability to prevent crime. This is based, not on a judgment of faith and morals, but on the confidence the Holy Father has in our prison system. However, I must say that I am against the death penalty as it is practiced in the United States. I will not consider those who favor the death penalty to be dissenters.
Abortion is a completely different case altogether. In CCC paragraph 2271, we find “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.” In other words, any time the Holy Father were to denounce a specific abortion, he is always going to be right because abortion is gravely immoral 100% of the time. Prudential judgment is not necessary to figure this out. By the way, the abuse of the prisoners in Iraq falls into this category of “intrinsically evil” as well. However, I am aware of no one who argues in favor of it.
Interestingly enough, the confusion here seems to stem from one of the same mindsets that plague dissenters. Somehow, they have in their mind that the Church teachings are little more than the “rules” made by the current members of the hierarchy. The hierarchy are not rulers but mere guarantors. There are plenty of priests and bishops out there who are dissenters, and the fact that they are priests and bishops does not make what they say morally acceptable. Rather, the Sacred Tradition is the teaching handed down from Christ, to the Apostles, to our present time. Therefore, the issue is not so much about “obeying the hierarchy” as it is obeying the constant teaching of the Church, which will not change, ever.
This post is much longer than I planned, so I will bring forth more arguments in another post.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Monday, May 31, 2004 / Comments(0)
I’ve recently learned that some dictionaries are changing the definition of marriage. Perhaps George Orwell should have named his famous book “2004.” It appears that newspeak is taking over.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Saturday, May 29, 2004 / Comments(0)
I’ve been having a good time on the new Catholic Answers forum. They are now starting to take up a number of topics of contention. I’ve just added this post to a thread on holding hands during the Lord’s prayer.
Let me start by saying that, if you grab my hand during the Our Father, I will wipe my nose with your hand. No matter what the intent, no one has the right to add something to the Mass that is not in the rubrics. If it isn’t in the book, don’t do it. It doesn’t matter what kind of feelings it gives you. I’m sure that holding hands during the Our Father is not grave matter, but it still requires obedience.
I’ve heard people say, “The rubrics don’t say we can’t do it.” However, please understand the nature of liturgical law. The rubrics also don’t say that we can’t:
However, I can envision that few, if any, people reading this thread would actually consider any of the above acceptable. In fact, in the case of the second and third points, the rubrics specifically say to do something else. My point is that there is no way that the rubrics can be written to prohibit everything that someone will try to do, especially considering the strange things that have happened in American liturgies. Therefore, they normally only state what is permitted. Anything else isn’t permitted.
There are some really good other posts on the topic. Here is one that contains official documentation, and here is one by Karl Keating.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Friday, May 28, 2004 / Comments(0)
Here’s something for those who use the excuse “There are hypocrites in church.” to avoid Mass:
If you go to Mass, you will spend one hour a week with these kind of people. If you were to go to Mass every Sunday for the next 100 years, you would spend the equivalent of about 217 days with the hypocrites (less then one year). Contrast this with having to spend all eternity in Hell with them, and you see that you will do much better at avoiding hypocrites than if you avoid going to Mass.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Friday, May 28, 2004 / Comment(1)
I can’t swear to the authenticity of this, but this page claims to have a draft of the new translation of the Mass in English. If this is really what we are going to experience soon, I am excited. Some of the phrases, especially in the Creed, will be more difficult to say at first, but this is much better that what we are currently subjected to.
Here are some things I noticed:
1. The mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa was restored to the as it should be. On top of that, the word “exceedingly” is reinserted to describe how we have sinned in the confeitor.
2. The Nicene Creed now has “visible and invisible” where it used to contain “seen and unseen.” It also emphasizes that Jesus existed before time began.
3. The Eucharistic Prayers, especially the Roman Canon, have been improved significantly. It more clearly emphasizes victim, sacrifice, and the divinity of Christ.
4. The crass “And also with you” was replaced with “And with your spirit.”
5. The Memorial Acclamation has dropped the “Christ has died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again.” This version of the acclamation is widely used, but it is not in the Latin at all. It is at best silly and at worst heretical to address Christ in the third person when he is right there on the altar.
6. Just before Communion, the priest now says “Behold the Lamb of God” and “Blessed are they who are called to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb.” The congegation responds “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”
I really hope that this comes into general use quickly, even though it will mean that I have to buy new missals. It is beautiful. I hope that it will be preceded by teaching on the true meaning of the Mass.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Wednesday, May 26, 2004 / Comments(0)
What if the abortion issue was really an issue of beheading of bishops? Well, Jeff Miller (along with Mark Shea) have an idea.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Sunday, May 23, 2004 / Comments(0)
If you got the message below, it was not from me. I don’t have a development team, and I don’t send spam. Do not open the attached file.
Dear user of “Davidancell.com” mailing system,
Some of our clients complained about the spam (negative e-mail content)
outgoing from your e-mail account. Probably, you have been infected by
a proxy-relay trojan server. In order to keep your computer safe,
follow the instructions.
For details see the attached file.
Yours,
The Davidancell.com team   http://www.davidancell.com
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Saturday, May 22, 2004 / Comments(0)
I heard about this on the Catholic Answers forum, but now here is an article. Apparently, our congressmen (including some who are pro-life) have decided that the Church should stay out of “partisan politics” by stating that a politician should not be denied the Eucharist on the basis of voting record.
But wait, there’s more . . . . these guys claim that anti-Catholic bigotry will return if the politicians are refused Communion. Nevermind the fact that it never left. Nevermind the fact that Jesus plainly said that “if the world hates you, remember that it hated me first.” Anti-Catholic bigotry plainly exists. If it didn’t, why would politicians see a need to divorce their faith from their public life.
If the bishops were to conform to the statements of these politicians, one would have to accept one of two absurdities:
1. The Church, and therefore Christ himself, is subject to the laws and constitution, or even the culture, of the United States.
2. One can avoid any Church teaching he finds inconvenient by declaring it to be “partisan politics” or by declaring it to be some kind of area into which the Church should not tread. Oh wait, we already do this. Don’t we say that the Church should stay out of our bedroom, our business, and any other place where we decide we should to what we darn well please. Ah, but this is what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for in Matthew 15:5-6. They created a loophole in God’s law that allowed one to avoid honoring one’s father or mother by saying that anything that would have helped them is dedicated to God.
Of course, they can’t go without introducing the red herring of the war in Iraq. While the Just War Doctrine is indeed church teaching, the Pope’s opinion on the application of it is just that – his opinion. This is not so with abortion. The teaching against abortion is the consistent teaching of the Church, and abortion is intrinsically evil. Direct abortion is sinful in any and all circumstances regardless of whether one does or does not believe it.
We must pray that our leader’s hearts will not be so hard against the truth. Their duty to God is greater than their duty to their constituents.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Thursday, May 20, 2004 / Comments(0)
In case you haven’t seen them yet, check out the Catholic Answers forums. They haven’t been there long, but they are already very active. Karl Keating even stops by to talk with members often. He even provided a forum to discuss his weekly newsletter.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized