When you’re forced to say silly things…

Yesterday morning I was standing outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic and, as we prayed the rosary, I was reminded of a video I saw a few weeks ago and I made a mental note to share it here today. The video was of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an American Politician, being interviewed about her children…

Here’s a transcript of the interview with my comments interspersed:

Interviewer: In your opinion, were [your children] human beings before they were born?

This is a simple question. It deserves a simple “Yes” or “No” answer. Of course, the answer is obvious: yes! Of course, they were human beings before they were born, it’s a simple matter of biology. They were living organisms with human DNA – they were therefore human.

Schultz: You know, I believe that every woman has the right to make their own reproductive choices.

Notice how a simple question was completely avoided. Instead of an answer, we were treated to a political slogan.

Interviewer: But what did you believe about your children?

The question is politely repeated…

Schultz: That I had the right to make my own reproductive choices, which I was glad to have and which I was proud to have.

Again the question is avoided. However, her response dresses in very nice language her rather distressing viewpoint, that she had the right to kill her children if she had so desired.

Interviewer: So were they human beings? Just yes or no.

Yet again, the question is politely repeated…

Schultz: They’re human beings today, and I’m glad I had the opportunity to make my own reproductive choices, as — a right that every woman has and should maintain.

So if they’re human beings today, what on earth were they before? Ants? Elephants? Dolphins? What species transitions into humanity? Aren’t we pro-lifers meant to be the ones who are unscientific? Sheesh…

I look back over this interview and marvel. I understand why this politician responds in the way she does – her philosophy demands it…even if it makes her look rather silly. Since she is in favour of “reproductive choices”, she is forced to avoid answering basic biological questions…because to do so honestly would bring her worldview into sharp conflict with reality.

PWJ: S1E12 – MC B2C5 – “The Practical Conclusion”

Baptism

We now come to the final chapter of Book II! In this chapter, C.S. Lewis draws to a conclusion “What Christians believe”. In previous chapters, Jack has explained that we receive New Life from Christ. In this final chapter he looks at how it is communicated to us. He principally focuses on belief, Baptism and Holy Communion.

If you enjoy this episode, you can subscribe manually, or any place where good podcasts can be found (iTunesGoogle PlayPodbeanStitcher and TuneIn). Please send any objections, comments or questions, either via email through my website or tweet us @pintswithjack.

Episode 12: “The Practical Conclusion” (Download)

Read more

PWJ: S4E44 – TSL 22 – “Isn’t she lovely?”

Wormwood’s patient is in love! Unfortunately for Wormwood, she is a Christian woman who is full of virtue! Needless to say, Screwtape is livid…

S4E44: “Isn’t she lovely?” (Download)

If you enjoy this episode, you can subscribe manually, or any place where good podcasts can be found (iTunesGoogle Play, AmazonPodbeanStitcherTuneIn and Overcast), as well as on YouTube. The roadmap for Season 4 is available here.

More information about us can be found on our website, PintsWithJack.com. If you’d like to support us and get fantastic gifts, please join us on Patreon.

Read more

PWJ: S3E1 – TWHF – “Welcome to Season 3!”

Today we finally begin Season 3! After covering some podcast housekeeping, we are introduced to Till We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis expert, Andrew Lazo.

S3E1: “Welcome to Season 3!” (Download)

If you enjoy this episode, you can subscribe manually, or any place where good podcasts can be found (iTunesGoogle PlayPodbeanStitcherTuneInOvercast and Spotify), as well as on YouTube.

Read more

PWJ: S1E3 – MC B1C1 – “The Law of Human Nature”

In today’s episode we begin Book I of “Mere Christianity”, which is entitled “Right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe”. In this book, C.S. Lewis builds an argument for the existence of God based upon the idea that there is a Moral Law.

If you enjoy this episode, you can subscribe using iTunes or Google Play. As always, if you have any objections, comments or questions, please send us an email through my website or tweet us @pintswithjack.

Episode 3: “The Law of Human Nature” (Download)

Read more

V2, We Love You: Introduction

As I mentioned in a previous post, I’m planning on offering a series of blog entries about the “Ecumenical Council” commonly known as “The Second Vatican Council”, or simply “Vatican 2”.

Most Catholics will be able to tell you that Vatican 2 was important, but, in my experience, fairly few are actually able to articulate well why it was important.  Many are not able to explain what exactly Vatican 2 was, what it actually taught and why it is important in the history of the Catholic Church.  It is my hope that this blog will help shed a little light on these issues.

I think that it is best, before I get stuck into the meat of Vatican 2, that I attempt to give something of a general introduction to the concept of councils in general, and ecumenical councils in particular.

Read more

Mere Christianity – Book IV – Chapter 6 (“Two Notes”)

Book-4

Picking back up my notes for C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”…

1. Why did God not beget many sons at the outset?

“…if God wanted sons instead of ‘toy soldiers,’ He did not beget many sons at the outset instead of first making toy soldiers and then bringing them to life by such a difficult and painful process”

(a) There are two kinds of answer:

(i) The easy answer

“The process of being turned from a creature into a son would not have been difficult or painful if the human race had not turned away from God centuries ago. They were able to do this because He gave them free will: He gave them free will because a world of mere automata could never love and therefore never know infinite happiness”

(ii) The answer beyond human knowledge

All Christians are agreed that there is, in the full and original sense, only one “Son of God.” If we insist on asking “But could there have been many?” we find ourselves in very deep water. Have the words “Could have been” any sense at all when applied to God? You can say that one particular finite thing “could have been” different from what it is, because it would have been different if something else had been different, and the something else would have been different if some third thing had been different, and so on. (The letters on this page would have been red if the printer had used red ink, and he would have used red ink if he had been instructed to, and so on.) But when you are talking about God-i.e. about the rock bottom, irreducible Fact on which all other facts depend- it is nonsensical to ask if It could have been otherwise. It is what It is, and there is an end of the matter. 

(b) How could there be many sons?

But quite apart from this, I find a difficulty about the very idea of the Father begetting many sons from all eternity. In order to be many they would have to be somehow different from one another. Two pennies have the same shape. How are they two? By occupying different places and containing different atoms. In other words, to think of them as different, we have had to bring in space and matter; in fact we have had to bring in “Nature” or the created universe. I can understand the distinction between the Father and the Son without bringing in space or matter, because the one begets and the other is begotten. The Father’s relation to the Son is not the same as the Son’s relation to the Father. But if there were several sons they would all be related to one another and to the Father in the same way. How would they differ from one another? One does not notice the difficulty at first, of course. One thinks one can form the idea of several “sons.” But when I think closely, I find that the idea seemed possible only because I was vaguely imagining them as human forms standing about together in some kind of space. In other words, though I pretended to be thinking about something that exists before any universe was made, I was really smuggling in the picture of a universe and putting that something inside it. When I stop doing that and still try to think of the Father begetting many sons “before all worlds” I find I am not really thinking of anything. The idea fades away into mere words. (Was Nature-space and time and matter-created precisely in order to make manyness possible? Is there perhaps no other way of getting many eternal spirits except by first making many natural creatures, in a universe, and then spiritualising them? But of course all this is guesswork.)

Read more

1 110 111 112 113 114 172