Weekend question II
TheWeeklyOffender.com emailed me the graphic below with this note:
I have attached a piece of artwork I did, I hope you like it and can see it for its true representation of Barack Obama.
UPDATE, 3:30p: Sorry, too many people I respect thought this artwork was too graphic, so I’ve asked the artist to post it on his website so I can send you there to view if you’d like. Will let you know if/when he does.
UPDATE, 8:30p: Ok, go to TheWeeklyOffender.com to view the artwork and report back thoughts. As for me, while the piece was brutal and shocking, I thought the artist accurately portrayed the subject. The real shock is, then, that it is brutally accurate.
Oct.18, 2008 12:26 pm |
Weekend question |
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.
This picture reminds me of something I just recently read in Ray Denney’s book “Anti-Abortionist at Large.” In his last chapter, he draws all of these parallels between Dracula/vampires and abortion; how blood must be shed to keep on living as you see fit, how both are repulsed by the light and live in darkness with the whole ambiguity and misrepresentation about what the fetus is, how it self-perpetuates, etc. etc. Obama seems kind of like a vampire in this picture, sucking on the blood of the innocent for nourishment and sustenance.
Honestly, this is just too offensive to me. I have been reading this blog now for a while, and appreciate the fact that you are keeping pro-life issues front and center, but there is a point where demonizing people, as this cartoon does, is counter-productive. I must tell you I won’t be back.
jess-
thanks for helping me lose my lunch! i guess i didn’t need that cheeseburger anyway! lol!
jill-
i guess if that is art it must be in the eye of the beholder. as much as i dislike (i guess hate would be a better word!) obama, i do not think that this picture does much good for our cause. if anything i think it will turn people away, just as it has joyce.
Jill – I don’t think we need to be out-grossing the other side.
At first I thought it was pornographic.
Got the point that Obama’s tongue/speech is killing the unborn, but I just don’t think it’s needed.
I’d remove it.
You didn’t need that cheeseburger becky! I make a really good faux-burger, It’s delicious and it doesn’t involve killing cows!
Chris 1:16PM
I’m definitely with you on this one. I think that picture borders on pornography and is just plain distasteful. Our point can be made without resorting to this.
sorry jess, i love my cows! they go Great with the ducks my husband got this morning!
I’d remove it immediately. It’s in very bad taste.
This photo expresses my opinion perfectly:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/319047856_dbf1ef3e92.jpg
Not pornographic unless you consider killing a child pornographic. If that is the case then move to stop it. This site shows what Barrack H Obama is all about thank you. The thought of him being president scars me to no end. I fear for the innocent and for our society in general if he gets in.
Right-wing hysteria.
Have you really become this desperate?
That you would even consider posting this picture marks a sad, sad turning point in the American movement to defend life. You prove that this is no longer about reaching across lines of politics and race in the name of Christ with the hopes of saving children, but rather, to demonize and mock and hate all those who clearly need more love.
It really makes me sad that you’ve posted this picture Jill. I am dissapointed and can’t help wondering what your motive is anymore.
This picture reminded me of art I’ve seen from the Dada movement.
A famous Dadaist once said:
“Art has nothing to do with taste. Art is not there to be tasted.” – Max Ernst
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadaism
steve @ 1:50 PM
While I agree with you Steve, about exposing Obama’s positions, I don’t believe that the depiction above helps, save the most outrageous pro-aborts who are into bizarro statements anyway.
From a political standpoint, it’s unwise, as it will alienate those who are unaccustomed to such strangeness. Unlike a picture of an aborted child which is true, this is raw “pop-culture” symbolism.
If Jill really wanted reactions, then give people a choice to look at it on another page – for instance, just provide a text link to the graphic.
Here’s an analogy – Sara Silverman is telling her Jewish fans to go threaten their Jewish grandparents to make sure they vote for Obama. Her language and posturing is meant to pummel the viewer into some sort of shock:
http://www.thegreatschlep.com/site/index.html
It’s not needed. What Obama’s doing is over the top to begin with.
That said – I think any pro-abort on here who talks about the vileness of the image should be completely dismissed, because a depiction isn’t real, however the deliberate, violent dissection of a human being in an effort to cause that human being’s death certainly is real. Millions of them per year is horribly obscene.
I love that you posted this picture and that you’re leaving it up!
I think this adds nothing but credibility to you and to Born Alive Truth!
People may tell you that it’s offensive and that it makes you look like a total crazy, but don’t you listen to them! Stick to your guns girl! One of these days something will stick!
as much as we may disagree on political issues, I’m glad we can agree about what is cheap and tacky in cartooning. If there was a point to be made in the sketch, I really didn’t get it. It just seemed like a wild obama cartoon with no context.
Ew.
