Karl Keating's E-Letter of February 6, 2007

[marcadam]

I was with you, even followed a few of your links, up until this:

Originally Posted by chosen people

The problem in grasping the Jewish stance on abortion is that Catholicism is a dogmatic religion with concepts such as Catholic Church relativism . Catholics on this forum are constantly asking what do Catholics believe?
Judaism is an intellectual religion. You have to ask what do Jews think?

And with one fell swoop the entire of Catholic thought--not to mention the rational abilities of your Catholic interlocutors--is brushed aside.

In Catholicism you get a simple answer to a complex question. In Judaism you get a complex answer to a complex question.

Sometimes complexity is overrated. Sometimes it just betrays muddled thinking.

[chosen people]

Originally Posted by marcadam

I was with you, even followed a few of your links, up until this:


And with one fell swoop the entire of Catholic thought--not to mention the rational abilities of your Catholic interlocutors--is brushed aside.



Sometimes complexity is overrated. Sometimes it just betrays muddled thinking.

Absolutely not. Neither the Catholic approach nor the Jewish approach is "irrational" or "wrong". It is however different and it presents a problem when discussing the two approaches.

When discussing when an abortion, if ever, should be allowed we seemingly have to balance between two opposing rights. The rights of the mother whose life is being threatened by the fetus she is carrying inside her and the right of the unborn fetus to life.

Catholicism, again as I understand it and I apologise if I have misunderstood, holds that from conception the fetus is a human being. In other words, the right to life of the fetus from conception is equal to the right to life of the mother. Catholic relativism holds as an absolute truth that the deliberate taking of another life is murder. Therefore, a mother,even if her life is endangered cannot perform an abortion. Simple clear moral religious dogma. Catholics do not accept abortions, no abortion is morally acceptable, any abortion is murder. End of story.

Now the problem is that contrary to Catholic relativism any balancing of conflicting rights by necessity demands a relative morality. In wartime we do not hold that a soldier is a murderer. Some Catholics also believe in capital punishment.

The answer to that quandry is in the claim of self defence. We say the soldier is allowed to deliberately kill another because he is defending his country. Those Catholics who are not against capital punishment would say that it is allowed for the self defense of society.

So we have qualifed our absolute statement that any deliberate taking of another life is murder.

Can we not therefore say that a mother whose life is endangered by her pregnancy also has the right to self defense of her life being taken by the yet unborn fetus?

Well before we can answer that question we have to define the right of the fetus. In Catholicism the right of the fetus from conception is at least equal to the right of the mother. However in Judaism the fetus becomes a viable human being not from conception but from the time his head shows at birth. So how do we define the fetus? As an almost viable human being. This definition gives the fetus a status that is to be protected from harm by others but at the same time defines the fetus ' right as less than those of the mother. Therefore, the mother having the superior right to life as an existing viable human being also has the right to abort the fetus if the fetus threatens her life and has not yet become a viable human being.

So now we have set forth and defined conflicting rights and status and have set down rules to define the balancing of those rights. Using these definitions we can now apply them to new and varying situations.

Does this all seem familiar? Its called Law and indeed the question of abortion has developed as a question of Halachah or Jewish law.

So I believe I was correct in what I stated and there was no disrespect intended.

The Catholic view on abortion is indeed simple clear dogmatic and lacks flexibility.

The Jewish position on abortion is a series of legal norms and definitions which by its nature is less clear and more complex but which allows the application of those norms to varying situations. It is no more "muddled" than any other legal norm.

[Trad Catholic]

Originally Posted by chosen people

My problem is that I can never tell whether posters like yourself are being facetious.

Putting aside all the tens of thousands of forced conversions of Jews by the Catholic Church and putting aside the murder of Jews who refused to convert, like my ancestor who was burnt alive at the stake for refusing to convert to Christianity, Catholic antisemitism relates to the treatment of Jews as Jews, not those who through conversion obstensibly ceased to be Jews and became Catholic.(I won't get into 19th Century racial antisemitsm which cannot be "overcome" by conversion)

Well I can understand that. I agree that traditional Catholicism does attract a few cranks but they, like most cranks, simply end up being a lone voice on the internet. To paint traditional Catholicism as antisemitism would be as bad as to paint modern Catholicism as racist because of the few Islamophobes it attracts.

Catholicism has never had a policy of antisemitism. A Jewish soul is just as valuable as a non-Jewish soul. Paradoxically, that is precisely why Catholicism has been anti-Judaic. Truthfully it must be so. If one believes that there can be no salvation outside of Christ's willing sacrifice then one is morally bound to act on that conviction. It is this same moral conviction that drove the Saints and missionaries to all corners of the globe to preach Christ's salvation for all mankind and in his they did right! It is this same moral conviction that drove the Martyrs of the Church to their deaths. It is this same moral conviction that has brought millions of Jewish souls willingly into the Church.

