Understanding God: how God "thinks"

I am going to give you an analogy and a case study that will help you to understand "how" God "thinks" (by that I mean his perspective on human actions). My purpose is not to help you to try to understand what cannot actually be understood by humans (or even by angels, who while they share God's vision they cannot comprehend how its perfection originates in God, which is why they constantly praise God in heaven). Rather, I am going to help you to look at a sad and unpleasant earthly issue and be better able to make just, righteous and virtuous choices and thus form your own opinions accordingly. I've thought of a few analogy and case studies so here is the first one.

As you know, many people who oppose abortion understand that even certain forms of birth control have shades of abortion, since they destroy the created embryo by not allowing it to implant, etc. While the Catholic Church and others of their belief oppose all forms of terminating preborn life, they recognize that there is a difference between contraception (preventing the embryo from even forming in the first place) and abortion (destroying or hindering the growth of an actual embryo). Thus the Catholic Church opposes both but for different reasons, though both rest on the reverence and valuing of all human life. Contraception is opposed because there is a Biblical prohibition of "spilling one's seed on the ground," which means that all sex acts should occur in a marital situation that is open to the possibility of a pregnancy occurring. So contraception is opposed because it appears that God has instructed that the raw material of pregnancy should not be discarded, wasted or hindered from combining into a pregnancy. Abortion is opposed because it is viewed as not only being devaluing of life and irreverential toward God's commission to be fruitful and multiple, but because it also violates the Commandment against killing. So that is the medical and spiritual background against which this case study takes place.

One way people promote both birth control and abortion is to accuse those who oppose either or both of those practices of being "insensitive" and "cruel" in certain situations. The usual situation is whereby a victim of rape seeks an abortion. Now, the specific case study I want to give to you is the situation regarding why some people oppose giving "morning after" so called "emergency contraception" pills to a rape victim. In other words, working in slightly different ways, these pills create an environment hostile toward a pregnancy either occurring (if it has not yet happened) or the embryo if it is in place being able to attach and grow. Many people, including those of good will and emotional thoughtfulness, wonder how people can be mean as to "condemn" a rape victim to a possible pregnancy.

Before I move to the analogy, where I explain God's way of thinking in the matter, let me remind you that I am not an absolutist, as I have blogged before. I believe that a small child who is raped and pregnant and who is seeking an abortion for the good reasons of her extreme youth and her fragile health, should receive one, and the sin of abortion thus rests upon whoever allowed the rape to occur. I remind you that I blogged about the most recent case of this happening so that you are not distracted in reading my analogy by the thought that I am insensitive and inflexible, for I am not, obviously.

So let's go back to the case study, which is a teenage or adult woman (in other words, not a child as I outlined above) is raped and seeks immediate "after the rape" "emergency contraception," which is medicine that either aborts the newly formed embryo or prevents the sperm and egg from fertilizing, if they had not yet. So I am speaking of someone who could bear a child with the normal risks of pregnancy, but not the additional risk and trauma of a little child being raped.

Here is the analogy that helps shed some light on how God views this dilemma. Imagine there is a poor and primitive village of indigenous people in a remote area, where they barely eke out a living to support themselves, but are otherwise content. One day a man goes insane and kills a married couple, leaving their small child alive, but now with no one to provide for her. How would you feel if the village decided to kill the small child, because they could not support her in the place of her parents and, and this is the important point, the fact that she is now unsupported is the result of a crime.

So think this through. These well meaning villagers have now lost two pairs of hands and legs that used to raise food, build dwellings, haul water, etc due to the crime of murder, and now with that loss of sustenance providing married couple, the village is stuck with a burden, the little girl, that did not exist before, and all because of a crime.

I'll bet many of you have to haul yourself back from the slippery slope of "understanding" that the "poor indigenous" people just "might have to" make a "tough decision" and being "unable to support the little girl" "through no fault of their own" and "because of someone else's crime," they just "can't support the little girl due to this crime" and thus (how long can we delay saying it?)... they kill her, either outright or by allowing her to starve or perish due to wild beasts in the forest, or from exposure to the cold.