I can appreciate what this depiction is trying to say…but I think it’s more appropriate being posted on “The Weekly Offender” than it is here.
However, this isn’t my blog! ;)
It’s like some strange conglomeration of Slither and that South Park episode with Michael J Fox eating fetii.
Bah, I mean Christopher Reeves.
To me the artwork represented Obama feeding off the destruction of babies in the womb while wearing a Christian facade on his lapel. It would be impossible to make an accurate interpretation of Obama’s abprion stance that isn’t obscene.
To me the artwork represented Obama feeding off the destruction of babies in the womb while wearing a Christian facade on his lapel. It would be impossible to make an accurate interpretation of a pro-abort’s position that isn’t obscene.
Thank you for the clear expression of crazed extremism, desperation and seething hatred. If anyone asks about the people behind Amendment 48, I will send them to this website.
What will be posted in the next two weeks?
Don’t like this Jill, please take it down. We have enough pro-aborts who post vile, horrible things. I don’t think it helps our cause. I think you should apologize to those prolifers you offended. Let’s raise not lower the standard of our cause
Thanks for being gracious enough to make the change.
Yes Jill thank you. I found it stomach turning.
Those who draw this stuff, and those who enjoy viewing it need psychiatric treatment.
Yes, thank you Jill. There’s something about having the graphic “distanced” from your site that makes the thought of it less offensive. Because we don’t have to see it….
Joyce, It’s good to see you’re still around!
I didn’t see the artwork and don’t care to, however, based on the comments here by those who have seen it, makes it sound pretty nasty.
But what do you really think abortion is? Do you think it’s this nice little procedure where nothing is killed, no violence is done, no blood is shed, nothing suffers, where the handiwork of God is not desecrated? A human being can do nothing that hurts and rebels more directly against God and His sacred heart than abortion.
Let me tell you all this. Abortion is the most vile, the most ugly, the most satanically inspired thing any human being can do to another human being. If you don’t think satan has the power to decieve, he was able to get 1/3 of the angels to rebel against God. Now these were angels that I presume knew God, saw God, and enjoyed God, yet, satan was able to reach that dark part of their beings that chose sin.
That’s why we pro-lifers are so passionate against abortion. We know that it is the tool of satan to destroy not only the babies that are killed but the mothers, the abortionists and yes those that support and promote it. We want the destruction of the babies and the mothers and everyone else to end.
I think the negative comments agasint this artwork were subconsciously directed at abortion and not the artwork itself. Why? Because each of us is made in God’s image and know in the deepest parts of our hearts that abortion is heinously wrong and so, so against God. God does not create only to have His creation destroyed. And there is nothing more precious in His creation than a human being, nothing. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Those who willfuly allow themselves to believe that abortion is not wrong have actually seared their own consciences. This is the most dangerous spiritual state to be in.
Yes, abortion truly is the work of satan and his minions and if we all let ourselve understand how God views it, we would all immediately become pro-life.
Some day, those of you who don’t believe, will bend your knee and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Why? Because He is and you will then know it without a doubt and be too terrified to say anything else. If you haven’t accepted Him, before then, it will be too late.
I really, really fear for those of you on this site, both beleivers and non-beleivers, who cannot or will not allow themselves to understand this and refuse to believe God.
Well said HisMan.
Jill, thank you for taking down the graphic. It is jarringly accurate, but in my opinion would unfortunately do more harm than good.
I was at Mass this evening and in the midst of it realized that spending time on this site is greatly disturbing my peace. I love this country and I deeply fear what will happen to it should Obama and a Democratic Congress have unfettered reign to place us firmly on the path toward socialism. There are many young people blogging here and as Mary or Janet pointed out, they simply don’t know the ugliness of the former Soviet Union. They read the utopian rhetoric and watch our Hollywood glitteratti heap praise on the likes of Castro and Chavez and they naively buy in to the promise. And while I respect their desire to be involved in the political process, I am greatly disheartened that the vast majority of them are so eager to not only overlook, but actively defend, the profound character flaws of their candidate. I am simply dumbfounded that so many can in good conscience place their trust, as well as the welfare of our great nation, into the care of someone who has so blatantly, persistently and unapologetically proven himself to be dishonest, at best.
It is said that the youth are our hope for the future. I believe that. I have been blessed to have twice attended the March for Life in D.C., an event which is indeed a great witness to life and to hope. By a huge majority, the hundreds of thousands who travel cross country to participate in that cold, January event are teens and young adults. They are the best and brightest our country has to offer. But here, with a few exceptions, the story is bleaker. Most of the young on this site spend far more time talking than listening, and have decided that they have gained all the wisdom they need in their approximately 20 years on the planet. They have slapped on the blinders and plugged their ears and willfully ignored any and all evidence that might convince them that their judgement is erroneous. They’ve been spoon fed revisionist history and as a consequence are hell bent on pushing us into doomed to fail economic and governmental policies. If the polls are right, Obama will win and he will do so largely thanks to these young people, who frankly don’t know what it is they are voting for and simply don’t have the experience or common sense to fear it.
