Abortion, the campaign’s glaring non-issue? Kmiec would cede to Pope?
Patrick O’Hannigan has a great piece in today’s American Spectator….
… For every Newsweek reporter who wondered why there was no “central debate” over abortion in the presidential campaign, thousands of other people saw that debate spotlighted more glaringly than ever before in the warp and woof of the rival tickets, with a pair of pro-life candidates facing off against their decidedly ambivalent counterparts….
One wonders how Newsweek would explain the name recognition that little Trig Palin now enjoys.
Or, to put this another way, had abortion not been a significant campaign issue, the endorsement of Obama by Catholic law professor Doug Kmiec would not have made the splash it did.
Instead, Kmiec abandoned past service in Republican administrations to parlay off-the-scale approval ratings from Planned Parenthood for Obama into a cottage industry, defending the idea that electing a president who has never supported even modest restrictions on abortion rights would somehow reduce the level of abortions nationwide. (With arrogance masquerading as magnanimity, Kmiec now says he would change his mind if the Pope personally corrected him.)…
Sure enough…
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.
Again with the lying. The Pope has already told Doug Kmiec ( and me and you)that his support of Obama is the support of an intrinsic evil. This is done through the teaching of the Church. Should we all expect a personal call in the future from the Pope telling us what to do. The teachings are there (Kmiec even mentions the Magisterium). We are expected as Catholics to know the teachings and adhere to them for the sake of our salvation not to play politics.
OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA!!!!!!
http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916
12 Minutes In.
Post This on even blogg you can before the Obama Camp removes it. Hurray!
OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA!!!!! The Kenya Embassy has Confirmed It as well as Obama’s Grandmother!
made a short transcription of the segment of the interview wherein he makes his admittal.
———————–
Interviewer: One more quick question, President elect Obama over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit where he was born?
Ogego: It’s already an attraction, his paternal Grandmother is still alive, and uhhh…
Interviewer: But his birth place, they’ll put up a marker there?
Ogego: *unknown garble* the government it is already well known.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/15bishops.html
“There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position [on abortion] may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons,” the document says.
“Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who is pro-choice?” said the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. “What they are saying is, ‘Yes.’”
The liberal mind is a fascinating, but totally irrational thing. Here is the teaching “reality” as put forth by the Magesterium of the Catholic Church in the Catechism. Read it carefully, notice the penalty of excommunicaton (which by bthe way is not attributed to people who fail to give to the poor etc):
2270 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
2272 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.
2273 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.
*****
Only an imbecile or a moron or a logic twisting liberal could read the teaching above and conclude that a Catholic could in any way support the procurement of an abortion. UGHHH!
This tteaching makes the humanity and value of babies in the womb undeniable and declares every procured abortion as intrinsically evil. Reality, how much clearer can a teaching be and yet you somehow deny it.
“There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position [on abortion] may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons,” the document says.
“Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who is pro-choice?” said the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. “What they are saying is, ‘Yes.’”
Posted by: reality at November 21, 2008 10:57 AM
The answer is only “Yes” if the candidate is less in favor of abortion then the other option. So Obamanation was an emphatic NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! And if you understood Catholic teaching as I posted it above then it would be obvious to you. Liberals are such swindling, kniving scum when they take a teaching like that so out of context in order to lead others astray of the truth. Reality, their is a position for you in the liberal MSM.
What hubris! Is there a picture of Kmiec next to the definition of “arrogance” in the dictionary?
As a Roman Catholic for all my life, having attended 12 years of Catholic religion classes, and having a great, orthodox pastor for the past 15 years, I can say unequivocally that it is not, and never has been, Catholic doctrine to proclaim that one is only in a state of error IF THE POPE contacts you personally. Yeah, I believe England’s Henry VIII got a personal envoy with a few personal letters (aka “smack down”) but I wouldn’t worry if you don’t have call waiting on your phone Mr. Kmiec.
Seems like quite a few “Catholics” like Kmiec are thumbing their collective noses at the Pope, and the church in general. So far, they are still allowed to say that they are still Catholics in “good standing”. Sad thing to see.
Matthew 18:6-7 (New International Version)
6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
7″Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!
Dude, Kmiec.
You’re surrounded with thousands of pages of proof that your position was scandalous at best and you’re up on your lecture horse waiting for the caller ID to display “Vatican City”?
Does the word “confession” hold any significance to you?
11/17/08: The Catholic News Agency published an article called Kmiec says he will change his ‘pro-Obama’ position if the Pope tells him to do so. I posted a response (9:23 pm).
I spoke up for Kmiec’s position last Monday on the CNA ‘site and I’d be happy to do the same here.
There are two separate issues that a lot of people seem to be intent on fusing together. The first is whether the government ought to protect the lives of the unborn; the second is whether the policy of restricting a woman’s access to abortion will actually save lives. It’s possible for people to agree on the first issue and disagree on the second.
To my way of thinking it would be far better to have a situation where a woman was allowed to have an abortion but chose not to than one where a woman wanted to abort but was unable to access the procedure legally. That’s why, from my perspective, it makes a lot more sense to work to persuade mothers that their unborn children have the right to live and thrive than it does to appeal to Congress, or the president, or the Supreme Court to make legal abortions harder to obtain.
Many people are ‘Pro-Choice’ but there are also many who are something different which is ‘pro-abortion’. Additionally, there are many people who are ‘Pro-Life’ and a quite a few who are also ‘anti-choice’. If I take the anti-choice position and argue against someone who is ‘Pro-Choice’ I’m in a very bad position (and for 35 years, proabortion advocates have managed to make that the argument.) On the other hand, if I take a ‘Pro-Life’ position and argue against someone who is ‘proabortion’ I will have no problem winning the argument.
Pro-Lifers have long been getting suckered into fighting the losing fight instead of the winning fight. That’s because they’ve allowed the other side to make the discussion about whether a mother may have an abortion instead of instead of whether she should have one.
What Prof. Kmiec understands, and what I understand, but many don’t understand is that there will be fewer abortions under an Obama administration than there would be under a McCain administration. That’s because Obama is determined to use non-coercive strategies to lower the abortion rate and those are strategies that are not only more likely to be effective but will also get the backing of the vast majority of Americans.
Every time a Pro-Lifer comes up with a strategy to make it harder for a woman to access an abortion he or she loses the opportunity to reach that woman and persuade her to defend her own child’s human rights. Americans in the year 2008 are a lot harder to coerce than they are to convince (especially if you’re trying to convince them to advocate for the helpless.)
