Skip to comments.Judgement Day for Sean Hannity
Posted on 03/10/2007 1:25:48 PM PST by CatQuilt
Sean Hannity... Wow. Well, this should be a surprise to exactly no one, but ... watch this. (Source)
(Actually, it might be better to just go here - look the right side at "Hot Video." 'Cause it's hot. - "Judgment Day for Sean."
In short: Sean Hannity running all over Fr. Tom Euteneuer of Human Life International for questioning his rejection of the Church's teaching on birth control.
(Excerpt) Read more at amywelborn.typepad.com ...
Would a Catholic please explain to me where the teaching comes from about no birth control? I know what I have been told by non-Catholics, but am unclear if that is the official teaching.
I'm all for cafeteria Catholicism. I don't think the teaching on Birth Control is biblical. But I see their point about how utterly selfish people are about bearing children nowadays.
Ping to watch later
I can't get the link to the video to work... anyone have any ideas?
Ah I got it now never mind.
Go to the Amy Welborn blog entry (i.e. the article's link), she had links to other sources that I didn't post above...
Humility is a virtue that Hannity does not visit.
When he got to the point of endorsing birth control for faiths outside Catholicism I thought that was acceptable, but up until that I was thinking the whole thing was about Sean admitting that they themselves use birth control as Catholics.
What particularly irked me was the gross mishandling of the "judge not lest ye be judged" verse, as so many people do.
Basically, when a husband and wife have sex, they must be open to life. All forms of Christianity taught this till the 1930s when many Protestant groups backed off from this teaching. The Pill is especially bad because it is an abortificant.
That part I knew but where does this teaching come from? What Biblical foundation?
He is, however, not entitled to do so and claim to be a devout Catholic.
He should have the courage of Martin Luther and do what his conscience tells him is necessary. Anything else is hypocrisy and cowardice.
There are rules. You can follow them or not, as you choose. But you can't choose not to follow them and claim to be abiding by the rules. If you choose to not follow them out of conscience that is an act of courage, but you must also be totally willing to pay the price of your actions.
The excerpt below is from the book I happen to be reading right now, a light weight SF piece in the Honor Harrington series by David Weber (Crown of Slaves). It is only relevant because it encapsulates my thinking on this notion, in any field, be it religion or politics, better than most anything I've come across. It is an exchange between two characters on first meeting:
Oversteegen, smiling thinly, gave the crowd his own quick overview. "Only reason I agreed t' come t' this Walpurgis Night of prattlin' political heathens."
He bestowed the smile on Cathy, widening it a bit. "Present company excepted, of course. I've long had a grudgin' admiration for the Countess hereformer Countess, I suppose I should say. Ever since the speech she gave at the House of Lords which got her pitched out on her ear. I was there in person, as it happens, observin' as a member of the family since my mother was indisposed. And I'll tell you right now that I would have voted for her expulsion from the Lords myself, had I been old enough at the time, on the simple grounds that she had, in point of fact, violated long established protocol. Even though, mind you, I agreed with perhaps ninety percent of what she'd said. Still, rules are rules."
Cathy smiled back. "Rules were meant to be broken."
"Don't disagree," Oversteegen replied immediately. "Indeed they are. Providin', however, that the one breakin' the rules is willin' t' pay the price for it, and the price gets charged in full."
He gave Cathy a deep nod, almost a bow. "Which you were, Lady Catherine. I saluted you for it thenat the family dinner table that night, in fact. My mother was infinitely more indisposed thereafter; tottered back t' her sick bed cursin' me for an ingrate. My father was none too pleased, either. I salute you for it, again."
Turning back to Du Havel: "Otherwise, breakin' rules becomes the province of brats instead of heroes. Fastest way I can think of t' turn serious political affairs int' a playpen. A civilized society needs a conscience, and conscience can't be developed without martyrsreal onesagainst which a nation can measure its crimes and sins."
Du Havel's interest perked up sharply. He understood the logic of Oversteegen's argument, naturally. It would have been surprising if he hadn't, since it was a paraphrasenot a bad one either, given the compression involvedof the basic argument Du Havel had advanced in one of his books.
Oversteegen immediately confirmed his guess. "I should tell you that I consider The Political Value of Sacrifice one of the finest statements of conservative principle in the modern universe. Havin' said that, I also feel obliged t' inform you that I consider the arguments you advanced in Scales of Justice: Feathers Against Stones t' beat best!a sad lapse int' liberal maudlinism. Principles are principles, Doctor Du Havel. You, of all people, should know that. So it was sad t' see you maunderin' from one compromise t' another, tradin' away clarity for the sake of immediate benefit. Sad, sad. Practically gave social engineerin' your blessin', you did."
Hallelujah! Du Havel began plucking at his sleeves, in a vain attempt to find the buttons so he could roll them up.
Sean's actions are clearly not those of a hero in this sense, certainly not one who is "willin' t' pay the price" for his actions. I'm all too convinced that this is true in all areas of his life. There's nothing wrong with not being a martyr. Martyrs tend to live short and painful lives. There are heroic aspects to a life lived without overt heroic acts. Getting up every day to go to work and earn a living and support and raise a family is a heroic act, though not on the scale being discussed here.
Adhering to these principles, however, is required of someone who will presume to stand up and lecture to others.
I agree. I do think people have the freedom to choose not to have children at any given point in time. But they should examine closely their motive for doing so...a hardness of heart toward children should not be cultivated.
I tend to lean toward the idea that birth control is a selfish idea. And yet, I would rather people used it than abort later. If any method is used it should be a method which is not an abortifacient (e.g. an abortifacient such as the pill or IUD). Further I would rather they abstain totally, but that isn't really much of an option within marriage. I do think that an abused woman should use birth control to prevent bringing children into an abusive situation. We studied the Catholic-endorsed NFP materials and we used that to space our children though we aren't Catholic. I found it very informative and I thought they made very good points on most things. I do think more young people need to be educated about the dangers, both physical and spiritual, of reliance on birth control. I would certainly be more lenient than Catholics on when it is acceptable to use NFP.
Ok. But I still want to know, where does the idea birth control is wrong come from. What Biblical foundation? It wasn't pulled out of the sky.
No it wasn't. Start with Genesis 38 (esp. 9-10). Basically, that says it all, but there are numerous other biblical references.