John Paul the Great began his pontificate with Christ’s words “Be not afraid.” And there in lies the challenge. For those of us who understand the profound damage an Obama presidency will bring to our nation, it is a difficult challenge indeed. But it is one that must be met. In this Sunday’s gospel Christ tells the pharisees to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, but give unto God what is God’s”.
With those words my peace was restored. Come what may in this election, my life belongs to God. In the interest of maintaining that peace, I am taking a hiatus from this blog. To those of you I may have offended these past days, my sincerest apologies. To those of you who fight unashamedly on the side of life, my deepest thanks and continued prayers.
God’s peace.
DeeL,
Peace be with you.
I have been quoting this to myself a lot lately: “So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will stregthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.” It is scary, but He is with us.
Thank you Joyce for the prayer. Good words to remember!
Perhaps you’ve seen my posts of this prayer recently….
http://www.carmelnuns.com/PrayerText.html
I like it a lot. God bless you!
“If God is for us, who can be against us”?
I’m afriad the the judgement of America and the world has most likley begun.
“Choose this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord”.
Hisman, what’s worse, abortion or homosexuality?
I can’t stand the word “scrape.” I can’t stand even thinking about “scraping” things. Ugh I’m gagging right now. Even when the dentist scrapes my teeth I totally cringe. To think of my uterus being scraped, oh I can’t go on.
Of course it’s a hell of a lot worse for the baby.
Abortion and homosexuality are both sin.
All sin destroys.
Why don’t you ask God to show you the answer to that question.
I wasn’t really disgusted — I’ve seen much worse stuff on the Internet. However, I have to agree that it was very out of place on this blog. Pictures are good for getting points across, but that was crude and rather bizarre. Compared to the material that’s usually on your blog, that was offensive.
I can see why you posted it, though (the artist sent it to you personally, and you wanted to share it), and I’m glad to see that you listen to your readers.
Here’s hoping that this was just a fluke, and that this blog will continue to be as informative and insightful as ever!
If you close your eyes and think of Obama, it isn’t pretty. What can ya say???
If you click the KB, some rural images are at the top of my blog just now. Jill has ’em too, I hope.
If you close your eyes and think of Obama, it isn’t pretty. What can ya say???
If you click the KB, some rural images are at the top of my blog just now. Jill has ’em too, I hope.
there is a point where demonizing people, as this cartoon does, is counter-productive.
Posted by: Joyce at October 18, 2008 1:07 PM
Joyce,
Denying that Obama is evil will not make him go away. Shout it from the mountain tops. Obama supports Planned Parenthood setting up brick fortresses with bullet proof glass and surveilencwe camers every 20 feet being build in our neighborhoods for the purpose of tearing babies from womens wombs. How can you not demonize such a person. What about when he gets into office and uses the tax monies from the work of your hands to pay for the abortions? Then he will be spreading blood from his demonization onto your hands and mine. Be not afraid to call him for what he does. Woe I say.
Do not deny he has demons. It is real, and we cannot back down or he will get into a position of power and if he does, are you ready to accept the blood of his hands being shed on your children’s children?
Woe I say. The next generation that shall pay for our cowardice if we remain silent about the evil this man Obama woul reign down upon us.
Those who draw this stuff, and those who enjoy viewing it need psychiatric treatment.
Posted by: PPC at October 18, 2008 5:19 PM
Those who support a persons choice to kill innocent children in the womb need it a heckuva lot worse then somebody who draws a satirical cartoon. The fact that you don’t like it tells me that Jill probably should have left it up.
PPC,
Which is more of an abomination.
1) A cartoon of Obama sucking a baby from a mothers womb.
or
2)an abortionist sucking a real baby from a womans womb?
Please answer. Don’t run away or give a runaround or change the subject. This is really important to show everybody who is in greater need of a psychiatrist. Just answer the question; either choice #1 or choice #2.
Which is more of an abomination.
1) A cartoon of Obama sucking a baby from a mothers womb.
or
2)an abortionist sucking a real baby from a womans womb?
http://www.zenit.org/article-23964?l=english
Denver Archbishop’s Address to ENDOW
“The Homicides Involved in Abortion Are ‘Little Murders’”
DENVER, Colorado, OCT. 17, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is the address Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver gave tonight at a dinner sponsored by ENDOW (Educating on the Nature and Dignity of Women). The talk is titled “Little Murders.”
* * *
I want to do three things with my time tonight. First, Terry asked me to talk a bit about my book, “Render Unto Caesar,” and I’m happy to do that. Second, I want to talk about some of the lessons we can already draw from this year’s election. And third, I want to talk about the mission of ENDOW.