Instead of laying the blame abortion at the feet of government officials, I think it should be laid at the feet of those who had an opportunity to persuade a mother to choose life but wasted their time trying to force her to do what she didn’t want to do.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Dear Paul,
What size millstone would you like to order?
You seriously need to change that “Pro-Life Catholics for Choice” signature to “Pro-Choice Apostate for Shreddding”.
I can give you 48 million reasons why.
Good post, Paul Bradford.
Many Catholics have abortions, and even many evangelicals have abortions too. As people realize that Obama’s approach may be better – if the non-coercive plans work – then in reality the end that Pro-Lifers want is achieved.
“Pro-Lifers have long been getting suckered into fighting the losing fight instead of the winning fight. That’s because they’ve allowed the other side to make the discussion about whether a mother may have an abortion instead of instead of whether she should have one.”
This is, in my view, the correct approach. The organized opposition would melt away, since many are comfortable defending the “right” to abortion, few are willing to say someone “should have” an abortion.
Paul Bradford, I feel obligated to tell you that if you do not repent you are going to burn in Hell along with Prof Kmiec. And that’s the only warning you’re going to get from me.
Here’s my reply to the inevitable post of:
“John, you’re so mean and crazy! Why do you say he’s going to Hell?????? WAAH!!!! :'((((((”
He is going to Hell if he does not repent because he arguing, along with Prof Kmiec, that unborn children should not have a right to life. He is trying to pervert the pro-life argument and make it “pro-life” to be “pro-choice”. He is saying that unborn children should not be protected in our laws. He is saying that a woman should have every right to choose to kill her children, and that all we should do is try to convince her NOT to kill her child. He is arguing that Obama is more pro-life than actual pro-lifers, based on the notion that Obama is more pro-contraception than most pro-lifers. Again, I don’t know why I have to repeat this to someone who calls himself “Catholic”, but the Catholic Church has strongly condemned all means of artificial contraception for decades.
I’m talking directly to those of you who are Catholic right now. If you want society to use contraception to stop abortion, then you are at war with the Catholic Church. I know that many of the Protestants disagree, but it is unchangeable Catholic doctrine that sex outside of marriage is always wrong and that any means of ‘controlling birth’ other than NFP is always wrong.
Kmiec said that he would stop arguing in support of candidates who intend to strip away the right to life from unborn babies and use contraceptives to decrease the number of abortions if the Pope told him to. Well, Kmiec, the Popes have actually told you to stop doing that hundreds of times over the past few decades. Open your eyes and try reading what they have written instead of allowing yourself to be blinded by the Obama-hype.
Doug Kmiec has to get a phone call from the pope telling him he is wrong? How amusing. Here is a student of the law that is trained to discern and draw out the truth in the most difficult of situations, and he cannot divine what the church’s constant teaching has been for 2000 years? And he cannot pick up a copy of the Catechism and spend 2 minutes perusing through the statements on abortion and see very clearly defined teachings?
P.S. Paul Bradford may want to get his own copy of the Catechism as well.
Dear Paul,
I am confused. If Obama believes the way to reduce the number of abortions is to provide more assistance for women in crisis pregnancies, more contraception, more education etc, then why has he said that his first action as POTUS would be to REMOVE all restrictions on abortions passed by states since Roe v Wade and make abortion more accessible and less accountable than ever before? If his plans are to genuinely reduce the demand for abortion, then why is he so enthusiastic to increase the supply?
Excuse me Paul, give it up and obey the Lord God of Hosts in the mighty Name of Jesus Christ the Lord of Heaven and Earth:
What you or I say has no bearing on abortion, which are merely teachings of men. God has spoken very clearly in His word regarding life and death:
Deuteronomy 30:
11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
19 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Paul Bradford, I feel obligated to tell you that if you do not repent you are going to burn in Hell along with Prof Kmiec. And that’s the only warning you’re going to get from me.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 21, 2008 5:06 PM
****
Wow – your religion is not giving you what you need.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Posted by:Paul Bradford at Nov 21, 2008 2:47 PM
Paul, read my post from November 21, 2008 1:16 PM. and understand that you have excommunicated yourself from the Body of Christ so stop calling yoursel Catholic. It could not be any clearer.
“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:”
Paul the excommuicated,
Since choice takes precedent over moral law then maybe you are for repealing all laws against murder? No, of course not, because then the most vulnerable in our society would get quashed like babies being aborted. See why your pro-choice to kill analogy is so misguided?
“Wow – your religion is not giving you what you need.”
More accurately, it’s not giving Paul and Prof Kmiec what THEY need.
I have more respect for George “the baby killer” Tiller than I do for Doug Kmiec.
Maybe they’ll get it if I put it in all-caps:
TO BE PRO-LIFE, YOU MUST BELIEVE THAT UNBORN CHILDREN HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST. IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT UNBORN CHILDREN HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST, THEN YOU ARE NOT PRO-LIFE.
“Wishing” that there were fewer abortions doesn’t make you pro-life.
Throwing condoms at teenagers doesn’t make you pro-life.
Stealing money from “the rich” to pay for insane and wasteful government programs doesn’t make you pro-life.
What makes you pro-life? WHEN YOU SUPPORT THE RIGHT TO LIFE FOR UNBORN CHILDREN. THAT’S WHY OBAMA IS NOT PRO-LIFE. IT’S REALLY NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND, PEOPLE.
Jasper, I have more respect for Osama bin Laden than I do for most of the pro-aborts on this blog. At least bin Laden is honest about his intentions – he wants to kill us all and destroy our country. If only pro-aborts were capable of such honesty when it comes to their hatred of the unborn.
Thats true John. Tiller and Bin-Laden are evil, no doubt, but they think what they are doing is good. Catholics/Christians who know the truth abortion and act in a way that supports it (i.e. voting/supporting Obama), is even worse.
Jasper, that’s exactly why it drives my temper off the charts. Support for evil is one thing, but that they would stand here and claim to be “pro-life Catholics” who enthusiastically support the most pro-abortion president of all time?
To paraphrase Chesterton, when I read that, my contempt boils over into bad behavior.
Wow! I went out for dinner a little while ago and now that I’ve come back I see that a lot of people have read my post. Thank you all for your attention.
HisMan, I’ve always liked the scripture passage you’ve selected for us to examine. I particularly like v 14-15:
[This command] is something very near to you, already in your mouths and in your hearts; you have only to carry it out.
Here, then, I have today set before you life and prosperity, death and doom.
God’s commands are to be brought to our very hearts — not something distant, something very near. We can count on God’s commands to bring us life. To say that we live because we obey God’s commandments doesn’t come close to the reality which is that our life’s sum and substance is to follow God’s commands.
