Abortion case study: the Brazil raped child

I commented a few days ago that I thought the nine year old girl in Brazil, raped by her stepfather and now pregnant with twins, and of delicate health and no doubt greatly traumatized, should of course be viewed as someone who should be given an abortion since that is what she wants and her doctors concur regarding the risk. She went ahead and had the abortion and now the archbishop has responded. Here is the article and let's use this as a sad but very helpful case study to find some common ground of understanding even if people disagree on the conclusions and principles.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29531755/

snip

RIO DE JANEIRO - A Roman Catholic archbishop says the abortion of twins carried by a 9-year-old girl who allegedly was raped by her stepfather means excommunication for the girl's mother and her doctors.
Despite the nature of the case, the church had to hold its line against abortion, Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said in an interview aired Thursday by Globo television.
"The law of God is higher than any human laws," he said. "When a human law — that is, a law enacted by human legislators — is against the law of God, that law has no value. The adults who approved, who carried out this abortion have incurred excommunication."

***
OK, here is the commentary and analysis. Here are the facts:

1) She is a nine year old child.
2) She was not only raped but it was done by a family member, her own stepfather.
3) There is a mother in the household and while we do not know the specifics, a mother has responsibility for knowing whether or not her live in boyfriend or spouse is raping her child.
4) The child wanted the abortion.
5) The doctors recommended that she obtain one due to extreme youth, delicate physical constitution and the stress of bearing not only one baby but two.
6) These were medical doctors at a reputable hospital, not abortion pimps and procurers. That is an important point in my mind.
7) We know that abortions are not mindlessly "pushed" because in the same article we learn of an older child, 11 years old, in the same situation who plans to bring her child to term and birth.
8) We know that the Catholic Church correctly opposes abortion.

Now, before we analyze what is the most defensible and balanced position in this disagreement and remedy, here are the exact words on the Church's doctrine:

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 human being to life....(supporting scripture cited)...

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.... (supporting cathesis cited)...

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," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. 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.... (detailed supporting analysis and canon law cited)....

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.... (more wording emphasizing that the fetus is a life and a person and not some lesser entity, thus it experiences unjust death)...

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"... (more about the immorality of the exploitation for science of embryos or to manipulate custom features in human beings...)

Now, when you read the doctrine of the Church is it very clear, reasonable, scripturally founded and also a doctrine in existence from the time of only one to two hundred years after the time of Jesus Christ himself. Thus one cannot argue with the valid position of the Church.

However... and this is a huge point... as you read this you observe that rape and child molestation are not part of the imagery of the typical abortion situation. The canon law addresses adults who have consensual sex and who decide to abort as a matter of convenience. It is clear by the wording that there is a significant gap in the doctrine, which is to address abortion in cases of rape, child molestation and the endangering of the woman's life as a result of pregnancy. Now, it does not take a genius to realize that the Church would, rightfully, feel that addressing those cases directly would open the door to the logic that "well, it's a human life, but it is 'OK' to take that life in certain circumstances." The Church cannot and will not take that position and we need to respect their constancy and integrity. However, we must also be good shepherds and reasonable. Here is how I would recommend navigating through that dilemma while maintaining moral principle.

I totally agree with the archbishop that the mother (and obviously the raping stepfather, though we notice he's not addressed by the archbishop) bears the brunt of doctrinal punishment, not the child. So I agree with the wisdom of not harming the spiritual and emotional well being of the child by dragging her into the doctrine and, instead, correctly lay blame for the situation with the mother. So I give credit to the archbishop for, however imperfectly in action, discerning that doctrinal blame lies with the parents rather than the child herself.

Let us set aside whether excommunication is correct for a moment since that hinges on the medical advice and actions taken.

If the doctors were employees of abortion providing specialists, rather than a general hospital, I believe that of course excommunication would be entirely appropriate. I do think that Catholic hospitals have a right not to offer abortion at all, and I do believe that Catholics who work in abortion providing mills or other specialized services are abortion "procurers," matching the logic of the catechism and doctrine. However, I believe that the Catholic Church must recognize that abortion is, in secular and civil society, a medical procedure that is going to be practiced where the need is extreme, and that is the key. As I've written before I think that abortion is medically valid in certain circumstances, as sad as it is and the fact that it is a human life that is lost. Thus I would not have excommunicated the doctors unless they were working in a Catholic hospital or they were working for full time abortion specialist providers and procurers. However, as the facts show, rather, these doctors prescribed, reluctantly, out of concern for the life of this very young girl, an abortion as a medical service that they deemed was called for.

We need to look at the example of saints for further information in this regard. Recently a woman was canonized because she would not undergo life saving medical treatment that would have resulted in the termination of her pregnancy. She lived to deliver the baby and then died. The Catholic Church correctly recognizes this example of spiritual heroics and I use the term so that you can think about it. A woman should not be expected to die to deliver a baby; she and her family should choose whether to risk death or not. Many women will choose to take that risk and they are spiritual heroes. This does not mean that other women and of course, especially not nine year old children, should be forced to be spiritual "heroes." They are children, for goodness sakes. Thus I think the eleven year old child who is going to have her baby is a spiritual hero. However, I do not think that heroism of having an incest baby, a baby as the result of rape, or an endangering pregnancy should be forced upon her. This, I believe, is where the Church needs to use more discernment and nuance.

I believe that excommunication should be consciously enacted when we are dealing with, as the Church doctrine puts it, those who have "formal cooperation" and "procurement." These are adult (healthy adult) concepts, not concepts that are so easily applied to the very young and the molested. A child who is raped and who chooses to have the infant is a hero, but that does not make those who do not so choose or who cannot without risking their life or their mental health for the rest of their lives non-heroes. It is a hard reality in life, life that humans have made very complicated by their thoughtlessness, their cruelty and their sin, that something can be both hideously wrong (abortion) yet sometimes be necessary (abortion). One cannot really appreciate God's all knowing and mercy, and ability to fix even the worse of situations, if one does not recognize such a conundrum and deal with it in a realistic way.

Thus I would not have excommunicated the doctors, assuming they are not abortion procurers by profession and that they were, as the article reports, rendering a sad but realistic medical recommendation. If they were abortion procurers, sure, excommunicate them, as they work to legitimize what cannot be legitimized morally or canonically.

I would not have excommunicated the mother because she accepted the advice of doctors. However, I would have explained that she is not in good grace in the Church because she allowed such a situation, the molestation of her daughter, to take place, either knowingly or through neglect of attention and protectiveness. I would have proscribed a cycle of confession and penance and spiritual counseling to remediate her sins of, at least, neglect of the situation in the first place.

I would have delivered full wrath upon the perpetrator: why is he not soundly voiced as a hell bound soul by the Church? I mean, talk about someone who needs even worse than excommunication. The bulk of the verbiage should have been on his head.

Also, as I blogged originally about this case, I would have been low key rather than high profile for this particular case of abortion. Why? Because this poor girl has to grow up with her childhood destroyed already. I believe that the Church should go beyond the "not" condemning her for the abortion, of course, but also have been low key about the entire controversy so that the doctors and her care givers could guide her to spiritually think of the abortion as being akin to miscarriage. Her body simply was not mature enough and safe enough to continue to bear two pregnancies, yes, of full human lives. But this is why in this case it is more akin to miscarriage, a miscarriage after an act of violence. The press should not be loaded with the sinfulness of abortion; that very valid statement should be reserved for the discourse among the mature practitioners and those who procure. It's a bit shameful that the poster child for the legitimate dialogue about abortion is... a child... a child who was raped and violated by her own stepfather. How in the world could anyone think that this is the right "high profile" "take a stand against abortion" case?

Rather, if she had opted to and had been able to bear the children, she should have been trumpeted in the press-and by the Church-as a spiritual hero, of such a tender age and under such cruel circumstances. So I would have said, "Sure, elevate her story and her glory" if she had been able to have the children, either for the family keeping or for adoption. But since she cannot be a "hero," goodness, I would have found other adult abortion promoters to point the finger at, rather than her and her doctors. The Church would also have had great credibility in giving regular fire and brimstone preaching about child rapists. The faithful of this modern time need reminding that not only their willies will be burned off in all eternity for doing such to a child. I would have ordered extra bottles of ink for all the press I would have given to that subject, to the perpetrator (the stepfather) and the at least clueless and unprotective wife and mother of the victim.

