Life on Trial: Civilization Pt. 2 – The Dialogue #64


It’s time for Cal to put Tim on the stand! Cal will “prosecute” Tim’s Catholic Monarchy model of civilization.  This is Part 2 of “Civilization” in our Life on Trial series




  1. Cal really brought forward some solid lines of questioning for any Catholic, and I have to admit Cal – your knowledge of the faith  is very high, especially for someone OUTSIDE of the Church. Honestly, you have more knowledge then most Catholics I know and I really, really respect that because in this day and age it’s rare and at least one can say that you have really tried to understand the Church itself (and even in some ways I feel as if you respect the Church) even though you have chosen not to embrace it.
    I would add a few things in the discussion on contraception and natural family planning. This is one of my favorite topics and I have read numerous books on sexuality and the Catholic Church – particularly Theology of the Body – take that for whatever it is worth. I want to add that one thing that makes Natural Family Planning so special, aside from the fact it doesn’t separate the unitive and procreative qualities of sex, is that it actually builds love because when using it promotes couples talking to each other about the woman’s cycle and making a conscious choice at times to refrain from the sexual act for love of the other – a sacrificial choice which can be truly be very difficult but build more love. The real difference is that contraception completely rejects God’s design for the sexual act – which is the creation of children, because it impedes the act itself  by getting in the way(for one), and instead of the man embracing the nature of his wife (who he promised to love when he got married), he rejects that nature by rejecting a part of her – her fertility – and actions speak louder then words. Natural Family Planning does not do that. It let’s God have the final say. It is extremely unlikely (as you admit) that if a couple successfully uses NFP that the woman will conceive, however, God is left to make that determination through the act itself. A person is saying by using NFP: “Lord, you designed us beautifully and specially and I will change nothing about myself or my wife, and while I believe that right now is not a good time for us to have a child, I am open to your will through the sexual act which you yourself designed (and we know God only designs good things) and I will not get in the way of the way you designed my wife but embrace it.” It is important to say that Natural Family Planning can in fact be used selfishly, and by that I mean that a couple can choose to use it AS a form of contraception, with the wrong mentality – so using something that is appropriate but not for an appropriate reason. Couples are called to discern God’s will for how many children they should have and should not close themselves off to the idea of having more. The bible says that blessed in the man who has a quiver full, and as a couple the two really should embrace the idea of children and of love and only choose to refrain for not having children for serious reasons.
    I really enjoyed this episode as well as its counter. Thanks for the great shows guys!

  2. Come on Tim you can do better than that! lol. Cal, something I’ll mention to you that Tim forgot was the principle of Double Effect. In the case of an ectopic or tubal pregnancy (which is what you were discussing) there are morally permissible options other than abortion that treat the problem. The tiny human life may be lost in the process but that is different from abortion. The difference is an abortion has one purpose, killing an unborn human being. A laparotomy (removal of part of the fallopian tube) has the purpose of removing a damaged or ruptured organ that is causing internal bleeding. See the difference? This site helps to explain:

    As far as contraception goes, the difference between contraception and Natural Family Planning is not the goal, but the means to achieve that goal. Tim did a better job on this one. Contraception vitiates the sexual act of something which is intrinsic to it. Natural Family Planning does nothing to the sexual act. Contraception hampers the sexual act to do do what it’s purpose is.

  3. Cal/Tim,
    That was a good show by both of you. Cal you live in what once was a Catholic monarchy if you read the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath it tells you. Send a copy of the document to Tim he will not be surprised with what it informs you.
    Your cross examination of Tims presentation was well scrutinised
    Keep up the good work

  4. Matthewpao  Hey man good to see you again 🙂

    Thank you for finding the word I couldn’t find during the trial lol I was, in fact, talking about ectopic pregnancy. I’m not really seeing what the difference is. If a laparotomy is done on the part of the tube that the fetus is in then the fetus dies and leaving it there would kill the mother. The only difference I see is semantic. Both are acts that kill the fetus. Sure, the reason and motive are different but you still end up with the same result.

  5. GabrielDannemiller  “Cal really brought forward some solid lines of questioning for any Catholic, and I have to admit Cal – your knowledge of the faith  is very high, especially for someone OUTSIDE of the Church. Honestly, you have more knowledge then most Catholics I know and I really, really respect that because in this day and age it’s rare and at least one can say that you have really tried to understand the Church itself (and even in some ways I feel as if you respect the Church) even though you have chosen not to embrace it”

    Your words mean a lot to me man, as does your support of the show. I’m really happy that you thought my challenges were well thought out and well reasoned even if you didn’t agree with them. Give yourself a pat on the back as well, it’s a rare thing, especially these days, to give credit to someone who is challenging your beliefs. Good work 🙂

  6. Cal
    I’m neither on Facebook or periscope so I catch you later and am unable to interact live. I enjoy the material of many of the dialogue discussions. Have you considered my suggestion of covering each other country from your side of the pond. With president Trump you will have quite a character to comment on?