No, God would not "understand" that. God would think that the people who do have enough to eat and shelter don't deserve to have even the little they do have if they cannot raise, support and comfort the little girl whose parents, those two able bodied workers, were murdered. Odds are that God would hardly bless the future of the village who killed the child because "they could not support her." Indeed, these villagers would all have to answer to him when they receive on their inevitable death personal judgment.

Now that you understand "how God thinks" in the analogy, now look back to the case study. In both situations you have a helpless child due to a crime (in the case study, due to rape, in the analogy, due to the murder of the parents). God does not want to hear lame, selfish and craven excuses from a poor village who murders due to poverty, so how much less does God want to hear such excuses from a society that has health care, hospitals, welfare, parents and grandparents with salaries, and the potential for adoption?

It is a hard message to understand how God thinks because his thought is entirely based on love and justice. No human can ever live up to that, but they sure should not provoke the obvious because of greed and selfishness, or, and this is understandable, where shattered emotions and self pity due to the rape can lead, due to the weakness of human nature, of blaming the child for "ruining" their "plans." "My life has been ruined, I've been raped and if I have this child I have to pay money and lose a year of college before getting my high paid job and giving the baby away in adoption." Put in God's point of view, while he understands the broken, selfish weakness of humanity (after all, Eve had everything and she still wanted more in the Garden of Eden), it is hardly as noble and kind hearted as humans think they are being when they urge a rape victim to consider "emergency contraception" and/or abortion.

Back to the analogy. Maybe those lazy ass villagers ought to work a little harder to grow a few more crops, rather than just the bit they have, in order to not murder the child. Maybe their doing so would result in them discovering a vein of gold in a stream that they had not noticed before. Sometimes even those in extreme economic situations through genuine kindness can exert themselves even more to support a child, rather than say "We'd like to but we can't."

God is the ultimate democrat, because every life is equally precious in its creation and its potential in his eyes. Many people alive today exist because somewhere in their family tree someone did not abort a child due to rape in warfare or other circumstances.

I hope that this case study and the accompanying analogy has helped you understand one aspect-a very important one-of God's "thoughts." More so I hope this helps you to not have knee jerk reaction to even painful events when developing your own stance, attitudes, thoughts, feelings and ultimately policies and decisions, where you react to the obvious sympathy and empathy without considering all the routes that genuine mercy, virtue and righteous do take place.

New Year thought

For the past several days, I have been thinking about and missing the presence of 50 to 70 million people. Who are those people? They would be the ones alive today, able to celebrate the New Year, whether it is on their cultural calendar or not, if they had not been aborted worldwide.

They are missing at the table, for they never had a chance to sit down at it.

I feel very personally their loss, as does the whole world, while I am conscious of what it is like without them, while many others have no clue that they are suffering the loss too. They are, however, alive in heaven, which is the glory of God's consolation and rescue of them....but they were needed here on earth.

Rather than contradict, this underscores Pope Benedict XVI's Day of Peace message that the world must turn attention to being good steward and protecting God's creation. The usual haters comment that "less people" and "abortion" "helps" to preserve the environment. Really?

Let me refute that with one of many observations that I could make. If the oceans had not been polluted and overfished, on seafood alone those 50-70 million people who are not alive today could have been easily sustained and fed.

Return to respecting and protecting all of God's creation, the earth and the people who were created in order to share the abundance, not be the victims of ignorant misers.

Genesis 1.
Luke 16.

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.

Words of comfort for those who lost children

Hardly a day goes by where we do not see in the news yet another tragic loss of children, in automobile accidents, often due to drunk driving, incredible murders (all four children in one family in Oklahoma, along with their mother), tragic illnesses or mishaps (such as drowning in pools), and other ailments that result in the loss of a young life.

I've written before about his to console those who are bearing the unbearable. Nothing can really ease the loss of a child. However, I realize that it helps if I can assure those who mourn of several things.