The truthful conundrum of the middle ground sure is an uncomfortable place, but that is the problem of life and death, and the material world. Be careful, though, not to jump on the Catholic doctrine and call it insensitive or in error, for it is not. The Catholic Church continues to hold the gold standard in its doctrine, particularly the sanctity of life. The trouble is that the Catholic Church is very reliable and glorious in "keeping up the standard of the good," but the problem is that the Church, like the rest of society, has trouble keeping up with the evil. By this I mean that the doctrine is written with consenting adults who procure abortions in mind, and not with the thoughtfulness regarding spiritual heroics, of the young, those pregnant through incest and violence. It's brushed over not for a nefarious reason but because for centuries abortion was a problem of adults, not children. When the Catechism is next updated I would like to see more regarding comforting those who are in the position where heroics may be called for, and more focus on confession and penance where heroics, sadly, cannot take place by reasonable people. This by no means would undermine that life is always life and sacred. Mercy and options are not a "slippery slope," even though cheap arguments depend on the slippery slope fear and, its converse, the illogic of citing the slippery slope as justification. Life can still be life, the embryo still sacred and protected, yet the implications and nuances of the growing, rather than lessening, of evil options that humans seem to impose on each other and ways that people can be healed rather than further wounded as they walk that thorny road of necessity.

I hope that you have found this helpful, particularly those of you who have grappled with this dilemma and who have only seen the two, in theory, opposing sides. "Jesus would want it that way." Remember, Jesus was merciful to all, but "hell on wheels" regarding those who abuse children or lead them to sin. He would have been condemning the perpetrators from the pulpit and on the street (and in the hypocritical media) a hundred times more often than causing more pain for the violated child regarding the abortion itself. He'd be condemning perpetrator and the enabling members of the family and looking to root out all the other brutes like this from the pulpit, mark my words, he would. The Church should not allow shame over its own sex abuse problem (and those among the other faiths too) to silence it from condemning child abuse in many, many homilies, and reminding people of the very real penalties in eternal perdition. He'd not want the child dragged through the press or the poster child for the general abortion debate and horror in our modern times, goodness, of course not. We can talk about the millions of adults, not the few young, weak, the victims who suffer and who must, medically, make this difficult decision. The Church is actually very good at counseling adults who have had abortions, with worthy programs to accomplish this. People need to understand that they fall naturally into a state of grave sin with abortion, whether anyone knows about it or not, since God knows, and they should seek out such programs to comfort and advise them to feeling more authentically part of the fold again.

http://www.hopeafterabortion.com/

An example of justifed abortion

This little girl should obviously receive the abortion as soon as possible. She should then be counseled that it is not her fault, and that she should view the abortion as miscarriage, as her body is far too young to bring children to term.

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,25122051-950,00.html

Unseemly joy by some for more abortions

Unseemly joy by some for more abortions

What I am about to say should disquiet both “sides” of the abortion “debate.” I am going to start out by criticizing the “pro choice” (favors abortion) side. Regardless of how one feels about two reversals in Bush policy that had limited what some consider abortion rights, there is a breathless joy and euphoria by the “pro choice” side whenever they find a way to spread abortion, which is very unseemly.

There are two policies that are making the news. One was an early executive order by President Bush to curtail federal funding to international family planning organizations that include abortion in their menu of services to women. President Obama rescinded that order this past week. Now, I have to tell you that I was never thrilled with that policy (this is the part that will pain the pro life side) in the first place. Why? Not because I favor abortion and certainly not the spreading of the throw away snot rag approaches that the West has toward babies being spread throughout the world. So I find Western aid organizations that promote abortion in countries other than their own abhorrent. If you believe in abortion being made more available in other countries you should view it as a medical issue and train clinics and send supplies, not promote and push abortion in a country as if you are a Mexican drug lord pushing drugs in the USA. So I have no sympathy for international “family planning groups” who only wish to promote more abortion in other countries, like pushers looking for a new market. (Just as they have done for the Afro-American, Native American and Latino cultures here in the USA, when they had saturated getting white women to abort their babies and started to run out of “market”). They are hypocrites of the first order because if they truly favored abortion they would view it as a medical procedure and work through each country’s own medical ethos and services to improve the safety of what is already offered under the law, not cultivate a new “taste” for abortion among poor women in foreign lands.

However, having said that, humans cannot be stopped from degradation of their own culture and promoting of sin through force or law. This is why I was uneasy with Bush’s prohibition in the first place. Humans have shown that time after time they have to see for themselves how low into the dirt they can fall. Abortion is an example of where, just like in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, humans have to see how far and for how long they can avert their eyes from wrong. So yes, I know the pro life lobby is wringing their hands at this, but you have to be more realistic about the continuing fall of humanity. You cannot stop entropy, the dissolving of morals and decency, when it has momentum, and abortion has had the momentum for decades now. You have to let it fall, watch the women surrender their dignity and their own respect for life, until it has fallen as far as it can and then even the “users” of abortion start to have a bad taste in their mouths. We have seen a small amount of this begin to happen in the USA, where women who have hit rock bottom, both pushing and receiving abortions, have started to question how yummy was that freedom, really?

And so I have always felt that the bottom, the muck, has to be tested, fallen into and found by each culture and each society, each government and each gender and age group. Do the young people of today feel that abortion is a wonderful “sacrament,” with the discarded embryo "blob" (that just happens to have eyes, fingers and toes) a sign of women’s “empowerment” like their parents did and still do? Do the fathers think that a lover is really that hot if she thinks nothing of throwing away your baby? Is that alluring? Is that sexy? Is that emancipating? Somehow I think that slowly the young generation of this country has seen the dirt and the muck of the “rock bottom” vile swamp that their parents have given to them, and are starting to lift their heads up from it. So too, I have always thought, each country will have to face the temptation of the abortion pimps and procuresses when they come knocking on their door. Thus I felt that Bush’s policy about funding, in a way, stalled the “final battle,” if one insists on thinking of it that way. Let the abortion pimps go into each country and try to abort other people’s babies and see which of them say “yes” and take the money.

God has repeatedly shown in the Bible that humans cannot be stopped from finding the lowest part of their fall into the dirt. In fact, they get angry with God when God tries to dissuade them, or even punishes them, on their way down. Humans insist on going to the very bottom and taking as many people along with them as they can. The great temptation is to “go along with it” and look the other way. This is why abortion is indeed comparable to the Holocaust of World War II. I mean, how many Jews did it take, and how many trains did it take, before the Allies would target that foul business? Years and years of deporting of Jews (and others) and their torture and murder took place and the Allies would not accept masses of immigrants nor would they bomb the train lines and target the “plan,” the Holocaust and its infrastructure. Likewise millions of babies must be aborted, it seems, and before humans raise their heads from the slime long enough to see what has happened to themselves and their own society. I oppose delaying people from discovering that for themselves, as that, truly, is the fastest and ultimately only way to stop the fall.

If you read the Bible you will notice a pattern. People are continually tempted by themselves and each other to degenerate. God continually sends prophets to warn them. The prophets are continually ignored, persecuted and even tortured and killed. The society then inevitably falls.

The second rule that abortionists are breathlessly and with tingling on their legs, that frisson of erotic power pleasure was pushed through by Bush as a final days in office measure. It is meant to protect the rights of those who are in healthcare who oppose abortion to refuse to perform abortion related services, including dispensing of pharmaceuticals. I also did not agree with that executive order so, guess what, President Obama and abortionists, go ahead and repeal it. I disagreed with it for the reasons I mention above, and also because it’s ridiculous to push something through in your final days, like some cheap gift that you pick up because you suddenly remember it’s someone’s birthday and you pass a dollar store and grab something. Laws that protect the rights of those who oppose abortion on the workplace should either be thoughtfully considered and appropriate laws crafted, or not at all. I am somewhat lukewarm about such an approach, though. I think that the focus of such protection should be on institutions, such as Catholic hospitals, rather than individual by individual.

Let’s use a “New Age” example so that liberals can have a thrill and better understand what I am saying. Suppose that liberals who are health food fanatics charter a hospital that is entirely based on health food, so only vegetarian menus are supplied to patients, etc. I’d actually have no trouble with that. Assuming they provide standard and good care, so what if they won’t serve you meat, eggs, etc while you are a patient there? And what if their products must be recyclable and so forth? I really would not care. I’d not even care if they made the whole thing a Buddhist hospital (so long as they don’t think my medical chart is of reincarnated Eva Braun). However, I’d have a problem with a grocery store clerk who refuses to ring up my meat purchase at the local store because he or she objects to the eating of meat. I think that such a person should either ring up my meat purchase or get a job with the vegetarian hospital. Likewise I believe that rights to object to abortion, birth control and other moral judgments must be recognized and protected institution by institution and not individual by individual. Thus I was always dubious of the argument to protect individual moral objections and qualms when they are employed by a company or organization that does not have an overarching umbrella of recognition of their stance and requirements for protection such as a Catholic hospital.

So for both the “we have to let people fall as far as they insist on going” reasons, and for also logical, legal and policy practicality reasons, I was never thrilled with either of the Bush initiatives, and go ahead, sweep them away.