How paltry would be the life of the woman who couldn’t see clear to offer nurturance to her very own child without coercion and the fear of punishment! To care about the lives of women is to long for them to see with their own eyes and in their own hearts the glorious truth that they are immersed in a life-giving relationship that they would certainly say “yes” to if they could but appreciate it.
That’s why I said (in my earlier post): To my way of thinking it would be far better to have a situation where a woman was allowed to have an abortion but chose not to than one where a woman wanted to abort but was unable to access the procedure legally.
If this miraculous command of God that leads to life is percieved as an obstacle to getting what she wants, a woman really hasn’t allowed the command to reach her heart. It’s not really God’s command, it’s an imposition made by men. Do any of us have the power to pull her out of that trap? I believe we do. I believed that if we appealed to her sense of life and purpose she would move (willingly, and even eagerly) closer to God’s command. On the other hand I believe that if she percieves herself as being controlled, and fears that she doesn’t even have control over her own body, she’ll never get close to the joy of appreciating the glory of this scripture passage.
MickiMac I, too, have heard Obama’s pronouncements to Planned Parenthood. He has a real enthusiasm for the cause of protecting women from external control, and he makes his arguments persuasively — but he never once comes close to addressing the question that really matters which is ‘what should a woman do with the power she has over her own pregnancy?’. Pro-Lifers are constantly allowing him (and every champion of choice) to avoid the question by simply saying ‘it’s up to her’. But people don’t make moral decisions in a vacuum and if we simply stopped ‘taking the bait’ and said “Yes, it’s up to her and because it’s up to her I want to persuade her that she has a responsibility to her child.” What would he, or any Pro-Choice politician do?
He certainly wouldn’t say, “Well, if you try to talk her out of an abortion I’ll try to talk her into it.” That would be moving from the Pro-Choice position (where he’s safe) to the pro-abortion position (which is where he doesn’t want to be).
Please don’t think that I believe Obama (or any president) will solve the abortion problem. Mothers will solve the abortion problem; but there’s no other choice but to let them choose. A law that empowers the government to control what happens inside the body of one of its citizens is bound to fail. God’s command on this matter is directed to the women who have the power to execute that command — not to the people who would remove responsibility from the mother.
“Mothers will solve the abortion problem; but there’s no other choice but to let them choose.”
In other words, you believe the pro-life movement to be a complete waste, and you demand that we all convert to pro-choice.
Paul Bradford,
You have a lot words there about Mothers but none about the lives of unborn children.
Other ways to apply Paul’s insane argument:
-To my way of thinking it would be far better to have a situation where a murderer was allowed to commit murder but chose not to than one where a murderer wanted to murder but was unable to murder legally.
-To my way of thinking it would be far better to have a situation where a rapist was allowed to commit rape but chose not to than one where a rapist wanted to rape but was unable to rape legally.
-To my way of thinking it would be far better to have a situation where a thief was allowed to commit theft but chose not to than one where a thief wanted to steal but was unable to steal legally.
-To my way of thinking it would be far better to have a situation where a Marxist president was allowed to commit redistribution of wealth but chose not to than one where a Marxist president wanted to redistribute wealth but was unable to redistribute wealth legally.
-To my way of thinking it would be far better to have a situation where a pro-abortion extremist was allowed to run for president but chose not to than one where a pro-abortion extremist wanted to get elected but was unable to be elected legally.
John Lewandowski You wrote, To paraphrase Chesterton, when I read that, my contempt boils over into bad behavior.
I took a look at Christopher Morrissey’s ‘site and, according to him, your memory for Chesterton’s quote is good. The full quote:
my contempt boils over into bad behavior when I hear the common suggestion that a birth is avoided because people want to be ‘free’ to go to the cinema or buy a gramophone or a loud-speaker. What makes me want to walk over such people like door-mats in that they use the word ‘free’.” When human babies are not preferred to material possessions, this preference is not a sign of freedom but of servitude. Material possessions are not signs of freedom; children are.
I’d be curious to know whether you agree with him on that.
By the way, you suggested that I “believe the pro-life movement to be a complete waste, and demand that we all convert to pro-choice.”
That’s not quite true. I believe that the ‘anti-choice’ movement is a complete waste — but there’s a lot more to the Pro-Life movement than that. Let me suggest that you look at the website for Feminists for Life. (There was a flurry of interest in FFL when it was revealed that Sarah Palin was a member. Interestingly, though, FFL did not endorse the McCain/Palin ticket and did have a lot of nice things to say about the abortion language Obama had put into the Democratic Party Platform.)
At any rate, what interests me about FFL is their approach. They don’t spend time trying to influence legislation. They take their case directly to women. Please look at their ad series.
FFL is an example of an organization that is ‘Pro-Life’ without being ‘anti-choice’. Another good example of an organization like that is Pro-Life Catholics for Choice.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
John
You’re posting faster than I can respond to you!
Two important factors that I’ve included in my assessment of the issue of getting mothers to respect the lives of their unborn children are 1) the fact that they have a vital relationship (mother/child) with the one their misbehavior would victimize and 2) the fact that we are all sovereign of our own bodies.
Murderers, rapists and thieves do not have vital relationships with their victims nor do their crimes occur inside their own bodies. Laws against theft are more effective than laws against abortion would be — but we disagree about that. We disagree about the best way to protect the unborn; we don’t disagree about the importance to protect the unborn.
Yes, Paul, and another good example of an organization like that is Planned Parenthood, or NARAL.
John Lewandowski
Pro-Life Catholic for Pro-Life
BTW, I’m going to bed now. I’ll check back on this thread tomorrow.
Sleep well…..
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Paul, you don’t understand. I don’t give a damn what you have to say. I think it’s all garbage. I think you’re a complete fraud. I have absolutely no desire to have a conversation with someone as deluded as yourself.
That said, may St. Thomas Aquinas haunt your dreams and kick your butt out of your current stupor.
Paul:
We are not supposed to add to the Word of God.
Just obey it.
Otherwie, any evil is justifiable.
God commands us to choose life.
If a woman wants to kill her baby, no matter the reason, those of us who possess the oracles of God and who know better, have a duty and a obligation to protect that child, not only for the child’s sake but for the mother’s sake as well, unitl such time as she comes to repentance. Evil must never be justified, never.
Jude 1
Greetings from Jude
1 This letter is from Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and a brother of James.
I am writing to all who have been called by God the Father, who loves you and keeps you safe in the care of Jesus Christ.