Before I do any of that though, I need to say what a friend of mine calls my “Litany to the IRS.” Here it is. I’m not here tonight to tell you how to vote. I don’t want to do that, I won’t do that, and I don’t use code language — so you don’t need to spend any time looking for secret political endorsements.
I plan to speak candidly, but I can only do that if you remember that I’m here as an author and private citizen. I’m not speaking for the Holy See, or the American bishops, or any other bishop, or even officially for the Archdiocese of Denver. So the things I say tonight are my personal views, nothing more. I think they’re pretty solidly grounded in Catholic teaching and the heart of the Church, but it’s your task as Catholics and citizens to listen, evaluate and then act as you judge best.
As adults, each of us needs to form a strong Catholic conscience. Then we need to follow that conscience when we vote. And then we need to take responsibility for the consequences of the vote we cast. Nobody can do that for us. That’s why really knowing and living our Catholic faith is so important. It’s the only reliable guide we have for acting in the public square as disciples of Jesus Christ.
So let’s talk for a few minutes about “Render Unto Caesar.” When people ask me about the book, the questions usually fall into three categories. Why did I write it? What does the book say? And what does the book mean for each of us as individual Catholics? This last question will be a good doorway into talking about the 2008 election, but let’s start at the beginning first. Why did I write this book, now?
One answer is simple. A friend asked me to do it. Back in 2004, a young attorney I know ran for public office as a prolife Democrat. He nearly won in a heavily Republican district. But he also discovered how hard it can be to raise money, run a campaign and stay true to your Catholic convictions, all at the same time. After the election he asked me to put my thoughts about faith and politics into a form that other young Catholics could use who were thinking about a political vocation — and it really is a “vocation.”
That’s where the idea started. But I also had another reason for doing the book. Frankly, I just got tired of hearing outsiders and insiders tell Catholics to keep quiet about our religious and moral views in the big public debates that involve all of us as a society. That’s a kind of bullying, and I don’t think Catholics should accept it.
Another reason for writing the book is that when I looked around for a single source that explains the Catholic political vocation in an easy, authentic and engaging way, it just didn’t exist. So I thought I might as well try to write it, because a friend told me it would “practically write itself.”
Unfortunately, writing a new book is a bit like childbirth. You forget that it hurts until you’re living the labor. I didn’t remember the experience of my first book until after I signed the contract with Doubleday for my second.
So what does the book say? I think the message of “Render Unto Caesar” can be condensed into a few basic points.
Here’s the first point. For many years, studies have shown that Americans have a very poor sense of history, and that’s very dangerous, because as Thucydides and Machiavelli and Thomas Jefferson have all said, history matters. It matters because the past shapes the present, and the present shapes the future. If American Catholics don’t know history, and especially their own history as Catholics, then somebody else — and usually somebody not very friendly — will create their history for them.
Let me put it another way. A man with amnesia has no future and no present because he can’t remember his past. The past is a man’s anchor in experience and reality. Without it, he may as well be floating in space. In like manner, if we American Catholics don’t remember and defend our religious history as a believing people, nobody else will, and then we won’t have a future because we won’t have a past. If we don’t know how the Church worked with or struggled against political rulers in the past, then we can’t think clearly about the relations between Church and state today.
Here’s the second point. America is not a secular state. As historian Paul Johnson once said, America was “born Protestant.” It has uniquely and deeply religious roots. Obviously it has no established Church, and it has non-sectarian public institutions. It also has plenty of room for both believers and non-believers. But the United States was never intended to be a “secular” country in the radical modern sense. Nearly all the Founders were either Christian or at least religion-friendly. And all of our public institutions and all of our ideas about the human person are based in a religiously shaped vocabulary. So if we cut God out of our public life, we cut the foundation out from under our national ideals.
Here’s the third point. We need to be very forceful in defending what the words in our political vocabulary really mean. Words are important because they shape our thinking, and our thinking drives our actions. When we subvert the meaning of words like “the common good” or “conscience” or “community” or “family,” we undermine the language that sustains our thinking about the law. Dishonest language leads to dishonest debate and bad laws.
Here’s an example. We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue, and it’s never an end in itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of evil. Likewise, democratic pluralism does not mean that Catholics should be quiet in public about serious moral issues because of some misguided sense of good manners. A healthy democracy requires vigorous moral debate to survive. Real pluralism demands that people of strong beliefs will advance their convictions in the public square — peacefully, legally and respectfully, but energetically and without embarrassment. Anything less is bad citizenship and a form of theft from the public conversation.
