As I've blogged before, I have been very concerned that modern people do not really understand the characteristics or motivations of genuine, truly genuine, prophets and saints. You know what I mean? Many think of prophets and saints as being like "super heroes," with "super powers." That is totally wrong. First of all, the prophets and saints do not have "super powers." All that is done, even the miracles performed by Jesus Christ himself, is the power of God and God alone acting through the Savior, as through the prophets and also the saints.
But many modern people, especially those who fall into error, heresy and occult practices, think of prophets and saints as magicians, seers, "gifted," and of heroic tendency. By heroic I mean the type of secular, fantasy, science fiction type of "heroic," rather than the heroism that yes, indeed, many did exhibit.
So I found a wonderful verse from Jeremia when I first opened the Bible tonight (determined to do at least one useful blog as it has been several days since I've last posted). Jeremia was a prophet, called to God's service at a very young age (a role model, my young readers, reference what I wrote before, that while the average lifespan of most people was not beyond forty years old, at thirty one is able to be considered an "elder," and thus Jeremia is known to have been younger than thirty!) He was born around 650 BC in a priestly family, and he supported the pious King Josia who was trying to reform the Israelites and bring them back to a closer, purer relationship with God. Thus Jeremia had to battle against many false prophets and idolaters who were corrupting the people, destroying the truth of the faith, and also drawing God's growing wrath upon themselves. He lived on in the ruins of Jerusalem after Israel was destroyed by the Babylonians, until he was exiled by those who still clung to the very errors that had alienated God from Israel in the first place, and he probably died as a result of foul play during exile.
This passage gives you insight into what a real prophet or saint feels about a people who have gone astray, violently, profanely astray, from the purity and truth of their relationship with God.
Jeremia 8:18-23
My grief is incurable, my heart within me is faint. Listen! the cry of the daughter of my people, far and wide in the land! Is the Lord no longer in Sion, is her King no longer in her midst? [Why do they provoke me with their idols, with their foreign nonentities?] "The harvest has passed, the summer is at an end, and yet we are not safe!" I am broken by the ruin of the daughter of my people. I am disconsolate; horror has seized me. Is there no balm in Galaad, no physician there? Why grows not new flesh over the wound of the daughter of my people? Oh, that my head were a spring of water, my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night over the slain of the daughter of my people!
Before I comment and explain more about what he is so movingly feeling and saying, let me remind you of one thing, and tell many of you who have not studied this book of the Bible something else. The first thing to remind you is that as an Old Testament prophet, Jeremia had direct conversation with God himself. True prophets are saddened and alarmed by what they learn from God, not puffed up with their own self importance and "calling" or "mission." That is because when one sees through God's eyes, and hears from God's own lips to one's own ears, one realizes how very terribly wrong much of what humans have done has become. One is alarmed and freaked out, not writing books about "what heaven is 'really'" like or bragging about how one is a "seer" who "channels" the "universe" or whatever. When one hears directly from God it's not because it is report card time and God is handing out A+ on people's term papers. It is because things have really gotten out of hand and the people are in danger of their mortality, their health, their well being, their lives, and their very souls and salvation. So Jeremia is sad and in grief because he knows exactly the terrible continual self inflicted fix that the nation AND the individual people are in, and how God's wrath and judgment is inevitable.
The second thing that I want to point out to those who don't know this about the Book of Jeremia is that the famous statement by God about the sanctity of the preborn human being, the fetus, the embryo, is stated herein:
Jeremia 1:5
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.
As I have explained before in my blogging and in conversations with people, God states here (and alludes to it elsewhere in the scriptures) that God himself creates the soul of each person before the embryo starts to form in the womb. In other words, God knows each soul, creating it individually and sending it at the moment of conception and implantation in the womb, as it grows its first cells but is not yet formed (the shape of the person to be.) So, yes, that "blob" is a person with a soul. Now, because this scripture is from the statement by God when he first calls Jeremia to serve him as prophet, God goes a step further and tells Jeremia that at that time God dedicated Jeremia's new born soul (dedicates him to serving God) AND appointed him specifically to this great task of being a prophet to the nations. Notice the "to the nations." This means not only that Jeremia dealt with several kingdoms during his time alive, but that God is foretelling to Jeremia that his words of prophecy will live on to "the nations."
So this explains to you the anguish that Jeremia feels as a prophet on behalf of his people, in Jeremia 8-18-23. He compares the people who are ruining themselves and their relationship to God with the image of a daughter crying. At this point Jeremia has already gone through much effort to fight the corruption and the rampant idolatry and worship of pagan gods, and is definitely suffering. No matter how much Jeremia warns the people with the most dire and most stern prophecies of the evil and woe to come, the people defy him, and the King, and others who may have been trying to reform and purify the Israelites.
The first and foremost characteristic of genuine, true prophets is agony and panic over disobedient people, because they know full well the measure of God's disappointment with their faithlessness (and how much it grieves the Holy Spirit of God) AND the wrath to come. Genuine prophets feel grief as a broken heartedness, far worse than being jilted by a lover or betrayal by a family member. This is why he says that his "grief is incurable" and his heart is "faint." It is difficult to describe seeing individuals and an entire nation be not only bent on their own self destruction, but individually hell bent.
Because he has been at work for a long time already at trying to convert the people back to God, he views his prophetic assignment as being like a year with four seasons, and the spring and summer have already passed. "The harvest has passed, the summer is at an end, and yet we are not safe!" By this he means that people have waited too long, have waited too much time, and have not repented, reformed and converted back to God, and the harvest, both good and bad, has passed (normally a time of joy as good things are collected).