  7. I listened to this, and as I hear Cals views I find myself wondering about faith. Lately Questions are appearing to me that are not answered by Catholicism,. I have high regard for some of the teachings of the Church, but I cannot fathom why God would leave a legacy that leaves so few a real chance to really believe. Today Its so splintered and has really tested people so much that it’s difficult to grasp, what it’s all about.
    If there is something good about faith in God, why does it have to be so easy for some to accept and so difficult for others.

  8. Ferrite,
    I don’t agree that” God leaves so few a real chance to really believe ” The message from the church has to be recognised before being acted on. There is a big difference between hearing the word of God and listening to the word of God. Have you considered the receptiveness of each person is as unique as the individual concerned with faith. We don’t have the same depth in faith because of our individuality as people. Faith is always a good thing but it must be cultivated as anything living is nourished

  9. CalKane Matthewpao Reason and motive matter in terms of morality don’t they Cal? We must distinguish between the end and it’s means. What is the goal we are talking about here? In this case, it is the healing or prevention of a burst organ causing internal bleeding. We can do this by killing a human being, or we can do this by removing a part of the damaged organ that results in the unintended death of a human being. The latter is not, properly speaking, an abortion because the goal in an abortion is always the death of an unborn child whereas the goal in a laparotomy is not the death of an unborn child but the fixing of a problem.

  10. CalKane GabrielDannemiller “it’s a rare thing, especially these days, to give credit to someone who is challenging your beliefs.”
    I’m not kidding when I say the Vericast Network fans are the elite.  These people are no nonsense.  And I’d also like to say thanks to Gabriel for the comment and for his support of our work.  Thanks to the other fans, as well. I’m sorry I’m not able to thank everybody personally

  11. JediMasterTim CalKane GabrielDannemiller  Couldn’t have said it better myself brother. 2017 belongs to The Dialogue 🙂

  12. Tim.
    Firstly, in fairness, it’s easy to be an armchair judge. It was you and Cal that faced the hot seat.
    What’s the judgement of this juror? TIE! 🙂
    Cal did to you what you did to him a fortnight earlier! It was savage! Hahaha
    Cal had you on the back foot from the jump and it set the tone for the rest of the episode.
    Yes, abortion is objectively evil in ALL cases. In the rare case of a mother having a medical condition, doctors would need to work on the best solution they can come up with without committing murder. I’m not up to speed on the medical science. But I have heard of cases where they performed an early caesarean section on the mother (months early) and then kept the baby alive through keeping it in a special medicalised chamber for however long is necessary. It has its risks and the baby is at serious risk of death. This wouldn’t constitute murder though, in the same way as when a brain tumour patient dies from the surgery it isn’t murder. Doctors can only do the best they can within ethical grounds. Death by natural causes is an unavoidable part of life whether in the womb or at 90 years old, we all face it eventually. I can’t stress the difference between the two, murder and death by natural causes, enough.
    (I’ve read the other responses here since writing this. A premature birth might not be an option. I’m not a doctor and haven’t studied the available risks and treatments associated with pregnancy. In any, NO, I do not support murdering the child and nor does Catholic teaching).
    The difference between condoms and Natural Family Planning is that one is artificial and the other is natural, one treats procreation and a woman’s womb as the enemy, the other remains open to life even if procreation isn’t the intention of that union respecting its sacredness.
    Gabriel added some excellent points I agree with as well.
    Men do this bizarre thing today where they accuse those who believe in God’s natural laws in this area as desiring to use women as incubators. Who is pushing to have men work in female beauty salons for equal opportunity? No one! There are plenty of people pushing to have women in the frontlines of the military though. Another example, if an intruder breaks into a family’s home who is going to face him, the husband or wife? Its common sense right! Ideally the wife would call the police while the husband tries to protect his family in the interim. I’ve read articles about studies that show women are less happier and satisfied today than in generations past. This would be a big part of the reason why. Women are rejecting that which is intrinsic to their nature.
    The genders were designed and ordered differently yet complimentarily, spiritually, biologically and physiologically. Procreation isn’t an enemy to be resisted. It’s a natural and beautiful part of life. Take away procreation and human beings don’t exist.
    Anyway, this feedback will do!
    Tim, if those answers were legit, you’ve lost the best in the business title Tim. Your first failed respose on abortion set the tone for the rest of the show. I do wonder if you went into it cocky. That also can happen to the best of us! Hahaha
    Brother, study those 10 commandments in your Catechism THOROUGHLY!
    Humility checks are good! 🙂
    If your answers were simply a case of stage fright, it can happen to anyone, you get a pass! Hahaha
    Finally, I’ll leave one final short 7 minute clip for you to ponder:
    God Bless

  13. ferritte  Faith is a fire. It has to be passed on, from person to person tempered by Hope and raised up by Charity. The person who never meets another who doesn’t have that fire is never going to believe, and I don’t mean on the internet, but in real life. Many people fail to raise the true fire of faith, which is why some either never see it. To live with a person with that fire is to live a life of miracles. Because in some places and communities miracles happen every day, and it’s all because of the faithful, and in those places, faith never dies.

