After the archbishop got into trouble with his first tweet -- well, I pray he understands now that Twitter is a near occasion of sin for him. Those of us who are vulnerable will speak when we should be silent.
If his position is so "clearly aligned" with Church teaching, why does he clarification take 3 times as the original post? The post reads in a way that it could be easily used to justify a pro-abortion decision. It takes a lot fewer twists and turns to read that than to come up with what the poor spokesperson had to generate.
The statement seems clear and I ambiguous to me. "If I am going to have a child..." means the decision has already been made to have the child. It does not say, "If I am pregnant and am deciding whether to have a child, or even "if I deciding whether to have a child" it says "If I am going to have a child" as in pointing to the future in which I WILL be having a child, or will have had the child. I have to side with the Archbishop on this one.
Hmm. Interesting point. This clearly proves the dictum that he who lives by strict grammatical analysis will die by stricter grammatical analysis! Although, I must say that in my first reading of the posting I read it as the Archbishop warning against the government interfering with the decision to have the child. Perhaps my predisposition is to default to a pro-life reading. Certainly the government(s) of this country are engaged in actively trying to encourage people not to have children (I come from a city where skyscrapers get lit up in honor of abortion). So ignorant of the facts which the Archbishop might be responding too, I kind of assumed that he was writing about a situation where the government was acting in that way. I must say that, although I stand by my conclusion that the context of the "if then" statement the conditional assumes that you are going to have a child, which is taken as a given, it is not at all clear from the rest of the statement that the decision in which the government is intruding is the education and raising of the child, although it can bear that interpretation. I guess we have here an example of the view of St. Ignatius Loyola, accepted by the Catechism:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.
I think maybe some have been unable to give the Archbishop's statement a favorable interpretation and therefore have properly asked the Archbishop how he understands the statement. I can't say that based on the response the Archbishop really understood the statement "badly" (or to assert a bad thing. ) I mean the good interpretation requirement must also extend to the explanation, no?
The good archbishop took a break from comparing January 6th protestors to Nazis, from advocating for unlimited immigration and turning over our border to the cartels, from telling the Israelis to turn the other cheek and unilaterally stop fighting, and from telling law abiding Americans to give up guns long enough to issue a confusing statement that could be taken as pro-abortion? I'm shocked, I tell you, utterly shocked. I don't know how anyone could think that Archbishop Gustavo would put partisan politics above the teachings of Scripture.
I know the Archbishop, I used to work at the Archdiocesan Pastoral Center . Please take this as a personal affirmation that he would NEVER say anything remotely pro-choice in regards to the life of an unborn child.
He is in the middle of advocating for a bill to be passed in Texas being referred to as "parental choice" that would grant parents who currently have children in public schools money for private school tuition who otherwise couldn't afford private schools. That probably gave an unintended flavor to his remarks. He is absolutely unequivocally pro-life, and advocates PARENTS(those with child) be given decisions about the raising and educating of their child. Please see this link:https://txcatholic.org/parentalchoice/
Everyone needs to get off Twitter.
Or whatever it’s stupid name is.
I believe it's official name is "X Formally Known As Twitter"
Its name. The word it's is a contraction for "it is."
Yes, thank you. Their issues with my words some days.
Damn autocorrect can't read my mind... or tell the difference between a conjunction and a possessive it.
After the archbishop got into trouble with his first tweet -- well, I pray he understands now that Twitter is a near occasion of sin for him. Those of us who are vulnerable will speak when we should be silent.
Some might say that "X" is a near occasion of sin for everyone.
Gave it up two Lents ago, haven’t regretted it once.
Never started.
Never used it; never will. X/tweeter is a perfect example of catering to a narcissistic society.
As soon as Twitter came out I knew it was bad news, and have never used it.
If his position is so "clearly aligned" with Church teaching, why does he clarification take 3 times as the original post? The post reads in a way that it could be easily used to justify a pro-abortion decision. It takes a lot fewer twists and turns to read that than to come up with what the poor spokesperson had to generate.
Given that English is likely not the Archb.'s native language, I still don't think that his post said what the spokesman claims it does.
The statement seems clear and I ambiguous to me. "If I am going to have a child..." means the decision has already been made to have the child. It does not say, "If I am pregnant and am deciding whether to have a child, or even "if I deciding whether to have a child" it says "If I am going to have a child" as in pointing to the future in which I WILL be having a child, or will have had the child. I have to side with the Archbishop on this one.
*unambiguous*
Okay, but then what is the (singular) decision the Archbishop referred to when he said "make a decision"?
Hmm. Interesting point. This clearly proves the dictum that he who lives by strict grammatical analysis will die by stricter grammatical analysis! Although, I must say that in my first reading of the posting I read it as the Archbishop warning against the government interfering with the decision to have the child. Perhaps my predisposition is to default to a pro-life reading. Certainly the government(s) of this country are engaged in actively trying to encourage people not to have children (I come from a city where skyscrapers get lit up in honor of abortion). So ignorant of the facts which the Archbishop might be responding too, I kind of assumed that he was writing about a situation where the government was acting in that way. I must say that, although I stand by my conclusion that the context of the "if then" statement the conditional assumes that you are going to have a child, which is taken as a given, it is not at all clear from the rest of the statement that the decision in which the government is intruding is the education and raising of the child, although it can bear that interpretation. I guess we have here an example of the view of St. Ignatius Loyola, accepted by the Catechism:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.
I think maybe some have been unable to give the Archbishop's statement a favorable interpretation and therefore have properly asked the Archbishop how he understands the statement. I can't say that based on the response the Archbishop really understood the statement "badly" (or to assert a bad thing. ) I mean the good interpretation requirement must also extend to the explanation, no?
https://txcatholic.org/parentalchoice/
Ah interesting, thanks!
One comment, that could be considered confusing, does not erase all the Archbishop has said and done for the causes of life.
The good archbishop took a break from comparing January 6th protestors to Nazis, from advocating for unlimited immigration and turning over our border to the cartels, from telling the Israelis to turn the other cheek and unilaterally stop fighting, and from telling law abiding Americans to give up guns long enough to issue a confusing statement that could be taken as pro-abortion? I'm shocked, I tell you, utterly shocked. I don't know how anyone could think that Archbishop Gustavo would put partisan politics above the teachings of Scripture.
I know the Archbishop, I used to work at the Archdiocesan Pastoral Center . Please take this as a personal affirmation that he would NEVER say anything remotely pro-choice in regards to the life of an unborn child.
He is in the middle of advocating for a bill to be passed in Texas being referred to as "parental choice" that would grant parents who currently have children in public schools money for private school tuition who otherwise couldn't afford private schools. That probably gave an unintended flavor to his remarks. He is absolutely unequivocally pro-life, and advocates PARENTS(those with child) be given decisions about the raising and educating of their child. Please see this link:https://txcatholic.org/parentalchoice/