Again, Jeremia shows what genuine horror and anguish is within a true prophet of God who sees most clearly through God's eyes and God's voice how far everyone has strayed and the terrible price they will bring upon their own heads. He says "I am broken by the ruin," "I am disconsolate" and "Horror has seized me." True prophets are flabbergasted when people ignore God's very own interventions and warnings.
He then asks, rhetorically, why traditional ways of medicine and healing do not work. He does not mean this literally; he means that nothing that should work to turn the people from their evil deeds seems to work. He alludes to a city, Galaad, that is famous for it's healing balm, asking if they have run out of balm. He asks if there are no doctors to be found. He asks why a wound does not heal the way it normally does on a body, when new flesh grows in the place of the wound and the scar. So he is using three analogies of healing a bodily wound, describing a place where there is no salve (what they used for pills at the time), no doctors, and wounds will not heal, to describe how nothing that the righteous, such as himself, do to warn and convert the people to repentance and change works as it should. Jeremia of course knows the reason: the people have gone too far and have become too arrogant and hard hearted. But he describes with wonderful clarity the topsy turvey situation where God's own direct word to his own people is ignored repeatedly, and their behavior only worsens.
Jeremia then uses the vivid and so sad image where he wishes that his entire head were turned into a stream of water so that he could do nothing but shed tears and weep over the people.
THAT, my friends, is the sign of the inner thoughts and feelings of a genuine, true prophet of God, and of saints that are also of similar assignment.
By the way, notice that God interjects a thought to Jeremia while Jeremia is writing or dictating these words! When Jeremia asks, again, rhetorically, because he knows the answer, if God, as God and King, has left the people, God asks him, rhetorically at the same time, "Why do they provoke me with their idols, with their foreign nonentities?" You are reading here a snapshot, an x-ray, an electrocardiogram of what it is like to be in the head and heart of a true, grieving prophet AND then also witnessing how God interjects conversation and thoughts right in the midst of the prophet's own thoughts!
How can anyone think that they, despite what the Bible states, which is that there are no further prophets being sent by God, and that there is one life, one soul, per person, that they "might" be some reincarnated "foreign entity," "saint," "prophet," etc. when the entire focus of such a person is antagonistic to the instincts, thoughts and feelings of true prophets, which is to frantically herd people back CLOSER to the true God, before disaster befalls them? I am astonished at how antagonistic modern deluded people who think they are "messengers" or "gifted" are to God, thinking that they are super heroes on their own mission. Yeah, for Satan maybe, LOL, since that's the results of false prophets.
My friends, the information and the truth is repeatedly found, no matter what the question or the situation, in the Bible. People did not write things such as Jeremia did to "push a religion," or to be "an expert," since those concepts simply did not exist at the time. Jeremia was dutifully recording all that God told him and all that he tried to do in his assignment as prophet, at the time when the hammer was about to fall on Israel, in punishment, resulting in its destruction and taking of the people in captivity to Babylon. What a time to be a prophet! But see, that is the whole point of being a prophet. A prophet, a true Old Testament prophet, is the last life line, the last chance to repent and convert and return to God. It's not some "gifting" of ESP or whatever so that people can be false prophets who march others away from God and toward their own cults and mistaken beliefs.
I really recommend that you read the Book of Jeremia with this insight because it will give you an entire freshness in your understanding of both God, his patience and his mercy, and how it will run out as judgment becomes the only option, AND what it is actually "like" to be a genuine Old Testament prophet.
In closing, be sure to note Jeremia 9:22-25. Read the whole Book but if you only have time in the near term, read those three passages. In them God states first of all where true glory is found, and how people who find that true glory will receive his mercy and do please him very much. He then warns that he will soon demand a complete accounting. Now, remember, rather than have "rolls of church membership" as we have today, when God alludes to the entire body of the faithful, he calls them the circumcised (even though, of course, women are not circumcised), but it is the visible sign of following the Law and identifying the body of the "church," so to speak, of the time. God warns then that both Israel and the pagan nations are alike because they are "uncircumcised in heart."
This needs to be studied by those who wonder how they can 'believe' yet still find themselves in a lot of trouble when they die and are judged by God. The Israelites were circumcised, but God warns against those who outwardly seem faithful but are "uncircumcised in heart" Jeremia 9:25.
I hope that you have found this helpful, encouraging if you are genuinely seeking to draw closer to the true God, and disquieting if you have taken too much upon your own self in regard to determining what is "enough" or is "right" "quantities" of faith, belief or works. Don't be circumcised in the body, even calling upon the name of Jesus, yet be uncircumcised in the heart, and thus calling upon Jesus with hypocrisy and deliberate falseness.
Young people.... as always I hope this helps to guide to you understanding what is printed there in black and white, but is so misunderstood in these times.
Showing posts with label Pro-life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pro-life. Show all posts
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Sunday, September 7, 2008
The term "quickening"
I have used the term "quickening" in my blog postings about life beginning at conception. I see that Senator Biden is glomming onto that term but using one specific ancient unscientific definition of it. So lest my readers be confused, here is the scoop on the word "quickening."
If you look through a microscope at a living cell, just before it divides it appears to shake or vibrate. That is "quickening." That is why I use the term to mean that the human sperm fertilizes the human egg, forming a single embryonic cell. That cell moves to the wall of the womb and attaches itself. Once it attaches itself, if it is viable then it does that "quickening" vibration and performs its first cell division. (Living beings grow by a process of continuing cell division.) So what I have explained to you in the blog is that the moment the embryonic cell performs its first division (its very first "growth"), that is quickening and that is when it receives its soul and its guardian angel.