However, I have to really ask the “pro choice” side why they have such glee and joy over such a sad topic, whether you believe in abortion or not. Building a new school is something to go “yippee” and skip while you are picking and grinning and clicking your heels about. Forcing someone who does not believe in abortion or birth control to dispense your pills is just cheap and mean spirited, and says more about you than it does about them. Likewise, rubbing your hands in glee and thinking “At last! We can get into Zambia or wherever and push more abortions!” just is not something that I’d feel that tingle of joy about, even if I believed in the “cause.” That would be as if our soldiers were like, “Yippee! Here’s another country to invade so we can kill lots of people!” It’s a job and a patriotic duty; I know as I had many World War II era servicemen in my family (real ones, not imaginary reincarnated ones, by the way). Soldiers are eager to take the fight to the enemy when that is what is called of them to do. Soldiers do not hope for a war so that more people can be killed. Pro abortionists ought to look at their “calling” with a little more sober reflection and a bit more “necessary evil” (and thus work through the society’s existing medical system) rather than glee at “more business.”

Their breathless anticipation of President Obama’s every “pro choice” move is unseemly. If you want him to do it, then fine, he’s going to do it. But like the whole “pro choice” movement of the past several decades, I just don’t think that aborted babies is something to get the funny hats, the gilded invitations, the home video and the confetti out about, singing “We’re having a party, everyone’s aborting!” Try to muster some scraps of your decency and dignity, please.

Pleased to see adoption events increase

I read about one in Texas, and here's a great article (with thoughtful comments, instead of the usual ranting) in Colorado.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11075305

snip

faith-based push
Adoption effort gets "phenomenal" results

About 250 families took the first steps toward adoption of the 790 children waiting in the state's foster-care system after Saturday's "Wait No More" event at New Life Church in Colorado Springs.
Religious organizations traditionally help with adoptions, state officials said, but the 1,300-person turnout at the one-day event, sponsored by Focus on the Family and New Life, was unprecedented.
It is two to three times the number of people who attend adoption orientations in the seven participating counties in one full year, said Dr. Sharen Ford of the Colorado Division of Child Welfare Services.
"It was phenomenal. It's never happened before that we had faith-based groups, county governments, the state and other agencies in one place at one time," Ford said. "People care about Colorado's kids."

Listen to the Bishops to understand Christ

One of the bishops made this statement at their conference press conference:

"Any one of us here would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow--die tomorrow!--to bring about the end of abortion," Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis said during a press conference at the Bishops’ conference in Baltimore.

The usual people who attack Catholics have posted in "comments sections" their misunderstanding of this quotation.

The Bishops are not saying they would die to pass a law against abortion and "take away rights."

The Bishops are saying they would willingly die if their death would cause the urge and desire for abortions to end. They are not speaking of the law, since even when the laws existed so did abortions. The Bishops are saying they would give up their own life gladly if in return there was a miracle and no one wanted and desired abortions any more.

THAT is genuine Christ consciousness. Look no further for a genuine example. I, of course, feel the same way as the Bishops.

I feel great pride in their marvelous manifestation of faith and testimony for life, and congratulate them in this statement which expresses Christ consciousness more than anything else, except a statement of belief in God, which of course is always the primary testimony from any believer.

Faiths not supposed to "loosen" core doctrine

There are two interesting and important meetings taking place this week. One is at the UN where a two day interfaith conference is taking place. The other is the regularly scheduled meeting of the US Catholic Bishops. Both are examples of activities where those who do not understand the workings and efforts of people who have conservative, orthodox core faiths are sniping in the media. That's fine, because it gives us another opportunity to discuss the basics of belief in God.

Let me start with an analogy (of course!) Suppose you have a family with many young children, and you worry about keeping them safe from all dangers. So when you hire people to work on the house, let's say electricians, who do you hire? (Let us assume in this analogy that money is unlimited). Do you hire someone who swears to adhere to the complete safety code of electricians, or someone who follows the parts of the code he or she thinks is "good enough?" So if you are worried and want your children to sleep safely in your home, do you select the electrician who does absolutely everything by the book, with safety and proper procedure being his or her highest priority? Or are you impressed by the electrician who waves his or her hand and announces to you, "I am wiser than all of the other electricians, and am also wiser than all of those governmental agencies who establish so-called safety codes. I will pick and choose what parts of the code to follow, and which to break or to ignore, and you will trust me."

Obviously you would select the electrician who follows the code precisely and who seems to care about your family as if your family was his or her own.

This is what those who safe keep the core doctrine of the faiths are like, whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish. They are not following their own codes and "loosening things up" because the safety codes are "old fashioned" established by "oppressing and repressing religious leaders." Those who safeguard and keep the core doctrine of their faiths are like the good electrician who faithfully follows the code because he or she both believes and knows that the code is wise and applies in all cases. Things that are not in the code, well sure, maybe one electrician will offer you choices that have nothing to do with safety, but help in convenience or aesthetics, such as where you place your lighting, or how you position the light switches. But on the code, the core safety code, the good electrician will not budge from that.

This is why the Catholic Bishops are reiterating, more strongly than ever, their professing of the Catholic doctrine that abortion is always morally wrong. Abortion being morally wrong is part of the Catholic Church's core "safety code" from which one cannot deviate. By that I mean that even if someone disagrees with what is in the state's electrical code, that doesn't make the rules and the words disappear. Likewise, sure, the Catholic Church has laypeople who in their heart of hearts may think, "Well, surely there are times that abortion is OK." That is fine, you can think that in your heart and still be a good Catholic. God understands the confusion. But it is not alright for you to run around, as if you are an electrician, and tell people that parts of the state's electrical code book are "wrong" or can be ignored. You would actually be doing something of malpractice, if you were an electrician, and in training an apprentice, you told him or her "Hey, don't worry about the safety code. Just follow whatever parts you feel like, and ignore or change the rest." Then there is a fire and who is responsible?

This is why, to use this analogy, that the Catholic Bishops are correct in continually reiterating and restating that the belief that abortion is morally wrong is core Catholic doctrine. They are not being "inflexible" and do not need to be "liberalized," as those who just plain do not understand religion say they should do. I mean, core doctrine exists because the Church traces that doctrine directly back to the word of God, which is not a matter of "where you put the light switch," but a matter of following the safety code. Where there is room for discernment is how the Bishops address members of their flock who, and this is important, speak out in public in order to "teach" others to ignore the safety code. This is the problem with the most recent controversy with Catholic politicians, both those who are sincere in their faith and those who are nominal, to put it charitably. When a Catholic politician claims to be "explaining" Church doctrine, they are opening their mouths to take on a role that is as if a master electrician now has the job to train apprentices. Therefore, when a Catholic politician misstates the pro life doctrine of the Catholic Church, he or she is like the master electrician who explains to the apprentice wrong information that changes and thus dangerously deviates from the safety code manual. That cannot be unchallenged because it is teaching dangerous error to those who hear his or her words. This is why certain Bishops choose to chastise Catholic politicians who openly "teach" erroneous doctrine, claiming it to be correct. It is not a matter of the Catholic Bishops being "oppressive" or "old fashioned," anymore than the master electrician who faithfully follows the safety code of his or her profession is "oppressive" or "old fashioned."

Thus the Catholic Bishops are being perfectly correct, to be united in being clear about the unchanging Catholic doctrine regarding abortion, but to use pastoral discernment individually about how each of them might or would react within their parishes to those who are publicly misstating and flouting core Catholic doctrine. When Catholic liberals or the larger liberal secular audience to these public reiteration of Catholic core doctrine criticize the Catholic Bishops, it is the critics who just don't "get it," which is why I have provided this analogy. Every faith has core doctrine that is there because it is the truth and the way to not only remain in that faith community but more importantly to achieve salvation in eternal life, and not gravely offend God. There is a nuance among those who criticize the Catholic Bishops that imply religion is some sort of "cultural" system that people are expected to "modernize" as time goes along. That is the opposite of the truth and the point of religion. Religion is a gift from God, not an invention of humans.

Repeat: "Religion is a gift from God, not an invention of humans."

Again, as I have written and explained before, God understands that the temptation to believe in the "right of abortion," aka "freedom of choice" is strong, since temptation, especially in selfish sexual matters is a continuing weakness of humans. God understands the Catholic who in his or her heart struggles to understand this part of the faith, including those who have had abortions. But that does not mean that just because he understands and has mercy that the person with this conflict of heart should open his or her mouth and entice others to weaken their faith. THAT is the boundary that is a grave sin, and this is why the Catholic Bishops are vigilant shepherds. They are not trying to deny anyone their "rights," but they are going to insist that people understand that saying it's "not in the safety code" is a lie, and that it "is in the safety code." Those who have abortions and make mistakes still have all the avenues of the Church open to them, to get "right with God" with a sincere heart. But those who have a dilemma in their heart are not doing God's work if they make public their slanted "belief" and either proclaim it as "true" doctrine of what the Church "should" believe or, just as bad, do it as solidarity to entice others to, and there is no nice way to put it, sin.