2 May God give you more and more mercy, peace, and love.
The Danger of False Teachers
3 Dear friends, I had been eagerly planning to write to you about the salvation we all share. But now I find that I must write about something else, urging you to defend the faith that God has entrusted once for all time to his holy people. 4 I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. The condemnation of such people was recorded long ago, for they have denied our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
5 So I want to remind you, though you already know these things, that Jesus first rescued the nation of Israel from Egypt, but later he destroyed those who did not remain faithful. 6 And I remind you of the angels who did not stay within the limits of authority God gave them but left the place where they belonged. God has kept them securely chained in prisons of darkness, waiting for the great day of judgment. 7 And don’t forget Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, which were filled with immorality and every kind of sexual perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the eternal fire of God’s judgment.
8 In the same way, these people—who claim authority from their dreams—live immoral lives, defy authority, and scoff at supernatural beings. 9 But even Michael, one of the mightiest of the angels, did not dare accuse the devil of blasphemy, but simply said, “The Lord rebuke you!” (This took place when Michael was arguing with the devil about Moses’ body.) 10 But these people scoff at things they do not understand. Like unthinking animals, they do whatever their instincts tell them, and so they bring about their own destruction. 11 What sorrow awaits them! For they follow in the footsteps of Cain, who killed his brother. Like Balaam, they deceive people for money. And like Korah, they perish in their rebellion.
12 When these people eat with you in your fellowship meals commemorating the Lord’s love, they are like dangerous reefs that can shipwreck you. They are like shameless shepherds who care only for themselves. They are like clouds blowing over the land without giving any rain. They are like trees in autumn that are doubly dead, for they bear no fruit and have been pulled up by the roots. 13 They are like wild waves of the sea, churning up the foam of their shameful deeds. They are like wandering stars, doomed forever to blackest darkness.
14 Enoch, who lived in the seventh generation after Adam, prophesied about these people. He said, “Listen! The Lord is coming with countless thousands of his holy ones 15 to execute judgment on the people of the world. He will convict every person of all the ungodly things they have done and for all the insults that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
16 These people are grumblers and complainers, living only to satisfy their desires. They brag loudly about themselves, and they flatter others to get what they want.
A Call to Remain Faithful
17 But you, my dear friends, must remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ said. 18 They told you that in the last times there would be scoffers whose purpose in life is to satisfy their ungodly desires. 19 These people are the ones who are creating divisions among you. They follow their natural instincts because they do not have God’s Spirit in them.
20 But you, dear friends, must build each other up in your most holy faith, pray in the power of the Holy Spirit, 21 and await the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will bring you eternal life. In this way, you will keep yourselves safe in God’s love.
22 And you must show mercy to those whose faith is wavering. 23 Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives.
A Prayer of Praise
24 Now all glory to God, who is able to keep you from falling away and will bring you with great joy into his glorious presence without a single fault. 25 All glory to him who alone is God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord. All glory, majesty, power, and authority are his before all time, and in the present, and beyond all time! Amen.
Wow! I went out for dinner a little while ago and now that I’ve come back I see that a lot of people have read my post. Thank you all for your attention.
Posted by: Paul Bradford at Nov 21, 2008 9:00 PM
I noticed you had no words to reply to my posts. And quit calling yourself a pro-choice Catholic when the choice is to tear a baby from his/her mother’s womb in bloody pieces. Your moniker is an oxymoron.
Paul Bradford,
You have a lot words there about Mothers but none about the lives of unborn children.
Posted by: Jasper at November 21, 2008 9:39 PM
Geat point Jasper, but don’t expect a response. His kind picks their arguments carefully. Notice he had no response to his own damnation as professed by the Magesterium of the faith he claims to folow.
Let’s re-coin your position, Paul: Selective Mercy.
“…we don’t disagree about the importance to protect the unborn.”
Slight problem there; the fallacy of “choice” is that some things ARE more important to the pregnant parents than the life of their child. And you’re misguided enough to go right along with them out of deference to their percieved “coercion”.
Once they’re viewed as “forced”, then all fetal importance goes right out the window.
Bad enough we’ve got to deal with the all-or-nothing anti-abortionites; now we’ve got to defend the catholic faith from faux catholics!
“the fact that we are all sovereign of our own bodies.”
Do tell, Paul.
What’s that annoying little scripture passage that states that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit; that our bodies are NOT our own; that we were purchased at a great price?
Kmiec is apparently used to giving his mind to others, for their use.
“Bad enough we’ve got to deal with the all-or-nothing anti-abortionites; now we’ve got to defend the catholic faith from faux catholics!”
Last I check, there’s ‘someone’ else that has the job deciding who the ‘real’ Catholics are.. and it’s not you.
Yeah, Josephine, he’s called “the Pope”, and throughout the decades and centures, the Popes have with one voice condemned the murder of innocent children in the womb.
But Paul and other frauds think that in order to stop abortion, the pro-life movement should give up. He thinks we should surrender to the pro-choice movement and all convert to pro-choice. He’s not saying this as a tactic to undermine the pro-choice position; he’s seriously asking us to give up on being pro-life, which is just what Kmiec and Cafardi and the rest have done in supporting the most pro-abortion president ever.
I’ll say it again – BEING PRO-LIFE MEANS THAT YOU THINK THAT UNBORN CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO LIVE. The phonies are arguing against that right. Paul has even gone so far as to suggest that unborn children SHOULD NOT HAVE the right to live! How on earth can we possibly take someone seriously if he says that unborn children shouldn’t have a right to life and then calls himself “pro-life”?
Dear Paul,
Thanks for your response, but it doesn’t begin to answer my question. I still don’t understand how Obama, Kmeic, your group, or any other self proclaimed “pro-choice pro-lifers” can claim to want less abortions and yet want to remove all restrictions on abortion (and remain intellectually honest.) I didn’t think for a minute that you believe Obama’s policies will end abortion- where you and I differ is that apparently you can’t see how much damage Obama’s policies will do.
It is normal for a woman, when she first discovers she is pregnant, to feel scared, anxious etc, even when the pregnancy is planned. She is experiencing a powerful combination of hormonal changes and a frightening awareness that something very serious has happened that will change her life forever. As I said, even women happy to be pregnant, in stable, positive circumstances, often go through this time of uncertainty and adjustment. Those feelings are heightened or resolved by a woman’s circumstances, the reaction of those near and dear to her, her past experiences, and much more. Those feelings, unless acted upon, usually resolve themselves by the end of the first trimester, and women often describe their second trimester as the time when they really started to get excited about the coming baby, if they made it that far.