Here’s the fourth point. When Jesus tells the Pharisees and Herodians in the Gospel of Matthew (22:21) to “render unto the Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s,” he sets the framework for how we should think about religion and the state even today. Caesar does have rights. We owe civil authority our respect and appropriate obedience. But that obedience is limited by what belongs to God. Caesar is not God. Only God is God, and the state is subordinate and accountable to God for its treatment of human persons, all of whom were created by God. Our job as believers is to figure out what things belong to Caesar, and what things belong to God — and then to put those things in right order in our own lives, and in our relations with others.
So having said all this, what does the book mean, in practice, for each of us as individual Catholics? It means that we each have a duty to study and grow in our faith, guided by the teaching of the Church. It also means that we have a duty to be politically engaged. Why? Because politics is the exercise of power, and the use of power always has moral content and human consequences.
As Christians, we can’t claim to love God and then ignore the needs of our neighbors. Loving God is like loving a spouse. A husband may tell his wife that he loves her, and of course that’s very beautiful. But she’ll still want to see the evidence in his actions. Likewise if we claim to be “Catholic,” we need to prove it by our behavior. And serving other people by working for justice and charity in our nation’s political life is one of the very important ways we do that.
The “separation of Church and state” does not mean — and it can never mean — separating our Catholic faith from our public witness, our political choices and our political actions. That kind of separation would require Christians to deny who we are; to repudiate Jesus when he commands us to be “leaven in the world” and to “make disciples of all nations.” That kind of separation steals the moral content of a society. It’s the equivalent of telling a married man that he can’t act married in public. Of course, he can certainly do that, but he won’t stay married for long.
I began work on “Render Unto Caesar” in July 2006. I made the final changes to the text in November 2007. That’s a long time before anyone was nominated for president, and it was Doubleday, not I, that set the book’s release date for August 2008. So — unlike Prof. Douglas Kmiec’s recent book, “Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama,” which argues a Catholic case for Senator Obama — I wrote “Render Unto Caesar” with no interest in supporting or attacking any candidate or any political party.
The goal of “Render Unto Caesar” was simply to describe what an authentic Catholic approach to political life looks like, and then to encourage Americans Catholics to live it.
Prof. Kmiec has a strong record of service to the Church and the nation in his past. He served in the Reagan administration, and he supported Mitt Romney’s campaign for president before switching in a very public way to Barack Obama earlier this year. In his own book he quotes from “Render Unto Caesar” at some length. In fact, he suggests that his reasoning and mine are “not far distant on the moral inquiry necessary in the election of 2008.” Unfortunately, he either misunderstands or misuses my words, and he couldn’t be more mistaken.
I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed “abortion-rights” presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973. Despite what Prof. Kmiec suggests, the party platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively “pro-choice;” it has also removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing. On the question of homicide against the unborn child — and let’s remember that the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer explicitly called abortion “murder” — the Democratic platform that emerged from Denver in August 2008 is clearly anti-life.
Prof. Kmiec argues that there are defensible motives to support Senator Obama. Speaking for myself, I do not know any proportionate reason that could outweigh more than 40 million unborn children killed by abortion and the many millions of women deeply wounded by the loss and regret abortion creates.
To suggest — as some Catholics do — that Senator Obama is this year’s “real” pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred “pro-life” option is to subvert what the word “pro-life” means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert George’s essay of earlier this week, “Obama’s Abortion Extremism,” at thepublicdiscourse.com. It says everything that needs to be said.
Of course, these are simply my personal views as an author and private citizen. But I’m grateful to Prof. Kmiec for quoting me in his book and giving me the reason to speak so clearly about our differences. I think his activism for Senator Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.
And here’s the irony. None of the Catholic arguments advanced in favor of Senator Obama are new. They’ve been around, in one form or another, for more than 25 years. All of them seek to “get beyond” abortion, or economically reduce the number of abortions, or create a better society where abortion won’t be necessary. All of them involve a misuse of the seamless garment imagery in Catholic social teaching. And all of them, in practice, seek to contextualize, demote and then counterbalance the evil of abortion with other important but less foundational social issues.
This is a great sadness. As Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George said recently, too many Americans have “no recognition of the fact that children continue to be killed [by abortion], and we live therefore, in a country drenched in blood. This can’t be something you start playing off pragmatically against other issues.”
Meanwhile, the basic human rights violation at the heart of abortion — the intentional destruction of an innocent, developing human life — is wordsmithed away as a terrible crime that just can’t be fixed by the law. I don’t believe that. I think that argument is a fraud. And I don’t think any serious believer can accept that argument without damaging his or her credibility. We still have more than a million abortions a year, and we can’t blame them all on Republican social policies. After all, it was a Democratic president, not a Republican, who vetoed the partial birth abortion ban — twice.