Who of you would feel better if you talked someone into an abortion? Sadly, I know there are some who are proud to talk those who waiver into having an abortion, rather than arguing for life. But I believe two things about those people. One is that I believe there are fewer of them than people think, since I do not believe the polls reflect how proud someone would be to talk a woman into having an abortion. I'm just not sure that so many would feel covered with glory if they talked a wavering woman into having an abortion, if not right away (perhaps in the panic of youth) then later, when one values life more as one matures. The second thing that I believe is that those who genuinely are proud of talking women into abortions do so out of an unspoken almost superstitious feeling that "the more the merrier," and that if lots of women "stick together and have lots of abortions" that they are somehow demonstrating that abortion is "OK" and there is no God who sorrows at abortion and who will, if he must, punish those that do not regret the taking of an innocent life. Humans have that tendency, it's human nature, where they feel "safety in numbers" as the saying goes. They somehow are tempted to feel that if lots and lots of women have abortions, that somehow that proves that they have "critical mass" (pun not intended!) They think that they are collecting many "enlightened" people to prove that it's "OK to have an abortion." "See, you had one, and 'nothing happened.'" By that "nothing" they mean like God does not exist, or that God exists but "understands," or that God disapproved but he would never send such an otherwise good person to hell. Humans have always suffered from that "safety in numbers" mentality, of tempting each other into sin, as some sort of inoculation or "insurance policy," all the while saying that "it's OK." It's not OK. Abortion is like everything else, something that will have to be answered to directly to God upon death and judgment. Just because the sky didn't fall down and cave in when a million women got abortions does not mean that God isn't there, didn't "notice," or is "OK with it because she is such a giving and loving bubbly woman anyway so what the heck, her being desperate or nice 'cancels out' having that abortion." Sadly, this is one of the character weaknesses of humans, and it has only increased, not decreased, over time as human self centeredness and enabling technology has increased.

This is why the Catholic Bishops must restate the core doctrine that abortion is never morally right. However, humans are supposed to be so mature, and so in cases of extreme suffering (as the pro aborts like to use as everyday examples, such as rape or incest), do not people do things in private that they must answer to, either way, to God? It's not like the Catholic Bishops are checking everyone's medical records each day. (Goodness, the pro abortionists don't want medical records checked even when young girls are raped and forced to have abortions, "privacy" you know.) So the Catholic Bishops have two responsibilities. One is to repeat the core doctrine so no one can say they did not know or understand. The second is to deal with public profile people in their parishes who advocate flaunting of the core doctrine and thus lead others into sin or error of thought. They also gently correct those who just babble wrong doctrine. They understand the difference between erroneous babbling and deliberate disbelief of one of the core doctrines of the faith, and they respond accordingly.

Now, using my analogy, let me turn to the UN interfaith meeting. I have been peeved to read some sniping in the liberal press about "how" can the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, promote "tolerance" when the Islamic kingdom of Saudi Arabia is "so intolerant." Huh? Again, there is the analogy of the good electrician who follows the safety code. It is a non sequitur to accuse a leader who is responsible for the faith of his or her people to be "intolerant" when they insist that the people "follow the safety code" of their faith! Sheesh. Exactly as I said above the whole point of believing in God and joining (or being born into) a faith is that you subscribe to their creed and their code doctrine, as given by God, does not change. It is exactly people like King Abdullah who are entitled to lead interfaith efforts, not people who have lukewarm faith and who demonstrate it with their eagerness to edit God's instruction and word.

That does not mean that, like the good electrician who will, after following faithfully the entire safety code, allow for optional decisions where safety is not a risk, that Saudi Arabia will not inevitably adjust their optional manifestations of tolerance. I have every belief that only good things will come from the many faithful of Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim world in general. It is precisely the people who are firm and joyous in their core faith (even the parts that are difficult to live up to and may be hard to understand) who have the wisdom and confidence to know, then, where they can make decisions that create new traditions and tolerances. This is another thing that lukewarm or non-believers do not understand about the conservative in faith, whether the conservative are Jewish, Muslim or Christian. They do not understand that those of the most solid and consistent faith are those best positioned not only in the eyes of God but in the respect of the world and their own faith community to make sound non-core doctrinal changes, expansions and manifestations of tolerance. These are the very people who have the credibility and the wisdom to pace their leadership of their faith community to make good discernment of traditions, not core doctrine, that can and should be modified or expanded. It is exactly the exemplary "master electrician" who can serve on an agency to add new safety code or to find alternate solutions when, for example, new electrical service technology is discovered. It is not the person who doesn't really care if he or she follows the book, pun intended. It is the person who is pious, believing, orthodox and who understands that God and his expectations are unchanging, no matter how humans "change," who can then discern genuine avenues of increased tolerance, expanded faith traditions and genuine allowable and safe "progress."

I hope that you have found all of this helpful.

Would YOU recognize a miracle???

Would YOU recognize a miracle?

Most people have been in the situation where someone in their family, or a loved one, is gravely ill. If people are honest, even those who do not believe in God per se would admit that they pray, or at least yearn for, a miracle to save their loved one. This is never more obvious than when it is a helpless baby who is in dire medical condition. The baby may have been born profoundly premature, or with a very serious medical condition that threatens its life before it can even begin. Or the baby may have been harmed in a car accident, or is the victim of violence. Hardly anyone would not pray, or yearn, for a miracle, and when one does occur, that is usually what they say, in blessed relief, that it was a miracle.

Then why do some people refuse to acknowledge a rare and precious miracle, when a baby that is being aborted, somehow survives the process and lives? How can people with any conscience not apply what they would feel if a premature “wanted” baby pulled through, miraculously, a grave condition, yet when a baby that is not “wanted” is graced with a miracle by God, it is murdered like dirty trash?

I honestly wonder how people can be as schizophrenic in their morality on such a fundamental and obvious phenomenon as this. In one room in the hospital people pray for a miracle to save their premature baby. In the other room of a hospital, “health care workers” say “Darn it! This supposed aborted baby was born alive! We blew it!” And then they dismember it, or simply put it in the trash can, or a cold metal tray, to let it feebly suffer and twitch, silently crying, as it dies.

I have never been able to understand people who do not see the evil in such an attitude. I must assure you that God certainly sees, and is filled with wrath. While one can understand how many moderns think that abortion is a “right” or a “choice,” how can even they think that not providing life giving aid to a helpless baby who miraculously survives an abortion is somehow “right” and even more loathsome, being a “health care giver” or “just doing one’s job.” I cannot understand why even the “pro choice” lobby is not in outrage when a baby who miraculously survives is not given basic care so it can live and be adopted, if still not wanted. When God moves his hand to provide a prayed for (in any other circumstance) miracle, how dare people slap his hand away, and allow the baby to suffer to death?

I have always felt this way, and I have always been baffled by the “spiritual” “pro choice” side who do not see a problem with letting a God given miracle die, and worse, think that it was a “mistake in the abortion procedure.” Anyone who would ever have asked me would have had their ears burned off in hearing this stance from me, and thus been giving fair warning at how God perceives this cold heartedness rejection.

But by now I guess you can figure out why I am patiently explaining this to all of you on the blog (wondering why that has to be spelled out, but humans are nothing if not having a strong bias toward doing the wrong and wicked thing even in obvious situations such as this). One of the Presidential candidates has no shame in thinking that it is A-OK to let a baby suffer and die, after that baby had been given a miracle and survived the death of the abortion, and that candidate is, of course, Barrack Obama. He’s not even ashamed and that amazes me (not amazed in a good way, in case I need to spell that out too).

John McCain cannot be accused of being a dishonorable man who imposes his beliefs on others. To the contrary, John McCain has set the judicial and moral good example by recognizing that no human has the right to murder a baby who miraculously survived an abortion. One does not even have to get into the entire “pro choice” versus “pro life” argument to recognize something as screamingly obvious as this problem of “partial birth” abortion and worse, the willful killing of a child who survives an abortion and struggles to live outside the womb. John McCain has demonstrated himself to be a man, a humanitarian, and a protector of those who are given a God given miracle try at life, but who need actual human beings around him or her to actually not treat the baby like trash that missed the garbage disposal. I do not understand how Barrack Obama, regardless of being “pro choice” or not, cannot see the difference. But then again, it is difficult to recognize the God, his works, his mercy and his miracles, as they have been characterized in that charade of exclusionary faith that he seemed to have embraced for so many years. I cannot look at a picture of Barrack Obama without thinking of a miraculously born baby writhing in a cold metal pan until it dies, and him thinking “That’s cool. That’s right.” It has nothing to do with the color of Barrack’s skin, but there is a darkness of the heart in him, and those like him, who cannot see the difference between “pro choice” and putting to death a miracle baby.

Isn’t that enough to make anyone with fundamental decency vote for John McCain???

