Pro-choice pastor’s reflection on Easter
Easter reminds me of the respect and reverence for life that is at the core of my theology, that I am in my heart a deeply “pro-life” person.
Today, most of us won’t use that term because it has been co-opted by those who oppose reproductive choice and abortion access. In the spirit of Easter, I want us to resurrect that term, to reclaim a pro-life theology that is deeply supportive of reproductive justice.
~Reverend Matthew Westfox, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, April 19
Apr.23, 2011 11:15 am |
Inconsistencies, The Church |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
When I first read this quote and started to read the associated article it was really hacking me off. How dare this man even try to claim that the resurrection–the pivotal moment in history that is the defeat and destruction of death itself–could even begin to have a meaning that supports the wanton and rampant destruction of life that is abortion? The fact that Easter is my favorite holiday only made it worse.
Then I read the article and the anger went away. Not because he’s not wrong, but because he’s so wrong that it renders everything he tries to say utterly meaningless. His “thoughts” on this subject are utterly pointless and theologically laughable. Especially when he arrives at the last paragraph and starts waffling about what the “resurrection really means.” There it became obvious that he’s totally missed the point of…well, the whole universe, actually. And while that’s funny in some ways and sad in many, many others, it doesn’t make me angry.
This really gets at the heart of what I was saying in the other Quote of the Day thread: you can support a right, without supporting a particular course of action that is enabled as a result of having that right. Rev. Westfox supports reproductive rights because he understands that they are as necessary and indispensable to life in a modern democratic society as the right to free speech is; that doesn’t mean he views abortion as a desirable or good thing. God bless him.
Take a closer look at the picture. There’s a painting of Jesus with the children surrounding Him just behind the wolf in sheeps’s clothing reverend.
Support reproductive justice indeed.
And here’s his very blasphemous special prayer for clinic escorts:
Prayer for Safety of Clinic Workers
by Reverend Matthew Westfox
Gracious and loving God, be with all of those brave souls who make abortion possible. Hold them in your loving embrace and keep them safe— doctors, nurses, clinic staff, administrators, janitors and counselors and receptionists—all those who labor to provide abortions to those in need. Bless them and keep them safe from harm and harassment, intimidation and fear. Hear us, O God, as we lift up our voices to you, and say in all you many names- Amen.
He’s a United Church of Christ minister, which explains alot.
Am I understanding you correctly? You consider it blasphemous to pray for the safety of abortion clinic employees and volunteers? God’s protection shouldn’t be extended to people who are doing something you consider wrong? So much for hate the sin, love the sinner, huh?
Reproductive justice? Where and what is the justice for the aborted baby? Abortion is probably the most unjust thing that could be done to anyone.
Deceived. Totally deceived. The father of lies is indeed busy.
Luana, EXACTLY what lept out at me. Mr. Westfox’s use of the word justice apart from any knowledge of Him Who is just will prove to be ironic when he stands before Him.
Joan, yes, it is blasphemous to ask God to “be with” those who make the dismemberment of His little ones possible. Their god is with them (hint: he was a murderer from the beginning). To love the sinner would be to pray for their eyes to be opened to the truth of the evil they enable. To love the sinner would be to pray for conviction of heart so that they are not eternally condemned.
Notice how the prayer is closed with the “many names” part. Really? Becuse Acts 4:12 tells us there is ONE name:
12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved
His name is Jesus Christ.
There’s a painting of Jesus with the children surrounding Him just behind the wolf in sheeps’s clothing reverend.
I noticed this right away too Carder.
“Forgive them; for they know not what they do.”
Please help me Jesus to forgive as you do.
His so-called “theology” makes me ill. He is as deceived as anyone can be.
17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
How could anyone’s mind ever become SO warped?! Using Jesus’ words to justify murder! This “man” is sick.
Mr. Westfox, here are some Bible verses you’ve apparently missed your entire life:
“You knit me in my mother’s womb . . . nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret” (Psalm 139:13,15).
“You have been my guide since I was first formed . . . from my mother’s womb you are my God” (Psalm 22:10-11).
“Truly children are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3).
Funny, I’ve read through the Bible and I don’t recall seeing any verses that say, “And lo, a woman can pay someone else to kill her child in the name of reproductive justice.”
Joan,
When lawyer Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln that he was personally opposed to slavery but could not impose his beliefs on others, Lincoln’s reply was, “Any man can say that who does not see anything wrong in slavery, but no man can logically say it who does see a wrong in it; because no man can logically say he don’t [sic] care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down.”
You see, it is impossible to say “Abortion is wrong” and still think others should be allowed to procure it, just as it was impossible to say that slavery was wrong but allow others to keep slaves.
joan – no it’s not blasphemous to sincerely pray for the safety and well-being of workers in the abortion industry. However, to simply ask for their physical safety and to avoid their spiritual condition is very typical of those who preach a gospel of social works and avoid a true gospel of salvation.
Are there born-again believers working in the abortion industry? I think Abby Johnson’s story shows that’s possible, but it also indicates there was severe hidden sin – which has a horrible warping effect on our understanding of things – especially how God directs us.
As for non-believing abortion industry workers – their lack of salvation is of great importance. They are already objects of wrath without the protection of Christ, and are already condemned to hell without faith in Him.
The delusion that Westfox is under is that he’s doing God’s work. I highly doubt God wants to keep abortion workers physically safe, have them die peacefully only so they can go to hell.
It is far more loving to let Westfox know he’s fooling himself, and the abortion workers, into thinking God will condone the killing of innocent human beings. That’s the very reason why Jesus went to the cross – to defeat death!
The loving thing to do with Westfox is to have God truly open his eyes to the horror of abortion in a way he can’t avoid or run away from or deny – just like He did with Abby.
Because ultimately denial of life (as in physical life) is a denial of Life (as in eternal life – God himself).
No offense to anyone, but this is what happens when christians rely on personal interpretation of the bible alone. There is a higher authority whom God uses to communicate his will, that is His one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. Her teaching will always be that life begins at conception, “bible believing” types will continue to split and divide on the issues making all of Christianity a joke in the eyes of unbelievers. May Christ’s prayer for Unity be done.
“You see, it is impossible to say “Abortion is wrong” and still think others should be allowed to procure it, just as it was impossible to say that slavery was wrong but allow others to keep slaves.”
Let’s suppose that I believe that indulging in alcohol is wrong. Would it then be impossible to say that although I believe the consumption of alcohol is wrong, others should be allowed to drink anyway?
“In the spirit of Easter, I want us to resurrect that term, to reclaim a pro-life theology that is deeply supportive of reproductive justice.”
Kind Reverend,
Women considering abortion need help to nurture life, not encouragement to destroy it.
Women and men who have had abortions need to repent instead of hearing false words of its justification by their ministers. Praying for your Church this Easter.
Looks like he’s got his theology all spelled out:
http://www.slideshare.net/syrf/a-theology-of-reproductive-justice
While I don’t believe a truly pro-life person can support abortion, I do agree with him that a truly pro-life person can’t turn a blind eye to topics such as health care, education, and the working class.
Let’s suppose that I believe that indulging in alcohol is wrong. Would it then be impossible to say that although I believe the consumption of alcohol is wrong, others should be allowed to drink anyway?
Joan,
The veil is not so easily pulled over our eyes here on Jill’s blog. Shall we use a more accurate analogy?
“Let’s suppose that I believe [drunk driving] is wrong. Would it then be impossible to say that although I believe [drunk driving] is wrong [and takes lives], others should be allowed to [drive drunk] anyway?”
It would of course never be literally impossible to say that you support another’s right to abortion/drunk driving/(appropriate analogy here). However, it would be incredibly uneducated of you, or simply calloused, to believe that although this action results in the death of innocent humans, it should still be protected by law.
You may try to distract with your comparisons and claims of ‘rights,’ you may try to make this an argument over the mother’s right, or overpopulation, or privacy or choices. These have all been tried and have all failed to overcome the stigma surrounding abortion. Because we of the anti-abortion/pro-life mind have TRUTH.
Your arguments will always be those of deception. Because when the truth is revealed, you discover that the beast of ABORTION is a creature of torture and death. Your cause on this thread is one which promotes tearing innocent human beings limb from limb when they are completely vulnerable. Your cause is one which masquerades death as rights and homicide as a valid choice. Your cause is a lie.
Dance your dance, Joan, but do not expect us to fall into poorly concealed traps.
And here’s the good reverend offering a prayer at the Dr. George Tiller Prayer Vigil in NYC.