The truth is that for some Catholics, the abortion issue has never been a comfortable cause. It’s embarrassing. It’s not the kind of social justice they like to talk about. It interferes with their natural political alliances. And because the homicides involved in abortion are “little murders” — the kind of private, legally protected murders that kill conveniently unseen lives — it’s easy to look the other way.
The one genuinely new quality to Catholic arguments for Senator Obama is their packaging. Just as the abortion lobby fostered “Catholics for a Free Choice” to challenge Catholic teaching on abortion more than two decades ago, so supporters of Senator Obama have done something similar in seeking to neutralize the witness of bishops and the pro-life movement by offering a “Catholic” alternative to the Church’s priority on sanctity of life issues. I think it’s an intelligent strategy. I also think it’s wrong and often dishonest.
It’s curious that nobody seems to worry about the “separation of Church and state,” or religious interference in the public square, when the religious voices that speak up support a certain kind of candidate. In his book, Prof. Kmiec complains about the agenda and influence of what he terms RFPs — Republican Faith Partisans. But he also seems to pay them the highest kind of compliment: imitation. If RFPs are bad, is it unreasonable to assume that DFPs — Democratic Faith Partisans — are equally dangerous?
As I suggest throughout “Render Unto Caesar,” it’s important for Catholics to be people of faith who pursue politics to achieve justice; not people of politics who use and misuse faith to achieve power. I have no doubt that Prof. Kmiec belongs to the former group. But I believe his arguments finally serve the latter.
For 35 years I’ve watched thousands of good Catholic laypeople, clergy and religious struggle to recover some form of legal protection for the unborn child. The abortion lobby has fought every compromise and every legal restriction on abortion, every step of the way. Apparently they believe in their convictions more than some of us Catholics believe in ours. And I think that’s an indictment of an entire generation of American Catholic leadership.
The abortion conflict has never simply been about repealing Roe v. Wade. And the many pro-lifers I know live a much deeper kind of discipleship than “single issue” politics. But they do understand that the cornerstone of Catholic social teaching is protecting human life from conception to natural death. They do understand that every other human right depends on the right to life. They did not and do not and will not give up — and they won’t be lied to.
So I think that people who claim that the abortion struggle is “lost” as a matter of law, or that supporting an outspoken defender of legal abortion is somehow “pro-life,” are not just wrong; they’re betraying the witness of every person who continues the work of defending the unborn child. And I hope they know how to explain that, because someday they’ll be required to.
Before I conclude and we go to questions, let me say just a couple of things about ENDOW. When you’re a bishop, you meet a lot of very good people with very good ideas. You meet a lot fewer people who know how to make good ideas work, or who have the generosity, brains, stubbornness and endurance to lead and grow a good idea into a whole movement of good people who can make a much wider difference.
Betsy Considine, Marilyn Coors, Terry Polakovic and the other women who founded ENDOW are exactly that kind of leader. And the success of ENDOW is a testimony not just to their enthusiasm and hard work, but to yours.
ENDOW succeeds because its message for women is true. ENDOW succeeds because in forming women in the truth of Jesus Christ, it serves the Church and opens the door to the most powerful kind of renewal — the kind that comes from a Christ-based friendship between husband and wife; the kind that comes from a family shaped by Christian love; the kind that comes from real Catholic leadership by lay and religious women in their communities, in business, in education, in medicine and in public life.
These are difficult times for our country. Even within our Church, the economy, the Iraq War, the life issues in general, and this election in particular, have created a deep spirit of conflict and anxiety. But I do believe Scripture when it tells us not to be afraid. God uses each of us to renew the world if we let him. The genius of women is their capacity to love; to blend talent, intelligence and energy with patience, understanding, respect for the sacredness of life and compassion for others.
That’s the kind of leadership we need, in our communities of faith, in our public service and throughout our country. Whatever happens next month and in the years ahead, ENDOW will have a hand in sustaining and refreshing the heart of the Church. That’s not a bad achievement for an organization so young. I’m proud of your witness, proud of what you’ve accomplished and very, very grateful for your service to the Church. God bless you.
Of course it’s disgusting and repulsive, do you think that abortion isn’t? How else can the defenders of abortion be accurately depicted?
I wonder how these critics would respond to a short video of an actual abortion taking place? Well, here’s you chance to find out just exactly what it is that you are supporting, go to http://www.abortionno.com/ and watch one.
I once saw a cartoon of someone holding a large knife over a baby, with the tip touching the baby. While not accurate as to how abortions take place, it was accurate as to the effect of an abortion being the same as if it had been done that way. Abortion IS a violent assault upon a helpless, innocent victim, and there is NO way to put lipstick on that pig and make it look better.
Jill,
Thank you for the link. I did see it and thought it was gross. I am not easily offended. I see the point the artist was trying to convey. I have to laugh though that some are disgusted by a painting and NOT disgusted by what REALLY happens in the abortionists office.