Bible commentary Part 1 of 4 Jacob's children

I am going to write an important commentary regarding this section of scripture from Genesis. First I am going to post the passages, and then in a separate post at a later time I will make my commentary. The scripture relates how the sons of Jacob avenge the defiling of their sister. By way of background Jacob (Yaqoub in the Qur’an) is the father of the twelve sons who are the patriarchs of the twelve tribes of ancient Israel. The story regards the children that were born by Jacob’s first wife Leah. Leah had borne, either personally or by adopting, six sons when she gave birth to a daughter named Dinah. The sons of Leah in the order of their birth were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Gad (born via Leah’s handmaiden Zilpah), Asher (also via Zilpha), Issachar, Zebulun, and then Dinah. By way of explanation about the custom of those times, after Leah had her first five sons, she entered a period of infertility. She begged her husband Jacob to lie with her handmaiden Zilpah so she could have more children and adopt them, which in the bible is called “to give birth on one’s knees” (Referring to a custom of a father acknowledging a newborn child by placing it in his lap). So after Zilpha bore two children on behalf of Leah, Leah found that she was fertile again and was able to naturally bear Issachar, Zebulun and Dinah.

Having children was absolutely vital to Leah because while she loved Jacob, and was his first wife, she knew that he did not love her. And so her children were not only her source of validation as being the mother of his children and heirs, but also her only source of love. For Jacob loved Leah’s younger sister Rachel, and took her to wife after Leah. Genesis 29:31 When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, he made her fruitful, while Rachel remained barren. This is important to understand as one of the many Biblical statements that children are the source of love and gifts from the Lord. In fact, after Leah was secure and had the first six children, the Lord also heard the prayers of Rachel and she was able to bear children naturally (she had had two, Dan and Naphtali, via her handmaiden, adopting as did Leah hers via Zilpah). Genesis 30:22 Then God remembered Rachel; he heard her prayer and made her fruitful. She conceived and bore a son, and she said, “God has removed my disgrace.” So she named him Joseph, meaning, “May the Lord add another son to this one for me!”

She did get her wish and bear another son, but ironically died in childbirth, while Jacob’s entire family and flock were traveling from Bethel to Ephrath. Genesis 35:18-19 With her last breath-for she was at the point of death-she called him Ben-oni; his father, however, named him Benjamin. Thus Rachel died; and she was buried on the road to Ephrath [that is, Bethlehem]. The insertion calling Ephraph Bethlehem is called a “gloss,” which means it is not in the original and is added by someone at a later date in order to add “extra information.” However, this gloss is an error, and an example of how Biblical scholars must understand that human hands do make errors in the scripture, whether of translation, in lettering or transcription, and also, as in this case, believing a tradition that is not actually true. Catholic Bible Study Edition footnote 35, 19 page 44 “Bethlehem: the gloss comes from a later tradition that identified the site with Bethlehem, also called Ephrath or Ephratha. But Rachel’s grave was actually near Ramah, a few miles north of Jerusalem, in the territory of Benjamin."

I include all this information as a prelude to the scripture that I want to cite in order to make several points. One I’ve already made above, which is that if one reads the Bible with compassion and care, one can discern where true love, family and compassion are found, especially in love of children, and that God does not forget either the unloved adult, or the adult who is loved but who does not have children and thus a household and heirs. Another point is that as I commented in previous posts, all of the Biblical personages are “witnesses” to the workings of God and the events of the time, even if all that we have are their names recorded in the Bible. Here you can see how Rachel was a real woman, who bore a real son named Benjamin, who became a patriarch of one of the twelve tribes of ancient Israel, who had a territory named after him that one can find on a map, where his family and tribe settled, and where his mother, who died in giving birth to him, is buried, near a town that one can locate in even in modern times. These are real people who lived in real times exactly as described in the Bible (and mentioned in the Qur’an) and they are witnesses to God and his works as they were the primary participants, there in those times and places.

Remember, by the way, that “witnessing” as defined by God and taught to the patriarchs means that one is able to personally attest to the truth of a matter. Some modern day evangelicals abuse that term, using “witness” as a word meaning that they attest to or testify to their faith, but obviously “they weren’t there to witness Biblical events” so they are not using the term "witness" the way God taught humans to use it. To be precise they really should stick to the other popular traditional term which is “to give their testimony.” One can give testimony about the real impact that the real God, through Jesus Christ, has had on one’s life. But when people use the term “witness” I cringe because it is more difficult for people like me to teach what witness actually means Biblically, as the term is now diluted, yet it is an essential concept.

For example, the Apostles, disciples and all who knew Jesus personally (even the many nameless and faceless in the crowds who heard him speak, saw him, or were cured) are “witnesses to Jesus.” Everyone who hears from witnesses of Jesus and those who believe as a result can now “testify.” I’d not be so strict on this matter if moderns had not gotten so sloppy in melding their own experience of faith with that of the people in the Bible who were actually and in truth there. This makes it more difficult for people who are Bible and Qur’an scholars to explain the intellectual foundation of their faith, which is that the people who were there and who saw with their own eyes are “witnesses.”

Witnessing, as I’ve written before, is a technique that is given by God to humans when the Law was given about how to attest to the truth of a matter, and obviously it involves the actual people being present and truthfully seeing what happened in front of their eyes. So it is easier to explain the intellectual belief in the Bible and the Qur’an to those who are questioning and questing for better understanding if one can use the term “witness” as God originally intended humans to use it, as stated in scripture. This is how I’ve had fruitful dialogue with our Muslim brothers and sisters, as they also have witnessing in the Qur’an. So I’m not nitpicking, but trying to correct some very squishy and unhelpful use of the term “witnessing” by evangelicals, and suggest they stick with “testimony” and other like terminologies.

Having put this introduction forward, in the next post I’ll cite the scripture that I wish to provide commentary upon.

Quick abortion history lesson

I've had this on my mind for a few days to share. One inevitable assumption that the younger people have today is that in the 1960's and the 1970's that there must have been a "women's liberation" movement to gain the "right" to an abortion. That's actually not true. There was not a grassroots, cohesive or extensive effort or even a demand for abortion by women. Several small independent advocates for abortion worked to promote it as a "right" and once they got the right they worked on "marketing abortion" to mainstream girls and women.

The first fans of abortion were socialists and communist sympathizers. This is because the USSR (now Russia) legalized abortion before the USA and were thus held up as the darlings of modern "rights" for women and sophisticated attitudes toward "sexuality." If you knew how miserable the average Soviet citizen, including women, were then even with their "prized" abortion "rights" you'd never fall for the propaganda. But the extreme left, especially women, lionized the "advanced" attitudes the USSR had toward women, while actually abortion was just another sign that the opposite was true, since socialism and communism are against the family unit as the foundation of a healthy society (instead, the "state" is the foundation).

The second fans of abortion were middle class and wealthy women, precisely the ones who could most afford to actually have a child and give it up for adoption, but chose not to do so. Today it is understandable that many think that the pro-aborts were advocating on behalf of poor women. Not true. In fact, poor people were not demanding abortion at all. They were more concerned with regional poverty (such as Appalachia) and Civil Rights. Poor people wanted families and children and worried about feeding, clothing and housing them, not aborting them. I watched one wealthy or "well to do" girl or woman after the other have an abortion simply because the baby was an inconvenience. You would not believe the excuses when one was offered. One young married couple aborted their first baby after discussion with her father (a doctor) because "she might be at a high cancer risk because she regularly gets cysts in her ear lobe." I could not make this up if I tried. A few years later they had a baby when it was convenient to them. So in the early 1970's, trust me, it was girls from wealthy and liberal families and women who could support a child but did not want to be "burdened" in their careers and dating lives who aborted like crazy, hiding behind the skirts of poor women who were not seeking abortions at all, or at least no where near on that scale.

And, sadly, reform Jewish women led the way for abortion rights. It's something that grieved me very much and I still do not understand. I really can't say much about this because I guess that's what "reform" means, which is to lose one's core faith. That's why to this day I do not consider reform Jews to be followers of Judaism. But even if one is not a devout Jew, would one not have a slight shudder at pushing abortion for historic and cultural reasons? You would think. But, young people, this is how the seculars worked on tempting reform Jewish men and women. They explained that a genetic disorder, Tay Sachs disease, which is predominant among Jewish genetic profiles, can be identified in the womb and the baby aborted. The temptation was that it's not birth control, it's eliminating a birth defect. But it took off like paper on fire and of course became one of the most enshrined "rights" of the liberal cultural Jews. Orthodox Jews responded differently. Some adopted screening before marriage in order to not marry a partner who would together create a mutual high risk profile and thus avoid the temptation of abortion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_Sachs-Disease

So I hope this helps you to see that various small enfranchised interests pushed for abortion, and this was not one of those great "glass ceiling" "barriers" to "women's equal rights" that "all women" were "advocating for." Special interest groups pushed abortion for their own agenda and then coalesced to push it (like a drug) as a tool against "inequality" and "poverty."