Fast forward to 1:09. Lasts about 4 minutes, if you can suffer it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIlv18lYax8
@Katharine: I’m going to have to disagree with you there. Suffice to say that based on his clear difficulty in at least coming out and saying one way or the other whether or not Jesus actually did come back from the dead (and of the basic tenets of Christianity, the resurrection pretty much goes in the number one spot with a gold star and fancy embossed lettering) plus his clearly out-of-context reading of the parable of the sower, I don’t think this guy is Bible believing in any sense of the term.
Joanna, don’t forget this verse:
Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” Matthew 19:14
actually, Katharine, this is what happens when all the Christian churches go from being against contraception until 1930, to almost all allowing (except for the Catholic Church). Giving too much into this “women’s rights” and forgetting that half of unborn babies are future women. Teaching a skewed version of what Jesus actually taught, too.
Reverend???
Give me a break.
He is satanic, as Carder said, a wolf, a blind leader of the blind, all doomed to fall into the ditch, (the pit of Hell actually).
People don’t realize the gravity and the consequences of their words and actions.
Trust me all you in favor of the reproductive right/choice to kill your children…
Hear me!
Please!
You don’t want to die with the blood of innocent children on your hands!
Check out the conversion story of Stojan Adasevic and the account of 4 year old Colton Burpo’s visit in Heaven with his miscarried sister.
Just for a second, set aside your passionate missionary crusade for reproductive rights…
and consider the preborn child.
Katharine,
The Nicene creed properly written is “one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” The word “catholic” is not capitalized because it refers to “catholic” in the sense of “universal.” It does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. I agree that individual interpretation without a teaching authority can lead to problems. And I am in fact Roman Catholic myself. But please be careful that we do not inadvertently breed division in the Body of the Church.
“It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.”
Luke 17:2
Katharine
I’m a bible believing type, thank you Jesus, and because of this no longer do a lot of things I use to do. I believe the bible is the inspired word of God. Was raised Catholic am very thankful for my Catholic upbringing but had I not made it to a Pentecostal Church my life probably would have ceased a long time ago. I believe the different churches are representative of The Body of Christ.
When I read the article my thoughts were wow someone finally understands that being pro-life is really about reproductive justice. But I was thinking of the kind of reproductive justice where everybody gets to live.
I read the quote, then thought, “What was he inhaling?” Time for conversion prayers for him, for sure.
kathryn
Maybe he’s already saved and is just deceived on the abortion issue.
Not to take away from the outrage over “Rev.” Westfox’s musings, did anyone catch this from Rabbi Peter Stein’s Passsover prayer appearing on the same page?
On many nights during the year, laws are being changed and funding is being challenged that would reduce safe and legal access to abortion services. On this night, as we remember the example of Shifrah and Puah*, we renew our commitment to raise our voices and keep abortion legal and accessible to those who want and need it.
*Shifrah and Puah were the midwives who defied Pharaoh’s decree to kill the newborn Hebrew males. See Exodus 1:15-22 (both text and note are in the original).
Note to Rabbi Stein: Somehow, I don’t think those two midwives were “pro-choice” heroines. What in the world is he thinking when he says this? And how can he think it?
Rabbi Stein is as confused as the devil Lori.
It’s nonsensical babble.
It confuses me how some Jews can be pro choice when they are STILL awaiting the Messiah……I read that the head Rabbi in Jerusalem was saying they need to reduce the abortion rate as its delaying the coming of the Messiah for them.
Joan, and people who think like her, probably don’t know that a fetus is a real, feeling, living human baby. Also Joan, and others who think like her, probably have no idea what a cruel, dirty, nasty, sadistic, and violent procedure abortion really is. If they did, they would surely be against the practice. Abby Johnson used to support pro-choice too, until she saw a sonogram-guided view of an abortion. Then she saw a real baby, and she also saw exactly what happened to the baby when it got aborted. She was so horrified by what she saw that she forsook the pro-choice position and joined the pro-life side.
What’s in the womb is hidden from most people, and this makes the little resident living in there seem unreal and hard to relate to. What happens in the womb during an abortion is hidden from most people, so the terror and pain babies experience during an abortion is also not known to most people. Thus, it bacomes easy to focus only on the mother’s problems (or the needs of our ideology) and support abortion. It’s portrayed as a quick fix, an easy answer. So it’s easy to lose site of the fact that real compassion and caring can be messy at times. It requires real sacrifice, not just scrape them out, take their money and shove them out the door, which is all that happens in the average abortion clinic.
Let us not be surprised.
It was predicted that in the last days many would abandon the faith to embrace doctrines of demons.
How can you respect life if you deem the lives of some to be immaterial?
Lori – I caught that too – if *Shifrah and Puah were the midwives who defied Pharaoh’s decree to kill the newborn Hebrew males. See Exodus 1:15-22 (both text and note are in the original). then they were the heroines who saved lives – not help end them.
goodness – totally and completely backward. if Shifrah and Puah went against their law, indeed against Pharaoh, then they were brave beyond measure and we need to do the same.
Actually – upon reading my Old Testament – Shiphrah and Puah were midwives – told to kill all the newly-born boys from the Israelites and let the girls live. But they disobeyed and allowed all the children to live. They were God-fearing. It was THEN that Pharaoh decreed that all the Israelite boys be drowned in the river.
Sounds like they were very Pro-Life. Rabbi Stein has a very strange example for keeping ‘reproductive choice’ alive when siting the Old Testament Exodus. Totally backwards, on all counts.
Katie – sorry to hear that your sister’s experience at a Crisis Pregnancy center was less than optimum. Trust me – please keep reading on this blog – you will see that supporting women and families is what we are all about – we just do not support the killing of the pre-born!
Don’t pre-judge. maybe you have not met true Pro-Lifers before – but I can assure you that there are many, across America and indeed across the world who want the greatest good for women, and families – including the children in the womb (who 1/2, statistically speaking, are female).
Just attended a wedding of a couple we have supported with good cheer and services for the last 6 months. They were overjoyed to have their marriage witnessed by friends and family, and I was delighted when they invited my husband and i to join them in their celebration of unity.
Come as stay a while Katie – you will see that many of us minister to families on a one-to-one basis – giving food, clothing, transportation, housing, diapers, baby goods, car seats, furniture, rent and bill-paying assistance and yes – even cars. And with a smile and a helping hand. We even have a man who puts together furniture for families – ah the joy of seeing a young mother snuggling her new-born, rocking in her new rocker-recliner. Just lovely!
We cook meals, drive people for the appointments, help them through what is needed – including the burial of the miscarried children. And yesterday – we can now even say we have attended their weddings! Praise God. A lovely day, indeed.
And Joan – it’s unfortunate that you seem to suspect the worst from the people who provide the most, and for free (CPC’s). There is bound to be a few bad experiences among many good ones. I prefer to concentrate on the good, and to help make things better.
Katie – I am glad your sister raised her son, and that he is turning out to be a fine young fellow, and your sister is continuing her education. I am also glad that your sister did not avail herself of abortion. As you can see – the gift of your nephew to your family is irreplaceable. Your sister’s life continues on, in a beautiful way. The gift of life is so precious. Glad to see your family thriving.
oh and Joan – as for ‘an extremely lucrative industry’ – how about PP’s 326,000 abortions just last year? At over $400 per abortion (our local PP charges $ 425+ each) – that makes a huge chunk of change, for sure. I’m sure it was so important to PP’s bottom line, that they did not remove that side of their business to preserve federal funding for those health services they provide. Just another reason to ‘follow the money.’
also – as far as adoption services go – our local CPC has done only about 10 of adoptions in the last 10 years – hardly enough to support the business – and they are far less expensive than most adoptions elsewhere, including adopting here.
Katie,
I know you’re speaking from ignorance, but just so you know:
Jesus is not a Zombie, He is the Most Precious Savior and Friend anyone could hope to have.
And if you don’t get to know Him, (which He allows because He totally respects your right to choose to know Him or not,) you will unfortunaltely be lumped together with satan, his demons and all others who choose to live for themselves.
And you will become an object of His Wrath.
I implore you Katie, don’t go there.
Repent while you still have time.
And Katie – I was wondering about the zombie Jesus part. what does that mean? He certainly is not the walking dead – He is alive! ;)
Katie
I think what your saying is that reproductive justice is the more enlightened approach because it is respective (?) of a womans will. Having been a single parent for a very long time I understand how a lot of times the spirit of a woman is just not respected. I get that. But true enlightenment would also embrace the right of the unborn to life. That’s the sad part of becoming an adult it no longer is about us we have to have some degree of responsibility for our own actions.