One is that no matter how horribly the child may have been frightened or in pain, they enter heaven unafraid and with no thought of the pain or trauma of their passing. It's not that they "forget" or have memories erased or anything. Rather, heaven is so awesome that it truly washes away the attention completely from the sadness and pain and they are only focused on looking forward, at the "here and now" of heaven. You know how when you do something you truly enjoy that you are totally absorbed and content, and even for just a few moments don't think of your problems? It is like that but a million times better! The child does not need to have memories erased or to be soothed because the child's soul is refreshed instantly at being in the place that is only love and light.

Second, this is true even if your child was raised, as far too many are, without any knowledge of the genuine faith and nature of the one God. It's not like when they arrive they are confused and scared because all that they had been taught was wrong, or that they have a total blank slate about the faith due to lack of traditional faith transmission by parents and caregivers. First of all, they have an instinctive recognition of God, and they feel from the start that they always knew about him. Why is that? Well, remember that their guardian angels were always with them when alive, so having a guardian angel is like hearing God talking or humming in the background, even if one is not a believer. It's that feeling you have that you are never really alone (the comforting feeling, not the feeling that paranoids or stalking victims have, ha). No, all people have that white noise access to God even if they do not believe, due to their guardian angel and also the constant efforts of the Holy Spirit to reach everyone.

Because young children are innocent they cannot be held to blame for not receiving instruction in God and the true faith. Thus their instinctive connectivity via their guardian angel is pure, and they feel at home and "knowledgeable" right away in heaven. Jesus himself assured the disciples that the angels of children constantly face God. Adults are another matter entirely, who have their own accountability for ignoring the faith. Children, however, cannot help how they are raised, but a parent or caregiver who is suffering the loss of a child does not need to worry that their being remiss in teaching them the faith has caused them to now be scared or in pain after suddenly dying. Their guardian angel is with them right to heaven, as the angel was with them in the womb before they even "knew" they were a person. (Just think, mothers of twins, triplets and other multiple births have that many guardian angels along for the ride too :-) However, this is no excuse not to raise any living child in the faith because children need knowledge of God and faith in him in order to live properly and fully. Faith is about living and all children need the support and love of knowledge of God to live full and rational lives. So I am making these points in order to reassure those who were remiss in teaching their children, and who are in pain of loss, and not to tell parents of living children that it is "OK" to skip the faith and God part and it all sorts itself out anyway. That is because you hope your child will grow up to be adults, and then it is an entirely different matter.

However, if the worst happens, be assured that children do not need to know about God in order to find him and not be afraid when they die. After all, premature, aborted and newborn babies who die all find their way to heaven without having any knowledge about life at all, say nothing of instruction in the faith. In heaven babies are aware in a way that I can't really explain because words are inadequate. The easiest way to think of it is that they share in the knowledge of the angels. So while they do not have worldly years and experiences, like the angels they are aware in ways that living beings are not. It's not a bookish or "experience" awareness, but it's a knowing of how things "really are," and a share in the infinite goodness of eternal life outside of time, matter and energy (none of which exist in heaven, so souls in heaven are not "energy beings," since there is no "energy" in heaven, just as there is no matter or time). So even premature babies, aborted embryos, however short their life all gain a portion of the knowledge and awareness of angels, since, like angels, they receive all of their life sustenance from God's will and power. All that exists in heaven exists because it is within God. Thus, even the tiniest of infants who never got to live at all are not deprived of mature awareness, but it is a totally heavenly based maturity, not earthly based maturity of experience at living life.

Children do not become angels, by the way. I mean, sure, it's fine to call them God's littlest angels, but angels are spirits created by God who never lived in conditions of time or matter. Children lived, even if only a few weeks in the womb, with the soul in the body's temple. Thus the souls of humans go to heaven; they are not transformed into being angels since angels are of totally different spiritual substance, not having ever been of earth.

Further, children are greeted by their nearest relatives who have achieved heaven. Through their angelic and God given awareness, they know who everyone is, even if it is a grandfather or grandmother, even multi generational back in time. Like I said, the "nearest relatives who have achieved heaven." God will go back however far he has to, ahem. I like to think that every child has a lot of relatives in heaven and they do, but sometimes it's not of the current generations, to be bluntly honest. People who want to be reunited with their children need to understand that heaven is merited individually; having a child in heaven is not one's "meal ticket" to getting into heaven. God always hopes that people will be more open in their hearts, led by their children, into more love and belief, not less. I can tell you that many times it is the desire to see one's child again that has melted cold hearts of disbelief in their parents, their grieving families, and their caregivers. Sometimes that takes time, of course, but throughout human faith history that has been a powerful directional toward God, to think about the loving care that one's child is receiving there with God, and to yearn for reunion in time.