They corrupted agencies and organizations that started out as good intentioned. Planned Parenthood USED to be about planning families, not preventing families. I fully supported Planned Parenthood when they were about managing one's birth spacing and creation of a family. Back then they freely discussed even that Catholic approved method of "rhythm" and research was being done with thermometers and so forth to try to refine the predictability of women's natural cycles. But then they got hooked on the drug of abortion and they now should be ashamed of keeping the "Planned Parenthood" trademark.

Also, there was a big population management push in the 1970's and at first I thought they were reasonable too. This is because to me population management means "family spacing." It means giving women, and men, the understanding to space out their births in a healthy way, rather than have continual child bearing. Islam supports family spacing (with use of birth control but not abortion) and Catholics support family spacing (if natural rhythm method is used and definitely not abortion). I always thought that family spacing could have been a more reasonable approach toward the overpopulation problem of that other darling of the communist lovers, China, back when they instituted their "one child, forced abortion otherwise" policy. I had hoped that a pro family "family spacing" movement could have mitigated and prevented abortions and also reduce suffering in impoverished areas. But abortion lovers hijacked all population management associations too, so like with Planned Parenthood, I dumped my support of them in the 1980's.

I hope this helps you, especially the young people, understand how this really was not a movement like Civil Rights, far from it, and that it came from very dubious groups with not very nice agendas, under closer examination.

Great open letter by Supreme Knight

Not only is this a great statement of faith but students can study it as a fine example of intellectual reasoning based on fact and proper context.

http://www.zenit.org/article-23658?l=english

Canada archbishop strong integrity statement

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep11/0,4670,CanadaAbortion,00.html

snip

Canada archbishop returns gov't award in protest
Thursday, September 11, 2008

SAINTE-ANNE-DE-BEAUPRE, Quebec — The archbishop of Montreal announced Thursday he is returning Canada's most prestigious award because an abortion doctor received the same honor.

Archbishop Jean-Claude Turcotte said that he hoped opposition voices like his would prompt officials reverse their July decision to give Dr. Henry Morgentaler the Order of Canada.

snip

Morgentaler led a successful campaign to overturn Canada's anti-abortion laws on Jan. 28, 1988, making Canada the only western democracy at the time with no criminal sanctions against abortion.

Turcotte, who received the honor in 1996, said he had to relinquish the honor because his silence could be misinterpreted.

Turcotte told reporters he felt obliged to reaffirm his convictions regarding the "respect for human life, from conception to death."

snip

Morgentaler, a Polish-born physician who survived the infamous Dachau concentration camp, quit his family practice in Montreal in 1968 to open his first abortion clinic in defiance of the laws of the day. He was arrested several times and spent months in jail.

***
Archbishop Turcotte sets a wonderful example and I am very proud of him.

God bless all the bishops who are both speaking up and setting correct examples for the faithful, and demonstrating their integrity to the unbelieving observers! That is much more important than whether or not the Canadians would change their mind about honoring an abortion doctor. Ironic they do not honor him for being a Dachau survivor..

Bishop Slattery contributes great defense of life

Bishop Slattery joins the group of cardinals and bishop who have responded to the recent scandalous misrepresentations of the sanctity of human life and Catholic doctrine. Each contribution has been wonderful, and this one demonstrates how every bishop has such a valuable pastoral and humanitarian instructive role.

I commend ALL who are speaking out with the courage and clarity of Christ, in his name.


http://www.dioceseoftulsa.org/article.asp?nID=573

Bishop Slattery Issues Response to Pelosi, Biden Abortion Remarks
9/10/2008 - EOC Staff

In recent weeks, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Joe Biden have been asked by Tom Brokaw on "Meet the Press" to explain their personal opinions on the question of “When does Human Life Begin?” The essence of their views, which they both claim are developed from their experience as Catholics, is first, that the tradition is inconsistent (Pelosi), and second, that even if it is clear, it is a matter of personal faith which, in a democracy, ought not be imposed on others (Biden). Having made their views public, and by presenting themselves as Catholics, both Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Biden have invited a discussion about the legitimacy of their views.

I, and other bishops, have already stated that Speaker Pelosi’s position is clearly inconsistent with Catholic teaching, and to promote such a view is scandalous. There are many witnesses in the tradition that clearly state the Catholic view in opposition to Speaker Pelosi.

In view of the absolute duty that we all have of protecting innocent human life, it is also necessary to respond publicly to Sen. Biden’s remarks. In his interview, Sen. Biden explained that although he was prepared as a matter of faith to accept the teaching that life begins at the moment of conception, it would be wrong in a pluralistic society to impose that judgment on everyone else, who may be just as ardent as he is in their own faith. He remarked that abortion is “a personal and private issue.”

Sen. Biden’s remarks reflect two erroneous beliefs. It is plainly false to assert that the answer to the question of when human life begins is limited to the realm of personal and private faith and that therefore there is no basis for preferring one position over another. While it is true that Christian revelation provides a framework for understanding human nature, there is also biological evidence on when human life begins, that all persons of good will, and not just Christians, may examine. Also, the division that Sen. Biden creates between privacy and social responsibility is tenuous. He supposes that social responsibility ends at the point that we turn the decision over to individuals.

Modern science clearly proves that human life begins at conception. At the moment when DNA from the mother and the father combine, a new, unique human being, who will develop continuously until death, is created. From then on, the early zygote functions as a human being. It has specifically human enzymes and proteins, and, over time, it develops complex human tissues and organs. After this genetic transfer, it can never develop into any other kind of being. Even as it develops through the process of pregnancy, the human nature of the zygote, embryo, fetus, or baby never changes. It is this nature that directs and causes the miraculous physical transformation that takes place during the pregnancy.

In fact, the desire of some persons to destroy embryos in order to harvest stem cells is dependent upon the reality that they are already biologically human. Sen. Biden’s support for increased federal funding of embryonic stem cell research would therefore be at odds with his stated belief that life begins at conception. Contrary to some misconceptions, the early human embryo is not a vague collection of tissues without specificity. In fact the exact opposite is true. The first cells of this new human being contain all of the information that will guide its development throughout life. The process of embryonic and fetal development involves “switching off” the complete power of the early cells so that they only take on one function, like being a heart cell.

While there are some members of our society who would like to define this biological human being as someone who does not share our basic human rights, such as the right to its own existence, this is a dangerous path. We, as a human society, have gone this way before, with disastrous results. Inevitably, it ends with the act of murdering those whom we objectify, as we have seen with the lynching of African Americans, or the Holocaust, or the countless other genocides of the 20th century. Whenever we treat another human being as an object, a thing, that we may do with as we please, rather than as a human person made in the image and likeness of God, we diminish, and inevitably destroy that being, and ourselves.

It is also paradoxical to suggest that by throwing the cloak of “privacy” over the act of abortion, that individual choice can transform an evil act into something that is good, or even tolerable. If, as Sen. Biden believes, human life begins at conception, it is difficult to see how that view can be reconciled with the position that we, as a society, should legally allow individual persons to decide on their own if murder is wrong.

The modern day notion of “privacy” assumes that there is a neat division between the individual who makes a decision, and the rest of the human community. A “private” decision is one that is limited to the individual. However, in the case of abortion, this decision has implications not only for the mother, but also for the father, both of their immediate families, and, in fact, for all of our society. The mother and the father lose a child, the family a niece or nephew, or grandchild, and the rest of us, a companion in life. How we protect, or ignore, these smallest members of our human community defines who we are as human persons.

A democracy, in order to flourish, must attend to the defense of the values that are essential to the human community. Ignoring this hard work and simply relegating abortion to the sphere of individual choice allows a cancer to eat at our very core, as we permit some human persons to sacrifice the lives of others for their own personal reasons. As Catholics, we cannot accept the premise that in the name of “privacy” all choices are equally right.

Sen. Biden has opposed federal funding of abortions and backed the ban on partial birth abortions, and for that he should be commended. Yet, his justification for continuing to allow Roe v. Wade to stand as the law of the United States is incompatible with Catholic teaching.
Once an evil is truly seen for what it is, neither can an emphasis on “privacy” excuse one’s moral responsibility to act to stop it, nor can defining murder as a “right to choose” change what it is that is actually chosen.

Trusting always in the protection of Our Blessed Lady, whose immaculate womb first tabernacled the Word made Flesh, and asking for your prayers, I am

In Domino

Edward J. Slattery
Bishop of Tulsa

The body, even just a single cell, is soul temple

People have fallen away from understanding what the soul really is and its relation to the body. The Bible is clear that the body is to be honored because it is the temple of the soul.

