Unitarian Universalist Obama

I've been doing a heck of a lot of research on Unitarian Universalists (UU) and Quakers regarding their views on abortion, and I just realized that, by gosh, Obama is a UU!

Of course this is just speculation, but look at the facts about Obama that correspond to UU's:

1. He is pushing hard for the homosexual agenda - as hard as any President can. This is also gay pride month!
2. Abortion is really sacred.
3. He uses biblical references all the time without actually using their context in the overall picture of Christianity - the Bible (and sometimes Catholic tradition - soul of St. Aquinas via Aristotle) is used as a prop for his agenda. (Does he really believe it all? See the inaugural address too.)
4. His way defines sin.
5. He hasn't gone to any Church (or ecclesial community) for a while.
6. His daughters go to a Quaker school. (I was personally told once by a UU (and former Catholic) that Quakers are kissing cousins.)
7. One explanation why he's so open to Muslims.

I suspect many people who are not officially UU fit the above description. However, if Obama is a UU, he would be the first openly UU, a non-Christian sect (no baptism), as far as I know (T. Jefferson had Unitarian tendencies. Unitarians didn't join Universalists until 1961.)

Same Sex "Marriage" Questionable History

From Lawyer: Gays denied right by Calif marriage ban:

Olson said the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized marriage as a fundamental right — one afforded to prisoners serving life sentences and child support scofflaws — while refusing to make procreation a precondition of marriage, as evidenced by laws allowing divorces and contraception.

"It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence to be dispensed by the state," Olson said. "The right to marry, to choose to marry, has never been tied to procreation." (emphasis added)

Whenever someone says that something never happened or was never viewed a certain way in history, my alarms go off. It first went off in the abortion debate with Roe v. Wade's biased, untrue, and socially devastating accounting of history. Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History by (lapsed Unitarian Universalist) Joseph W. Dellapenna has gone into excruciating detail against the following myths of abortion:

(1) that abortion was always a common practice in human history; (2) that voluntary early abortions were not crimes until the nineteenth century; (3) that the nineteenth-century abortion statutes were designed to protect the life of the mother rather the life of the child; and (4) that the statutes were enacted through a conspiracy of men to accomplish several nefarious purposes—to subordinate women, to eliminate competition from women health-care workers with male physicians, and to ensure adequate birth rates among white, Protestant women to prevent “race suicide.”

Well, guess what, marriage has been tied to procreation. Guess in which controversial issue.

Interracial marriage! (of all places right)

From F. Beckwith:

Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws believed in their cause precisely because they understood that when male and female are joined in matrimony they may beget racially-mixed progeny, and these children, along with their parents, will participate in civil society and influence its cultural trajectory. (original emphasis)

When (not if) this goes to the Supreme Court, I hope to God that the majority gets history right. If not, orthodox Christians and Mormons (LDS) get ready for some real romping on our Earthly pilgrimage, Indian style.

Unitarian Universalists for Life

Last year, the community choir that I was in set up rehearsals at a Unitarian Universalist (UU) Church (really pseudo-ecclesial community). When you came in the door (or came up the stairs from the bathrooms), there was a big sign that read, "The inherent dignity and worth of all people" with some silhouettes of mature humans kneeling down.

I got to wondering since that's what I sometimes do.

Could a UU person be prolife, or OTAAAC since "The inherent dignity and worth of all people" is a principal held by UU's. After a long search, it didn't look like it was possible.

Even though it didn't look like it, I started a dialog with a UU here. I'll let you know how it goes.

Intelligent Design Problems

Please view this video before reading on:



At about 1:08 in the video above, Fr. Barron posits that the new Atheists make a "category error", i.e., God is one cause among many other causes of material processes. I think that the video above can be used in a previous discussion about Intelligent Design (ID). (BTW, Cathorick is my other poetic blog.)

There are many different approaches to ID theory.

I used to strongly believe in a version (I don't know the exact label) that went something like this:
All life, including human life, came about in an evolutionary way. The most efficient way to change said life is to change it at the conception stage. Yes, natural selection happens, but the process by which natural selection is made possible is through creating variations of, or changes in DNA. The way that one species takes on features that allow it to survive more frequently is through changes in DNA sequencing. These changes can occur through physical DNA problems, radiation (sun) changes, or other means. The above natural changes do not occur by random; there is no such thing as randomness since God directs things in a particular way that we can only view as random (at this point in our history). Since God directs the changes of DNA matter, God is the Intelligent Designer of all life. The end.

