Pope's Personal theologian
I'm always looking for ways to combine social justice and pro-life.
This piece makes the point in a way I haven't seen before- linking abortion and usury, especially borrowing against the next generation's future, as a failure of generosity.
I've often been criticized for my critique of the baby boomer generation, which brought us both the sexual revolution and the trade of debt instruments, but this is the first thing I've seen from the Church that would agree with that assessment.
This piece makes the point in a way I haven't seen before- linking abortion and usury, especially borrowing against the next generation's future, as a failure of generosity.
I've often been criticized for my critique of the baby boomer generation, which brought us both the sexual revolution and the trade of debt instruments, but this is the first thing I've seen from the Church that would agree with that assessment.
Comments
Who can listen to this kind of talk? Are we really expected to take statements like that seriously?
This kind of talk is right up your alley.
You've said the equivalent often enough when you've insisted that some women shouldn't be mothers because they "can't afford more children". I take you quite seriously when you say that.
If they cannot afford to have a child- take some of the fat off your own table and give it to them so that they *can* afford to have a child.
I hate the poor because I think they should have control over their family size and only have children if they want them? No. You are the hater. You want to keep them poor by not letting women stop having children and work instead. You are living in the dark ages.
Somehow, you are not coming across as an advocate for women. Women have a right to work for a living. Your ideas on what women should be and do fall under the term: male chauvinism. You need to build a time machine and go back, way back.
Ignoring that is being against women, against the very purpose of the gender.
Anybody who is against motherhood, is against women. Including women who are anti-motherhood.
MEN have to step up and be fathers, and should be providing for the mothers of their children. Yes, women have the "right" to earn a living, but men have the responsibility to provide that living without the woman earning it.
And nothing I've seen shows me that YOUR modern way of thinking is actually better; in fact, from what I've seen, it's actually quite a bit worse.
When you say something like "A uterus has one purpose- nurturing a new life", you need someone to tell you what a sick, sexist remark that is. You lack that guidance. You are in the world according to Ted and it is a bizarre world indeed.
It is far more sexist to deny that there is a purpose to the uterus, thus saying that women should not exist as mothers, than to accept it and give women the room to *be mothers*. It is your feminism that makes you a sexist and causes you to be a sissy.
If it is true, it's in Catholicism. If it is not true, it isn't. Took me a long time to realize the wisdom of that.
The wisdom of what? You act as if you have found enlightenment in Catholicism. Your prejudices, scruples, taboos, bigotries, phobias, etc. make you one of the least enlightened people I have ever conversed with. Catholicism is one thing and reality is another. There is hardly any overlap.
But I've found a new taboo to obsess over, and I'm going to take my vacation starting today to start learning it. A little Koan of Mother Theresa, that I posted in an article about euthanasia I just put up this morning.
Sorry. To me, the Enlightenment with a capital E is the opposite of Catholicism and enlightenment with a small e is also antithetical to Catholicism. I am puzzled by people who tried other worldviews and finally settled for Catholicism. I don't understand the thought process. I think some people just get desperate and Catholicism seems to thrive on desperation.
Again, you succumb to hyperbole. You always go overboard. Modernists are by no means the least enlightened.