Well today isn’t Thankgiving it’s Easter but I have something to be thankful for and want to share it in the spirit of life. Our dog Gypsy was a very sick girl last week. We had to feed her and give her water with a syringe. She wanted nothing to do with eating. I reassured her that when she began to feel better she would feel like eating again. Thanks to antibiotics, nausea medication and the persistence of two nannies and one moma she is back to her happy self. In order to give her water I had to wrap her in a towel and feed her like she was a baby. I knew she was better when she started requesting food again! When she started feeling better her whole countenance changed. Happy Easter everyone.
Let’s not kid ourselves, here. Reproductive justice is a euphemism for abortion. I know it, everyone here knows it and the people who use the term know it.
Hello, EGV,
You wrote:
While I don’t believe a truly pro-life person can support abortion, I do agree with him that a truly pro-life person can’t turn a blind eye to topics such as health care, education, and the working class.
You see, this is actually an example of why I find it worthwhile to trade comments with you (as opposed to Joan, CC, and some of the others who are content merely to troll and reflexively gainsay anything pro-life): you really do have a grasp (albeit a partial one) on the principles of social justice… and, aside from your exasperating penchant for running in rhetorical circles when pressed on a point, you really do seem sincere. That being said…
I really fail to understand why so many people put up the false dichotomy of “you need to choose: help the poor, or fight abortion, since you can’t do both!” WHY NOT?? Whatever does one have to do with the other? What, exactly, is it about the American liberal mind-set which drives the “defenders of the poor” to defend (with unusual ferocity) the so-called “right” to slaughter children in the womb? Even if one’s heart is utterly hardened against the horror of such an act, why on earth is it necessary at all? How does abortion “follow” from a desire to care for those who are already born, poor or otherwise? Can someone explain this to me, in simple words?
Let me be clear: if there were a presidential candidate who had the most insanely liberal, tax-and-spend, socialism-based agenda on Earth, but who was also unconditionally pro-life (by which I mean anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, etc., and not simply the squishy, equivocation-based “pro-life” articles involving health insurance, and the like), I would think him utterly mad regarding finances (and I’d participate in any morally licit political pressure necessary to convince him of his error, or at least to change it), but I’d vote for him in a split-second, over an abortion-tolerant person from any party.
So… I’m still waiting: what is it about the American liberal position that “requires” abortion? Let’s hear it from an actual liberal (as opposed to me, who can only guess). Why should Americans, in order to support political liberalism, be forced to condone the slaughter of the unborn by the millions? Why force such a barbaric choice at all?
The whole “reproductive justice” thing is a joke. I assume that most pro-choice people believe that sexual reproduction has evolved over the many many years living things have been on this earth.
How can evolution be unjust? We need abortion to fix the evil unjust, evolution that determined that women become pregnant?
Hi Katie,
Your comment was going along quite well until you decided to add that cute little ending. I had to delete.
Blasphemy is not tolerated here. Better luck next time.
Paladin –
Long time, no talk. Hope all is well and that you’ve had a good Easter. Just got back from a family vacation on Friday and had a great weekend with the family.
The heart of your question: “Why should Americans, in order to support political liberalism, be forced to condone the slaughter of the unborn by the millions? Why force such a barbaric choice at all?”
To tell you the honest truth, I have no idea – it is odd, on every issue, it seems like a party chooses a side, and the other party then runs to the opposite position, In this case, I think the left leaned that way during the woman’s rights movements, and both sides have polarized over time.
It is disappointing to me because as the right moves further right, it disturbs me as a Christian – hacking health care for the poor and elderly, leaning in every way possible in favor of corporations and the rich over the working class, the Love of guns and the disregard of God’s creation…sure, you (and others will I’m sure) argue that in a backwards way, the GOP isn’t about that – but you understand my point and I think that in all of those cases, people would agree it sums up the right more than the left.
Yet on abortion, the left keeps running further and further. I don’t mind when politicians say “hey, it is going to be legal, but lets work to reduce it”. I know that stinks of moral compromise, but lets face it, we compromise on a lot of moral positions in the support of any candidate. When push comes to shove, nobody seems to be talking or working to actually outlaw abortion, so the moral compromise reality and I don’t see that changing.
But it does disturb me when politicians (or anyone – in this case a “reverend”) pretend that there is no issue with abortion, or that it is morally a good thing. We accept it because as a country, we see it as a freedom (and like guns and alcohol, we seem okay with some people dying as long as we keep a “right”). I sure would like the left to stop sugar coating it and start saying, hey, we don’t like it – we’re not for banning it, but we want to try to create a country where people have the choice, but don’t feel that it is the best choice for them.
“So… I’m still waiting: what is it about the American liberal position that “requires” abortion? Let’s hear it from an actual liberal (as opposed to me, who can only guess). Why should Americans, in order to support political liberalism, be forced to condone the slaughter of the unborn by the millions? Why force such a barbaric choice at all?”
Obviously someone who believes in abortion rights does not share your belief that it sacrifices anything morally significant. Therefore, supporting legal abortion is consistent with the liberal ethic of promoting individual rights to the extent that the exercise of such a right does not disadvantage or harm others. Conversely, not supporting legal abortion would be inconsistent with this ethos.
“Yet on abortion, the left keeps running further and further.”
Is this really the case? I don’t think it is. I think the basic liberal position on abortion has been consistent for most of the time that abortion has been legal in America. Any movement above and beyond that on the issue is really just pushback against right-wing encroachment on what most liberals have long seen as a fundamental right.
Joan – what I meant by that was, a few years ago, it seemed common to say that abortion wasn’t desirable, so we should work to reduce it. That talk has gone away a bit, at least in my opinion.
“Therefore, supporting legal abortion is consistent with the liberal ethic of promoting individual rights to the extent that the exercise of such a right does not disadvantage or harm others.”
joan, Are you for real? Most of the time I think you are just looking for attention because you don’t get any outside of Jill’s. Maybe you didn’t get enough positive attention growing up. I know some people can’t understand this mindset but I work with kids who say and do the dumbest, meanest things solely for attention. They don’t get any attention at home and never learned how to ask for appropriate attention. Many adults and other kids get upset around these students and these students then get exactly what they think they need. After all, negative attention is better than none at all.
Hope you are having a Blessed Easter. He has indeed Risen and loves you more than you can imagine. What was the homily about during the Mass you attended? I wish you could have heard the one at my church. I honestly thought of you during it.
Prax –
Maybe I shouldn’t defend Joan here…but at least for a non-Christian or religious person, at the time the majority of abortions occur, they could argue with a straight face that nobody is harmed. Heck, even the fetal harm bills that popped up were at what, 20 weeks? Further heck, a lot of folks on this board and the pro-life side would say using “the pill” is just as bad as a late term abortion.
So from the side of a lot of people in the debate, again depending on the time in the pregnancy, but what Joan expressed isn’t too crazy. If a person doesn’t see something as a baby yet, then it is pretty hard to bring harm.
“Joan – what I meant by that was, a few years ago, it seemed common to say that abortion wasn’t desirable, so we should work to reduce it. That talk has gone away a bit, at least in my opinion.”
My explanation for this would be that in the past decade, first terrorism and later the economic crisis completely preempted issues of lesser national prominence, including abortion, and so only the most rigid ideologues on both sides of the issue still had any real voice, simply because they are the loudest and most committed, and also the least likely to seek any kind of middle ground. I think, to the extent that we ever return to the sense of relative normalcy that we had in the 90’s, you’ll start to see a “thawing” of the issue and more people on both sides willing to work together for a common cause. As a liberal, I would be happy to see the abortion rate go down, not as an end to itself, but as a result of a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources that would cause fewer women to feel that they must terminate unintended pregnancies. Of course, if the Tea Party movement succeeds in completely co-opting the Republican Party, all bets are off, and political polarization may get much worse before it gets better.
I agree to disagree with your diagnosis Ex-GOP.
joan admits that abortion kills humans, she claims to be Catholic but yet comes here time after time just to argue and pick. I think she wants and needs (like we all do) attention. There are many pro-abort sites for her to comment on but they won’t give her near the attention that she gets here.
joan says she “would be happy to see the abortion rate go down, not as an end to itself, but as a result of a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources.” Legalized abortion promised to do this. What happened?
I am happy that pro-aborts come here and pray that something someone says here will soften their hearts and bring them to the Truth. The joans of the world choose not to see the Truth and feed off negative attention and stirring the pot when they could just as easily put their energy toward the positive. She freely chooses to come here to argue with people she knows will never agree with her view.
MILLSTONE, please. MILLSTONE NOW!
Matthew 18:10 the angels of these children behold the face of the Father in heaven. How sad someone who would claim the name “Christian” would be so very deceived.