  14. P.S.
    To talk about the suffering caused by a woman from labour without talking about the inextricable bond she feels with her child and the ecstasy of giving life to him/her in most cases is biased and lacks balance. I, like Cal, have seen a woman who miscarried. She was distraught and had to deeply mourn her loss. Why? She literally experienced the death of her child, a child she already felt and knew was a part of her inside the womb.
    Natural law is a critical component to Catholic ethics. The moment you lost that argument Tim, was the moment your position, in terms of this trial, was dead in the water.
    Cal certainly didn’t offer any viable alternative in the last episode. That’s why I deemed this a draw.
    It’s not a draw because Cal might be right. He is without doubt wrong. It’s a tie because you failed to adequately present the Catholic position on morality.
    This was a really good experience for you Tim. Next time you face a situation like this you’ll go in prepared! Hahaha

  15. Not even impress at all! Cal has never onced defended the lives of innocent human beings butchered at least during the 9 month pregnancy stage. For as long as I have been listening to the Dialogue he has justified abortion with rare cases. Not once had he ever tried standing up for the innocent unborn shamelessly murdered for the convenience of the mother.

  16. AFlowerofStTherese  “Not once had he ever tried standing up for the innocent unborn shamelessly murdered for the convenience of the mother”

    That’s actually not true. I’ve spoken against abortions for the sake of convenience, abortion as a means of birth control and the shockingly high number of abortions performed every year many times but it’s cool, me and Tim have done 63 shows and I can’t expect everyone to remember everything I’ve ever said 🙂

    I can find the episode where I speak out against abortion if you would like me to?

  17. Matthewpao CalKane  I agree that reason and motives matter but the reason the Catholic church is against abortion, and I don’t mean to be telling you about your own business, is because it kills the unborn and not simply because the method of killing is called “Abortion” which is what you seem to be saying. If a laparotomy ends the life of a fetus, this should be, in the eyes of the Chruch anyway, an objective evil because of the outcome. If something is an objective evil, then it will remain an objective evil and motives, reasons, methods or what you call it won’t change this fact. Otherwise, it isn’t objective.

  18. CalKane Matthewpao 
    From the Catechism, part 1:

    1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to
    their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already
    evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

    Mortal sin
    destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law;
    it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude,
    by preferring an inferior good to him.

    Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

    Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us – that is,
    charity – necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion
    of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the
    sacrament of reconciliation:
    When the will sets itself upon something
    that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man
    toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . .
    whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury,
    or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when
    the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a
    disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as
    thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are

    1857 For a sin to be mortal,
    three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object
    is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and
    deliberate consent.”131

    Grave matter
    is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of
    Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do
    not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father
    and your mother.”132 The gravity of sins is more or less
    great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who
    is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence
    against a stranger.

    Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent.
    It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its
    opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently
    deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of
    heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

    Unintentional ignorance
    can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no
    one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which
    are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings
    and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the
    offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin
    committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

    Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love
    itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of
    sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed
    by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s
    kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to
    make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can
    judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment
    of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

    1862 One commits venial sin when, in a
    less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the
    moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but
    without full knowledge or without complete consent.

    Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for
    created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the
    virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal
    punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by
    little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the
    covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. “Venial sin
    does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God,
    charity, and consequently eternal happiness.”134
    While he is in the flesh, man cannot
    help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins
    which we call “light”: if you take them for light when you weigh them,
    tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great
    mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap.
    What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135

    “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men,
    but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.”136
    There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately
    refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his
    sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

  19. CalKane Matthewpao  Part 2:

    Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72
    Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
    My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74
    2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: 
    You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
    God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76
    Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”77 “by the very commission of the offense,”78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. 
    The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
    “The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”80
    “The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”81
    2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
    Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.”82
    2275 “One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.”83
    “It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.”84
    “Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity”85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

  20. ” Have you considered the receptiveness of each person is as unique as the individual concerned with faith. We don’t have the same depth in faith because of our individuality as people. ”
    I disagree with the above because, not everyone can deal with pain in the same manner as those that can , that’s not a fair playing field. From birth people are thrown into different life situations,some more difficult than others, and yet are expected to be receptive to Catholic teachings,. Its not unreasonable, or uncharacteristic for humans to feel that there is no God, because of there situation,.
    If God wants us to find him, then something is really wrong with the template of Catholicism,
    Tim and Cal do a great job of what they do,.