It is through the body that the soul receives its shaping during its time in the material realm of time, energy and matter. Thus a soul gets "dirtied" by continual sin, where sin is an act performed by the mind and/or the body. Or the soul is glorified through the goodness of the mind and body's daily activities. Thus when one dies the soul returns to God, who had made it in the first place, and the condition of the soul is judged based on the effects that the deeds of mind and body experienced through his or her one and only life.

So here is the modern (and sometimes the ancients got confused) error in logic. I refer to it in my previous post. The ancients were better than the moderns are today at remembering that the body is the temple of the soul, and that the soul is present at some point before the baby is born. Moderns have drifted into ridiculous and dangerous lack of understanding that the soul is shaped (benefited or harmed) by the living human's bodily and mind experiences and thus seem to think that the soul is just along for the ride, or doesn't really exist. That's like thinking the passenger in a car doesn't matter, only the car matters. The soul is like the passenger in the car and God will judge how that passenger arrives. The other error in logic is that both ancients and moderns are tempted to think that the soul does not experience life unless it is at some sort of recognizable human looking and appearing stage of maturation. I explain why the ancients felt that way in my previous blog. But here is the problem.

We know that from the moment of attachment to the womb the embryo is a passenger in a car and it is already affected by its environment. The soul is already being shaped from the first cell division of its single cell body. How do we know that? Well, simple logic that whatever food, beverage or substance a woman consumes immediately affects the cell of the embryo. The ancients did not really understand biology and how life works (for example, they did not know about cells, or how nutrients are passed through the body and utilized). They could deduce things like what is healthy to eat, but they did not know that food is comprised of fat, protein, carbohydrates, etc and the cellular mechanisms of digestion. But moderns know better. The baby's soul is either supported or harmed by whatever the mother experiences through ingestion from the very first moment of its life. So the soul is definitely becoming shaped and unique by what it experiences. Suppose the embryo is in a starving woman in Darfur. The scarcity and inadequacy of the nutrients she can provide the embryo is "felt" by the soul. When that soul returns to God, after whatever its length of life, that soul is shaped by privation in a different way than the soul of a well fed and nourished European woman, for example. One is not better or more worthy, it is just an example of how the body does not have to be self aware and developed to have an immediate impact on the shaping of the soul. And we also know that caffeine, prescription or illegal drug or alcohol use is also immediately transmitted to the embryo at its earliest stages. The soul is in there, being "shaped" by that experience.

The second thing that moderns know that ancients did not is that even a single cell embryo is directed by the incredible complexity of its individual genes. Even if the embryo has not yet grown its "blue eyes" the genes for blue eyes are going to work to make that happen. Thus the biology and temperament of the future adult is already present and active on an individual basis, baby by baby, embryo by embryo. And what if the baby is one of twins? The soul of the embryo is already "exposed" to closely proximate life from its earliest cellular life. That too "shapes" the soul.

This is why the Bible explains that God knows the person before they are born. They are an individual person with a growing temple that houses the soul from the moment of conception. God creates the soul and sends it to the body-its very temple-the moment the temple is made, which is conception and attachment to the womb with the first pulse of life. To use the car and passenger analogy, one is in the car from the very beginning of the journey, one does not pop into the car only when the car has reached thirty miles per hour. Think of the embryo being made, attaching and quickening as the moment when the car passenger first turns the car key and the car engine turns on. The car is on even though you have not yet left the driveway. An embryo has a soul the moment it exists and "turns on" by being viable, by demonstrating it is alive by performing its first cell division. That is why the Catholic Church is gravely disturbed by frozen embryos. While there is not yet a soul or "passenger" "trapped" in there, it is right on the edge of that happening, all the embryo needs is to be quickened to receive its soul. That should be both comforting and also deeply disturbing to you, if you think about it. Embryos are not to be trifled with.

So the soul is "aware" from its very arrival in the quickened embryo that has had its attachment to the womb and first cell division of life because it is instantly bathed in the experience of the physical reality of containment (the womb and the embryonic cell), the variety of substances of nutrients and otherwise it receives through the mother's placenta, including whether they are adequate or not, healthy or damaging, and also the genetic mandates that initiate growth in the entirely unique bodily temple, plus whether there is another life in the form of a sibling "on board." These are all experiences that do not require a body to be mature enough to be "self aware." The soul does not need a body with a brain, a heart, ears, eyes and limbs, or the ability to feel pain or not to experience life. I mean, duh, the soul is created in God's realm where there is no physical bodily reality at all yet. The soul "arrives" in the embryo having already experienced a material life formative event, which is feeling God's love and desire for the baby to live. So the very first thing that every pre born baby embryo soul feels is that this is a "wanted pregnancy," that God is the parent and loves the child. This is why babies cannot "understand" not being wanted, because every soul arrives with its first experience of being cradled and loved by God.

Thus if, sadly, there is a miscarriage, the soul returns to God with most assuredly a "personality" based on its bodily life temple experience. The soul of a miscarried deprived baby in the Sudan region of Darfur will have a different shaping than the soul of a baby who is miscarried because of a genetic flaw, or because the mother ingested substance, or because of a tragic accident to the mother. Each pre born baby has an already individualized soul from their totality of individual experience in the womb. Obviously babies that are aborted have that experience on the shapes of their souls, and they are comforted in heaven with "extra super duper" love and "you are wanted" in heaven to compensate and erase the rejection of them in life via abortion. They find themselves among those of the ancestors of their biological parents who are righteous and who have merited heaven, even if that has to go back some generations. The souls of babies who perish with their mothers each experience whatever those circumstances were, but are in the company of their mothers to heaven (hopefully for the mother, but a pregnancy is not a free ticket to heaven). Babies who are miscarried by parents who deeply loved them and for no fault of their own cannot thrive also carry with them to heaven the shaping of that parental love on their souls. So there is a wealth of "experience" that is different for every soul from the moment it arrives to the new embryo throughout pregnancy, and each is totally individual. That's how they tell each other apart in heaven, by the way, because each human is individual and different based on their experience throughout whatever the span of their life was, and so there is a "visible" uniqueness that is incredibly obvious to anyone in heaven even if the pre born infant had lived only for days, weeks, or months.

I hope this is helpful.

Archbishop Niederauer statement very good

I am very pleased with the statement by the Most Reverend George H. Niederauer regarding the scandalous misstatements by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Read it in its entirety at this link.

http://www.catholic-sf.org/FPArticle14b.htm

***
I think the statement is excellent in both its pastoral and its doctrinal balance. Archbishop Niederauer takes the time to allow the reader into both the doctrinal and the pastoral thought process and this is very valuable to both the faithful and to observers of the Catholic faith. He has done a great service in the construction of this document.

Some within the Catholic community have expressed disappointment at his statement stopping short of a bottom line ultimatum regarding the continued receiving of the Holy Eucharist sacrament by Speaker Pelosi. Obviously, that is not appropriate until after their face to face conversation. But I would also point out something that I am sure Archbishop Niederauer is referring to but not yet closing the door until they have had clarity of dialogue. That is that, as you read in the letter, the Church understands that some of the faithful may grapple silently in their hearts with one or more of the Church's teachings, yet still receive the sacraments in good heart. The difference is when people try to publicly, or privately (though we have no way of knowing those instances) attempt to lead faithful individuals or the community as a whole away from Church doctrine and undermine their faith. In a word, that is "leading someone into sin," something that Jesus Christ warned against in no uncertain terms.

When Speaker Pelosi made her scandalous representations of herself being an expert in Church doctrine AND then stating her "interpretations" which were in direct opposition to some of the most fundamental of Church doctrine regarding the sanctity of life, in my opinion she was publicly attempting to lead the faithful into sin. She was not a person, an individual, grappling in her heart with an issue, even one as basic as the sin of abortion, who nonetheless keeps her doubts to herself or her family and her pastor, and who can continue to receive the sacrament in good faith and heart. I know there are certain Catholics I could mention who grapple with understanding why lying and thievery are so wrong. (*lame laugh*) But it is when a Catholic takes to the public secular "pulpit" and promotes defiance of Church teaching that they need to be barred from the Holy Eucharist.

If after their conversation Speaker Pelosi acknowledges that she does not speak for the Church, that she did not fully understand the sanctity of life doctrine and its infallibility in that it is consistent from the very Apostolic beginnings of the Church, and she furthermore retains her internal conflict and support of abortion into an individual matter of her own soul, then I expect that Archbishop Niederauer is leaving room for allowing her to continue to receive in good faith. I believe this is why, correctly, he describes the internal dilemma that some faithful may have about an issue, but still receive the sacrament in good faith. It is the attempt to be a "Piper" to lead the faithful into having doubt about their doctrine by a self proclaimed "expert" that is so scandalous and places her in jeopardy of being sinfully unworthy of the Holy Eucharist in sacrament. I wish them well in their dialogue and commend the Archbishop for his very balanced but firm, appropriate and comprehensive letter that leads up to the anticipated pastoral conversation and outcome.