Katharine… as a born again Christian I can read and understand the Bible because I am guided by the Holy Spirit. God’s Word never changes and His truths never change. I am sorry to say there were many popes who were worldly, lustful, wicked men with the love of money and power in their veins. Would you say to Christians during those times that it was wrong for them to read the bible and they should just obey the wicked popes? God told us to be wise as serpents. Following anyone blindly is not right. We should immerse ourselves in God’s Word. then when counterfeit doctrine “God blesses abortion” comes up we will know better.
No offense to my fellow pro-life comrades who are Catholic. Just wanted to put my Baptist two cents in.
as Joan says: Therefore, supporting legal abortion is consistent with the liberal ethic of promoting individual rights to the extent that the exercise of such a right does not disadvantage or harm others.
So as a logical consequence – since abortion does disadvantage and harms another (after all an unborn human does lose it’s life)… so therefore supporting legal abortion is NOT consistent with the liberal ethic of individual rights.
Perfectly stated. Thanks Joan for making the case inadvertently.
I just wish those parties and politicians would recognize that. That is why I left the democratic party.
“you can support a right, without supporting a particular course of action that is enabled as a result of having that right.”
BS
How about the right to choose not to pay taxes?
Y’all go right ahead and pay, I’ll just keep my money. While you may not agree with my choice not to pay, you will defend my right to make that choice.
Does anyone believe that?
No.
It is absurd on its face.
“Katharine… as a born again Christian I can read and understand the Bible because I am guided by the Holy Spirit. God’s Word never changes and His truths never change. I am sorry to say there were many popes who were worldly, lustful, wicked men with the love of money and power in their veins.”
Um, okay, but what about the current pope who can also read and is guided by the Holy Spirit just like you are, except he is also literate in centuries of tradition that you may not consider infallible as the unchanging written text, but nonetheless exceeds the wisdom of an individual reader.
I am not Catholic, just making an argument for scholarship, no different from arguing that one who has never read philosophers might possibly be missing something in their views on philosophy.
This is a logical argument, not a theological argument.
Anyone can say that XYZ is a right. But does that make it moral? Does that make it good? Hardly. And that is also the point.
“How about the right to choose not to pay taxes?
Y’all go right ahead and pay, I’ll just keep my money. While you may not agree with my choice not to pay, you will defend my right to make that choice.”
Refusing to pay taxes is not a right. If it was a right, then I would defend your ability to choose not to pay your taxes as derivative of that right, independently of what I personally feel about the choice. Your analogy makes no sense in this context. We’re not talking about any made-up right you can conceivably think of, but rather ones that objectively exist in a legal sense.
“Refusing to pay taxes is not a right.”
Keeping the products of my own labor is not a right? Who knew?
What about autonomy?
Killing people isn’t a right either.
That is the point.
We can’t defend the right to kill your baby, because killing people can’t be a right.
Your whole point is just that we must obey those who make the rules and we have no rights but those that our overlords grant us. Might makes right. The weak and defenseless have no rights.
“Keeping the products of my own labor is not a right? Who knew?”
No, it most certainly is not a right to refuse to pay your share of the tax burden while living in a social contract-based society that furnishes you with the benefits of such.
“Your whole point is just that we must obey those who make the rules and we have no rights but those that our overlords grant us. Might makes right. The weak and defenseless have no rights.”
My whole point is exactly the same as it was the last time I posted it: you can support a right without endorsing every single choice that is made possible as a result of having that right. This shouldn’t even be a remotely controversial thing to say. It’s so obvious, it’s practically self-evident. Every time you personally condemn some offensive display of free speech while defending the right of the person or persons responsible to make that display, you’re engaging in this practice. It’s the price to pay for living in a liberal, pluralistic society. There are things that I don’t approve of, but tolerate, because in return I expect reciprocal tolerance for the things that I do and say that others don’t believe in.
JoAnna: “You see, it is impossible to say “Abortion is wrong” and still think others should be allowed to procure it, just as it was impossible to say that slavery was wrong but allow others to keep slaves.”
Joan: “Let’s suppose that I believe that indulging in alcohol is wrong. Would it then be impossible to say that although I believe the consumption of alcohol is wrong, others should be allowed to drink anyway?”
This might be the crux of the abortion debate. The pro-choice person (who may nonetheless dislike abortion) believes abortion should be lumped in with alcohol, pre-marital sex, gambling, adultery, prostitution, and anything else many people may have a “moral problem” with, but that we shouldn’t allow one’s “moral problems” to dictate the law. The pro-life person, in contrast, believes abortion should be lumped in with slavery, rape, and the act of shooting your neighbor to death — that there is (perhaps the other list I mentioned) a clear aggrieved party who should be protected by law.
“we shouldn’t allow one’s “moral problems” to dictate the law.”
Yes, we should. We should and we must. I have a moral problem with polluting the environment. I feel compelled by moral conviction to impose my morality on the whole world. No sarcasm. I mean it.
Happy Earth Day.
“My whole point is exactly the same as it was the last time I posted it: you can support a right without endorsing every single choice that is made possible as a result of having that right.”
No, you can’t. By permitting something, you endorse it.
Very well. Let me then begin to compile a partial list of the things that I will assume you endorse; please let me know which ones you think should be totally illegal, so that I can move them from the “endorse by virtue of permitting” column to the “do not endorse, want banned” column.
KKK rallies
Kinky sex between consenting, unmarried adults
Binge drinking
Betting on horse racing or sporting events
Looking at pornography featuring consenting adults
Expressing blasphemous religious views
The right to LIfe is the first right and the right on which all other rights build upon. You cannot have a right to liberty without a right to life. you cannot have a right to the pursuit of happiness without first having the right to life.
“There are things that I don’t approve of, but tolerate, because in return I expect reciprocal tolerance for the things that I do and say that others don’t believe in.” No one should tolerate the killing of innocent human beings, which exactly what abortion is.
To suggest that we should tolerate abortion in the name of the supposed right to choose is as illogical as saying: “Well I don’t believe in rape. I would never rape someone. But If YOU want to rape someone that is your choice. Who am I to tell u what to do with your body?” or as silly as saying, “Well I’m personally against child abuse. I would never beat my kids. But if YOU want to to that in the privacy of your own home, that’s your right as a parent.”
Our laws EXIST for the purpose of protecting the weak from the strong, the helpless from the powerful That is why we have laws agains rape, child abuse, drinking and driving, etc.
And that is ultimately why in my lifetime we WILL have laws that protect the unborn from being dismembered and tortured to death. A choice I am sure Joan and others would never support if they were the ones at risk of being killed in this manner.
Kris –
Unfortunately, in rape, child abuse, and drinking and driving, there is clear consensus that you are dealing with a person protected by the law. In the case of abortion, there is disagreement on the rights of the individual, and when there even is an “individual”. There are religious viewpoints and even legal distinctions that give some rights – but obviously a baby five days after conception doesn’t have full constitutional rights.
Unfortunately, they also don’t have voting rights, nor can contribute to politicians – if they could, they might move up the list of priorities – but in regards to your last prediction – there will be laws, but nothing close to a ban (the one thing I can see changing that is if they were able to find a “sexual preference” gene…that surely would lead to some interesting debates).
Hippie, it comes down to whether you think the Bible is merely an exercise in scholarly pursuits or an exercise in spiritual pursuits. Whether you agree or not, I have the Holy Spirit. Since God is the Author of the Bible I can read and understand His Word whether I have spent years studying Hebrew and Greek or not.
Now, I believe it is important to be in church and to be under the shepherding of a godly man who is educated in these things. But don’t diminish the great spiritual truths God wants to show you during one on one time with Him. I learn great spiritual truths when I read the Word of God in the quiet of my bedroom and pray and seek His face. God is not some impersonal God who can only speak to you through some man thousands of miles away. He is a personal God who meets with me EVERY DAY! :-)
Happy Easter! He is risen!
Ex says:
“It is disappointing to me because as the right moves further right, it disturbs me as a Christian – hacking health care for the poor and elderly…”
Define “right” as you would apply it in this context. If you include pro-lifers and Christians in your definition of “right” then show us the evidence that we do not support “health care for the poor and elderly”.
“ leaning in every way possible in favor of corporations…”
Tell this to John McCain whose opponent, the liberal Obama, received far more monies and support from corporations than did McCain. You cannot have it both ways…guilt by association for the “right” whenever corporate donors support a Republican, but absolving Obama and democrats of any such guilt when they are tied to corporate largess.
“…and the rich over the working class, the Love of guns and the disregard of God’s creation…sure, you (and others will I’m sure) argue that in a backwards way, the GOP isn’t about that – but you understand my point and I think that in all of those cases, people would agree it sums up the right more than the left.