  21. CalKane Matthewpao 
    This is what the Church teaches on abortion. What individual Catholics personally “think” about abortion does not dictate Catholic teaching, and oftentimes in this day and age whether clergy or laity unfortunately, often contradict the Churches actual teaching.

    From the Catholic standpoint a child is a person from the moment of conception. To deliberately murder the child to save the mother is a grave moral evil. Catholics who don’t understand do not understand the sacredness of life and the difference between death by natural causes and murder.

    Before the 1930’s Christians universally, Catholic or otherwise, universally condemned artificial birth control. Today Christians almost universally accept abortion “upon conditions.”

    The slippery slope of sin is steep and moving at warp speed. Bonus quote also from the Catechism:

    Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the
    same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience
    and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to
    reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral
    sense at its root.

    Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins
    which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John
    Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called “capital” because
    they engender other sins, other vices.138 They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia.

    The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel,139 the sin of the Sodomites,140 the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143

    Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

    – by participating directly and voluntarily in them;

    – by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;

    – by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;

    – by protecting evil-doers.

    Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence,
    violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social
    situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness.
    “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They
    lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense,
    they constitute a “social sin.”144

  22. ferritte  Thanks man and I’m glad that the show is making you think. Though it must be said that my aim was never to shake anyone’s faith 🙂

  23. CalKane That’s actually the worse thing you can do to someone. Suppose he leaves the faith, you have nothing substantial to offer him in terms of a good framework. You don’t know what he us going through.

  24. AFlowerofStTherese CalKane 
    Usually I’m the one going hard at Cal while you soften the blow a little. Today you’ve been 100% gloves off! Hahaha
    You aren’t impressed! 😀
    I’m giving up The Dialogue as of this show due to a prior commitment made, not in protest of the show itself. Please fans, keep watching and supporting The Dialogue!
    After seeing episode 1 of this new Life On Trial series it seemed episode 2 would be the perfect finale. It was FAR from what I expected! Hahaha
    If The Dialogue was a sport that performance by Tim would go down as one of the all-time greatest upsets in history! Cal snatched victory out of the jaws of defeat. (Again for this episode, they both failed miserably at presenting their case). In this episode Tim was Mike Tyson and Cal was Buster Douglas, and Buster KO’d him! Hahaha
    God Bless

  25. Christendom AFlowerofStTherese CalKane 

    I get so annoyed when anyone tries to justify abortion with the rare cases of a woman’s life in danger. I believe that if this world is not driven by greed and power humanity would have safer alternatives that does not require the death of the other. People who have issues with the Church use this to attack her and it’s wrong and clearly diabolical motive.

    I personally know three girls who had abortions in their early twenties for reasons other than their health. They’re all a mess today. 
    One of them I am very close with, I know, still mourns her aborted baby until this day.  She cried over her dead child like any mother would the moment she saw her dismantled baby. Really heartbreaking. The prochoice movement is disgusting and whats equally disgusting is when people try to justify it.

  26. AFlowerofStTherese Christendom CalKane 
    You’re preaching to the choir with me sister! 🙂
    The guilt and loss many women suffer from after having an abortion is a core component NO ONE talks about!
    In the same way as the media and politicians etc., don’t talk about the trannies who regret choosing to castrate themselves. They just continue to push these sick and twisted ideas and agendas onto CHILDREN (and the rest of us while they are at it)!
    Why do you think I’ve been going so hard at Cal in the first place?
    These views are intolerable! The problem is they are the mainstream in today’s post-Christian west. The Bible and Catholic doctrine both tell us a falling away from God and the Church will come and this will make way for ‘the’ Antichrist. The only question in terms of this falling away itself is how low is rock bottom and how long will it be until we get there?
    The Bible says 1000 years in the eyes of man is a mere day in the eyes of God.
    This collapse could continue on for generations before it finally climaxes, although it’s hard to imagine it’ll take generations given the present state of moral rot and decay our formerly Christian societies are in.
    Muslims, of the radical variety, are salivating our fall, and they’re not the only ones.

  27. A bit disappointed in you, Tim! The Church teaches that DIRECT abortion is always immoral, not INDIRECT abortion, which can be permitted under the principle of double effect. For example, in the case Cal described of an ectopic pregnancy, it’s perfectly fine for doctors to remove the part of the fallopian tube that’s blocked by the embryo, even though it indirectly results in the death of the human embryo. It’s not opposed to Church teaching, which is that it is always wrong to directly kill an innocent human being. You can compare it to a situation in war, for example, where if your enemy is about to push the button on a nuclear weapon that will destroy a city, you can fire a missile at the building he’s in to stop him, even if you know that doing so will kill the cleaning lady who’s also in the building – you’re not intending to kill her, and you know that if you do nothing then thousands of people will be killed.