Now, ancient philosophers did not have access to scientific and biological knowledge that we have today. They would mostly have known about embryos and developing pre born babies via observing miscarriages. No one did dissections or have examples to study of babies developing in womb. So when a woman had an early miscarriage, by the time the baby came out, it looked much like a blob of matter and not an individual to the human eye. Thus some philosophers developed the theory that at some point in the womb the baby went from "blob" to "human" and that it was at the human appearing formation that it "quickened," meaning vibrating with life from receiving its soul. Do you see what I mean? They were judging, not surprisingly, that when they observed tissue that came out of a woman who miscarried that it does not "look" human yet, therefore it probably was not quickened with a soul.
Remember that these were very pastoral and agricultural societies, knowledgeable in the reproduction of field and farm animals. So if you break open a chicken egg, you see only a white blob where a future chick would develop. So no one today feels bad about having scrambled eggs. But if you looked inside an egg and saw a miniature baby chick attached, that would put people off of wanting to eat eggs for sure, because visually it would clearly be a little chick. So the people of ancient times were used to knowing that animal embryos looked just like blobs early in their life cycle stage. They likewise concluded that when a woman miscarried something that looked like a blob that this was the "prehuman" form of the baby. When a woman miscarried later in term, where it is recognizably a baby, even after being mangled in the course of being miscarried, philosophers logically assumed that at some point in the womb the proto baby blob "quickened" by getting a soul and then started looking human. They didn't know any better and if you think about it, that's not bad for people living two thousand years ago.
More to the point, they recognized that the soul is entered into the pre-born baby, NOT as the baby exits the womb, which is ridiculous, but obviously the attitude of pro abortionists and astrologers today. So the ancients, using the only evidence they had, which is the bloody mass of tissue after a miscarriage, deduced that at some point in the womb the blob "turned into" a human baby with a soul. They then tried to fix number of days and so forth and got into trouble by guessing that baby girls got souls at different months of gestation than boys and so forth. That could also be because they observed more miscarriages with recognizable gender features at different stages of pregnancy, and being philosophers, not scientists, deduced strictly from that anecdotal observation. In their defense that was not a bad attempt and was definitely a pro-life stance from the very beginning of discussion of this topic. No one doubted it was a baby in the womb and that it got its soul in the womb, but based on tissue observation from miscarriage and lacking microscopes and other devices we have today, they did not understand the early developmental stages of an embryo because they could not see it and see its human features.
Plus, philosophers always differentiated between animals and humans by a criterion of "self awareness." Humans are self aware, while animals are not, they assume. Thus they would think, using their deductive reasoning of the time, that a human baby would not "quicken" and have a soul until it looked like a human, that is, in their mind, that it had the features to be self aware (eyes, ears, fully formed limbs). Again, they would miss evidence of that in the early months of pregnancy because it would be "unclean" tissue that came out during an early pregnancy miscarriage, and not a recognizable human form, as it would be if they could see the scans that we can see today. Also, obviously there is a flaw in their logic that a human gets a soul only when it has the physique to be self aware. God does not wait to give a baby a soul until it has eyes, for example. So they missed that error in their own deductive reasoning process simply because they lacked a view inside the living womb in the earliest days of pregnancy.
I hope this helps.
Oh, by the way, here is another example of quickening that will help in your understanding of medicine. If you ever had an infection you know that an infection hurts. Well, why does an infection hurt? Infection is caused by bacteria which multiplies very rapidly (in terms of minutes and hours). Bacteria "quickens," that is, vibrates as it goes through this rapid cell division process. This applies pressure and heat to nerves, which is why the pain is rapid and acute. Some infections, gross as this sounds, you can feel the vibration of the bacteria growing (yuck). I have felt it and if you ever had "red eye" (conjunctivitis) you probably felt it too, times when your eye vibrates from the infection. That's the bacteria actually "quickening" and growing (yuck). An anti-biotic does not kill bacteria. An anti-biotic stops the bacteria from multiplying, so with the very short life span of bacteria cells they die out and are not replaced by new bacteria. That is how eyedrops work against conjunctivitis; the drops are not killing the bacteria but prevent them from reproducing and thus you wait until all the bacteria dies in the course of its natural short life span of days or at most weeks.
This is also why when one takes an anti-biotic in pill form, one must keep taking all the pills even after the symptoms are gone. This is because like I said, the anti-biotic does not kill the bacteria; it prevents it from reproducing. Thus you might have some bacteria that is still able to reproduce that take longer to naturally die off. You want to keep blocking its ability to reproduce until it does all die off on its own. And that is also why excessive prescribing of anti-biotics can (and already has) result in bacteria that evolve to continue to reproduce even when hit with that particular anti-biotic. That is called "resistence." But that is beside the point, I just thought as part of my series in helping people regain logic and factual information skills that I would provide an example of why the term "quickening" as in vibration came into use and how it is possible to feel it, albeit in a yucky infection experience. Yuck. I could really have skipped those feelings, like bacteria Frankenstein "It's alive." Very yuck.
If you look through a microscope at a living cell, just before it divides it appears to shake or vibrate. That is "quickening." That is why I use the term to mean that the human sperm fertilizes the human egg, forming a single embryonic cell. That cell moves to the wall of the womb and attaches itself. Once it attaches itself, if it is viable then it does that "quickening" vibration and performs its first cell division. (Living beings grow by a process of continuing cell division.) So what I have explained to you in the blog is that the moment the embryonic cell performs its first division (its very first "growth"), that is quickening and that is when it receives its soul and its guardian angel.