The above are all based upon the same tired canards pushed by the left and their cohorts in the leftist dominated MSM. Speaking of “disregard of God’s creation” it is the left that sees no evil in 50 million aborted babies and has made abortion the high sacrament of the democrat party. What specific policies of the so-called unidentified “right” even comes close in terms of innocent life lost? In the same vein re “God’s creation” it is the leftist dominated Democratic Party that continually agitates for redefining family and marriage in ways that most “people would agree sums up the ‘left’ more than the ‘right’”. Their efforts undermine society and the core principles that make for a healthy life affirming culture.
If my wanting a gun makes me a bad person so be it, I stand accused. How bad is it? On the contrary, it is the left that is pushing the progressivist envelope through corporate funded redefining of values—think Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway, Soros, Facebook, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations etc. whose corporate funding and their combined wealth in the hundreds of billions actively support non-traditional family structures, abortion, and a secular humanist agenda. It can be said these are real life examples of “the rich over the working class”—how did they get their hundreds of billions but upon the backs of those who work for a living?
“We’re not talking about any made-up right you can conceivably think of, but rather ones that objectively exist in a legal sense.”
Like the right not to be offended or any made up right you said would do in the other thread?
@Joan: “Very well. Let me then begin to compile a partial list of the things that I will assume you endorse; please let me know which ones you think should be totally illegal, so that I can move them from the “endorse by virtue of permitting” column to the “do not endorse, want banned” column.
KKK rallies
Kinky sex between consenting, unmarried adults
Binge drinking
Betting on horse racing or sporting events
Looking at pornography featuring consenting adults
Expressing blasphemous religious views”
1. KKK Rallies – Speech. should be protected. Free speech is a good thing. Waiting to hear an argument that they infringe on someone’s actual rights. (not made up rights, like you said above)
2. Kinky Consensual Adult Sex: who cares
3. Gambling: You don’t have a right to gamble. I don’t support banning it, but I think the given municipal entity can make the decision.
4. Looking at pornography: Speech. If it’s legally produced and distributed, and viewed in private, who cares.
5. Blasphemy: Free Speech.
None of the examples you give involve infringing on the rights of other people. Free speech is regulated and limited to insure that people’s safety/property rights are balanced. There is no right not to be offended. If there were, there would be no free speech at all. We get it, you don’t think abortion infringes on anyone’s rights. Fine. Duly noted. But stop with the examples that don’t respond to our argument that abortion is much closer to having the right to own slaves or to drive drunk than it is to the right to spout racism or the right to drink.
When you’re talking about those kinds of “rights”, those that inherently infringe on the rights of others, I guarantee you will find none that work in your support the right but not the action framework. I understand that YOU think abortion is just like free speech and I understand why you think so (fetus = nothing, women have a right to surgery, even surgery I wouldn’t get), but I would like to see you understand that in the context of the argument being made here, the free speech analogy doesn’t work and is not responsive in terms of discussion.
“Bless them and keep them safe from harm and harassment, intimidation and fear. Hear us, O God, as we lift up our voices to you, and say in all you many names- Amen.”
So many things wrong with this, and many of you have already commented on how.
But here’s my two pence: “harassment” and “intimidation” are exactly the same words that Cecile Richards and her minions use when they talk about 40 Days for Life. Though there certainly are pro-life activists who behave badly, by the numbers it is the exception not the rule. 40 Days for Life has really grown in the last couple years, but it is distinctly marked by the quiet, peaceful, prayerful characteristics. In no way do the 40 Days for Life people harass anyone or intimidate anyone. But, Cecile lumps this large number of people in with a very small number of louder and more notable characters.
So while Joan wants to ride off into the sunset on her high horse of relativism, let’s look at this so called ‘prayer’ again. It is a petition AGAINST the peaceful 40 Days, specifically. We know, he knows, even Joan knows it. If you are murdering children, and you are truly Christian, then you know exactly where in scripture you can find many references to our duty to point out error in our brother. It includes: we should look within before we point out error, BUT Jesus, St. Paul, and Ezekiel ALL tell us that if we do not try to save a person’s soul, to save them from the way of death, then we are guilty ourselves. The Scripture nowhere tells us not to judge at all.
Finally, I totally agree with one of the other comments: That which goes by many names, it isn’t our Lord and Savior. But it’s also interesting to note that one of our most zealous pro-abortion commentors also once described herself and her peers as “legion.” Coinky-dink? Not bloody likely.
PS: If God didn’t want us to warn people who are in error, who are in peril because of that error, then guess what? That whale would have digested Jonah, and not spit him out.
hmmm. I recognize him.
He actually was at the hearing for Bill #371 in NY….
Jerry –
The “Right” – The Republicans. The house just passed through Ryan’s plan, which gets rid of Medicare through a voucher system that grows at a slower pace than costs will. Here’s a good summation of some of the questions – who knows, maybe Ryan has answers for these, but not spelled out – http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2011/04/22/congressman-ryan-i-dont-want-to-be-a-lab-rat/
Can you link to the corporate donations? I’m not saying I agree or disagree with you – I can’t find anything on corporate donation tallies from 2008.
Creation care – separate thing than what you are talking about.
“Very well. Let me then begin to compile a partial list of the things that I will assume you endorse; please let me know which ones you think should be totally illegal, so that I can move them from the “endorse by virtue of permitting” column to the “do not endorse, want banned” column.
KKK ralliesKinky sex between consenting, unmarried adultsBinge drinkingBetting on horse racing or sporting eventsLooking at pornography featuring consenting adultsExpressing blasphemous religious views”
Thanks for making my point.
Americans do endorse all of those things. It is called free speech.
One guy goes to the KKK rally and the other guy goes to the NAACP rally.
Each is exercising free speech.
We endorse the right of people to say anything.
Kinky sex between consenting, unmarried adultsWe endorse consensual sex.
Notice rape is illegal.
Binge Drinking. We endorse people’s right to drink.
Notice we outlaw DUI.
Betting on horse racing or sporting eventsThat is not legal everywhere.
Katherine if you are going to start mocking Protestants on basis of one abortion minister by saying that is result of us not being part of your church just remember one thing- there are plenty of aborts in your church. Pelosi comes to mind?
Um, Punisher….Pelosi et all have basically informally excommunicated themselves for their very public support of abortion and planned parenthood
when our abortion facility in town first opened in 1995, the abortionist was a member of a Presbetyrian church (and he was an ELDER)…..now we are on our third abortionist.
Liz,
I get your point about pro aborts in the various churches, but there was also a Catholic priest serving in a state legislature who was a pro abort. I don’t remember the state (Massachusetts?) or his name.
“None of the examples you give involve infringing on the rights of other people.”
Of course not. But that isn’t the point. I’m only responding to the argument that by permitting something, you endorse it. To illustrate the absurdity of this point, I cited a number of things that many or even most people would find immoral to some degree, yet most Americans would permit them because we have been socialized in a pluralistic system that respects the right to do things we personally disagree with. By Hippie’s logic, that would mean most Americans are explicitly endorsing those things.
“We endorse the right of people to say anything.”
You’ve just made my point. We endorse the right to free speech because it is a bedrock principle of American democracy, but that doesn’t mean we endorse every single thing spoken, written, or otherwise communicated that happens to fall under the protective umbrella of free speech in the abstract sense. Yet your logic recognizes no distinction between the right to free speech versus the actual speech itself and would demand that we endorse both or neither, by either permitting or banning it.
He’s a United Church of Christ minister, which explains alot.
Carder, I read that liberal PC churches (United Church of Christ, Church of the Nazarene, United Methodists, etc.) are losing membership, while the more conservative ones (LDS, Jehovah’s Witness, Assemblies of God) are holding their own or actually gaining. I wonder if their abortion stance has anything to do with it?
Joan – are you actually trying to say that you do not support abortion, but rather the right of others to do it? Is that the basis of what you are saying here? I want to be really sure I understand.
If you do not support abortion per say – say so directly. And why not?
And if you do support abortion, per se (as you have seemed to say on this site), then why (and please say so beyond the ‘it’s legal’; I support free speech, etc.)
Because abortion is much more than free speech – it’s purposeful action, as we know. And since I know that you want to be clear and want others to completely understand, this would be helpful. (at least to me!) Thanks.
The Church of the Nazarene unequivocally opposes abortion and is very conservative, fyi. They do not belong on the “liberal” list.
“Joan – are you actually trying to say that you do not support abortion, but rather the right of others to do it? Is that the basis of what you are saying here? I want to be really sure I understand.”
No, Joy, I’m saying that it is not inconsistent to support the underlying right to abortion without actually liking or personally approving of abortion.
Haven’t we seen this Westfox guy before here on Jill’s blog? He looks familiar, I seem to recall watching a video of him being interviewed at a pro-choice rally of some sort. Of course we were all appalled to find out he was a pastor.