    This case is a bit less dramatic, but it follows the same principle – if you don’t intervene, then both mother and child will die, whereas by intervening you can save the mother. Again, the treatment is licit so long as you don’t directly kill the child – there’s another treatment that’s often used for ectopic pregnancy where they’ll give a pill to the mother which will directly kill the embryo, and that’s not considered a licit means of treating the situation.

    Other cases where this comes into play are:
    when a mother has uterine cancer (cancer of the womb) and needs a hysterectomy, but the baby is not get old enough to survive outside the womb – a hysterectomy is permissible here. If the mother wants one, of course – if she decides not to and hope that she’ll survive long enough to give birth, that’s her decision (think of St Gianna Molla).
    when the mother is receiving cancer treatment while pregnant, but there’s a possibility of the treatment causing a miscarriage.
    if the mother needed to take medication during pregnancy that might harm the baby but was necessary for her health.

    Remember that the word ‘abortion’ in a general sense (I think medical sense, too) just means ‘the ending of a pregnancy prematurely, resulting in the death of the unborn child’. So the medical term for miscarriage is ‘spontaneous abortion’ – the pregnancy ended prematurely, the baby died, and it just happened, no one caused it. ‘Indirect abortion’ – the pregnancy ended, baby died, and it happened because we did something which indirectly caused the child’s death. ‘Direct abortion’ – pregnancy ended, baby died, and it happened because we intentionally caused the child’s death.

    Argh, Tim, you have no idea how frustrated I was listening to you! 🙂

  28. AFlowerofStTherese  People who make false accusations and then when the accuser is corrected they just move on to another topic without admitting they were mistaken, I find that pretty annoying 😉

  29. JegsyScarr 
    Thanks so much for clarifying the Churches teaching on this matter. You’ve taught me something new! I’ve never heard of the term indirect abortion or the medical condition that’s been noted here, and I still don’t know what it is exactly. During the actual show itself Cal never specified the details and Tim never asked. Tim’s legs simply turned to jelly and that was that! Hahaha

    Logic and the conscience tells us that if such a medical condition exists where a mother and baby are guaranteed to die without medical intervention and doctors can save one, or ideally both lives, it’s their duty to do the best they can within ethical grounds.

    Great response!

  30. CalKane AFlowerofStTherese 
    I think this is a simple case of misunderstanding. Her problem wasn’t that you like abortion. Her problem was that you approve of it with conditions. Our friend Jegyscar seems to have clarified this one for us. IF you are talking about indirect abortion, it seems you are aligned with Church teaching in this example. There is still the issue with contraceptives and the law of procreation in general of course! Hahaha
    Catholics are homophobes according to your faulty logic because we recognise men AND women were designed to compliment each other physically, and that only men AND women can naturally procreate. It’d called intelligent design! 🙂
    I always give the very personal litmus tests to you, which you hate, because it illustrates the point! Hahaha
    If your wife refused you anal sex she would by your standards be a homophobe. There is no difference between an anus and a vagina after all. The anus is just as good for sex as the vagina. Many in todays hardcore porn culture claim its better.

  31. Thanks so much, Tim and Cal, for doing these.  Our
    country and many parts of our world tend to indoctrinate [groupthink] vs. discuss
    and challenge other’s reasoning.  Children for the most part are not
    taught to think but rather to swallow.  You provide an opportunity and a
    challenge to those who listen.  Thank you!

    Good preparation and questioning, Cal regarding ectopic
    pregnancies.  Tim, I can’t say I blame you for not being exceptionally
    ready for this one.  As soon as Cal brought it up, I went into, “What
    does the Church teach on this topic?” mode.  The first link I found
    after checking “duckduckgo” was one from Ireland, which is excellent

    I also saw the one linked somewhere below with Catholics
    United for the Faith.  The most succinct one was EWTN, an answer provided
    by Judy Brown of American Life League:

    As usual, Tim, you were strong on Cal’s contraception line
    of questioning.  I may have heard incorrectly, but, Cal, were you
    supportive of women up to 55 years of age using the pill vs. nfp?  Is
    there a significant percentage of women who are still able to conceive at
    that age?