Now, ancient philosophers did not have access to scientific and biological knowledge that we have today. They would mostly have known about embryos and developing pre born babies via observing miscarriages. No one did dissections or have examples to study of babies developing in womb. So when a woman had an early miscarriage, by the time the baby came out, it looked much like a blob of matter and not an individual to the human eye. Thus some philosophers developed the theory that at some point in the womb the baby went from "blob" to "human" and that it was at the human appearing formation that it "quickened," meaning vibrating with life from receiving its soul. Do you see what I mean? They were judging, not surprisingly, that when they observed tissue that came out of a woman who miscarried that it does not "look" human yet, therefore it probably was not quickened with a soul.
Remember that these were very pastoral and agricultural societies, knowledgeable in the reproduction of field and farm animals. So if you break open a chicken egg, you see only a white blob where a future chick would develop. So no one today feels bad about having scrambled eggs. But if you looked inside an egg and saw a miniature baby chick attached, that would put people off of wanting to eat eggs for sure, because visually it would clearly be a little chick. So the people of ancient times were used to knowing that animal embryos looked just like blobs early in their life cycle stage. They likewise concluded that when a woman miscarried something that looked like a blob that this was the "prehuman" form of the baby. When a woman miscarried later in term, where it is recognizably a baby, even after being mangled in the course of being miscarried, philosophers logically assumed that at some point in the womb the proto baby blob "quickened" by getting a soul and then started looking human. They didn't know any better and if you think about it, that's not bad for people living two thousand years ago.
More to the point, they recognized that the soul is entered into the pre-born baby, NOT as the baby exits the womb, which is ridiculous, but obviously the attitude of pro abortionists and astrologers today. So the ancients, using the only evidence they had, which is the bloody mass of tissue after a miscarriage, deduced that at some point in the womb the blob "turned into" a human baby with a soul. They then tried to fix number of days and so forth and got into trouble by guessing that baby girls got souls at different months of gestation than boys and so forth. That could also be because they observed more miscarriages with recognizable gender features at different stages of pregnancy, and being philosophers, not scientists, deduced strictly from that anecdotal observation. In their defense that was not a bad attempt and was definitely a pro-life stance from the very beginning of discussion of this topic. No one doubted it was a baby in the womb and that it got its soul in the womb, but based on tissue observation from miscarriage and lacking microscopes and other devices we have today, they did not understand the early developmental stages of an embryo because they could not see it and see its human features.
Plus, philosophers always differentiated between animals and humans by a criterion of "self awareness." Humans are self aware, while animals are not, they assume. Thus they would think, using their deductive reasoning of the time, that a human baby would not "quicken" and have a soul until it looked like a human, that is, in their mind, that it had the features to be self aware (eyes, ears, fully formed limbs). Again, they would miss evidence of that in the early months of pregnancy because it would be "unclean" tissue that came out during an early pregnancy miscarriage, and not a recognizable human form, as it would be if they could see the scans that we can see today. Also, obviously there is a flaw in their logic that a human gets a soul only when it has the physique to be self aware. God does not wait to give a baby a soul until it has eyes, for example. So they missed that error in their own deductive reasoning process simply because they lacked a view inside the living womb in the earliest days of pregnancy.
I hope this helps.
Oh, by the way, here is another example of quickening that will help in your understanding of medicine. If you ever had an infection you know that an infection hurts. Well, why does an infection hurt? Infection is caused by bacteria which multiplies very rapidly (in terms of minutes and hours). Bacteria "quickens," that is, vibrates as it goes through this rapid cell division process. This applies pressure and heat to nerves, which is why the pain is rapid and acute. Some infections, gross as this sounds, you can feel the vibration of the bacteria growing (yuck). I have felt it and if you ever had "red eye" (conjunctivitis) you probably felt it too, times when your eye vibrates from the infection. That's the bacteria actually "quickening" and growing (yuck). An anti-biotic does not kill bacteria. An anti-biotic stops the bacteria from multiplying, so with the very short life span of bacteria cells they die out and are not replaced by new bacteria. That is how eyedrops work against conjunctivitis; the drops are not killing the bacteria but prevent them from reproducing and thus you wait until all the bacteria dies in the course of its natural short life span of days or at most weeks.
This is also why when one takes an anti-biotic in pill form, one must keep taking all the pills even after the symptoms are gone. This is because like I said, the anti-biotic does not kill the bacteria; it prevents it from reproducing. Thus you might have some bacteria that is still able to reproduce that take longer to naturally die off. You want to keep blocking its ability to reproduce until it does all die off on its own. And that is also why excessive prescribing of anti-biotics can (and already has) result in bacteria that evolve to continue to reproduce even when hit with that particular anti-biotic. That is called "resistence." But that is beside the point, I just thought as part of my series in helping people regain logic and factual information skills that I would provide an example of why the term "quickening" as in vibration came into use and how it is possible to feel it, albeit in a yucky infection experience. Yuck. I could really have skipped those feelings, like bacteria Frankenstein "It's alive." Very yuck.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Evolution of my outward human political "stances"
I spend some time each day trying to figure out the misconceptions that people (especially cultists and special interest groups) have, and then formulate an educational response. I have to figure it out on my own because, as I’ve blogged about this before, people have refused to speak honestly to me face to face during my entire life and ask me point blank the questions that would enlighten them. It has not been easy to figure out the demented beliefs that people secretly hold to be true. Once I knew the basics of their nutty and dangerous beliefs, however, it becomes easier and easier to calculate what skewed thinking and behavior those beliefs inculcated in individuals and in society as a whole. It also has become clearer how those who have stalked and eavesdropped on my personal life (as I never indicated I was in public ministry, and I had the most dire and serious reasons for not proclaiming my authority to teach either in public or private) could and would willfully misunderstand my every move, speech and “thought” (since some think they can read my mind). I don’t use mental neurons, which is what “mind readers” read, to communicate with God, by the way, but that’s another subject. So to give an obvious example, if I bought something in a store and its selection was recorded by the stalkers, they would assume nefarious reasons for my selection of the object, usually associated with their mean and demented assumptions that everyone is “reincarnated” and the objects they “chose” are “cries for help in the remembering of their ‘past life lessons’”. Yes, I am vomiting a bit in my mouth even as I type this; it literally is that wicked and sickening. Anyway, once I realized this was going on it makes it easier for me to think back over my every movement and words and identify likely areas where the insane drivel filled drunk and ego maniacal cultist child abusing porn pot head creeps who think they are “enlightened” have misunderstood even my simplest actions. So, this is a long prologue to another example I have thought of that I can share with my loyal readership (said with appropriate irony) and rectify (that’s rectify, not rectum, I know you all tend to confuse the two) another segment of reality.