This is, by the way, what I tell adults who aborted their children, and who years later regret it. Do not ever lose focus on the fact that you can be with that child, and not in disgrace or recriminations or embarrassment, but as all are reunited in joy and the drying of tears in heaven. There are no grudges in heaven and certainly children remember only the joy of reunion. So do not ever make the error that Judas made, of total despair, believing that God cannot fix even such a sad situation as when he betrayed Christ: if only Judas had repented and believed! Likewise, even in abortion, have faith in God and his reality, and seek him during your life, and you can live in the hope of joyous reunion with the children you never knew.

In heaven there are not really "activities" per se, but one can think of it as the place where God knows the bliss that each soul most desires. Thus children who really crave the mothering find much mothering in heaven, and those who crave the fathering find only the goodness of fatherhood in heaven. Children who loved animals see their pets in heaven, and the other beings of heaven that are of that spirit. When Jesus tells the story of the poor man Lazarus who died in pain, neglect and poverty, Jesus points out that Lazarus is in the bosom of Abraham in heaven. Abraham is the father of all the faiths in the one God, and thus one can see an example of what I mean. The poor man Lazarus needed a father, a provider, and thus his bliss is to be cradled by the great father of all the faiths, Abraham, in heaven. So it is with children where they are surrounded and loved by whatever relatives, saints, angels and fellow souls that they could ever desire for their bliss in God's presence. They do not "miss" anyone, no matter how much they loved on earth, because there is no passage of time in heaven with which to miss anyone. It is difficult to imagine how the heavenly abode is, totally outside of the existence of time. The best way to describe it is that whoever is going to be in heaven seems to be "already there," even though there is passage of time on earth. In other words, your child does not have time to miss you, quite literally, he or she does not have the time since there is no such thing as time itself. That does not diminish the joy of when you are reunited.

That, by the way, is why the Apostles and disciples thought so much about the resurrection of the body at the end of time. It is too mind boggling for them to comprehend heaven and their existence as souls, so they focused on trying to understand what it would be like when their bodies are resurrected, all of life passes, time ends, and there is the new heavenly "Jerusalem" for those who merit it. It's not like they didn't understand that they would individually be with Jesus in heaven when each of them died, obviously. But rather than try to imagine that, they instead asked Jesus about when they would be in their resurrected bodies and all the earth would be anew. THAT they could understand and quiz Jesus about. But as Jesus reminded them, even he himself did not know when the end of time would take place, only God knows that. So Jesus reminded them that he was going to heaven to prepare places for them in heaven, explaining to them that God has many mansions (rooms) in heaven and that he, Jesus, would go ahead and prepare their places. Again, Jesus is using terms that humans can understand. It's not like God literally has little houses custom decorated to the liking of each human (sorry New Agers). What Jesus means by mansions or rooms is what I explained, that the place of one's bliss is prepared.

So when people joke that when someone dies, "God must have needed another musician," or "God needed another baseball player," etc., that is in a joking way actually closer to the truth of heaven than imagining little marble mansions or log cabins of one's own. Spirits in heaven cluster around their love relationships from earth and also their commonality of bliss. It is not so much the type of interest but the type of love that they most desire. The gravity of heaven is the love of God and it is love of God and being in his light that ennobles through and of God the relationships that one has in heaven. So just as gravity on earth keeps one steady on the planet and able to move and breathe the atmosphere that is also kept in place by gravity, God's love and presence is the gravity of heaven and all gather within heaven feeling the mutual bonds of love and bliss. Yes, there is a lot of singing in heaven because the angels constantly sing God's praise, and it is never tiresome and it never grows old (and one does not have to worry about being out of tune or not having perfect pitch ;-)

So the only comfort that I can offer grieving parents is a powerful one, but one that is forward looking as time slowly heals sufficiently so that the grief becomes bearable and life can go on. The comfort is that no matter what the circumstances of their passing, innocent children do not carry fear or pain with them, they find heaven, they know God, and they are surrounded by relatives, angels and others who provide love and bliss.