After viewing Fr. Barron's video, I think that those who hold ID views and I are making a "category error" in a similar way that the new Atheists are.

God is not one cause among many, but the cause of all things. God is "being", and all matter is contingent on God; if God, or "being" doesn't exist, than no matter can exist. (Fr. Barron said elsewhere that contingent creation still exists because of God's Love; Love is a matter of God's will.)

As a Catholic caveat, the idea that miracles take place, such as regenerating a lung or overcoming some deathly illness, I now find troubling. Please let me explain.

The reason that some events are seen as miracles is that there is no explanation for them. In other words, there is no scientific or physical explanation that would account for the miracle other than God's action. Another Atheistic way to frame the problem is that God is needed to fill in the gap of our understanding for why something unexplainable takes place.

One thing that ZippyCatholic was getting to (as I understand) was that God created life from a miracle or that life is a continuum of events that leads to said life. Why can't it be both in light of Fr. Barron's comments?

The way that life comes about is through God's being. We don't need God to fill in the gaps (the gap(s) would ultimately be infinite in width and number anyway), God is the reason said question and all questions exist anyway.

So for the miracles in general, why not view everything as a miracle? As far as the sainthood miracles, I'll leave that up to the Church.


While we're at it, you might like Fr. Barron's take on "The [Four] YouTube Heresies".

Aquinasblog Dialog VIII

This is part VIII of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
----------------------

Hello again,

St. Aquinas also said, "But Debbora exercised authority in temporal, not in priestly matters, even as now woman may have temporal power." This says a lot (I can only say a little of it at this point). Even in his day (as well as in biblical time with Debbora), St. Aquinas acknowledged that many women had "temporal power", or power in everyday-goings-on. However, the matters that pertained to the Church have a proper order. Christ is head of the Church in the same way as male ordained ministers are head of the Church in priestly matters. Priestly matters have to mainly do with the Eucharist and handing over their life for the Church in persona Christi.

I would never say that Christ was in the state of subjection to the Church; the Church, the mystical bride of Christ, is in the state of subjection to Christ, the bridegroom (Eph 5; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ephesians/ephesians5.htm ). The essence of man and woman as St. Aquinas outlines, although controvertial to many, is still true and can't change (until Christ comes again).

Again, this is a matter of faith and not a temporal matter (as also explained by St. Aquinas).

[gbm3]
----------------------

[I also emailed back the reply below.]

Hello,

Really, when you get down to it, having the ministerial priesthood only for men saves women who would supposedly become priests from lying. I think this is the best explanation (however, as I have written, JPII made the final call and reasons).

Let me explain. At the consecration, the priest is to say, "This is my body." and "This is my blood." If a woman said it, it would be lying since the consecrated body is of male essence since Christ was male and a woman is of different female essence.

I've seen a Episcopal "priestess" "consecrate" their communion (it's definitely not valid orders there since they're separated brethren). I thought the process was ludicrous since she was essentially saying (literally in essence) that the body of Christ she was "consecrating" with her words was female (the words and body of the priest transubstantiates the bread and wine as I understand it).

The Catholic Church can't go there.

[gbm3]

[Aquinasblog author has not emailed me back after this email. I will post the reply if it is sent in the future.]

[What do you think about the dialog?]

A Pro-Abort Facade

(1) Women Deliver: Panel Pushes 'Harm Reduction' as Effective 'Facade' for Dismantling Pro-Life Laws

(2) UN Leadership in Disarray as New Research Shatters Consensus on Maternal Health

The million dollar quote:

In a conversation following the session, a third audience member asked Csete about the objection that, because the model was being used to push abortion as a value, some may call the "value-neutral" claim a mere facade.

"Yeah, I think facade is the right word," Csete conceded. "Sometimes it's the only choice you have to get anywhere politically and protect services ... I think it's really the sort of desperate, structurally very hostile circumstances where that becomes a very useful thing to fall back on."

In other words, lie and the money will come.