I want to talk about how I, as a human, maneuvered the political and religious landscape of America during my youth. First of all, I’m aware but not “political.” By that I mean that at the earliest age I knew about the political parties and watched debates on the issues, both among politicians and within my modest lower class family. For example, I remember watching some of the Nixon – Kennedy debate on television. It was fun because my mother was in one party and my brother was in the other (they also cheered different rival football teams). To this day my mother teases me that I’d just stick my head into the living room, where the television was, and when I asked “Who is winning?” (Whether a football game, as I asked about even when I was only a toddler, or later the political debates), upon hearing the answer I would say, “Good, that is who I am for” and go back to my room. This did not mean that I was a fickle three year old, or too stupid to remember “my political past” and thus “blow in the wind” of whoever is “ahead.” It was a key indication that as a toddler I applauded excellence without partisanship. Whether it was a football team or a political debater, I became “for” each side as they advanced each of their achievements, both physically and intellectually. To this day I watch baseball teams and applaud each individual play for both teams equally. That’s just the way I am. Anyone could have asked me this at any point in my life and I could have explained it to them. I am “for” the person who is “ahead” because that person is doing well at their skill. This is not an endorsement of the strong over the weak. Trust me, it was the weakest who had the most skill in presenting their needs to Jesus, for example.
While I was in high school eighteen year olds won the right to vote. I was keen on that and enthusiastic to vote to “try it out” (I think in a school board election), but was not really invested in any local candidates or positions at all.
Now, I’ve blogged about this before, but will repeat it. I am a lifelong Catholic. In my day politics were not discussed at the pulpit. We celebrate holy masses of sacrifice, not have praise and worship services salted with political agenda. To me the Church is there to sacrifice to God and worship him in the most solemn setting. We in the Catholic Church in my small town talked about God and the annual German Picnic, that’s it. My town was pretty much half and half Protestant and Catholics. My context of upbringing was to observe that Protestants tended to be political and attracted to “power broker” types of activities. I don’t like that very much. The Catholics from which I proudly spring tended to be non-political people who either worshipped God or went about their hard working blue collar business, and did not mix the two. Nothing, in my opinion, should dilute the sanctity of the sacrifice of the mass and the worship of God in God’s place and during God’s time. (Though I did drop the occasional spit ball from the choir loft when I was a kid, until chastised by the angry bald man whose head I targeted, ha ha. Just showing I was human with a sense of humor at one time ha ha). But my observation was that as dear as Protestant friends were to my family, they had a certain haughtiness toward Catholics that, in my opinion, is totally without reason. If anything, children of the Reformation have much to not be proud of regarding the robbing of the sanctity of sacrifice to God in his name and in his places, and the mocking of those who continue to be pious in the fullness of Jesus Christ’s teaching, the Catholics. But I never experienced hostility to my face as a child up through high school since like I said; we were half of the small village’s population.
This all changed when I arrived on campus at Cornell University. Oh, first I have to mention that when I was sixteen my widowed mother remarried. She had not been going to Church at all, but once she married a very pious Orthodox man, she started attending his Church in the city. At that point I pretty much stopped going to Catholic Mass because we developed a new routine. I cooked Sunday dinner while they were at the Orthodox mass. Homemaking is a very important part of my life and personality, and this was the high point of my week. I loved cooking special dinners that would then be waiting for them when they returned from church, and I loved seeing my mother with this incredibly pious man finally going to church again, something she had refused to do since I was a small child. So when I arrived in college I was already not in a pattern of going to Mass for my own perfectly valid reasons (remember, I have authority of what components of my life should be emphasized since in all of them I am in service to the Lord and in what he expects of me).
I hooked up with other Catholics since “coincidentally” they were my roommates and dorm mates. Not such a coincidence (the early stalking) but I take everything at face value because that is the only sane way to live. You can’t talk to people and relate to them via hidden agenda without joining them in their insanity and their degradation of honor and reality. We went to the campus Mass and I was horrified. It was early 1970’s insane liberal paganism run amok, for example, sitting on the floor in MASS and passing around hunks of bread to gnaw off a groovy piece. (I shudder still remembering it). But since I was not in public ministry and I certainly didn’t know that I was being spied on in that fruity cult way, I didn’t condemn or chastise; I simply stopped going to Mass. I tend to not endorse things I disapprove of in a quiet and charitable way. I continue to be happy that at least kids are still going to visit God, even if it’s a shambles of an unholy mess. It’s still better than not going, I reckon, for the goodness of people on a whole. So while I could not endorse it with my presence, I didn’t go.