I hope that you have found this in some way helpful.

Cultural diplomacy, ordinary debate case study

Here is another important concept in cultural diplomacy and-in fact-an essential part of any genuine dialogue or debate, whether there is a cultural difference or simply a political or lifestyle difference.

I thought of presenting this topic today as a result of listening to a caller to a morning talk show. The caller was able to get through I guess around five sentences of his opinion, but in the way of most people, was still developing his position when he was interrupted by the kind of bristling talk show host. The caller had triggered a quick change from a rather mellow tone to this bristling reaction by the talk host because the caller stated that he felt the USA is in need of a revolution. Now, the caller never got a chance to state what exactly he means by “revolution” (one of the most overworked terms of the past forty years) because the talk show host assumed he meant violent revolution. So the talk show host gave what I’m sure he felt was a really responsible “reply,” focusing on God (this is a conservative show) and the necessity to avoid violent revolution. Well…. Here’s the problem with that response.

First of all, as I said, “revolution” is one of the most overworked words of the past forty years, and it means at least a hundred different things-a hundred different types of “revolution”-depending on who you are speaking to and about what subject! You need to give a person who uses that word at least a few sentences to sketch (even in rapid fire “talk show” formats) what type of revolution he or she means. Just because they reference the American Revolution and the Civil War does not mean that they are indicated violent government overthrow. But it was those references that caused to talk show to immediately assume that the caller was alluding to a military revolution, but there was absolutely no reason to believe that was what he meant. So the most important rule in any dialogue is not to stop listening when a “code word” or concept is used and, instead, at least ask for a few sentences from the other person to clarify what they mean.

It’s hard to get into someone’s head, so this is how I recommend you obtain the most accurate information about your conversationalist’s position. Ask him or her, “How exactly would you envision this working if ideally your suggestion would take place in the best of circumstances?” Imagine the wide variety of possible replies to the “revolution” scenario. The guy might respond, “Well, I think that states that disagree with the federal government on such and such an issue should break away.” Then you’d have to ask what he means by “break away,” since that might simply mean a state constitutional amendment regarding a specific topic, hardly a call to marching armies! If you respect the person and give them time to at least sketch out in a sentence or two what they mean and how they’d like to see it happen, you actually find out information and perspective that is far beyond what your knee jerk reaction and assumptions dictate, and thus, then, hijack your attention and the fittingness of your response. I believe that at least ninety percent of conversations, debates, public diplomacy and presentations of views are hijacked by inattention and erroneous assumptions once a “code word” is spoken and thus defensive and hostile mechanisms are triggered.

The second reason this is a problem is that suppose the worst is true, that your debating combatant does have a radical view, but you take off on a tangent without allowing him or her to express the full view, they can, legitimately, discount your response. Just as you stopped listening to him or her at a code word, once they realize you are only responding to the code word and not what they are actually saying, they shut you off in return since your response is not relevant to their belief. Thus there is no point to having had the conversation at all. Both liberals and conservatives need to listen to me and heed my advice on this regard. You don’t “mitigate” or “argue” against what you feel are “radical” views if you do not get into specifics and if you jump to conclusions and shut them off, you miss a “conversion” possibility and simply harden their views (whatever they may be since you didn’t actually stop to find out the specifics).

How would this work? Suppose this guy was advocating what you think is a horrible scenario, which is that he thinks that some group should run amok in the USA advocating armed revolution, and suppose you uncover this via respectful and prolonged questioning. Hmm, so what would you do then? If anything you should think that dialogue is even more important, since a lot is at stake if this guy is feeling that armed revolution is either desirable or sadly inevitable (notice that this is another nuance that you must explore: does he or she want what he or she describes, or do they think it is inevitable? There’s a world of difference in stance and thus in reasonable reply). Here’s how I would handle such a conversation. I would ask him or her how they would deal with a number of scenarios and let them talk and think it through. For example, I would ask, “Suppose in your ideal world you called for revolution but only one state agreed? Would you consider that a success, in that all who agree with you and your views could move to that state and live in the legality (whatever issues) that you called for revolution regarding?”