In this process the Church may have been infiltrated by Satan or by some wanting to act on a pathological condition where Jews are hated for no other reason than they just happen to be Jews. I admit that at times the Church may have turned a blind eye to such people when it should not have and therefore an apology may be warranted. Not simply to the victims of bad Christian behavior but to Christ himself. Let's put things into perspective. If the Church was antisemitic as you imply then clearly there wouldn't be any Jews left today to accuse the Church of antisemitism.

[Kristopher]

Originally Posted by chosen people

... You are a proud Catholic and I have not the slightest doubt that you don't have an antisemitic bone in your body. ... your earlier comments on Freud and your comments here on Dr. Nathanson ... are sliding down the slippery path of "Jewish Naturalism" ...

Chosen People,

I'm neither familiar with "Jewish Naturalism", nor with those people whom you mentioned. I see no "slippery slope" to anything at all: the works of Karl Marx, of Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, and of Sigmund Freud are simply destructive not necessarily in whole, but certainly in part, and at least two of those persons were very clearly organized, institutionally, against Catholicism, that is just a fact.

I thank you for what is a compliment, nonetheless, even within Catholicism, I find little reason to be proud--no matter, through my own fault, that I may actually be proud: certainly there is always more room in my life for God.

While you have brought up the topic of institutionalized anti-Semitisim, without much respect for it coming either from Catholicism, or from Judaism--you haven't addressed what in modern terms would amount to anti-Catholicism, clearly "institutionalized" for lack of a more appropriate word to those organizations and their contrasts, and their comparisons between the distant past and the remote present: you may refer to another post that I directed toward you, and the Pharisees of Jesus day, and the very clear "anti-Catholicism"; though it was anti-Judaism among Jews during those first few centuries of Christianity: the Romans clearly were not alone in their persecution of Catholics.

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my posts, and for the additional links to what is termed "Jewish Naturalism".

Kristopher

[Kristopher]

Originally Posted by chosen people

... I was giving an example where under Judaism an abortion would be allowed. Since in Judaism the fetus is not a fully viable human being until his head shows, ...

Chosen People,

According to a Bible Interpreter's Dictionary on the shelf here in this public library, where I sit, and whatever research went into the conclusion they wrought to interpret the Bible, murder as defined by Judaism is wholly, completely, applicable to human life at the moment of conception.

Murder was according to this source, recognized for the very reason that it is depriving of a person the opportunity to come to know God. An opportunity wholly and completely attributable to the very fact that at the moment of conception--there is a human person, whole and complete, because at the very moment of conception in so far as a person may be defined theologically: the image of God is simultaneously created at the moment of a baby, and I use the word "baby": it is less arbitrary than the word "zygote": a baby being the youngest living member of a family, as opposed to the more arbitrary word "zygote", which could be anything all the way to the point of a blastocyst--this is the very reason you and I and all other species that are human, are human, because we all at the moment of conception are created in the image of God.

The determining characteristic of humanity and of a person is not biologically possible, but theologically possible; though from a standpoint of law, which I trust you respect: a person is a corporation, (And if this statement is untrue, then explain to me how it is done, that a corporation is brought into a court of law, to be sued?),--this is the reason Roe v. Wade is a bogus decision: it is a decision denying religious freedom--the fundamental call of all people to come to know and to love God, by their own freewill--this in essence from my view, the very essence of Judaism as a monotheistic religion, and the very essence the US government's deceit against the freedoms intrinsicly protected by our US Constitution; it is the reason Western Civilization is dead, within the US government; the reason the Declaration of Independence is nothing more than a newspaper tabloid; yet less widely read, and understood.

Kris

[jet94g]

I find Karl's letters much too skeptical! It would improve his messages if he would point out some POSITIVE aspects of the issues under consideration!

IF HE DID THIS WE, AS READERS WOULD BE BETTER ABLE TO RESPOND TO OUR NEIGHBORS REGARDING DIFFERENCES TO BE DISCUSSED RESPECTFULLY AND CONCISELY.

Sally W.

[Karl Keating]

Originally Posted by jet94g

I find Karl's letters much too skeptical!

Sally W.

Bad timing, Sally.

Today's E-Letter, which I wrote yesterday, is about the "virtue of skepticism."

[aimee]

Originally Posted by Karl Keating

Bad timing, Sally.