I heard the first snide remarks about Catholics in college, said to my face by strangers, which made me wonder how they knew I was Catholic since I’d not said or advertised it. Obviously we all know why now. And I got the usual invitations to go to “liberal” churches, such as “Unitarian.” Now, another thing you need to know. Absolutely everyone I knew except for myself and four other people were smoking dope and were the typical potheads of the time. During the drug and sexual revolution, college students shopped for places that seemed to be spiritual but were actually “enabling” their behavior. I went from neutrality to private disgust.
Another total turn off to me was Protestant movements such as the “Campus Crusade for Christ.” I totally loathed them. Not because I don’t think that there should be religious youth movements, or because I scorn those who sincerely love Jesus with their heart and soul. But it is because of what I explained earlier, the haughtiness of the children of the Reformation who are not only smugly certain of their salvation (but not of Catholics), but who also were combining God’s worship with politics. That is an anathema to me, I must emphasize. One’s faith should be pure, untainted with politics, and be strictly between you and God (I don’t mean secretly, but I mean without bringing in earthly forces into the dialogue). Don’t poke a hornet’s nest and expect not to get stung. The children of the Reformation are very proud without a cause and that is highly unattractive. I had much more liking of the “Jews for Jesus,” since theirs was (and as far as I know still remains) a very humble and joyous endeavor, rather than the arch glaring down the nose as I saw from the children of the Reformation.
And so the children of the Reformation were haughty, anti-Catholic and combined politics with their worship of God. And who did they become: Fundamentalists, evangelicals and … conservatives and Republicans. Do you now understand why so many Catholic people, like me, became Democrats? A true Catholic is pure in his or her faith and dialogue with God, and then, separately, allows his or her faith to inform their secular and political movements and decisions. True traditional Catholics do not combine the two, and should not. Remember, this is over thirty years ago that I am describing to you. The politicizing from the pulpit was truly invented during this time by the children of the Reformation; it was not as ubiquitous as it is today. Abortion became the battleground where they honed their self righteous and haughty skills at both diluting their worship of God while self proclaiming their own self superiority. Rather than deal with the problem of abortion with huge amounts of charity and creative solutions based on Christian values, they brought tons of screaming ugliness, self righteousness, and condemnation of those who supported abortion rights. I watched all of this in horror. To this day I have a difficult time having any relationship with a child of the Reformation, and it is their fault, not mine. They brought their exclusive club politicizing self righteousness that is hostile to Catholics along with all the other “unsaved” that has messed up so much of our culture, including the things we actually agree on regarding policy. The children of the Reformation could have been loving and charitable during the early years of the pro abortion movement and hence have nipped many of the abortions in the bud, and saved millions of lives. But instead they brought ugly and angry faces, screams of self righteousness but no money in their wallets for saving preborn babies. I’ve written about this at length before. I often stated during those times, “If they wish to save babies from abortion they should pay for them rather than scream abuse,” so my feelings were not secret. I supported the use of the Ricco (spelling?) anti racketeering act to control the violent protests outside of abortion clinics. How can Christians behave with such hatred toward women and girls who were filled with trauma and confused by deteriorating values (and lots of drug and alcohol use)?
Many girls I knew got abortions so as to continue their college educations and not “ruin their lives.” Where were the holy Christians who would set up a foundation so that girls could take a year off, have a child, give the child up for adoption (or learn how to keep the child), and who would advocate for them with parents and with schools? I never saw a single example of this. American history could have been “fundamentally” changed if the haughty children of the Reformation had stepped forward and taken the higher road of Christian kindness toward abortion seeking girls and women. And you wonder why I supported the legalization of the medical procedure of abortion and became a Democrat.
Abortion is a medical procedure; that is a fact. It is a grave moral wrong, but that does not change the fact that it is a medical procedure that can be done either in a back alley or a hospital. What Christians should have done is legalize the procedure but provide so many loving and real alternatives that having an abortion would become rare and repugnant, used only in the most dire situations, and not as “birth control.” This will go down in both secular and faith history as the greatest mean and idiotic missed opportunity of all time. The shrill meanness and politicization of worship by the children of the Reformation ruined one of the pivotal moments when people could have brought light to the dark. When I read anti-Catholic comments by these “right wing” “evangelicals” or “fundamentalists,” I can only say that it is a good thing that they do not say that to my face, because I would condemn them before God for being the mean craven hypocrites that they really are. I saw it from the beginning.
And so I supported legalization of the medical procedure of abortion (while loathing each and every use of it), while praying for and yelling to anyone who would listen that the pro-life lobby must mobilize to prevent this from becoming a frequent necessary and, God forbid, used as “birth control.” And so I became a Democrat, who remembered liberals who were moral, fiscally conservative, loved their fellow human, and who were patriotic. But like the termites who eat away at the wood, the Democrats became slaves to self indulgence and moral turpitude, becoming as much of a problem as the haughty and self righteous tight wallet Republicans. Voting has become a “choice” of voting for either the moral termites who are as incompetent as children driving a car while drunk or the fat self righteous hypocrite oligarchs who think God is lucky to be allowed to run on their ticket for election. Through the years I voted mostly Democrat because I continued to hope that all things go in cycles and that morality would return and restore a responsible liberalism that is also patriotic to the Democrat party. I voted for Kerry with that hope, and I don’t regret it despite how I’ve been disappointed by him. St. Paul said we all live in hope, and he was right. Without hope and charity you end up with “swift boat” advertisements rather than mutual conversation and conversion of both sides of hurtful and divisive issues. Don’t forget that I was there; the Vietnam draft was still on when I attended freshman year in college. It’s easy to have a self righteous and smart mouth about it now; it was not easy to live for anyone at the time.
