www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Culture of Death

Whatever his personal view, he found a way, arguably within the boundaries of civil law, to forestall intervene for life. Maybe this kind of action is what Annie_SFO had in mind in mentioning dissents.

btw, the 10-2 decision came from a largely Republican appointed court, with this Clinton appointee remaining in dissent.

Then the Republicans are just as bad. All a big show.

Then why all the hype from the Democrats that the Conservatives and/or Republicans are siding with the Pro-life Christian Right? I am not seeing things here correctly. If djs is correct, then it should be the Democrats and/or liberals who should be considered the champions of Terri Schiavo's life - along with the ACLU.

Well apparently not too many children in this country are going to bed hungry. If this is the case why do I hear docotors on TV say we have an obesity problem with kids all over america. look I have been to the inner city many obese kids are there. We have a glotten problme even amon the poor in this country. Like Mother Teressa said we suffer a different kind of pverty in this country and its not food its a spirutal hunger.
As as far as medicare the democrats keep on playing with those figures they said there was a cut and that is a flat out lie or haven't you noticed we are way over budget again because the Dems and Republcians have cut nothing again.
The Dems can't have it both ways comaplaining that we cut things and then complain about the deficit and going over boduget again. The Republicans did not increase Medicare as it had palnned to do because of budget isssues but it did not cut the Medicare level from last year. Poltics is a lot of spin only the informed can see above the lies.

Uhh how is that 1/3 of your party votes for a bill and that makes you for the Bill? No that means 2/3 of your party voted against Terry. That still doesn't reflect that well to me. Only 1 republican voted no. The Republicans are not perfect but I think I will take my chances with 99 percent verses 33 percent of those who vote for life.

It is hard not to be cynical with politics. Perhaps cynicism is the only serious option we have. Many argue that we should side with a third party and abandon both the Dems and the Reps. If a serious alternative came along that would make some sense. But how long would it be before that alternative would have to make some untennable compromises? I think we are stuck. Without a Godly alternative we must muddle along the best we can and keep our Christian principles intact and promoted in the public sector.

I fear for our public future, not just because of what we are allowing to happen with Terri but for a whole host of reasons. Let's keep our trust in the Kingdom of God and always pray with special fervor "Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

I wish I had more. It is frustrating.

Dan L

Dear Henry,

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. It�s not necessarily �treason� to disagree with the hierarchy�s pronouncements, especially on politics.

Yes, the Gospel is consistent in valuing life.

However, no human organization --including the hierarchy of the Church-- has been consistent in upholding it. I'm thinking of the decidedly anti-life moments in ecclesiastical history, such the persecution of Jews, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of fellow Christians, and so on, down to our present day with priests molesting children and seducing youths and with bishops covering it up. With that kind of track record, I take the hierarchy�s claims to moral authority --especially on political issues-- with a big grain of salt.

On the other hand, Jesus clearly set up a hierarchical Church when he called the apostles. Also, the Church hierarchy has produced a great number of saints: some canonized and many known as saints only to God. Moreover, I realize that the hierarchy is made up of human beings -- usually good people, sometimes holy people, but always flawed and sinful people who struggle (and sometimes fail) to know and follow the will of God. Also, I know from experience that sometimes (especially in situations of leadership), there is no perfect decision; there is only the best decision or, sometimes, the least worst decision. So, the hierarchy in general has my respect and admiration and prayers and sometimes even my pity --because I can recognize its fallible, human nature and the difficulty of the tasks of leadership.

So, I'm not against the hierarchy of the Church. Indeed, I value it as a source of teaching. However, I do not regard it and its teachings as always infallible -- especially in matters of politics.

And, therefore, I do not think it is "treason" (as you wrote) to maintain a degree of skepticism about the hierarchy's pronouncements (especially on politics) and to sometimes disagree with those pronouncements. I believe in Jesus, I believe in the Gospel, and I believe in the Church. Indeed, I can believe in the Church --and I can be loyal to the Church-- precisely because I can recognize the Church's flawed and fallible human nature. That is because I can also recognize what Jesus taught to St. Paul: that the grace of God operates within and through us to perfect us in our weaknesses.

Also, Henry, you wrote about choosing between the �tyranny� of the state or the Body of Christ. I presume you were referring to the U.S. I disagree with you on this. America is not perfect, but it is not a tyranny. By way of comparison, consider the examples of tyranny of Nazism, Communism, and run-of-the-mill murderous dictators. Those are tyrannies. In America and throughout Western civilization, there is genuine democracy.

The sad thing is that people --ordinary, free people-- can enslave themselves to sin by the selfishness of their choices; and then, they can enshrine that selfishness and sin into law. For example, there is the �right� to abortion in our society. There are other examples too (such as the flood of pornography everywhere, protected as "free speech"), which are maintained by the government by the consent, tacitly or explicitly, of politically free people. If there is tyranny in that, it is not political tyranny. Instead, it is the spiritual tyranny of sin, which only the grace of Jesus Christ can free us from: one human heart at a time.

Yes, there can be tyranny in democracies --American history shows that with its problems of racism, for example. And, conceivably, there could be religious persecution in America if the anti-life people become a majority (or of pro-life people do nothing to oppose them).

However, I think I think that the usual choice in democracies is not between the Body of Christ and the State. Instead I think the normal, everyday choice is whether the Body of Christ shall keep the Gospel. Part of that includes keeping the commandments. Part of that includes using the processes of democracy to change society for the better. And most of all, it includes prayer for others and ourselves -- because ultimately these are issues of the heart, and only God can convert human hearts to the better

--John

I e-mailed Jeb Bush this morning, and hopefully I have not been the first, giving the transcript to Michael's Larry King Live interview where he literally said -- he did not know what Terri wanted! Use this as a basis -- to save her.

But no one can say I did not do something.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/18/lkl.01.html

M. SCHIAVO: I don't think the Supreme Court is going to put a stay on it. And I hope and implore that everybody call their legislators. They have to stay out of people's personal lives. There's no place for government. Call them and tell them.

KING: Have you had any contact with the family today? This is a sad day all the way around, Michael. We know of your dispute.

M. SCHIAVO: I've had no contact with them.

KING: No contact at all?

M. SCHIAVO: No.

KING: Do you understand how they feel?

M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...

KING: You're not -- it didn't cost you anything. This is not something where you're looking to save money?

M. SCHIAVO: No. There's no money involved. We need to move on from that question. That question has been asked me 50 million times. There is no money!

KING: George, what do you think is going to happen? FELOS: Larry, this case has been so unpredictable, it's impossible to say. But we have found a real ground swell of support, especially with that atrocious intervention by the Congress. We've gotten calls, letters, people e-mailed and a lot of people very upset about this.

Is anyone else bothered by how America's politics are increasingly dividing along *religious* lines?

In other words, is anyone else concerned that the Democrats are increasingly becoming the party of secularists and religious liberals and that the Republicans are increasingly becoming the party of believers and religious conservatives?

I am glad but worried that the Republicans stand up for morals. I am glad because *someone* is standing up politically for morals. However, it worries me that only one political party is doing so. I worry that the Republicans might gain too much influence and power over the Church and other religions. And, I especially worry that religion and morals are becoming simply an aspect of culture or political philosophy instead of things that transcend all political and cultural boundaries.

In short, I'm worried that the Republicans will take religion for granted and try to dominate or control religion; and I'm simultaneously worried that Democrats will conclude that God and morals are only for Republicans.

Am I mistaken? I would appreciate your comments on this.

--John

God bless you, Henry. I wrote my members of Congress. We all need to take some kind of political action --even if it is only an email-- to save that poor woman's life.

--John