What women need in this time of emotional upheaval is not readily available abortion. They need reassurance and protection from those who would seek to exploit their vulnerability. For all the hype about “women know what they want,” most of the women I talk to are actually really confused and often are asking about abortion when what they really want is someone to listen to their fears.
Abortionists profit from women’s vulnerability. They rob women of the opportunity to make calm, rational and informed choices. They ignore the fact that unwanted pregnancies which are allowed to continue produce much-adored babies, while many abortions result in damage, regret and irreversible loss. Abortionists only profit when a woman chooses to abort, and so, like any good business, they seek to do as many abortions as they can. A woman who changes her mind is lost income, and repeat customers are like gold.
FOCA will remove hundreds of state-instituted checkpoints that allow a woman to stop and think and get help before she surrenders her body and her child to an abortion. It will mean no more parental consent/notification for minors (while paeodophiles and molesters everywhere rejoice), no more “waiting periods” (in case she has the chance to reconsider) or required ultrasounds (but the baby is just a blob anyway, what are the abortionists afraid of?), no more financial constraints (though it’s always about taxpayers funding abortion rather than asking doctors to perform them for free), no more notification of facts about potential physical and/or emotional risks (again, if abortion is safe, why is this a problem for abortionists?). If Obama and his allies are so concerned for women, why are they surrendering them, at their most vulnerable time, to profiteering abortionists and their marketing plans, half-truths, omissions and flat out lies about what abortion really does to mother and child? They say they want to protect women, and yet FOCA is clearly about protecting the abortion industry and ideology. If it was about “choice” then it would take steps to involve parents, protect women from coercion, make sure women have all the facts about baby development, risks, alternatives, assistance etc. After all, if women are capable of making this life-altering decision, they deserve all the facts- but FOCA seeks to hide them.
There’s a very simple answer to my original question- saying you want less abortions wins votes from those who skim over the issue (since the general understanding of our culture is that abortion is a negative experience), but actually restricting abortions costs you the support of PP, NARAL, NOW and the Hollywood left. There’s a over-used word that describes people whose actions contradict what they say… mmmm.
I’m so glad Wilberforce or Lincoln didn’t try these tactics or we’d still have slavery and still be trying to convince everyone not to want to own slaves while the government says we are allowed to, (and if FOCA was about slavery, the government would also be buying slaves to give to people, protecting the lies about the slaves’ humanity and suffering, requiring certain professionals to own slaves against their consciences,etc)and you’d be arguing that we don’t need the law changed, we just need to change people’s hearts while the slaves continued to suffer.
I find it fascinating that you cite Feminists for Life as you don’t portray them very accurately. FFL was founded on the principles of the earliest feminists who fought not only to end slavery and get women the vote, but to make it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion. The early feminists recognized that women were then, and still are, often coerced into abortion by their partners and circumstances, and they strove to protect those women through the legal system. Those laws stood until Roe v Wade overturned them. You also point out that FFL didn’t endorse Palin- of course they didn’t- they are a nonpartisan organization that does not endorse or support candidates of any party. They do, however, support legislation that protects pregnant women and their babies from abortionists, so I am unsure how you can label them as not being “anti-choice” when they clearly believe that abortionists need to be restricted and made accountable. Their mission comes from the angle of empowering and supporting women first, but don’t assume they wouldn’t be participating in the ticker-tape parade if Roe v Wade was overturned.
You seem to be arguing that the future of the pro-life movement will only be found in abandoning efforts to restrict abortion and instead offering more support for women. Rest assured, I intend to whole-heartedly continue to do both. I will offer pregnant women the support and assistance they need and deserve, and I will also make every effort to ensure that my government protects women and their babies from abortion. You seem to think that those laws don’t work. I can tell you from personal experiences working with abortion-seeking women that a law restricting abortion can be a very useful tool in protecting a mother and her baby. On the other hand, when a pregnant woman is upset and confused, being hassled by her partner or parents, broke, feeling unwell, and says to me “Abortion can’t be that bad or the government wouldn’t let me do it (and help me pay for it, or let me hide it from my parents, or make my pro-life doctor perform it against his conscience…)”, what would you propose I say to her?
Yeah, Josephine, he’s called “the Pope”, and throughout the decades and centures, the Popes have with one voice condemned the murder of innocent children in the womb.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 22, 2008 9:24 AM
I was thinking higher up than the Pope.
Josephine: I was thinking higher up than the Pope.
You mean like Quasimodo?
Josephine, if you can pretend that Jesus approves of legalized baby killing, I guess I can pretend that Jesus hates anyone named “Josephine”, or that anyone named “Doug” is automatically going to Hell. It’s all arbitrary, after all.
Maybe I can pretend that anyone named “Barack Obama” will make a terrible president, according to Jesus? What other words would you like to put in Jesus’ mouth, Josephine? I mean, I know you call yourself Catholic, which means you should defer to the Pope when he talks about what it means to be Catholic, but since we’re making it up as we go along, I guess “Catholic” can mean just about anything, right?
Did you know that Jesus voted for “Lizard People” for president? It’s true, I read it on the internet.
Here are some more applications of the insane arguments of Kmiec, Paul, and Josephine:
-Jesus approves of war and commands us to start wars. He told me so. If we have more people killed in war, there will be less people on earth, so there will be MORE PEACE! PEACE ON EARTH, so Jesus is pro-war. You shouldn’t be anti-war if you’re a Catholic. To be a good Catholic, you must support war, especially pointless wars in which millions of people are killed.
-Jesus approves of starving the poor and the sick to death, because they are suffering. Death by starvation is euphoric and wonderful according to experts like George Felos, plus it ends suffering. Jesus wants us to be happy and end our suffering, therefore Jesus approves of starving the poor and the sick to death. And Jesus does not approve of any attempt to keep the poor and the sick alive, and thus prolong their suffering. To be a good Catholic, you must support the starvation of the sick and the poor.
But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun.
“Maybe I can pretend that anyone named “Barack Obama” will make a terrible president, according to Jesus?”
Too late John, some people have already started pretending that.
But you don’t have to “pretend” to say that anybody who promotes organizations that tear babies from their mother’s wombs is a terrible person according to Jesus.
No, Hal, Obama will make a terrible president according to the principles of economics.
According to God, Obama is a murderer.
MickiMac @ November 22, 2008 10:05 AM,
I’m so glad Wilberforce or Lincoln didn’t try these tactics or we’d still have slavery and still be trying to convince everyone not to want to own slaves while the government says we are allowed to, (and if FOCA was about slavery, the government would also be buying slaves to give to people, protecting the lies about the slaves’ humanity and suffering, requiring certain professionals to own slaves against their consciences,etc)and you’d be arguing that we don’t need the law changed, we just need to change people’s hearts while the slaves continued to suffer.