I remember years ago slouching in my blue lazy boy chair watching the Presidential debates. This young “heir”, George W. Bush, was asked who the person was he most admired. When I heard his response, “Jesus Christ,” I sat up suddenly and took notice. I marveled and wondered if this was the start of something much better, more honest and more innocent. Bush proclaimed Jesus in a secular setting, and we just don’t hear that anymore, and it was a brave and honest thing to do. And his words were the first (and since then the only time) that I had heard a child of the Reformation, an “evangelical,” proclaim Jesus without using it as his special haughty calling card in the political arena. I was impressed and have continued to send my good will toward him, although I came to see that he is also a pawn of the behind the scenes spiritual gypsies who combine love of money and power with “salvation” and arrogant self righteous “prophesying” about the “end of times.” I hope he does become a Catholic and get away from at least part of that thinking. (Though Catholics of course have their own subversive secret agents working within them to bring down the faith too, reducing it to the “hunt for the anti-Christ 216 reality show, with porn.”)
Well, so now is it so easy to have interpreted what I have said and done?
Try honesty, humility and dialogue sometime. It could have saved many millions of lives.
I want to talk about how I, as a human, maneuvered the political and religious landscape of America during my youth. First of all, I’m aware but not “political.” By that I mean that at the earliest age I knew about the political parties and watched debates on the issues, both among politicians and within my modest lower class family. For example, I remember watching some of the Nixon – Kennedy debate on television. It was fun because my mother was in one party and my brother was in the other (they also cheered different rival football teams). To this day my mother teases me that I’d just stick my head into the living room, where the television was, and when I asked “Who is winning?” (Whether a football game, as I asked about even when I was only a toddler, or later the political debates), upon hearing the answer I would say, “Good, that is who I am for” and go back to my room. This did not mean that I was a fickle three year old, or too stupid to remember “my political past” and thus “blow in the wind” of whoever is “ahead.” It was a key indication that as a toddler I applauded excellence without partisanship. Whether it was a football team or a political debater, I became “for” each side as they advanced each of their achievements, both physically and intellectually. To this day I watch baseball teams and applaud each individual play for both teams equally. That’s just the way I am. Anyone could have asked me this at any point in my life and I could have explained it to them. I am “for” the person who is “ahead” because that person is doing well at their skill. This is not an endorsement of the strong over the weak. Trust me, it was the weakest who had the most skill in presenting their needs to Jesus, for example.
While I was in high school eighteen year olds won the right to vote. I was keen on that and enthusiastic to vote to “try it out” (I think in a school board election), but was not really invested in any local candidates or positions at all.
Now, I’ve blogged about this before, but will repeat it. I am a lifelong Catholic. In my day politics were not discussed at the pulpit. We celebrate holy masses of sacrifice, not have praise and worship services salted with political agenda. To me the Church is there to sacrifice to God and worship him in the most solemn setting. We in the Catholic Church in my small town talked about God and the annual German Picnic, that’s it. My town was pretty much half and half Protestant and Catholics. My context of upbringing was to observe that Protestants tended to be political and attracted to “power broker” types of activities. I don’t like that very much. The Catholics from which I proudly spring tended to be non-political people who either worshipped God or went about their hard working blue collar business, and did not mix the two. Nothing, in my opinion, should dilute the sanctity of the sacrifice of the mass and the worship of God in God’s place and during God’s time. (Though I did drop the occasional spit ball from the choir loft when I was a kid, until chastised by the angry bald man whose head I targeted, ha ha. Just showing I was human with a sense of humor at one time ha ha). But my observation was that as dear as Protestant friends were to my family, they had a certain haughtiness toward Catholics that, in my opinion, is totally without reason. If anything, children of the Reformation have much to not be proud of regarding the robbing of the sanctity of sacrifice to God in his name and in his places, and the mocking of those who continue to be pious in the fullness of Jesus Christ’s teaching, the Catholics. But I never experienced hostility to my face as a child up through high school since like I said; we were half of the small village’s population.
This all changed when I arrived on campus at Cornell University. Oh, first I have to mention that when I was sixteen my widowed mother remarried. She had not been going to Church at all, but once she married a very pious Orthodox man, she started attending his Church in the city. At that point I pretty much stopped going to Catholic Mass because we developed a new routine. I cooked Sunday dinner while they were at the Orthodox mass. Homemaking is a very important part of my life and personality, and this was the high point of my week. I loved cooking special dinners that would then be waiting for them when they returned from church, and I loved seeing my mother with this incredibly pious man finally going to church again, something she had refused to do since I was a small child. So when I arrived in college I was already not in a pattern of going to Mass for my own perfectly valid reasons (remember, I have authority of what components of my life should be emphasized since in all of them I am in service to the Lord and in what he expects of me).
I hooked up with other Catholics since “coincidentally” they were my roommates and dorm mates. Not such a coincidence (the early stalking) but I take everything at face value because that is the only sane way to live. You can’t talk to people and relate to them via hidden agenda without joining them in their insanity and their degradation of honor and reality. We went to the campus Mass and I was horrified. It was early 1970’s insane liberal paganism run amok, for example, sitting on the floor in MASS and passing around hunks of bread to gnaw off a groovy piece. (I shudder still remembering it). But since I was not in public ministry and I certainly didn’t know that I was being spied on in that fruity cult way, I didn’t condemn or chastise; I simply stopped going to Mass. I tend to not endorse things I disapprove of in a quiet and charitable way. I continue to be happy that at least kids are still going to visit God, even if it’s a shambles of an unholy mess. It’s still better than not going, I reckon, for the goodness of people on a whole. So while I could not endorse it with my presence, I didn’t go.