    You see nfp as burdensome, I’m guessing from your
    comments.  It actually teaches women and men a whole lot of scientific
    facts about our reproductive system.  It is completely drug-free which
    means women are free from these side effects:

    Common Side Effects with Birth Control Pills

    Possible weight gain or fluid retention, Breast swelling or
    tenderness, Nausea or upset stomach, Mood changes, Changes in sex drive
    (typically a decrease), Breakthrough bleeding and spotting between periods,
    Changes in your eyes that make it more difficult to wear contact lenses,
    Bloating, Headaches

    Serious Side Effects with Birth Control Pills

    Chest pain, heart attack, blood clots, stroke, Blurred
    vision Severe stomach pain, Severe headaches, Swelling or pain in the legs.

    Any woman who would select the birth control pill over NFP
    has bought into being an object much more than any woman who chooses to
    understand her fertility.

    I encourage married women to take a course in nfp to find
    out about your fertility…it is fascinating.  Additionally, each woman is
    different, and it takes that into account.  What I found was determining
    my fertile times of the month was so easy…it all had to do with mucus being
    receptive to my husband’s sperm or combative [the right word escapes me and
    this has gotten way too long]

    Sodomy vs. homophobia.  One must be open to the depth
    of teaching behind the sexuality of male and female/husband and wife I would
    think to grasp the disorders of sodomy, etc.  All the teachings are
    scientifically sound with regard to the teaching of the Catholic Church on the
    sexuality of male and female/husband and wife.  But that is for Tim to
    defend, right Tim?

    Again, thanks Cal and Tim!

  32. Christendom She can speak for herself 🙂

    I would point out that I never called Catholics homophobes but I guess that small detail wouldn’t stop you saying it anyway right?  And I’m also guessing that, just like last time we tried to converse, you will just say what you’re going to say regardless of what I just said 🙂

  33. Friends,

    The following article explains the Churches position on indirect abortion quite well:

    Here is the concluding paragraph:

    “It will be noted that, in all the solutions which have been given,
    the fetus itself is never directly attacked. A pathological organ
    which is threatening the mother’s life is removed, just as it would
    be removed if it contained no fetus; and the death of the fetus is
    permitted as a secondary effect of the operation. It is conceivable
    that there might be a rare case in which the fetus has taken up its
    lodging next to a vital organ which cannot be removed, such as the
    liver. If the fetus continues its riddling process, the organ will
    soon be destroyed and the mother will die. Should such a case ever
    occur in medical practice, the only thing that could be done to save
    the mother would be to remove the fetus; and the only argument that
    could be alleged to justify the removal would be that the fetus, now
    actually attacking a vital organ of the mother, is an unjust
    aggressor. The claim that the fetus can ever be, under any
    circumstances, an unjust aggressor cannot be accepted as correct. The
    fetus is a living human being. It has been placed by nature where it
    now resides. It had no voice in the decision. It cannot be called an
    unjust aggressor, for it is engaged in a purely natural process.
    Surely we may not call nature unjust. To do so would be to call into
    question the justice of God, the Author of nature, and this is
    unthinkable. Hence we must conclude that the fetus may, in no
    conceivable set of circumstances, be directly killed, for this would
    be murder. This judgment is confirmed by the words of Pius XI: “What
    could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct
    murder of the innocent? . . . Who would call an innocent child an
    unjust aggressor?””

    This is an example of how the Churches teaching continues to develop over time without changing the essence of any moral truths. This sensible evolution/development of doctrine was made possible by the advancement of medical science/technologies.

  34. JegsyScarr “The Church teaches that DIRECT abortion is always immoral”
    I am not defending Catholic doctrine, I’m defending a secular government based on Catholic teaching. Moral questions in the moment are decided upon when less cut-and-dry situations arise.  This scenario presumes that the king is a righteous person from the population, and not a moral theologian.  I thought I represented Catholic teaching well here.  But I did it within a context of the operation of the government I’m proposing.  I, in this case, am not personally the Catholic King I’m merely defending my proposal for a Catholic Monarchy.  I tried to make this distinction clear during questioning but maybe I missed the mark.

  35. ferritte Every question is answered by Catholicism. But as I read what you have written, I believe your issue is not unanswered questions; your issue is disorientation.  There’s a lot of noise in the Church culture today.  A LOT of noise!  And many Catholics are disoriented, and lost and many of them don’t even realize it.  