Awesome post.
John, WHAT are you talking about? I never said ANYTHING about baby-killings. All I said was it’s above YOU GUYS to judge who the real Catholics are. That’s it. I don’t need quotes and fact, I don’t care. I just don’t think YOU can pick who the Catholics are. :)
You mean like Quasimodo?
Posted by: Doug at November 22, 2008 12:11 PM
…’xactly.
“John Lewandowski”
“Pro-Life Catholic for Pro-Life”
That’s a catchy name. Can I become a member? :)
HOLD ON. I just read your second post… and, well, did you even SEE what I said?
I said it’s up to God to decide who the real Catholics are. That is all I said. I’m starting to wonder if you can read. Guess what, the Pope hasn’t ever met me. How does he know if I, personally, am a real Catholic? He’s not all-knowing.
Geeze John, calm the heck down and start reading before you make psycho-posts.
Yes, Josephine, I know what I said. I tried arguing like a Catholic Democrat. Insane, right? That’s the point.
I wasn’t arguing about anything, thank you.
You addressed your comment to me, too.. even though it had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. At all. Stop trying to pick fights, k? K.
Now, it’s a Saturday and I’m going out. So, since I won’t respond, don’t think it’s because you’re awesome and you finally said something that I thought was right. I assure you, I’ll probably disagree with everything you have to say.. ever. :)
Josephine, maybe my problem is that I refuse to believe that I am smarter than all of you liberals. Maybe that’s why I can’t seem to get satisfaction here.
I prefer to think that this is incredibly simple stuff that anyone can get, but maybe I’m wrong.
The dogma of the Catholic Church is well-known and documented. It has all been written down in one place, the Catechism, in case we have any questions about it. Part of being Catholic means that you embrace, or at the very least accept, that which is in the Catechism. If you do not accept everything in the Catechism, then you are lying every time you recite the Creed, in which you claim to believe in a church which is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. If you think you can pick and choose what to believe, then you are saying that the church is not one, that it’s not necessarily holy, that it’s not catholic (ie, universal) and that it’s not apostolic, since the Magisterium is meaningless to you.
I could list my infractions and sins here for all to see, but that would be a ridiculous thing to do. I know that I am a sinner. I know I need God’s help to improve. And for the most part, I know the areas in which I need to improve.
But it would be insane for me to claim that I’m not a sinner, because my sins are not really sins, because I don’t want to believe that they are sins. That is the position of the liberal Catholic. If they find a sin they don’t like, they simply pretend it’s not a sin. And only a word from the mouth of the Pope himself directly addressing them will convince them otherwise. Heck, in your case, even the Pope himself won’t do – it has to be Jesus descending from the clouds telling you that what you’re doing is wrong for you to believe it.
Well, I have news for you. When you see Jesus descending from the clouds, that means it’s too late for you to repent.
I have decided to worship God only because He deserves to be worshipped. I am not concerned about my personal salvation. Perhaps I should be, but I am not. However, I am certain that most Christians seek salvation, and thus it would be in their best interest to stop breaking their communion with God.
John,
Well stated.
Far be it from me to try to add to your thunder, Oh Lewandowski One.
Josephine:
Paul’s posts trying to pass his pro-choice position as pro-life under the guise of catholic body sovereignty is counterfeit. False. Foreign to 2,000 years of clear, authoritative, sanctity-of-life church teaching.
Thus the term faux catholic.
This was not a comment on the state of his soul. I agree with you: at the end of the day, he has to answer to Someone Else, and it’s CERTAINLY not to little ole me.
I wouldn’t be doing him any favors by bobbing my head in agreement with that lunacy and not giving him the heads up, “Paul, dear, you’re about to fall off the spiritual cliff.”
For all I know, he could be a daily communicant going to confession every week as a Third Order Lay Franciscan.
But hey. Henry VIII didn’t like being called out either. St. Thomas could tell us a thing or two about faux-ism.
John, thank the Lord that not all Catholics think like you do.
[shudder]
“I have decided to worship God only because He deserves to be worshipped.”
Why does He deserve to be worshiped?
Carder, I never said you had to agree with him. Truth be told, I didn’t even read his posts. Disagree with him all you want, I really don’t care either way. I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing about.
No matter what you think of his views though, no one on here can decide whether he’s a real Catholic or not. Not one of you.
Some of you are so judgmental and hateful I wonder if you can still consider yourselves “real” Catholics.
Very well, Josephine.
He can just announce it and that should be good enough. No scrutiny, take his word for it and hope for the best. The Unborn be dogged.
He can drag others into his error and complete misunderstanding of the catholic position, but Josephine-forbid we bring it to his attention.
How you consider that hateful remains a mystery, given that I haven’t said I hated him. Au contraire, it is out of love for his soul that has me speaking up. Trust me, if I didn’t care, you wouldn’t have heard a peep from me.
Let’s take a look at your last two statements:
“…no one on here can decide whether he’s a real Catholic or not. Not one of you.”
versus
“Some of you are so judgmental and hateful I wonder if you can still consider yourselves “real” Catholics.”
Kind of contradicted yourself, didn’t you?
So I’ll take it further. Judgemental and hateful disqualifies one from being a “real” catholic according to thou. What, pray tell, constitutes a “real” catholic, then?
On a gentler note, J, we have to remember that Our Lord was not a Sugar Daddy in sandals. He was merciful, to be sure, but He had(s) His moments with the wolves in sheep’s clothing. It could be argued that He sounded hateful and judgemental if you isolate certain passages. But He was harsh because sometimes that’s what it takes for knuckleheads like me and others to “get it”.
How did I contradict myself? I said I wonder how YOU see YOURSELVES. I don’t know if you’re “real” Catholics or not. It’s not my business to know. All I said was that some of you are hateful and judgmental. I didn’t name names, I just made a general assessment of what I think.
I never called anyone a “fake” Catholic. I simply asked what you consider YOURSELVES. :)
And, just so you know… I didn’t say you shouldn’t point out what he said as being wrong. I didn’t say you shouldn’t disagree. I actually said: “Disagree with him all you want, I really don’t care either way”
Because I DON’T care if your opinion differs from him and you let him know. That’s entirely your business. You can argue with him all day and all night, and there’s nothing wrong with that to me. But for ANOTHER human to they THEY have the RIGHT to say who is Catholic and who isn’t… that’s just silly. We don’t know who the “real” Catholics are. :)
“John, thank the Lord that not all Catholics think like you do.”