See, here I’ve painted a scenario. I’ve said, “OK, let’s assume that the revolution you advocate works, but not as much as you hoped for, because only one state agrees and achieves revolution in the area that you are concerned about. What would you do next? Would that be enough for you?” When you allow the person to describe specifics of what they want (with the help of intelligent coaching by you), you accomplish a lot of good things. 1) You actually understand what he or she is saying and what their position actually is, 2) You can target your concerns and objections with accuracy, thus productively prolonging the fruitfulness of the dialogue and 3) Both of you have to openly evaluate possible merits to his or her position, and possible problems with his or her position. You may find out that he or she is onto something valid, buried underneath their invalid methods of achieving it! Likewise, while you may not achieve results on the spot, the person will leave with some serious thinking to do, perhaps something like, “Hmm, I never thought of that. Suppose my revolution was successful, but only for one state. What would that mean? Would I actually move my family to that state? Maybe that’s not quite the solution I thought it was.”

Whenever people flip out and overreact over code words, it’s worse than if they never had the conversation at all. More damage is done by having repeated hardened calloused encounters between the usual “misunderstanding combatants.” Every time someone says, for example, “I believe the Palestinians should have a homeland” and the other person replies, “I do not,” both have damaged the entire dialogue and the progress of their own causes. When you distill an entire thorny social, moral, cultural, diplomatic and governmental woe to “Homeland? Yes or no,” you pour more verbal and mental concrete on fallacious “opposing” positions. I mean, think about it, one person may be envisioning one type of homeland structure while the other one is imagining something completely different. You never get the chance to find out, work with the legitimate positions, discover common ground, and unfold many nuances of options rather than a theoretical “pro” or “con.”

So long as the person you are dialoguing with has humane good will, you can and should listen to the fullness of his or her position, even if it is diametrically opposed to your own views. Thus, while I believe that those of good will on either side of the abortion position should dialogue, I would not have recommended that either of them try to dialogue with Pol Pot. Ninety nine plus percent of humanity is not despot maniacs, and the vast majority of them are just trying to get by in life as best as possible. If a person is not a despot maniac, than you should take care to actually question them and listen to them about their full beliefs; you might learn something and actually change your own mind.

To summarize: 1) Discipline your thinking and analysis to ignore code words and not derail your assessment of a person’s position just because he or she uses a code word, 2) Ask the person to describe specific implementations of the fulfillment of their views, 3) If they are inarticulate, be kind and help them to articulate what they are saying, since erudition and glibness are not indicators of value of idea, and lack of those qualities of presentation do not diminish the potential value of an idea, 4) Always recall that unless the person is a despot maniac, he or she is just trying to get through life as best as they can and thus they share something with you.

I hope that you have found this helpful.

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???

Pop culture supplemental material to Part I politics

Here is some “modern culture” supplemental information to what I wrote about in Tutorial 1 about conservatism. I mentioned that a great social upheaval that is, at the heart of it, an error is the demonizing of the concept that good people are “protective” and have “something to protect.” While protective parents, community leaders, bosses and governments were once viewed as ideals, in the grasping of a hedonistic “anything goes” “ideal” during the sexual and drug revolution of the 1960’s, someone who was protective became demonized into being “oppressors.” I have excerpted from a Bob Dylan song from the time where you can see what I am saying was actually codified in the so called “voice of the generation.”

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/My-Back-Pages-lyrics-Bob-Dylan/7ECC3BFD1A56ED8D4825696900282D21

Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats
Too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking
I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms
Quite clear, no doubt, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

Great… not only did that fresh and “enlightened” generation demonize being protective as being the result of “deception,” but they also first declared “Good and bad, I define these terms.” Really? Really? I was there and trust me; no one was defining “good and bad” in the 1960’-70’s in any wise or responsible way.