Doyle,
Thank you for the link. They won’t watch it and if they do they will minimize it. Sigh.
Just to be clear, I am a believer in and follower of Christ. As a mother of four children, I loathe abortion for the the sin and despicable crime that it is. I don’t have any intention of ever voting for anyone, at any level of government, that is not pro-life.
I do think it’s important to follow the rules of civil dispute that this blog has spelled out.
John:
That is a profound post and very telling of the church’s present state: BO knows this state keenly and exploits it and this is what makes him so heinous. He is willing to participate in the deception of even “God’s elect”. I pity his soul.
Clue No. 1: The fact that the bishop could not speak for the church diluted his message.
We know we have lost our way when we can no longer believe the simple words, “abortion is murder”, and then have to disguise that same message using many, many words. The hearts of many believers has waxed cold as they have allowed sin to reign. How? By failing to connect the dots of, “Thou shalt not murder” translating into, “I should not vote for someone who supports murder”.
You know what these long speeches are? They are nothing more than the fertilizer that grows the fig leaves that cover our sin. As Adam and Eve tried to hide their sin by covering themselves, we all use lengthy words and speeches thinking they will give us cover from a Holy God. They won’t. We cannot a impress God who already knows everything, we can only obey.
God had it right when he said, “Thou shalt not murder”. Why are any more words needed?
If any of us think that God will listen to our rants trying to justify just one abortion, we are sadly self-deceived. He will simply say, “depart from me I never knew you”, which of course means, “we never knew him”.
Already seen that video like four times Doyle. Like I said before, I can show some medical procedures that can one-up it.
I don’t think we should ban a medical procedure because it’s “gross.”
Doyle,
thanks for that link to the video, I can’t even watch it. Too upsetting, it is pure evil. Satan’s work.
Yes, by all means, let’s not take a chance of offending the offenders. Let’s be sure they know how loved they are and how sorry we are that they just don’t appreciate the gift of life.
Yes, indeed, let’s be careful we don’t dipicte the raw truth, we wouldn’t want to offend anyone.
EXCEPT that the proaborts have taken offense to levels that would make Hitler blush, but they’re just poor mis-informed slobs…
Cry me a stinking river….I say POST the cartoon, POST the TRUTH, whenever and wherever!
If it was YOU about to be stabbed in the back of the neck without so much as an ounce of compassion, YOU sure would want someone to speak up and speak up however they could!
Or if it was YOU who was about to have YOUR arms and legs torn off, or if YOU were about to be poisoned YOU would want someone to scream from the housetops…HELP, THEY’RE MURDERING ME!
Already seen that video like four times Doyle. Like I said before, I can show some medical procedures that can one-up it.
I don’t think we should ban a medical procedure because it’s “gross.”
Posted by: Jess at October 19, 2008 10:41 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
No one has said one single thing about banning a medical procedure becauause it’s “gross”! Are you being obtuse on purpose? What a ridiculous thing to say.
No other “medical procedure” tears a helpless baby limb from limb and you know it.
Sandi,
I believe Jill removed it because many PRO-LIFERS found it offensive. I don’t think Jill would take it off just cause pro-choicers were offended by it. In fact, I’m sure she wouldn’t if that were the case. But it isn’t.
Hi Elizabeth,
You’re right. Maybe three months ago I could have dealt with that picture. Not now. I don’t think it changed the mind of any of the pro-aborts here. For them, this is all a game. Us versus them. It really makes me sad. God bless.
Sandi, 12:21p: Elizabeth’s right. Pro-aborts complaining about what I post is par, and they don’t dissuade me. In this case I myself was concerned it might be over the line when I posted it, and I’m hardcore. When fellow pro-lifers I respect agreed, I pulled it.
Given that the “artwork” is based on fallacy, I think it is fairly pathetic.
If I were to post a graphical response, it might look like John McCain, with that ghoulish grin of his, slitting the throat of a ill-looking pregnant woman in a hospital bed (with Sarah Palin looking on in approval). A clipboard at the foot of the bed would read “severe gestational diabetes.”
Jess @ 10:41 AM
So Jess – are you okay with watching snuff films?
Sandi, 12:21p: Elizabeth’s right. Pro-aborts complaining about what I post is par, and they don’t dissuade me. In this case I myself was concerned it might be over the line when I posted it, and I’m hardcore. When fellow pro-lifers I respect agreed, I pulled it.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 19, 2008 3:46 PM
AS usual, Stanek sophistry and hypocrisy.
1) First she posts it, then claims she had misgivings even as she did it – either she’s a hypocrite, or “just” guilty of bad judgment
2) Then she still provides a link – a wimpy, squeamish way of letting someone else do her dirty work.