Thank you Joan – so you are still in favor of abortion, not just the idea of it. Thanks for making that clear. With the posts, it was seeming that you were not in favor personally. I appreciate your candor.
“Social justice”, “reproductive rights”, “health insurance”, the “poor”, etc. are terms that have meanings that are not based in reality. PP and supporters of “reproductive rights” would not have that large number of people thinking that they need/want abortions, pap smears, STD tests/treatments, contraceptives, etc. if sex at any time with just about everyone was not pushed as “normal”. Can you count how much doctor/nurse time, money, etc. would be available otherwise for those who are sick? Why we might be able to provide clean drinking water and help stop more illnesses.
Most of the world does not have any insurance, much less health insurance. “Social justice” and “poor” need to be defined.
These are the latest figures based on the 2005 world population. Eye opening! Pick whatever to make comparisons. Not what one has, but what one does with it thru the abilities we have been given, one’s attitude and accepting the grace of God to use or change them. Not all are going to be ‘rich’, but all can be rich in knowledge of the love and mercy of God.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats#src1
Poverty Facts and Stats
by Anup Shah | This Page Last Updated Monday, September 20, 2010
“Almost half the world – over three billion people – live on less than $2.50 a day.”
See the chart at this point showing 2005 world population at 6.46 billion with the percent living at various poverty lines of $1 up to $10 per day.
The numbers (not percent) are 0.88 B live on $1, 1.40 B on $1.25, 1.72 B on $1.45, 2.60 B on $2, 3.14 B on $2.50 B and 5.15 B on $10.
Source: World Bank Development Indicators 2008
Under the chart is this line. “At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.(1) …”
Ex-GOP Voter: The “Right” – The Republicans. The house just passed through Ryan’s plan, which gets rid of Medicare through a voucher system that grows at a slower pace than costs will. Here’s a good summation of some of the questions – who knows, maybe Ryan has answers for these, but not spelled out – http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2011/04/22/congressman-ryan-i-dont-want-to-be-a-lab-rat/
Good point, Ex-GOP Voter. I’m struck, once again, by the differences in the extremely generous health-care plan that those in Congress have, versus what some of them propose for the rest of us.
Also, very good questions at your link. There was the notion of “death panels” resulting from the gov’t’s realization that there is a need to keep costs down within Medicare. Contrast that with the desire for more profit among the bosses of insurance companies, and it’s easy to see that the real death panels are vastly more likely to result from Ryan’s plan.
That’s ridiculous Joan. If the point you are unsuccessfully trying to make was actually true, then the converse would also be true. It would then make perfect sense for an active abortionist to be pro life. She spends 5 days a week performing dozens of abortions per day because she REALLY likes to do abortions, but on the weekends she is actively protesting against abortion because she knows that abortion is not a fundamental right and she in fact thinks abortion is wrong, and immoral. This is preposterous.
I’m not sure where you learned your history about liberal acceptance of abortion. It took a while for the abortion movement, begun by the radical fringe of the Left, to be accepted by the mainstream liberals. This is especially true of African American liberals. Jesse Jackson once called abortion “Black genocide”. But then the blood money began to flow and defending legal abortion gradually was accepted as a “human rights” issue so that the Dems could $oak it up. This of course leaves the unborn with virtually no rights at all. Please enlighten me – why does the law establish the personhood of the unborn if a pregnant woman is murdered, and will prosecute for a double murder, but denies personhood if the mother wants to kill her own? Mothers get to determine whether a child is a person or not? And you are satisfied with this illogical, ridiculous, arbirtary argument? This is your bedrock? Does a common morality exist in your world?
Brryan,
The term “Roman Catholic” is not a proper name for the Catholic Church though one often feels constrained to use it to avoid ambiguity since the Episcopalians like to style themselves “Anglo-Catholics” and the Greek orthodox have at times been called “Greek Catholics”. Yet neither the Anglicans nor the Greeks can manage to call themselves simply “Catholics” lest they be mistaken for us who are recognized by all as Catholics without qualification. The Catholic Church is indeed the Roman Church or the Church whose visible head is the Pope in Rome, but the use of the name “Roman Catholic” is at best a condescension to others who would falsely claim the name “Catholic”.
Furthermore, there here is no religion called Christianity and there never has been such a religion. There is and always has been the Church, and various heresies proceeding from a rejection of some of the Church’s doctrines by men who still desire to retain the rest of her teaching and morals. When St. Peter appointed Ignatius Bishop of Antioch (A.D. 69) the Church was still called but the Church, as in “And he is the head of the body, the church” Colossians 1:18. Bishop Ignatius wrote a letter in Greek to the faithful, and in contradistinction to dissidents existing even at that early time, he addressed it to the Church Universal — the Katholikos Ecclesiam –the Catholic Church. So from then until now there exists but the Colossians 1:18 Body of Christ Church and separate non-Catholic religions.
Warren
Colossians:1:15 – 18, NKJV
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whther thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
Warren, with all due respect. you have it a little wrong.
The Roman Rite is a rite within the Catholic Church. We also have a Byzantine Rite and other Rites. In the Catholic Church, the different Rites are distinguished by their own liturgical calendars, popular ceremonies, and use of languages. They have a lot in common, all are part of the Catholic Church. We even have a new Anglican Rite for Anglican converts who can now join the Catholic Church while still retaining some of their liturgical practices. The word “catholic” means “universal” not “based in Rome, Italy” and so some of the orthodox faiths use the word, but it doesn’t mean they have to be ruled by the pope since they have their own heirarchy and leadership.
It’s understandable that people can be confused by this: I’ve been Catholic for a long time, and even I can’t name all the Rites and how they differ from each other.
Then, we can define the Church as the Lord sees it. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the way, the light and the truth, that Jesus died on the cross, and rose on the third day, we are all part of the one Church, whether we are Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox, or Roman Catholic. That is what is meant by a Church made of flesh rather than stones and bricks. We as humans may try to say, these people are part of the Church, or those people aren’t. But really, it’s up to the Lord to judge our hearts and beliefs and it’s up to the Lord who is in the Church and who is not.
People like Nancy Pelosi, as you can see, lead others into very grave error when they claim to be Catholic but in fact embrace things like abortion that are as anti-Catholic as it gets. Why? Pelosi likes the cache of calling herself Catholic, and Obama used his recently departed ambassador as a Catholic poster boy. It helps politicians get votes, but does it save souls? Oh, hell no.
“Furthermore, there here is no religion called Christianity and there never has been such a religion.”
Oh, I meant to add, that I agree with this statement. Absolutely. The early Church did have meetings to decide what was Canon and what was not. They had meetings to decide on leadership and organization.
But you are right, the early church didn’t have any conferences or synods to decide on the meaning of the word “Christianity.” It reminds me how funny I find it when non-Christians try to tell us when we are “not being good Christians.” As if I can tell the Dalai Lama whether or not he’s a proper Buddhist. Lol!
Oh, and Joan, sarcasm alert:
While I don’t personally believe that cannibalism is right, I do support Jeffrey Dahmer’s right to choose.
Liz but they aren’t excommunicated all these years. My point stands- clean up one’s house first before pointing fingers at others.
Wow, RCRC really prevaricates on their “common questions” page.
Who’s running that outfit?
ninek,
Roman is one of many liturgical rites in the Church. However, there is no such entity as “Roman Catholic”: derogatorialy implying that Roman, Protestant and Othodox make up the Catholic Church. Protestants and Othodox are not part of the Body of Christ. “In the Church they alone are to be counted as mambers who have received the baptism of regeneration and profess the true faith … and they who are divided by reason of faith or of government cannot live in this one Body, and in its one Divine Spirit.” Mystici Corporis Christi Pope Pius XII.
Warren
Doug – the thing that disappoints me is, within this site, the “death panel” talk was brought up under the banner of a pro-life cause (as it would be anti life to have a system in which old people had a better chance of dying) – yet this Paul Ryan plan is getting no look – no buzz, even though from a life perspective, there’s every bit (if not much more) concern than there ever was with “death panels”.
I humbly advise you to contact your local Catholic diocese for clarification. I’ve laid it out as best I could: I am a Roman Catholic. One of the guys on EWTN radio often describes how he’s an Eastern Rite Catholic. Like I say, I’m not an expert on the Rites, but there is such a thing as Roman Catholic.
Orthodox Churches are absolutely the part of the Church that is the body of Christ. The Syriac and Greek, to name two, have the same pedigree and are “Apostolic” churches. They are not in the same category as the Protestants at all. Protestants are “broken away” Christians. This is all historical and easily verified but I don’t want to belabor the non-catholics at Jill’s site.