Ben, if you are referring to what I wrote above, which is about as basic as Catholic theology gets, then I certainly hope that you refrain from reciting the Creed at any point in the future, lest you end up condemning yourself by speaking lies in a church and putting an “Amen” at the end of it.
“Why does He deserve to be worshiped?”
Hal, if you wanted a real answer, I would tell you all about His creation of the universe and of mankind, His endless love, His endless devotion, His being born into the world as a human for the purpose of suffering and dying and then rising so that he could show his love to us and give us the ability to choose to love Him in return and, in death, live with Him in Heaven.
But since you’re just f’ing with me, as usual, I’ll just tell you that God deserves to be worshipped because his name is not “Hal”. How do you like that?
Josephine, who is still not getting it, said: “But for ANOTHER human to they THEY have the RIGHT to say who is Catholic and who isn’t… that’s just silly.”
Who is or who is not Catholic is determined by the Catechism. If you read the Catechism and agree with it, or at least accept it, then you are Catholic. If you do not accept the Catechism, then you are not Catholic. That’s all.
Paul, Kmiec, et al are in direct violation of the Catechism. They know it, but they don’t care. They are deliberately and happily going the against extremely clear language in Catechism 2273:
“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.”
“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.””
As I said, I’m a sinner. I frequently fail to live up the expectations of a Catholic. However, when faced with my own sins, I do not pretend that my sins are not really sins, or that sin in general does not exist. That is crazy, and extremely dangerous.
“Who is or who is not Catholic is determined by the Catechism. If you read the Catechism and agree with it, or at least accept it, then you are Catholic. If you do not accept the Catechism, then you are not Catholic. That’s all.”
You don’t know who does or doesn’t do that. No matter what you see people SAY.. you have no idea.
You win, Josephine. From now on I will not refer to CINO’s (Catholics In Name Only) as faux.
“Hypocrite” would be the more accurate term.
“You don’t know who does or doesn’t do that. No matter what you see people SAY.. you have no idea.”
I think I’m beginning to see the angle you’re taking. We don’t know what’s in the heart of an individual. We can’t judge them because that’s not for us to do and only God can judge that.
If that’s the position you’re taking, then I’d say you’re right! As I posted previously, I wasn’t pronouncing a sentencing, just pointing out how the beliefs of the individuals in question are in direct contradiction to a faith they claim to profess.
But what has me, John, and the lurking public bent out of shape is that these guys go further than just having an opinion. They prance around the internet saying that it’s kosher to believe what they believe and that it would have no effect whatsoever as a follower of the catholic faith.
Are you with me on this, J? Can I move on?
So these pious ones are trying to be something that they are not. Pick the adjective that best describes that sentiment. I listed them already, but you seem to think I’ve condemned these guys to hell or something.
Put another way, “you shall know them by their fruits.”
MickiMac First of all, thank you for your thoughtful and courteous note. I’m not going to pretend I’m above feeling a little put out by the posters on this thread who want to tell me I’m going to hell when, in fact, they haven’t even troubled themselves to try and understand what I’ve said. You, on the other hand, “get it” and I’m happy to respond to you.
You say, You seem to be arguing that the future of the pro-life movement will only be found in abandoning efforts to restrict abortion and instead offering more support for women. Rest assured, I intend to whole-heartedly continue to do both. I will offer pregnant women the support and assistance they need and deserve, and I will also make every effort to ensure that my government protects women and their babies from abortion. You seem to think that those laws don’t work.
You understand my position fairly well. After 40 years of being involved with Pro-Life advocates in one capacity or another I have become impatient with what I see as stubborness on the part of political strategests who are stuck on a plan that has been proven, again and again, to be ineffective. Specifically that plan involves overturning Roe and generally it means criminalizing abortion.
How do we protect women from abortion? I think we can, I think we should, but I think the problem is similar to the problem of figuring out how to protect alcoholics from alcohol. If you’re not an alcoholic, and you take stock of an alcoholic’s behavior, it is obvious to you how destructive the desire to drink is. Similarly, those of us who understand the true implications of the relationship between a mother and her unborn child see how destructive the desire to get an abortion is. Both the alcoholic, and the woman seeking an abortion, is convinced that what they’re looking for is good, even essential, when in fact it is hideously bad.
About ninety years ago, some very caring, devout, sincere people decided that something had to be done about the alcohol problem — and they decided that what was needed was the Prohibition Amendment. As we now realize, Prohibition didn’t protect alcoholics and it didn’t protect the victims of alcoholics; not only that, but it caused a number of new problems that were troubling in their own right.
So, what is the current situation with alcohol abuse — have we stopped thinking that it’s an important problem? If anything, advances in medicine, psychology and family systems have demonstrated, in ways that our great-grandparents couldn’t have known, just how dangerous alcohol can be. So, does that mean we need tougher laws against alcohol use? I don’t think so and, I’ll bet, neither do you.
We now know that alcoholics need treatment, not restrictions. It’s the same with women who want abortions. The mother of an unborn child doesn’t need to be told that she’ll be punished if she gets an abortion. What she needs is support — support in understanding that she has a responsibility to her child, and support in meeting her responsibility.
You say, I can tell you from personal experiences working with abortion-seeking women that a law restricting abortion can be a very useful tool in protecting a mother and her baby. More persuasive to me are the statistics coming out of Latin America where abortion laws are very tough but abortion rates are higher than they are here.
Maybe you’re right about the best strategies for protecting women from abortion; on the other hand, maybe I am. We may have to agree to disagree — but I want you to agree to this much: I’m motivated by a desire to reduce abortions and a desire to improve matters for women. I’m pushing for a ‘third way’ because the two camps on the opposite sides of the 40-year-old battle lines are never going to move us out of this mess.
Alright, progress!
Josephine, I will indeed cede the point to you, that a Catholic may lie on here and claim to be an Obama supporter when in fact he or she is not. In this case, the Catholic would not necessarily be in direct opposition to the Catechism.
Paul Bradford, I’m going to explain to you why I and many others on here are furious with you. If you want to know why, read the following. If you choose to remain ignorant, don’t read it.
You, Paul, are saying that we should give up on demanding that the right of children to live be protected in law. You are asking us to give up on a crucial part of the Church’s teaching on abortion, which is that every just society must protect the unborn IN LAW.
And what is your reasoning? You say that we have failed to overturn Roe, so we should give up. That in and of itself is an annoying enough position to take, but then you (and others like Kmiec) go beyond that and say that we should support pro-abortion fanatics like Barack Obama, fanatics who are the very reason why Roe still stands.