    The faith is very very simple.  God is not complicated.  God is complex but not complicated.  And he’s he’s simple in his complexity.  You don’t have to understand the inner workings of a watch to comprehend how to USE a watch. You look at the face, you observe where the big hand is, and where the little hand is, and you tell the time by what they display.  You don’t have to be able to dismantle and reassemble a watches innards in order to know how to use a watch.  Using a watch is very simple, and very reliable.  These days many people believe that to be a good Catholic means you have to know how every gear, sprocket, spring, and lever works.  It’s nonsense.  And that is the tug-of-war that has you disoriented, I think. It has many Catholics disoriented.  It’s why there are factions in the Church.  But here is the simple, and correct answer:  God is complex, but he is simple in his complexity, just like a watch.  Come to know him through the faith experience (prayer, sacraments, etc) and through a relationship with the Church.  And that relationship with the Church is pretty simple too.  People want to make it complex, but it’s really not that complex at all.  This is what I’ve been saying for 4 years.
    So don’t let your heart be troubled.  Journey into the simplicity of the experience.  It’s rich, and it’s deep, but it’s simple.  Don’t let others complicate it for you.  Each and every person is unique and each person is called to a unique experience as we journey to God.  Some are called to comprehend the complexities of it all (Aquinas, Sheen, etc.).  Others are called to comprehend the depths of God and of Truth by its simplicity.   So I suggest you embrace the simplicity, and build from there, as God directs you.  Go to mass. Pay attention to the liturgy.  Bind yourself to God in that moment.  Bind yourself to Jesus during the consecration.  Go to confession regularly.  Confession isn’t just an interface with the priest, it’s an interface with Jesus, and—and this is a big one—it’s an interface with the Church herself.  Let that be a regular part of your experience.  Be prayerful, but don’t go overboard to the point where you’re making it complicated.  Keep it simple and substantial, not complex or busy or over-labored.  Have a devotion to Our Blessed Mother…..but keep that simple, too.  “Simple” for you may mean a rosary every day. It may be something less.  You decide.   But definitely make her part of your spirituality and ask her to lead you closer to her son.  I promise you, that is a prayer she’s guaranteed to answer.
    Don’t focus on the drama in the Church, don’t focus on the inner workings. None of that will make you a better Catholic or bring you closer to God.  It’ll just make you a more anxious Catholic, and anxiety feeds a crisis of faith.  Have a simple, but substantial and personal relationship with God through his Church.  Master the simple, and let God guide you to whatever greater complexity he wants to lead you to.  Keep it simple.  God is in the simple.  He’s in the whispers, not the thunder.  Find him there.
    I hope this helps you.  God be with you

  36. Christendom AFlowerofStTherese CalKane  This was not a debate, or a back and forth it was a line of questioning and it was mostly one-way.  I think you guys are not understanding this, and that’s very disappointing.

  37. JediMasterTim JegsyScarr  “I am not defending Catholic doctrine, I’m defending a secular government based on Catholic teaching”
    Cal effectively countered this argument during his cross examination. Catholic doctrine is the reference point of a Catholic Monarch making the questions entirely relevant. For example, in Catholic Christendom homosexual acts were illegal and I presume they would be under any future Catholic Monarch. The question wouldn’t be what’s the legality of the act rather it’d be what’s the appropriate civil punishment. Remove Catholic teaching from the equation and homosexual acts would probably be legal as it is today in the West and as it was in ancient Rome. From the Catholic standpoint evil is evil. We won’t force you to believe in the Catholic Faith or Church. We will uphold God’s moral laws in a civil government and society.
    This episode wasn’t necessarily a debate. However the dialogue between you and Cal has been an ongoing journey. Regular viewers of the show are aware of your and Cal’s views and these discussions continue onto this forum.
    The consensus of your viewership, if accurately reflected here, believe you missed the mark in this episode. It’s not the end of the world. It was one show, one lapse. Next time you’ll handle these line of questions with greater competence. You’ve got your skin in the game and that’s to be commended. Your work overtime to provide these shows and this platform to us.
    Your clock analogy is excellent and true.

  38. catholicchild  “I may have heard incorrectly, but, Cal, were you supportive of women up to 55 years of age using the pill vs. nfp?  Is there a significant percentage of women who are still able to conceive at that age?”

    No you heard me correctly. The main thing to keep in mind here is that this was not a debate or even a conversation, it was a trail. So my job was to make the strongest case against Tim’s civilization by whatever means possible. So that means I used less than honorable tactics to get the job done, just like a lawyer would have done in court. I actually said all this at the end of the trial. So no, I don’t think there are many women can conceive at that age. I don’t event think it was relevant, it just worked for the purpose of the show. Hope that clears things up 🙂

  39. But here you seem to show a misunderstanding of the situation by saying that cal countered my argument. This was not an “argument-building” enterprise it was a question and an answer. I gave Cal no argument to counter. If people believe I missed the mark that’s fine and I’m really glad they’re fair minded enough to say so. But I think many people are looking at the wrong mark. No one leaves the stand having won an argument. The prosecutor always has the upper hand because he’s asking the questions and framing them to his strategy. The person on the stand has to function within that framing. If my “testimony” is viewed in isolation rather as part of the body of the case then the mark will be missed by the jury (the audience).
    Thanks for your comment and feedback. God be with you.