Well Jill, you don’t disappoint – staying smarmy for the next two weeks, aren’t you?
phylosopher at October 19, 2008 5:31 PM
‘AS usual, Stanek sophistry and hypocrisy.’
We all make mistakes in judgement, even the o’bama (pbuh).
The measure is how we take responsibility.
Jill, you know you are dealing with people who have a low tolerance for perceived insults directed at their hero.
Please leave the insulting up to the professionals. Hire a liberal, they have refined the science to an art form.
And you liberals know which ones I am referring to.
yor bro ken
Well Phylodo:
Have you voted early?
So just how many of the millions of babies that will be murdered as as result of that vote are YOU willing to take reposnsibility for?
1/x where x equals the number of additonal abortions?
Or just x? How do you think God will hold you culpable?
Hey, I just voted!!!!
Hal,
You know ACORN’s slogan,’Vote early, vote often, voter repetitively, but only for democrats.’
yor bro ken
ps: Have you got the dye on your index finger to prove it?
Congrats! Hal. I’ll not only be voting this week, but helping other voters get to the polls, too.
Jill, I’m so thankful that you removed that graphic image; I went and looked at it, and then was very sorry to have actually viewed it! Was particularly painful to see the holy Cross of Christ used as part of the depiction.
I am very grateful for your life and work; you are daily living out your convictions with courage and faithfulness. May God ever protect and strengthen you!
Sandi, 12:21p: Elizabeth’s right. Pro-aborts complaining about what I post is par, and they don’t dissuade me. In this case I myself was concerned it might be over the line when I posted it, and I’m hardcore. When fellow pro-lifers I respect agreed, I pulled it.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 19, 2008 3:46 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
With all due respect; and we wonder why abortion is still legal. When even the “hardcore” pro-lifers don’t have the courage of their convictions, then we can’t expect much to change.
Who do you think is really offended in the barbaric murderous practice of abortion on demand?
Whose “feelings” and “senses” matter?
There really are only two; God and the child. But, let’s not offend the offender…..
Let’s make sure they’re all comfy and we beat our selves up over offending their sensibilities.
Excuse me while I vomit…..
Sandi,
Do you know how to read? Let’s do some reading comprehension 101. Jill didn’t take it off because pro-choicers complained, she took it off cause PRO-LIFERS complained. I realize you have no concept of anything offensive when it comes to spouting the pro-life message, but the rest of us have some tact and class. Take the blinders off please.
Elizabeth,
You so often strike out with insults rather then thoughtful discussion? Then you apologize later and say that is not the person who you want to be. Next time you think you are really right about something, try sitting on it for an hour till you can come up with the right words to express yourself.
Sandi, I liked the cartoon. It represented an
accurate depiction of Obama’s stance and position on abortion. It would have to be offensive.
Maura, I am glad Jill removed the cartoon if it hurt your sensibilites. The reason the artist put the cross in there was to satire Obama’s so-called Christianity. But I understand how offensive it is when people wear crfooses wshile engaging in profanity. God bless you also. ts
that should have been crosses,not crfooses. Obviously I never preview my posts :)
I don’t have any reading comprehension problems, Elzabeth.
I also do not have any qualms whatsoever speaking up for the murdered victims of abortion.
I don’t care one bit who is offended, excpet for God and the child.
As long as the prolife side cares about feelings(no matter the side), over the baby, then abortion will remain legal.
I hope you’re good with that, because that is the truth.
Obama is the child in the womb’s WORST ENEMY, he should be painted as the sinister murderous man he is.
Well then start your own blog, Sandi, and post the picture. I like Jill’s blog and she handled this in the right way I think.
Hey TS,
Did you read my first post to sandi? About Jill’s reasoning and then she sniped back about “hardcore” pro-lifers, and said not wanting a porn picture on this website made her “want to vomit.” I can’t help if people feel they’re so right they’ll go to the unspeakable extremes no matter what anybody (even on their own side) says. Sorry, I just don’t have patience for crazy. And since when have I only insulted and not offered thoughtful discussion? I always offer thoughtful discussion, and the only time I think I’ve been insulting recently was to John L. when I just couldn’t take his brand of crazy anymore, and then I apologized because I shouldn’t have gone about it in that way. As for this, I support Jill in taking it off, and I still think she’s a hardcore pro-lifer. :)
And P.S. I was right about Jill’s reasoning, she even said so herself in a comment. Sandi thinks it’s about appeasing pro-choicers..it wasn’t. Jill has people she respects on here, and it offended THEM and that’s why she took it off.
Well, Elizabeth, now that you’ve continuted with your insults, you’re still left with the fact that as long as feelings are more important than the truth, the killing will continue.
If only doing exactly what you just critized others for doing would save a baby, you could call me crazy day and night.
Yes, Elizabeth. Your were right about the reason Jill took the post down.