When we say the creed on Sunday and we say “catholic and apostolic” that includes, by history and theology, our Orthodox brothers, who, I might add, are welcome to receive communion with us (unlike the Protestants who may not partake of communion with us during Mass).
@Jim Sable,
Please enlighten me – why does the law establish the personhood of the unborn if a pregnant woman is murdered, and will prosecute for a double murder, but denies personhood if the mother wants to kill her own? Mothers get to determine whether a child is a person or not? And you are satisfied with this illogical, ridiculous, arbirtary argument? This is your bedrock? Does a common morality exist in your world?
That’s just the thing Jim, it seems that these two laws logically cannot exist, our government cannot make up it’s mind about whether the unborn are persons or not and has attempted to reconcile pro-life and pro-choice laws but it just doesn’t make sense. I don’t see how it can be constitutional to grant someone a right to life depending on whether or not their mother wants them.
The pro-choice view is also incompatible with liberalism and quite frankly, Christian Theology, which promotes equality and compassion for everyone. Supporting abortion leads to being selective about who you care about, where women choose not to care about the unborn.
What I’m saying is, how can you promite equality and support the right to kill unborn humans? Women are gaining rights by taking away a child’s life, abortion oppresses one group to advance another. This is not liberalism, it’s an insult to it.
Naturally pro-choicers will argue that they don’t recognize the unborn as persons but even this is unconstitutional because no one should have the right to decide who is a human being and who isn’t. Our laws have been designed to presevere life and if there is any uncertainty about the unborn being alive (and there really isn’t) we should err on the side of caution. I wonder how this Reverend thinks the Bible says about people deciding who gets to live and die becaus
(Oops, that last line wasn’t finished) I was going to say I wonder why this reverend thinks it’s necessary for people to decide who lives and dies, because he is encouraging people to play God.
Hi Warren.
The Catechism of the Catholic church paragraph 1267 states that
1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: “Therefore . . . we are members one of another.”72 Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.”
So the Catechism plainly states that those who are baptized are indeed members of the body of Christ. As we know, Protestants and Orthodox have a valid baptism so that they are considered members of the body of Christ, though not in full communion.
As far as your quote from Pius XII goes, I cannot seem to find that wording in an online copy of Mystici Corpori Christi. From the Vatican’s official website, it seems that they translate that line from teh encyclical as follows:
“Likewise, We must earnestly desire that this united prayer may embrace in the same ardent charity both those who, not yet enlightened by the truth of the Gospel, are still outside the fold of the Church, and those who, on account of regrettable schism, are separated from Us, who though unworthy, represent the person of Jesus Christ on earth.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html paragraph 102
This translation makes it very clear that this passage has in mind praying for “those who are not enlightened by the truth of the gospel” who are still outside the fold of the Church (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc.) and we also praying for those who are in schism or are separated from us. Notice that the line about “are still outside the fold of the Church” is referring to those not enlightened by the truth of the gospel, not those schismatics.
If we do not interpret Pius XII in this way, there does not seem to be any way to rectify this with the quote from teh Catechism. God love you.
Ex:
So then, pro-lifers and Christians are against health care for the poor and elderly because Rep. Paul Ryan proposed a budget?? Even accepting your premise that the Ryan budget would hurt seniors (an assumption I strongly disagree with) I still fail to see the linkage between his budget and pro-lifers and Christians not wanting to care for the poor and elderly.
Now, as it happens I (and many others) believe Obama’s reckless deficit spending and Obamacare together represent the greatest threat to our future prosperity and economic security than any other single factor. But then for me to link your support for these as being evidence that you do not want to care for the poor and elderly would be really quite unfair. I presume you do not want to see people lying in the gutters, though I could make a strong case that the reckless spending of this president whom you support could bankrupt our government and result in those types of situations.
You asked for sources that show corporations favoring Obama in the ’08 campaign:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-06-30/news/17902184_1_sen-obama-obama-spokesman-tommy-vietor-john-mccain
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/06/16/daily66.html
Doug and Ex:
Rising medical costs are only half the problem. Though medical inflation is still rising faster than general price inflation (although I am not so sure that will continue much longer as general inflation is starting to heat up) the rate of increase has nevertheless slowed versus the rate of increase 15 and 20 years ago. It was rapidly growing medical cost inflation that caused the proliferation of managed care insurance carriers to be popularized in an effort to keep the lid on costs. The results are mixed, though overall managed care has helped to slow rising costs.
The other half of the equation is shrinking incomes. People cannot afford the coverage they once enjoyed because their incomes and the purchasing power of the dollar is not keeping pace. Two trend lines—one rising faster than the other. But no one seems to be talking about the personal income end of it, and Obama’s anti-growth policies are not helping. Actually, if our incomes had kept pace through the years I am not sure we would even be having this discussion.
Having said this I will quote a recent Wall Street Journal article on the rationing aspect of Obamacare—the Independent Physicians Advisory Board. As we recently learned the IPBA will offer quantitative incentives and disincentives to physicians as a cost control mechanism. That is the sanitized version of it. The dirty little secret is that the IPBA’s mandates will ultimately steer care away from certain high cost aspects of health care, which unsurprisingly will affect seniors the most as end of life care accounts for most of those high cost procedures and hospital stays. Hence it is Obamacare that mandates reduction in care to seniors. There is no such mandate in Ryan’s plan.
Here is an analysis of Obamacare vs. Ryancare:
http://www.benjaminrushsociety.org/articles-top/152-the-real-death-trap-is-obamacare
And as for Obamacare supposedly lowering the rate of cost increases at least one study shows that in England whose system is modeled on the same platform as the IPBA has seen their health care cost rise faster than those in the U.S.–
http://blogs.forbes.com/aroy/2011/04/22/if-rationing-is-so-great-why-does-britain-have-higher-cost-growth-than-the-u-s/
Leftists and nanny state/big government types like to have it both ways. On the one hand they chastise any efforts to privatize or otherwise remove responsibility for costs from the government because they say it would reduce care options, and yet at the same time they refuse to acknowledge (even though they really know) that we cannot go on forever funding it. So something has got to give…either we go for rationing (Obamacare) or we introduce alternative funding and cost control mechanisms that favor free market solutions. But of course it does not suit the political aims of the left to be honest.
WSJ:
“Mr. Obama, by contrast, is relying on the so far
unidentified technocratic reforms of 15 so far
unidentified geniuses who are supposed to give up
medical practice or academic research for the
privilege of a government salary. Since the board
is not allowed by law to restrict treatments, ask
seniors to pay more, or raise taxes or the retirement
age, it can mean only one thing: arbitrarily paying
less for the services seniors receive, via fiat
pricing.”
Many experts are predicting that healthcare rationing
will be part of IPAB’s oversight responsibility.
This is a worst-case scenario developing for America’s
seniors. And it isn’t far removed from the “death
panel” picture that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid so
vehemently denied when passing this healthcare
disaster.”
Accompanying the IPAB mandate are hundreds of pages of regulations that have recently been released that explain the mission of the board in greater detail. I have searched in vain for the transcript of an interview wherein a doctor explained in detail how it functions, but suffice it to say the government’s role will be dominating and intrusive. Indeed, there are well over 100 new agencies and regulatory bodies created under Obamacare and tens of thousands of pages of regulatory language either in the process of being written or soon will be.
Happy Easter! He is risen!
Bobby,
There is but one Baptism, therefore Baptisms properly performed in non-Catholic religions make one a Catholic and such a one remains a Catholic until he professes a religion separate from the Body of Christ. For my Mystici Corporis Christi quote see 2286 Denzinger.
Warren
“There is but one Baptism, therefore Baptisms properly performed in non-Catholic religions make one a Catholic and such a one remains a Catholic until he professes a religion separate from the Body of Christ.”
Oh amen, absolutely! I didn’t think this is in opposition to what I said at all.
I’ll check my copy of Denzinger when I get home. I think we’re on the same page, though. Perhaps the problem is in actually called Protestant churches “churches” (as opposed to ecclesiastical communities)? I guess at this point I think we agree…
Jerry –
I don’t understand neither the confusion here, nor the long, off-topic rambling of a Wall Street Journal Article. The logic is pretty simple here. Back in the day, this blog posted ramblings on the fake “death panels” under the umbrella of being a pro-life type issue. We now have other legislation proposed that folks are rightfully questioning their impact to seniors and the poor. So why ignore that issue? Because it came from a Republican?
I think it is pretty foolish/scary for you, somebody I believe to be pretty bright, to say you “strongly disagree” that it will hurt seniors. I could ask you 15 questions about the impact to seniors and you would have absolutely no idea because the plan isn’t detailed enough. If the Democrats rolled out a plan as vague as this, and voted on it as quickly as this, you’d be up in arms. It’s a bit odd to me quite frankly.