  40. JediMasterTim 
    Tim, there is no need to be overly technical with language here. Cal was the prosecutor. You were the defendant. It was his job to discredit you and your premise for a Catholic Monarchy. He did his job effectively. Kudos to Cal for that. He gave a master class and he controlled you like a puppet on a string.
    It seemed you both put a ton of effort into the prosecution component and virtually none into being defendants. That’s how it seemed on the outside. In truth we’re you both put a lot of work into defending your cases too. As you noted, the prosecutor has the advantage and it showed in both cases. You came across ambiguous and uncertain when being cross examined by Cal on what influence Catholic moral teaching would have on civil law. It didn’t exactly instil confidence in us, the jury.
    This was a first experience for you guys, and a brave and bold one at that. We all have to learn to crawl before we can walk. I hope you have a retrial in the future as this one was a draw.
    When you played the prosecutor you were as quick off the draw and precise as Wild Bill. There is no reason you couldn’t dominate Cal in the defendants chair too next time around. You have God, truth; reality on your side.
    God be with you sir.

  41. CalKane catholicchild
    Phew, it was one of those, “What did he just say?” moments.  Now I completely understand.  I would be terrible on the stand because a near absurdity would throw me off to the point where, as you say, I’d miss the point.
    Did you study law?  I haven’t, but now that you used the words where you “used less than honorable tactics to get the job done…” [which I must have had an interrupted by someone here moment and missed it on air], I realized just why our government here has basically succeeded in pulling the wool over our eyes for so many years now…they all studied law and most are lawyers [that dishonorable bunch].  Thank God for President Trump!  May he drain the swamp and expose the corruption and fraud.
    Great job, Cal!  Thanks.  So, what comes next in this trial?

  42. catholicchild CalKane  I’m glad you understand 🙂

    What’s next? At this moment in time, I have no idea but me and Tim will cook something delicious up and let you guys know when we do 🙂

  43. CalKane JediMasterTim GabrielDannemiller There’s always time for friendly dialogue and soft debate!

  44. m_b JediMasterTim  “Tim, there is no need to be overly technical with language here.”
    But you are making an argument on technicalities, not rhetoric. So my response is based on technicalities.
    “You were the defendant. It was his job to discredit you and your premise for a Catholic Monarchy. He did his job effectively
    “And I did mine effectively when Cal was “on the stand”.  These two episodes have to be viewed in total, not in isolation. 
    “He gave a master class on how it’s done and controlled you like a puppet on a string.”
    Then you acknowledge that this was how a prosecution works.  Yet you called this an argument and treated it as a debate in your initial comment. I don’t understand how to respond.
    “There is no reason you couldn’t dominate Cal in the defendants chair”
    Sure there is.  Because I’m on the defensive while on the stand, not on the offensive.  And it falls to the “jury” to determine who built the better case between both episodes.  Again, I have no problem with the criticism but I flatly disagree with how this criticism is being launched. I respect your feedback but I don’t agree with the basis of your analysis.

  45. JediMasterTim m_b 
    JediMasterTim m_b 
    I’m getting from your responses here is that you lack the humility to
    accept defeat (by Cal, not me). That’s why you’re playng this dance that’s getting old actually. I thought we were done with this and you got the point.

    two people argue one person is trying to gain the upper hand and ‘win’
    the argument against the other person. When a prosecutor faces a
    defendant both the prosecutor and the defendant are trying to ‘win’ from
    their respective chairs. The prosecutor wants to discredit the
    defendant and the defendant wants to convince the judge and/or jury that
    what he is in the right. The obstacle of the prosecutor is the
    defendant and vice versa for the defendant.

    You can read the dictionary definitions of the word argument here:

    as part of his cross examinations, and the statements he made in general, was
    arguing against your case as part of his job as the prosecutor.

    I get it! The vast majority of men struggle to admit it when they are wrong! Lol
    Cal gave you ample opportunity to respond to his line of questions and chastisements throughout the episode. You failed, in ‘this’ case.  If you own it, you will do better next time. If you can’t own it re-read the comments here again, or even better, watch the episode from start to finish. If you still can’t own it by then only God you! Lol

  46. JediMasterTim m_b 
    “”Me: There is no reason you couldn’t dominate Cal in the defendants chair”

    Tim: Sure there is.  Because I’m on the defensive while on the stand, not on the offensive.”

    Tell that to a Judo or Aikido practitioner and those who bring this same approach into their respective professions, and they’d disagree with you. You could’ve redirected Cal’s attacks against him and you did not. You lacked clarity and conviction. Cal decided to target Catholic morality when that is our “greatest area of strength” for defending the Faith. It’s hard to answer questions about the Mysteries to an atheist. It’s easy to defend Catholic morality because it’s centered around universal natural laws and can be understood with human logic and reason alone.

Comments are closed.