One of the tenets of Muslim belief is that non-Muslims living within Muslim society must feel themselves oppressed. The infidel must be made to understand that he is a second-class citizen, inferior to the infinitely superior Muslim who is his overloard.
When the infidel pays the jizya tax, the Muslim who collects that tax is supposed to strike him on the back of the neck, to remind him that he is paying ransom for his life - he could very well be killed for refusing to convert to Islam.
All of this comes to mind every time I hear another story about the TSA and the way that new, Obama-ready organization intimidates and humiliates American air travellers.
In Muslim countries, external signs of other religions are forbidden.
Recently, of course, Obama tried to impose a 15-cent "Christmas tree tax" on every Christmas tree sale. When that didn't fly, Obama flew instead.
That's right, he flew into New York City on the same day that the Rockefeller Center did its annual tree-lighting ceremony. Obama's visit shut down the NYC traffic grid, making it impossible to get into or out of Rockefeller Center. It was, in the words of many New Yorkers, a nightmare.
Now, I'm sure this is also just a coincidence.
Just like the time back in September when Obama tried to stage an address to Congress at the same time a televised Republican debate was planned to take place.
I'm sure no one named Hussein has any intention of humiliating Christians.
It's just that the man is so incidental to so many important things, that he's become coincidental to everything.
7 comments:
FDR said in politics there's no such thing as 'coincidence'. I believe we're seeing the same thing here.
Steve,
I know this is off topic but I would like to hear your opinions on the "Should nuns take birth control pills" article. I must admit this hit my faith in a way I didn't expect. I mean now doctors can give birth control pills to Catholics if the "reason" is to decrease the chances of developing cancer and it would be ok with the church. So if a "side effect" is the distruction of life well so be it. I mean it wasn't the intention. I mean this is a win win for age of contraception. No babies, no sin, no violation of the faith. So you can now plan your family guilt free.
So my problem is why would God in his infinite wisdom allow birth control pills to be beneficial? I just feel like chance as opposed to providence is ruling this world sometimes. Then I just remember, I'm not God and I accept and move on but with a funny feeling in my soul.
I would love to hear your thoughts.
Keep up the great work,
joe
Joe,
Nuns don't have sex, so taking a hormonal supplement (which is what the pill would be in this case) is perfectly fine.
Strictly speaking, a birth control pill is not a birth control pill, it is a high dose of hormones.
We generally use it to prevent conception and birth, but hormones have multiple uses in the body besides conception and birth.
The use of high doses of hormones is only intrinsically evil when it directly or indirectly inhibits procreation and birth.
If it has this effect, this effect is evil, regardless of whether or not we intend the effect. We may or may not be responsible for the evil (if we are responsible for the evil, that would be a sin).
But if it does not have this effect, it is not evil at all.
Look, let's assume that a young nun had a cancer which caused a huge underproduction of estrogen or progestin in her body. Such a situation would be bad for her.
The Church sees absolutely no problem with her taking whatever medical intervention was necessary in order to restore her body to what it is designed to do.
Now, a woman's body is generally designed to bear children.
Nuns voluntarily renounce sex and the bearing of children.
We should not be surprised to discover that just like an extended fast from food might cause a vitamin imbalance, so an extended fast from child-bearing might cause a hormonal imbalance.
We aren't supposed to starve ourselves to death or even to harm. If a fast we have undertaken to honor God has some negative consequences that can be mitigated by medical intervention, there is no moral problem with that.
Steve
I agree with all you've written. I also believe it is morally fine for nuns given their situation, I have no problem with that. I also know some women are genetically predisposed to ovarian cancer and this seems like a way to help them. If the use of high doses of hormones is only intrinsically evil when it directly or indirectly inhibits procreation and birth, would the intent of these women, who are doing it to prevent cancer come into play as to culpability even if the use of it prevents births as an unintended consequence?
Also there is a philosophical issue here which is what really interests me. Why would a good God allow good consequences from an evil intent? I mean why allow women, who are using it for the wrong reason, to be rewarded with lower cancer risks while at the same time directly interfering with God's creative power and risking abortions which sometimes occur with the pill when it prevents implantation? Now this is a purely academic question, I wish no one to suffer and all to come to the Holy Catholic Church.
Thanks again for your time and lucid comments,
joe
"would the intent of these women, who are doing it to prevent cancer come into play as to culpability even if the use of it prevents births as an unintended consequence?"
If nuns are deliberately having sex and taking the pill, then they are committing TWO mortal sins at once. That's true even if they started taking the pill only for the anti-cancer benefits.
If they are raped and happened to be on the pill for the anti-cancer benefits, they are not responsible for the evil the pill might wreak, and they have committed no sin.
"Why would a good God allow good consequences from an evil intent?"
To lead us towards the good. That's why rape sometimes results in the conception of a child... to remind us that even that which we intend for evil, God can use for good (as the Scriptures witness in the case of Joseph and his brothers).
"I mean why allow women, who are using it for the wrong reason, to be rewarded with lower cancer risks while at the same time directly interfering with God's creative power and risking abortions which sometimes occur with the pill when it prevents implantation?"
I don't understand everything God does, so I can't always explain why specific things happen the way they do. Why did God allow Martin Luther, Chris West, Ulrich Zwingli or John Calvin to teach? Why allow them to lead so many people astray?
I have to trust that there is a reason of which I know nothing.
Steve,
I completely agree with what you said about nuns.
"(as the Scriptures witness in the case of Joseph and his brothers)"
Selling Joseph was a direct evil, using hormones for your health isn't, but I see your point.
"I have to trust that there is a reason of which I know nothing."
On this I totally agree....faith, hope and love.
Also, who knows, these Doctors may be wrong, there is plenty of others who believe the use of the pill causes cancer, so who knows.
Anyway, thanks again and God bless your work,
joe
Oh, you're right in regards to cancer.
While the Pill protects against some cancers, it causes others. It's been classed a Class I carcinogen by the World Health Organization.
Ultimately, I think the recommendation is all about making the Pill morally acceptable by getting nuns to take it, therefore removing the "stigma" associated with it.
But, from a technical standpoint, there is nothing intrinsically immoral about celibate women taking hormonal dosing for current or foreseeable medical conditions.
Post a Comment