Now, I was a freshman in college in 1971 and one of my dorm roommates, an Italian Catholic girl, just loved Bob Dylan. I can still imagine her clutching to her chest his “complete book of lyrics” (I seem to remember it as bright pink) much more fondly than the Bible. I, frankly, loathed Bob Dylan, except for one or two songs, including the one I quote from here. Yes, I really like the song “My Back Pages” even though I totally disagree with its premise. Mature people are able to do that. They can like one or two songs without giving the conceptual basis of the lyrics or the writer or singer a “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.” But she just loved, loved, loved him, and also clutched her book by Malcolm X “Soul on Ice” just to prove that she was “with it” and “hip” and “not just some white girl” and “down for the struggle.” She had no clue what she was actually reading or listening to, but that was the way it was. And in fact, as I’ve written about her before, she had a secret abortion that freshman year, and I stood by her, as friends do, even though I know she was doing a wrong thing. Everyone was doing a wrong thing in those times, and it only got worse now. Why? Because people think “having something to protect” is bad and deceptive, and they think that God is all “relative” and “Good and bad, I define these terms.” When it comes to having an ethos and a genuine humanitarian conscience, our country had a miscarriage in the 1960’s-1970’s, and its not because of the “oppressors.”

Anyway, I thought you’d enjoy seeing a pop culture reference to the very phenomenon that I described in my tutorial. By the way, yes, I did recently review Bob Dylan’s album. He of course went through his Christian born again conversion many years ago, and I think that has served him well. I’ve also read one of his recent autobiographical books. I remain troubled, however, by Christian evangelical and “born again” experiences because they emphasize individual salvation and de-emphasize the body of Christ of the union of faithful which, troubled as it is, the Catholic Church maintains. Thus there is not a continuum of a sense of collective responsibility among evangelicals and “born agains,” because all they emphasize is emulating, according to their individual perception, Christ, and they tend to view salvation as kind of a conga line that goes under the limbo pole, and each person “makes it” and is “saved,” or not. That is not a socially responsible or ultimately salvatory mindset, as reading the ENTIRE works of Jesus and the Apostles reveals. So when he was “born again,” half of me was of course glad, while the other half rolled my eyes. Being “born again” is a handy way to focus on one’s self, figuring that now “I’m good with God,” while letting one’s self off the hook for having been a communal bad example, and working against the true body of the Church who attempts to conserve the greater good.

That is one reason we have the abortion debacle that we have today. I have written about this before, and will do so again when I write the tutorial about liberals. Liberals have an excellent nose for hypocrisy. I was furious throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s (and remain so today, though obviously the damage is done) that evangelicals, “born agains” and “fundamentalists” break their own arms trying to pat themselves on the back as being the defender of the unborn babies, of being anti-abortion, while at the same time not doing one damn thing about putting their money where their mouth is and sponsoring children to be born or at least adopted using their own alms. For twenty years and more they attacked not only those who have abortions but also the Catholic Church, who is the place where adoption agencies and orphanages used to thrive. Never once did I see an evangelical step forward and stop an abortion by paying to bring the pregnant woman into their fold, to have the child, and to either raise the child or surrender it for adoption. So, as I have written before on this blog, that is why I am not too very impressed with “conversion” experiences, because I know, and I can tell you for a fact, that humans need to focus on a continual relationship with God and walking a just path within God’s entire community, and not glad happy slapping one’s back at having “made it” under the “limbo pole” of salvation. It is not too difficult for me to envision that procurers of abortions are side by side in hell with those who claimed such moral greatness in opposing abortion, but who never donated a dollar toward actually raising a child who would otherwise have been aborted. Trust me, that’s a very hard lesson many will learn when it is too late. They’ll pour money into political campaigns (and thus enrich lawyers and the media), but not actually bring the pregnant stranger into their home. This was particularly true in the terrible 1970’s and 1980’s, when even the quaint places for “wayward girls” fell away from support, so there was not an iota of encouragement from either side to have and financially support a live and living baby.

*Fuming* as I always do when recalling those times and looking at how its only gotten worse and not better.

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.