So, Paul, the reason why we don’t like you is that you are asking us to abandon Catholic teaching regarding the right to life, and you are advocating support for the very politicians who are responsible for making sure that unborn children remain denied of that right to life.
And you do all of that while claiming to be a “Catholic”.
You claim to be pushing for a “third way”. You are not. You are pushing for the “pro-choice” way; you have bought into the pro-abortion propaganda hook, line, and sinker. “Safe, legal, and rare” – that’s what you advocate. It’s sickening, and you’re a fool if you think we’re going to be deceived by such an evil ideology.
Carder– yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Paul, sorry for the rantings by some here. I appreciate your perspective.
Wonderful, Josephine!
Ok, I like you now.
Haha, well… thank you, I like you too. (And, for what it’s worth, I did end up reading everything and agree with your guys’ side of the argument.)
Why in the hell do you refer to John McCain as pro-life Jill Stanek when YOU KNOW that McCain has voted to pass bills that include PUBLIC TAX PAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION?
And when YOU KNOW that McCain argues like a pro-abort when he argues against overturning Roe v Wade and against re-criminalizing abortion?
Stop spreading this LIE that McCain is somehow pro-life Stanek. Stop it. Repent of it.
Bradford,
Thirty-six years and it’s time to wave the white flag of surrender. Sounding like Harry Reid.
You were able to dig back to Prohibition and prove how futile our attempts are/have been.
Let’s roll back further to, say, the establishment of the Constitution. Slavery was a stickler for that first convention. Many of those Founders knew that this whole slavery issue wasn’t going to fly by virtue of the document that they drafted containing that little detail about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Twas a contradiction that took almost a century to self-destruct.
In that process we were introduced to heroic individuals that stopped at nothing to expose and defeat an evil institution. Sure, it was one thing to convince the general public how bad slavery was. But try explaining that to the establishment who saw dollar signs. It wasn’t going to happen.
We know the rest of the story.
We can convince women that abortions carry risky consequences. And some women will listen and act on that.
Then there are others, on this very blog even, who simply didn’t want to be pregnant. Period. Out went their kid. They argued the body sovereignty case you mentioned earlier.
What then? Congratulate her? Offer to bury her fetus later?
“Obama is determined to use non-coercive strategies to lower the abortion rate and those are strategies that are not only more likely to be effective…”
Forgive me, Paul, but name one time in Obama’s record that he ever supported/authored/passed a measure that effectively lowered the abortion rate. Just one.
Hopenchange is no friend of the pro-life movement. Would Big Abortion dump almost 30 million dollars on a guy who wanted to lower their profits?
I would respect you more if you proclaimed that you are pro-choice. I can deal with that. But claiming pro-life? You’ll have to explain that to 48 million little ones.
Hopenchange is no friend of the pro-life movement. Would Big Abortion dump almost 30 million dollars on a guy who wanted to lower their profits?
Amen.
“Would Big Abortion dump almost 30 million dollars on a guy who wanted to lower their profits?”
Sure. I’m sure they’d rather do other things then insure abortion remains safe and legal. Like the American Cancer Society would be very happy if cancer went away and they could find other things to do.
The American Cancer Society does not promote cancer as a safe and legal procedure. It does not profit from people with cancer. It doesn’t strategically place themselves in high risk cancer areas so that they can “prevent” cancer and then “cure” it if prevention didn’t work.
It doesn’t try to cover up their cancer removal procedures with nice little words like ‘choice’ or ‘reproductive rights’. They are there to heal, not destroy.
Try again, Hal.
John Lewandowski You know for someone who said, Paul, you don’t understand. I don’t give a damn what you have to say. I think it’s all garbage. I think you’re a complete fraud. I have absolutely no desire to have a conversation with someone as deluded as yourself. you seem to be putting a lot of effort into communicating with me.
From you, John, I’ve had to endure being called a fraud and a fool, I’ve had my right to worship in the Church called into question, I’ve been excommunicated, I’ve had my ideas called ‘insane’, I’ve been accused of material cooperation with intrinsic evil and mortal sin. Why should I put up with this? Am I a masochist? No, I count the distress I suffer at your hands (You should know this about yourself. You are an effective bully.) at nothing compared to the hope that something I say will help save lives.
That’s what I’m in it for. I am convinced, from the top of my head to the tingling tips of my toes that the tactics that you, and so many others, use are hurting the unborn. We’ve had 40,000,000 abortions since 1973 and I accredit a big piece of that to the stubbornness of many in the Pro-Life movement. There are promising ways we could try to reduce abortion, but these attempts are not even made — instead, because of people just like you, we keep trying the same thing over and over.
Does this mean that I think you’re a ‘bad guy’, that your immortal soul is in peril, that I hate you or that I wish you would curtail your discipleship and stop worshipping at my church? Not at all; in fact, I suspect that you’re a sincere, intelligent, well informed person. The fact that I think you’re participating in a big political blunder doesn’t tempt me to do anything hurtful to you — I just wish I could convince you to change your mind.
Paul B.,
That’s what I’m in it for. I am convinced, from the top of my head to the tingling tips of my toes that the tactics that you, and so many others, use are hurting the unborn. We’ve had 40,000,000 abortions since 1973 and I accredit a big piece of that to the stubbornness of many in the Pro-Life movement. There are promising ways we could try to reduce abortion, but these attempts are not even made — instead, because of people just like you, we keep trying the same thing over and over.
Wow, I don’t understand.
So a vote for Obama was a vote against pro-lifers and the status quo regarding abortion?
Did you ever think it was not the pro-lifers’ fault that we still have abortion?
That maybe it’s the fact that there just aren’t enough people calling themselves pro-life and getting involved?
What have you personally done since 1973 and have your efforts been curtailed by pro-lifers?
How is your joining the PC side going to encourage less abortion?
What stubbornness are you talking about?
Do you blame the Catholic Church’s position on abortion for not reducing abortions?
If yes, why?
So, what is the current situation with alcohol abuse — have we stopped thinking that it’s an important problem? If anything, advances in medicine, psychology and family systems have demonstrated, in ways that our great-grandparents couldn’t have known, just how dangerous alcohol can be. So, does that mean we need tougher laws against alcohol use? I don’t think so and, I’ll bet, neither do you.
Posted by excommunicated catholic Paul Bradford
Paul,
Maybe you think we should repeal drunk driving laws too? You are a lost soul.
So, what is the current situation with alcohol abuse
Well, you look around for some alcohol, and then you abuse it, right?