Today's E-Letter, which I wrote yesterday, is about the "virtue of skepticism."

Sure hope I receive e letter this time....

[jet94g]

Sorry Karl,

My reply was intended for your newest letter regarding the "Virtue of Skepticism" I did not find too many "virtues" in your lengthy letter.

My statement toreply to our neighborly discussions respectfully and concisely still fits!

Respectfully submitted,
Sally

[Karl Keating]

Well, Sally,

1. You should have posted in the right thread.

2. If you have a complaint, spell it out. Don't use vague generalities. If you found too few virtues in today's E-Letter or think I was disrespectful, be specific. If it's just that you would have written about some different topic, then say that. But be specific.

[Oliviad]

Originally Posted by chosen people

Your reply can only fill every good decent human being with deep sadness. I hope that your reaction is your personal opinion only and does not in any way represent the views held by the Catholic Church today. If it does than the gap between the morality of Jews as opposed to the morality of Catholics is so great that there is no hope of its ever being bridged.There could be no hope that Catholics will ever be able understand and to repent for the attrocities committed by the Catholic Church against the Jews. No hope for their contrition and their asking for forgiveness from God.

First and foremost there is your inability to recognize the basic immorality of the act in which a young child, unable
to formulate consent, is forcibly baptized and then removed forever from his family. In no place do you state unequivocally that this act was wrong or immoral. Quite the contrary. You justify it with the statement that it was done due to "concern for the proper upbringing" of the little Jewish boy. Nothing could better personify the immorality of your stance or give better voice to the deep rootedness of Catholic antisemitism.

Indeed this outrageous act of Pope Pius IX and the Catholic Church would have been just as immoral had it been commited against a Hindu or a person of any other faith.

However it was committed against a Jewish familiy by a religion with a history of 2000 years of forced conversions of Jews, among other countless persecutions, by a Pope who promulgated laws which specifically persecuted the Jews.

Your attempt to try and disengage this act from antisemitism is either naive or deliberately deceptive.The Catholic Church and Pope Pius IX did not promulgate laws to strip Hindus or Moslems of their legal and civil rights and force them to live in a ghetto as was the case with the Jews. This had everything to do with the Jews. However, since you cannot see the immorality of the act of forced conversion of Jews, than indeed I have no doubt that you believe that Jews lived in a ghetto "for their own protection" and that the stripping of their legal and civil rights was to help them to become "better people"

If this wasn't enough you use the fact that the kidnaped child later called for Pius's eventual beatification as proof that nothing immoral or antisemitic was done. This, as I presume you well know, is called the "Stockholm syndrome" and only shows the psychological damage done to the child.

You state " today we would say that the child ought to be left with his parents, even though he has been baptized". Would that this be true for low and behold a century later (1945 - 1953) we have the Finaly brothers case. Once again Church officials are involved in the forced conversions of two little Jewish boys and their seperation from their familiy which leads to their being hidden in Catholic institutions against French court rulings and comes to its climax with the kidnapping of the children by Church officials across the French border to Spain. Once again Church officials tried to justify their actions as "concern for the proper upbringing" of the little Jewish boys".

I don't know why, but I expected more from you. I am deeply disappointed and pessimistic about the possibility of any true dialogue between Jews and Catholics.

[Oliviad]

As to your comments above, Chosen People:

I am a Jew ethnically, who once so grieved over things I read that Catholics had done, that I thought I could never accept Catholics. I held to protestantism for years, though, as I tried to chalk up every offense the Catholic Church had committed like ravenous wolves devouring the Chosen People of GOD.

I was trying to write the ultimate book against the Catholic Church when I repeated certain protestant rhetoric against the Catholic Church, which even some ex-Catholics contradicted to my utter humiliation. So began my patient scrutinization of all evidence that came my way.

I must say that I understand your feelings. What Jew doesn't cry to think of his noble kindred treated like garbage over the centuries? But I in fact have noticed some errors in your list of Catholics' offenses.

First of all, I accept things that ancient Jews did in service of GOD, which many misrepresent as attrocities. muslims, the kings of attrocity, love to ignore their endless evils and place their own guilt onto even good things done by Jews and Christians - but let us not, then, fail to have understanding between non-Christian Jews and Catholics (both ethnically Jewish or otherwise).

I cannot but feel grieved instantly to think of the separation suffered between Jewish parents and their child. But some pious Jewish Patriarchs might have acted similarly in similar circumstances. Either knowing from GOD that HE arranged a special relationship, and doing right in the ultimate plan of GOD, or else agonizing over seeing one that had been consecrated to their Faith being lost from that Faith, and acting mistakenly out of this fear for the child.

