|
Post by Hemingway on May 19, 2009 23:59:16 GMT
Everyone in here is so angry at the moment.....
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on May 20, 2009 13:51:50 GMT
Am I not human? You lack charity. I will pray for you. Your insults have no power over me. Maybe it is also lacking in charity to ask you have you read this properly or if you understand English. The man said that as you are human you should not use the name 'Veritas' as this borders on blasphemy. If you are in fact an atheist poster, Benedict should apologise as he has no case. But if you are a Catholic poster, the point stands and you consider using a different name. No insults; prayers probably appreciated; but essentially a statement of fact which you are ignoring. But then I have observed you miscontruing other posts before, which is a little disingenuous. But, by the way, as the topic of Paul Kramer, who you say is a blessing for Ireland, was referred to, can you tell me when and by whom he was ordained; what diocese or institute he is incardinated in; whether he is a priest in good canonical standing in that diocese or institute; and if he has present a celebret within the diocese of Cloyne to gain faculties there. You see there are people out there who believe Paul Kramer is actually a layman.
|
|
|
Post by veritas on May 20, 2009 15:10:22 GMT
Dear Moderator I am sorry that you allow calumny,character assassination on your forum.
|
|
|
Post by veritas on May 20, 2009 15:18:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on May 20, 2009 15:57:39 GMT
This doesn't answer my question. It doesn't say if Mr Kramer was ordained, or what diocese/order/congregation he was ordained for or whether he has faculties in the Cloyne diocese. Many laymen have even more impressive degrees in the sacred disciplines and more publications to their names.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 20, 2009 16:24:03 GMT
Veeritas seems to misunderstand the phrase "direct action". It was being used on this thread, in the context of the Notre Dame demonstration, to mean "deliberate lawbreaking in the pursuit of a higher good", as was undertaken by American civil rights protestors etc. This refers to obstruction, to trespass, and in some instances to deliberate acts of violence. A peaceful picket in public space is not "direct action" in this sense, nor is praying the rosary (either in private or in public spaces where this does not involve trying to drown out a speaker in a private venue), nor is pregnancy counselling (unless you are referring to the practice of "sidewalk counselling" which has to a considerable extent been criminalised in America; here I would agree that if done properly this can be an appropriate form of "direct action" and bearing witness). If we are going to discuss the subject of "direct action" we should make it clear what it is that we are talking about. Youth Defence picketed the houses of several ministers some years ago in protest at their ambivalence on life issues. I remember it well and I am sure so do others on this forum. This is an example of direct action being done badly, because the ministers' views were sufficiently cloudy for them to claim they were being falsely accused, the breach of their privacy and perceived intimidation was a wrong out of all proportion to any good to be attained under these circumstances, and the media coverage presented the central issue as "nutty pro-lifers" rather than the ministers' real or alleged views and behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 20, 2009 16:31:26 GMT
Hazel does not seem to realise that an university is not and cannot be run on the basis that a majority of students decides every issue. It is a corporate body which exists to promote certain aims and must be judged on the basis of how well it performs those professed aims (which can of course be changed by the corporate body according to set procedures). The board members are the university and make the decisions. By the way, has Hazel ever heard the expression "tyranny of the majority"? Does he really think that any minority opinion should be automatically suppressed if a majority want it suppressed? This is a funny definition of free speech.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 20, 2009 16:32:18 GMT
If Hazel really wants to hear what pro-lifers have to say, may I suggest that he keep quiet for a bit and listen instead of jumping in at every opportunity to tell us that we have not said anything.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on May 20, 2009 17:37:44 GMT
Still cant do it in the first person can you hibernicus. Politeness, along with many other things, seems to escape you.
When people want to know something, they ask. So I am afraid saying that no one has yet said anything is perfectly ok and you cannot admonish me otherwise. I will keep asking what their points are and I will keep doing so until I find out. No one has ever suggested to me asking is a bad thing, and I think you are just saying things now, whether they make sense or not, just to try and get at me. To be honest it is not working. If you want to erode your own credibility who am I to stand in your way?
At no point did I say that opinion should be oppressed by the majority. All opinions should be freely available. I hope everyone can yet again see the back flips of dishonesty and lies you go to in an effort to put words in my mouth I NEVER said. Or in this case when everything I have said is in fact 100% the opposite to the bile you just spewed and assigned to me. Very honest there Hib. Very Christian. I am beginning to doubt you are in fact Christian at all given this level of honesty you insist on displayed towards me.
No, all opinions should be out there. However at the end of the day the ACTION we take is based on majority voting. As I said this is the democracy we live in here in the real world and I am glad you have come to join us. The world you were living in before where the minority opinion rules simply because they think they are in the right, is not a world I want to ever live in thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 21, 2009 9:33:22 GMT
I am entertained that this thread has seen the charge made that Paul Kramer is not a priest. This is a simple thing to rebut, but Veritas has failed to do it. I come away with the assumption that Paul Kramer is a layman.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 27, 2009 13:34:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 1, 2009 9:21:26 GMT
In relation ot the argument about direct action on this thread, here is where a"it's impossible to be too extreme in such a good cause" can lead. markshea.blogspot.com/2009/05/god-have-mercy-on-both-victim-and.html I recommend the discussion in the combox for thoughts on the impact of this atrocity. The person who murdered George Tiller is (a) a murderer (b) someone who has damaged the whole pro-life movement, because all those who describe Tiller as a scoundrel - which he was - or who criticise other abrotionists, will now be accused of complicity by incitement and treated as potential murders. This does not refer to Fr. Weslin's type of protest, which seems peaceful enough, but to the attitude that "no tactic can be too extreme when faced with such an evil, and if you criticise any tactic on such grounds you're in league with the abortionists". Your prayers are requested for the soul of George Tiller, his murderer, and his victims.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 1, 2009 11:35:19 GMT
Here's another American catholic blog on the Tiller murder. I am sorry to see a couple of whackjobs have popped up in the comments boxes trying to defend it. americanpapist.com/blog.html Note also the National Organisation of Women's comments in the main posting; they are trying to criminalise the entire pro-life movement.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 2, 2009 13:35:32 GMT
Here is an useful link in relation tot hsi topic. Carl Olson of Ignatius Press's Ignatius Insight blog extracts and links to a 1994 Wanderer article by Charles Rice on why killing abortionists cannot be justified. insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2009/05/can-the-killing-of-abortionists-be-justified.html Meanwhile the London, GUARDIAN, living up to its reputation as the house journal of pro-abortionists, has a two-page spread on the story plus an op-ed piece by the American feminist thriller-writer Sara Paretsky proclaiming that any restrictions at all on abortion constitute concessions to terrorists and should be abolished; she also claims that any such restrictions, however minimal, constitute denial of women's equal right to life. Also, two American soldiers have been shot (one killed) while manning a recruiting stand outside a shopping mall by a shooter who appears to have had political motives. By Ms Paretsky's "logic" this means the whole American anti-war movement is complicit in terrorism and should be suppressed immediately, but it will be a frosty day in Hell before she and the GUARDIAN say anything of the kind.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 3, 2009 11:36:50 GMT
|
|