The rest of your post is really not worth chatting about as it is off topic – again, we either are concerned about the impact to folks under the umbrella of being pro-life, or we aren’t. If we are concerned only about one side of the coin, then we’re less pro-life, and more talking heads for a political organization.
Also – thanks for the postings – though one of them is 5 months before the election, and the other is three (and isn’t about full corporate giving, but just a portion of the corporate world).
A little scary that the campaign finance laws make it so tough to find that type of information out.
Bobby,
Agree? Not quite, for you wrote “Protestant and Orthodox have valid baptism so they are members of the body of Christ”. Members of Protestant Eccesial Communites and Orthodox Churchs are not Catholic and not members of the Body of Christ.
Warren
Oh, well, thanks, Warren. As a Bible-believing Protestant, it’s good to know I’m not a member of the Body of Christ. :-/
Interestingly enough, I don’t think I’d have the gall to ever say that just because someone doesn’t belong to my denomination that somehow they’re not a member of the Body of Christ. Surely there are other criteria than membership in a particular Christian group…?
Kel,
As a Bible-believing Catholic I say there are no “Christian groups”. See my above Aoril 25 comments to Bryan and Ninek.
Warren
Kel –
Pick up your Bible – the validation found within is the only validation that you need.
“Agree? Not quite, for you wrote “Protestant and Orthodox have valid baptism so they are members of the body of Christ”. Members of Protestant Eccesial Communites and Orthodox Churchs are not Catholic and not members of the Body of Christ.”
But Vatican 2 says:
5. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.
I see. So, your comment on 4/25 at 6:32 says, “Protestants and Othodox are not part of the Body of Christ.”
So, you’re saying what I think you’re saying, then. You are claiming that by virtue of being Protestant, I am not part of the Body of Christ?
From the CCC:
838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.”322 Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”324
Kel,
What that person said seems to be would be out of step as taught by Catholics today, per Vatican 2 and CCC, where Eastern Orthodox is considered valid communion to them (though Eastern Orthodoxy does not see them as valid communion). And where true Protestant believers in Christ are seen as mystically by virtue of faith and identity with Christ, mystically made part of the body of Christ, though visibly they are not. There are forms of Catholicism that would disagree with these but then again they don’t submit themselves to the Pope past Vatican 2 either.
Not Catholic by the way, but catholic with little c and Lutheran.
X-GOP, i can’t believe I am saying this as I don’t think we’ve ever seen eye to eye… but good post!
Pinisher, “But Vatican 2 says”: “Nevertheless, our separated brethern, whether considered as individuals, or as communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all who he has given new birth into one body, and whom he has quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation. that the fullness of salvation can be obtained.It was to the apostolic college, alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those must [oportet] be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God”. Decree on Ecumenism 3.
Warren, you wrote
“There is but one Baptism, therefore Baptisms properly performed in non-Catholic religions make one a Catholic”
So you admit that non-Catholic baptisms are valid. I gave the quote from the Catechism that says that one who is validly baptized is a member of teh body of Christ. What do we disagree about?
Warren, I agree 100% with your quote from Vatican II, but it does NOT say that validly baptized Christians are not members of teh body of Christ. Again, given that you admit that non-Christians can have valid baptism (so that our friends here like Kel, Punisher, etc. are validly baptized) how do you argue with CCC 1267?
1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: “Therefore . . . we are members one of another.”72 Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.”
They are members of teh body of Christ- again, albeit not in full communion and lacking access to ALL the fullness of grace and truth that we as Catholics believe Jesus intended for his Church, especially the sacrament of the Eucharist. I don’t know what in you Vatican II contradicts this. Amen to the fact that it is Christ’s Church alone that the fullness of salvation can be obtained. If a non-Catholic is saved, she is saved through the Catholic Church. But again, this doesn’t contradict teh fact (nay, it is consistent with teh fact) that validly baptized people are members of teh Body of Christ. God love you.
Bobby, Kel and Punisher,
Valid Baptism makes one a Catholic and that one remains a Catholic until he/she becomes a Protestant separated from and outside of the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ, “into which all those ( Protestants) must be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God”. Vatican 2 Ecumenism 3. ” If a non- Catholic is saved” he/she is saved by becomming Catholic because outside the Catholic Church no one at all can be saved from Hell.
Warren
Warren,
I agree with most of what you’re saying, but I”m not sure about this part:
“one remains a Catholic until he/she becomes a Protestant”
If one is baptized (validly) in a Protestant service or by a Protestant minister, as a Protestant (etc), even though I agree that that ultimately initiates them into teh Catholic Church, they never formally defect from teh catholic Church into non-Catholic religion. I mean, they have grown up and all they know is what they have been raised in in their Protestant tradition. So really from day 1 they not accepted the Pope’s authority and never have received the fullness of teh sacraments… I guess here is what i’m trying to get at:
Suppose someone is baptized and raised in a Baptist faith tradition. As (it seems) we both agree about, they are initiated into teh Catholic faith, but raised and brought up in a tradition in which they are not in full communion with the catholic faith. At what point do they “become Protestants” and “leave” teh body of Christ? I don’t think this distinction is well defined, and I’m not sure where such a distinction can be found in Catholic teaching; that is, the teaching that someone who is born and raised a Protestant is (unknown to them) a member of the body of Christ (the Catholic Church) (and here I am agreeing) but at some point, without them doing anything differently than they have been their whole life, they leave the Catholic Church and become Protestant (it is the stuff after “but at some point” that I am questioning the existence of).
So it si there that I am not sure where this is.
Bobby,
“one remains a Catholic until he/she becomes a Protestant”. When a person is properly baptized in a Protestant service by a Protestant minister that person is baptized a Catholic, not a Protestant, yet that person ceases to be a Catholic upon professing to be a Protestant and surely upon rejecting Catholic Church authority and doctrine.
Warren
Ex claims:
”If the Democrats rolled out a plan as vague as this, and voted on it as quickly as this, you’d be up in arms.”
Actually, they did and we are up in arms about it: it is called “Obamacare”.
I will try to remember to keep it simpler for you in the future. You confuse background and detail with “rambling”. I am glad to see you seemed to have dropped the contention that pro-lifers and Christians are against health care for the poor and elderly, anymore than you are for supporting Obamacare.
Jerry –
You right wingers can’t have it both ways – on one hand, you yell that the plan is too “vague”, then the next day you yell that it is too long and detailed!
No need to keep it simpler – just keep it on topic – if we’re talking about medicare cutbacks and the Paul Ryan plan, it just seems silly to talk about advisory boards and Obama.
I’m just saying, if this site and others had concerns earlier about possible rationing under Obamacare, then those same folks ought to REALLY be concerned with the end results of an implemented Ryan plan. REALLY concerned. And for a pro-life website to take up one issue and ignore the other smells a bit fishy to me.
Warren,
“that person ceases to be a Catholic upon professing to be a Protestant and surely upon rejecting Catholic Church authority and doctrine”
I appreciate your response, but where does the Catholic Church teach this?
Bobby,”that person ceases to be a Catholic upon professing to be a Protestant and surely upon rejecting Catholic Church authority and doctrine”.
“In the Church they alone are to be counted as members who have received the baptism of regeneration and profess the true [Catholic Church teaching] faith … And those [the baptized] divided [separated from the Catholic Church] by reason of faith [professing Protestant teaching contrary to Catholic Church teaching] or of government [not being subject to Catholic Church authority] cannot live in this one Body, and in its one Divine Spirit”. The Mystical Body of Christ by Pope PiusXII (D. 2286).
Warren
Ex says:
“You right wingers can’t have it both ways – on one hand, you yell that the plan is too “vague”, then the next day you yell that it is too long and detailed!”
Three problems with your reply:
1) Wrong first of all defining opposition to Obamacare as only from”right wingers” unless you you define the majority of the country–who are against Obamacare–as “right wingers”.
2) Don’t you recall Pelosi saying words to the effect that we won’t know what is in the bill until we pass it? Why would she say such a thing if it were not vague? Indeed, if it was vague to her, should it be different for us?
3) Now, as the rules are being written that actually spells it out in great detail with thousands of pages yet to come–well….the devil is in the details. The details are frightening.
So, you see we are not having it both ways. There are two separate sets of circumstances that lend themselves to separate observations and conclusions.
Are they truly frightening Jerry? What issues within Health Care Reform are most troubling?
Pelosi was a bit bad with her words – a little like Michael Steele the other day – when asked in Ryan’s plan what happens when a senior runs out of the 15K they’d get: “We don’t know.”
Ah, that is pretty darn comforting!