DELIGHTED at Catholic Bishops' Responses

Something good comes out of even the bad, and even the scandalous, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops plus individual Bishops have demonstrated this in a way that gives me pride and delight. Here is the USCCB official statement in reply to the scandalous and dreadful slander by Speaker Pelosi of the pro-life anti-abortion doctrine of the Catholic Church.

http://usccb.org/

Further, I am delighted to see the growing list of Bishops (and most especially the statement by Cardinal Egan of New York http://www.archny.org/news-events/news-press-releases/index.cfm?i=8803) who reinforce the statement of the USCCB, issue their own statements, are demonstrating pastoral responsibilities in guiding their flocks, and who are standing and bearing witness to the truth of the Catholic Church.

THIS is what is needed to provide the fullness of truth to the faithful and by influence of sanctity and good will, to society as a whole. I commend all of you and praise you for taking the lead. Bishops must spend less time on administrative and other secular distractions and be sure to be prompt in guiding their flocks through times of confusion and indeed, lead in their formation and strengthening of faith. Ultimately all will be strengthened and purified by your examples, you will see.

God bless, and I hope this is the beginning of more active witness, faith formation and defense of our doctrine and truth by the Bishops.

Inspiring story about refusing abortion

If ever anyone had a good reason to request an abortion, this young woman who was gang raped certainly has it. Yet she allowed the deepest and most profound goodness that humans are capable of to enter into her soul, and she decided to have and raise the baby. This is "must" reading, especially for young people who have grown up taking abortion for granted. Even in the worst of circumstances, a baby is still a baby, loved by God and ready to be loved by you, even in the worst of situations. God bless this whole family.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1043041/At-16-gang-raped-left-pregnant-Now-mother-explains--Why-I-love-rapists-baby.html

Earth could easily support twice the population

I'm sick of hearing people be anti-life and anti-baby and using existing poverty and environmental degradation as their sickening excuses.

If people lived charitably and were "their brother's keeper," there would be a dramatic reduction in poverty and an improvement in environmental quality right here and now. It would take me about a week to draw up the plan how it could be done, I mean, duh.

Further, the technology and knowledge exists in order to produce food and shelter in abundance that could feed and house and yes, promote a cleaner, not a more degraded, environment if people actually gave a rat's ass to do so, even if the population doubled.

But the money, the willpower, the morals and the know how are being pissed off in other directions and it has been an unbelievable waste, collectively and individually.

Sheesh, I'm so sick of people who want to deny life to other people just because they can't get off their pimply spotted asses (either literally or mentally) long enough to be both charitable AND intelligent.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Great interview with pro life UK woman doctor

I admire this lady! And everyone who takes a similar, compassionate stand. I hope even more join her. Do read this, it's some bright news when everything else, at least on this subject, is pretty bleak.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1033895/Pro-life-GP-says-patients-regretted-having-child.html

Pondering: message to the youth (4)

How is it that the World War II generation became the last real generation? And why is it that I am explaining to you that none of the generations since then have been real generations, but instead fractured parallel partial artificial "generations?" Here is why.

In the 1960's people deviated from generational aspirations in order to "specialize." People felt individual callings that were based on what they felt were high priority issues or behaviors that they wished to pursue. Instead of maintaining a baseline, a foundation of aspirations and priorities, and from there taking on one or more of the new issues, they "branched out" to specialize in that issue (or "Lifestyle Choice"). In other words, suppose each generation is a single giant tree. Instead of taking close looks at branches that need attention, while still understanding that the branch is part of the tree, and relies on the tree for its long term survival, people started to believe that they are on a branch and that branch is independent from the tree. Let's look again at the World War II generation. They had a huge branch, the war, that they had to focus on and attend to. But they never lost their identity as a generation with that entire tree. I don't mean patriotism, I mean their aspirations for peace, home and prosperity. So they could focus on the fighting of the war, but they all still felt the over arching identity of what they hoped to achieve in life. Like I said in my previous post just before this one, even if the aspirations were blocked due to poverty or discrimination, people all still shared the hope and aspirations to achieve those good things. The fighting of World War II did not totally distract that generation from their overall life view.

But as people addressed both the vital and serious (discrimination and civil rights, subsequent conflicts, the global economy, socialism and communism, education, crime, the environment) and the temptations (addictions, free sex, abortions, "anything goes" and alternative lifestyles, consumerism, artistic impulses, the entertainment industry, self empowerment, the occult) they broke apart from their generation and regrouped around specific issues. I'll use some short hand here, and I mean no offense, I'm just trying to explain the dynamics. Instead of "baby boomer generation" you had generation socialist/communist, generation struggle for civil rights, generation make a lot of money, generation hedonism, generation "free spirit," generation entrepreneur, generation against the war, generation earth day, etc etc etc. Individuals broke out of the trunk of the tree of their generation and gathered together in clusters of people who focused only one one or two issues or lifestyle choices.

For example, many who fought for Civil Rights set their target to be, "whatever white people have, we should have too." That's fine if you are talking about wanting to be in a color blind and totally equal society that is not discriminating on racial lines. But the social cohesion of what white society had was dissolving, and while collecting the correct rights such as voting, equal pay, abhorrence of race baiting and violence, education, promotions, housing, equal access of services. those who focused on the Civil Rights struggle inadvertently "followed" branches of the white generational splintering into terrible loses of prior strengths. The black family, which had held together even during the horrors of slavery itself, followed the cadre of the white anti-family generation. The blacks who were once victims of police violence and bullwhips followed the white cadre that formed the "generation drugs and guns." So "baby boomers" of the Civil Rights struggle inadvertently followed the trail of "rights" that led down individual branches of generations that were forged by splinter white groups. Blacks won the right to vote, but they inadvertently demanded, and got, the right to destroy families, have abortions, beat on each other, just like the whites do.

Generation environmental went off into la-la land where animals are "better," "more spiritual," and "more soulful" than human babies. While fighting the good fight for the environment, and I tried to be a leader (but was shut out) in that, I noticed from my position on the tree trunk that many environmentalists had climbed out on a branch and declared that free food and birth control/abortions were the ecological way to end poverty! Many environmentalists lost their love for their neighbor and for the human race. They left the generational tree trunk.

The War in Vietnam and governmental corruption sucked the life of a generation right out of them, for those who could not separate dealing with those issues from still maintaining a balanced world and life view. Instead of being wiser discerners about who to trust, they decided not to trust anyone "in power," and many of them went on to be the untrustworthy power brokers themselves.

I don't need to say anything about generation shake your money maker.

So you see, since World War II there was no generation. People specialized themselves right out of their own generation. They lost common agreement on what it even means to be alive.

No tragedy is a good excuse for abandoning generational human aspirations. Even HIV/AIDS, with all that trauma and loss, was not a good excuse for abandoning a collective humanitarian view based on the goodness of family and community. During World War I there was the terrible Influenza Epidemic that killed something like 17-18 million people (have to check the numbers). Villages were wiped out in the USA and millions dropped and died. Yet people did not stop being members of their generation, of their goodness and cohesiveness in time of need, even as they experienced an inexplicable tsunami of disease. (And remember, antibiotics had not been invented; there was literally nothing that could be medically done for those who came down with this strain of Influenza). Yet after that plague, did any of them run around and say that the Influenza was invented by the Kaiser of Germany, or by Woodrow Wilson, in order to "insert whatever conspiracy theory they might want to believe here." Of course not. Doctors and nurses, police, government workers died in their tracks by the thousands trying to help people with a disease that had no cure or even palliative remedy at all, but the disease did not divide the human family. Who can say this about this "generation?" Don't even get me started about one sub-generation demanding a pill to cure everything, while their neighboring splinter sub-generation wants to sue over every pill and vaccine? No one is pulling together for a quality and reasonable approach to health care, and I don't mean the insurance, I mean the humanitarian aspirations that motivated and inspired all the generations before these sub-generations

So, dear youth, you've really been ripped off. All of you have grown up in a country and time where your parents handed you branches and told you those were the true trees. And for those of you who did grow up in well centered and aspirational generational identities, the consumer and secular society views you as just dummies, but dummies with charge cards and Paypal. You have to constantly resist in order to maintain an aspirational generation cohesiveness at all. A true generation works for individual good within the framework of the greater good - ALL of it, not within fake "specialities" such as "climate change" and "pro choice." You don't recommend cutting off branches under others and even yourselves as the way to "make a better world." A wise generation "follows the money" in order to discern its value and its applications, not to be led by the nose.

I see some positive signals and I pray for more. I hope that this youthful age group cadre can regain a generational identity that is aspirational toward the culture of life. Perhaps this age group cadre can pull together back into a cohesive unit that does not have to agree with each other about specifics, but is constantly working on restoring a positive love of children and of the goodness of life, instead of either "living large and fat on the hog" OR "let's force people into a tiny 'carbon footprint.'"