JESUS HIMSELF indicated what HE personally would do to any Pope that acted abusively in HIS House. I am careful not to use that as a free liscense to accuse Popes of guilt according to my own understanding of their choices - but I also know that the warnings HE gave were not superfluous, and, therefore, prepare us to deal with what may come, pressing always into the HOLY SPIRIT, accepting nothing less than the True Way of GOD.

But you mentioned 2000 years of forced conversions! For the first few hundred years, Catholics didn't even defend their own lives physically. When I discovered the early Martyrs of the Catholic Church in my research, they touched my heart with great tears as did the deaths of our kinsmen I was aware of.

Before any Catholic ever persecuted any one at all, the Church was full of members nervous for their lives, on account of anti-Christian Jews causing trouble for Christians in a way they knew would set the Romans against them. It's true that Romans took the lead in the persecutions against the Church in a short time, but there were some Jewish leaders trying to stop Christianity by various means of persecution until then. No group has so been killed as Catholics have been, in sum total. Jews have been killed in similar proportions, by non-Catholics, but being lesser in number to begin with, have fewer victims in total than the Catholic Church has had.

Buddhists lessened the numbers of Nestorian Christians considerably, in China, centuries ago. Taosists did likewise to the Catholics of Japan. muslims virtually annihilated nearly a dozen and a half Christian nations to form Turkey, and killed millions besides more recently (just before WW1) who were Christian Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians. Hindus have whittled down the numbers of St. Thomas Christians quite considerably in India, where they are reckoned a lower caste than the lowest that exists for non-Christians there. Arabs in Iraq have killed so many Assyrian and Chaldean Christians there, that those aboriginals are now a small minority that have no vote. Every time a new wave of barbarians entered Europe in the Middles Ages, they killed most of the previous Catholic male population off, and set back the Catholic Faith's spread by another generation or more. (From these came many Germanic assaults on Jews - even a different set of "crusaders" that the ones that made it to Israel were distinct from, killing Jews and real Christians.) The genocide in Sudan is against Christians by muslims. Much of the Christian population of Britain was killed by the Normans. Countless Christians were killed by muslims and communists all over the place. Christianity is punishable by death in many places. Christian Egyptians are second class citizens under muslims.

My point is that Jews and Christians have suffered a lot together. There are medieval writings by Catholics that recount with anger what pseudo-christians did to Jews, and there are Jewish writings from the same period that not only describe how muslims killed Jewish families, but how they hunted for Catholics as well, and sometimes did worse torures to Catholic Priests than to others they butchered. I am willing to look at all that has occurred, and I grieve for all that have suffered wrongly - but I am more careful now to check out all evidence in a manner that does not choke out open-mindedness.

[Oliviad]

It is well to remember that much of the wrong-thinking of many a Catholic began with children being born into circumstances in which they had to watch their backs for antichristian Jews cooperating with the Roman authorities that wanted to cut off the Church from existence. After a few hundred years, if you were in their shoes, would you have a feeling of easiness any time soon?

Originally, it was one group of Jews trying to punish another group of Jews (the Christians), who felt obliged to follow JESUS, and to offer their spiritual wealth to every other soul on earth, so that none should be slighted any benefit of GOD's Kingdom on earth. But there must be a stamping out of all the folly of that faithless, fearful dread of Jews, which does injustice to the general gentleness of Jews. People generally seem like idiots about such things as Jewish rights to defend a little country and exist without threat by a pseudo-Palestinian state that wants the destruction of Israel (read their mandates, if you don't believe me.) Non-Palestinian Arabic muslims are in control of the Palestinians, who want more land than their forebears ever had. And they threaten those Palestinians that are Catholic with sharia law. The Samaritans also, worry for their future. They are safe as subjetcs of the Jewish state, which every one likes to paint as trouble-making, while some Arabs pretending to be Palestinians, using real Palestinians as pawns, try to claim Canaanite status - though the Canaanites are mainly Catholic or Jewish today! (Something I mention to contradict various anti-Jewish propaganda.)

It was very few Jews conspiring against their Christian kindred, and what worries me now is the satanic character of Italy, France, Portugal, Spain, and other once Catholic nations, that are showing their true antichristian hearts, with their nude beaches, immodest fashions, abortions, and slighting of the DIVINE TRINITY, and despising the Gifts of the HOLY SPIRIT. They have become everything that they point at in the Hebrew Scriptures that Israel was said to be in times of spiritual hard-heartedness.

And there always will be a truth concerning Zion. (But that's for another thread.)

[jet94g]

You sent me a message from some lady named Olivia. That is NOT me!