I wonder what the guy on the right of the picture thinks (Vicente Diaz, Director IPPF WHR; Lifesitenews.com). Is he finally fed up with all he sees and hears? May God open his eyes and ears.

Aquinasblog Dialog VII

This is part VII of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
----------------------

Hello,

I just found this site regarding St. Aquinas' logic on woman ordination in Summa Theologica: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum584.htm (I suggest doing a text search with "woman").

Summa Theologica was written in the 12 hundreds. I'd say at least about 800 years is a long time for debate.

I'd thought you'd be interested in the Angelic Doctor's thoughts since he is your blog's namesake.

Good day,
[gbm3]
-------------------

Hi [gbm3],

Here's what Aquinas says: "Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order."

He ties the reason precisely to the fact that a woman is in the state of subjection. That has changed, especially in the past 50 years. That is exactly the reason the question should be debated; women are no longer seen as being in the state of subjection.

[Aquinasblog author]

[More to come ...]

Aquinasblog Dialog VI

This is part VI of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
------------------------

[Aquinasblog author],

Thanks for getting back to me again.

I think it's a good time to bring back what you first wrote,

"I take the long view -- a hundred years ago, the papacy condemned democracy, historical scholarship, biblical criticism, ecumenism, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and even freedom of conscience. It has reversed its position on all of those; I expect it will someday also reverse its position on women's ordination, which is why I think it should continue to be discussed. That's how we figure things out. Aquinas was never afraid to argue about anything. The spirit of disputation has been lost and should be regained because it's the practical result of the belief in the harmony of faith and reason."

The quote above actually reminds me now of the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem in Acts ( http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts15.htm ). "After much debate had taken place" a decision was made about circumcision of the Gentile converts. The faithful were to assent to the teaching.

I understand that "[I] consider authority [to be sufficient] and [you] do not." for the question at hand. In the end, more fundamental to the question of woman ordination is the nature and authority of the Catholic Church (both big C). If one believes that the CC has the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised would lead the Church to all truth, then the Church can't err in certain areas including faith and morals.

Reasons behind faith and morals can't be contrary to each other, but if there are reasons for two sides of an issue that are valid, the Church has to come to a decision that is binding (like that in Acts).

It seems like I'm using brute force, but I think that some questions just have to be deferred to a higher authority, namely the Holy Spirit.

As far as women being treated as chattel, it is obviously true that women have been in such a position. However, saying that since men can have a role that women cannot because women are just not worthy of it (or something), wife reminded me, is like saying that men are not as worthy as women since they can't bear children (she's done it a few times, but she is not more worthy of dignity than me because of it). We all have dignity no matter our gender or role.

Well, in the end it does come down to authority. I think the Church has it, you do not think so in this and many other matters. You believe the Church has changed its position 180 degrees on many things that I do not think it has.

Ultimately, in matters of faith and morals, I believe being Catholic is to ultimately defer to the authority of the Church as headed by the Pope and his fellow Bishops that is guided by the Spirit who Jesus gave in the Upper Room ("He breathed on them" John 20:22; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john20.htm ) and at Pentecost (Acts 2; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts2.htm ) in Jerusalem.

I know that many who call themselves Catholic including yourself do not agree with the statement above, but ultimately what's the difference between being a Protestant and a Catholic if my Catholic statement above is considered false? Vatican II didn't make the CC Protestant, VII relied on "the authority of the Church as headed by the Pope and his fellow Bishops that is guided by the Spirit who Jesus gave".

At this point I'll leave the discussion in disagreement. Along our earthly pilgrimage, may we all strive to do God's will. Amen.

[BTW, the dialog isn't over yet.]

God bless,
[gbm3]
------------------------

Hi [gbm3],

Thanks for your response. Just to be clear, I do agree that being Catholic means deferring to the Pope and the Bishops; it's what has gotten us through 2000 years. On the question of women's ordination, I do defer to that authority -- I don't think Catholic women should go around ordaining themselves. That doesn't mean I agree with the Church's stand. I feel that unlike the Council of Jerusalem, much debate has not taken place, and therein lies the problem.

In any case, good luck and God bless!

[Aquinasblog author]

[BTW, the dialog isn't over yet.]