I heard the first snide remarks about Catholics in college, said to my face by strangers, which made me wonder how they knew I was Catholic since I’d not said or advertised it. Obviously we all know why now. And I got the usual invitations to go to “liberal” churches, such as “Unitarian.” Now, another thing you need to know. Absolutely everyone I knew except for myself and four other people were smoking dope and were the typical potheads of the time. During the drug and sexual revolution, college students shopped for places that seemed to be spiritual but were actually “enabling” their behavior. I went from neutrality to private disgust.
Another total turn off to me was Protestant movements such as the “Campus Crusade for Christ.” I totally loathed them. Not because I don’t think that there should be religious youth movements, or because I scorn those who sincerely love Jesus with their heart and soul. But it is because of what I explained earlier, the haughtiness of the children of the Reformation who are not only smugly certain of their salvation (but not of Catholics), but who also were combining God’s worship with politics. That is an anathema to me, I must emphasize. One’s faith should be pure, untainted with politics, and be strictly between you and God (I don’t mean secretly, but I mean without bringing in earthly forces into the dialogue). Don’t poke a hornet’s nest and expect not to get stung. The children of the Reformation are very proud without a cause and that is highly unattractive. I had much more liking of the “Jews for Jesus,” since theirs was (and as far as I know still remains) a very humble and joyous endeavor, rather than the arch glaring down the nose as I saw from the children of the Reformation.
And so the children of the Reformation were haughty, anti-Catholic and combined politics with their worship of God. And who did they become: Fundamentalists, evangelicals and … conservatives and Republicans. Do you now understand why so many Catholic people, like me, became Democrats? A true Catholic is pure in his or her faith and dialogue with God, and then, separately, allows his or her faith to inform their secular and political movements and decisions. True traditional Catholics do not combine the two, and should not. Remember, this is over thirty years ago that I am describing to you. The politicizing from the pulpit was truly invented during this time by the children of the Reformation; it was not as ubiquitous as it is today. Abortion became the battleground where they honed their self righteous and haughty skills at both diluting their worship of God while self proclaiming their own self superiority. Rather than deal with the problem of abortion with huge amounts of charity and creative solutions based on Christian values, they brought tons of screaming ugliness, self righteousness, and condemnation of those who supported abortion rights. I watched all of this in horror. To this day I have a difficult time having any relationship with a child of the Reformation, and it is their fault, not mine. They brought their exclusive club politicizing self righteousness that is hostile to Catholics along with all the other “unsaved” that has messed up so much of our culture, including the things we actually agree on regarding policy. The children of the Reformation could have been loving and charitable during the early years of the pro abortion movement and hence have nipped many of the abortions in the bud, and saved millions of lives. But instead they brought ugly and angry faces, screams of self righteousness but no money in their wallets for saving preborn babies. I’ve written about this at length before. I often stated during those times, “If they wish to save babies from abortion they should pay for them rather than scream abuse,” so my feelings were not secret. I supported the use of the Ricco (spelling?) anti racketeering act to control the violent protests outside of abortion clinics. How can Christians behave with such hatred toward women and girls who were filled with trauma and confused by deteriorating values (and lots of drug and alcohol use)?
Many girls I knew got abortions so as to continue their college educations and not “ruin their lives.” Where were the holy Christians who would set up a foundation so that girls could take a year off, have a child, give the child up for adoption (or learn how to keep the child), and who would advocate for them with parents and with schools? I never saw a single example of this. American history could have been “fundamentally” changed if the haughty children of the Reformation had stepped forward and taken the higher road of Christian kindness toward abortion seeking girls and women. And you wonder why I supported the legalization of the medical procedure of abortion and became a Democrat.
Abortion is a medical procedure; that is a fact. It is a grave moral wrong, but that does not change the fact that it is a medical procedure that can be done either in a back alley or a hospital. What Christians should have done is legalize the procedure but provide so many loving and real alternatives that having an abortion would become rare and repugnant, used only in the most dire situations, and not as “birth control.” This will go down in both secular and faith history as the greatest mean and idiotic missed opportunity of all time. The shrill meanness and politicization of worship by the children of the Reformation ruined one of the pivotal moments when people could have brought light to the dark. When I read anti-Catholic comments by these “right wing” “evangelicals” or “fundamentalists,” I can only say that it is a good thing that they do not say that to my face, because I would condemn them before God for being the mean craven hypocrites that they really are. I saw it from the beginning.
And so I supported legalization of the medical procedure of abortion (while loathing each and every use of it), while praying for and yelling to anyone who would listen that the pro-life lobby must mobilize to prevent this from becoming a frequent necessary and, God forbid, used as “birth control.” And so I became a Democrat, who remembered liberals who were moral, fiscally conservative, loved their fellow human, and who were patriotic. But like the termites who eat away at the wood, the Democrats became slaves to self indulgence and moral turpitude, becoming as much of a problem as the haughty and self righteous tight wallet Republicans. Voting has become a “choice” of voting for either the moral termites who are as incompetent as children driving a car while drunk or the fat self righteous hypocrite oligarchs who think God is lucky to be allowed to run on their ticket for election. Through the years I voted mostly Democrat because I continued to hope that all things go in cycles and that morality would return and restore a responsible liberalism that is also patriotic to the Democrat party. I voted for Kerry with that hope, and I don’t regret it despite how I’ve been disappointed by him. St. Paul said we all live in hope, and he was right. Without hope and charity you end up with “swift boat” advertisements rather than mutual conversation and conversion of both sides of hurtful and divisive issues. Don’t forget that I was there; the Vietnam draft was still on when I attended freshman year in college. It’s easy to have a self righteous and smart mouth about it now; it was not easy to live for anyone at the time.
I remember years ago slouching in my blue lazy boy chair watching the Presidential debates. This young “heir”, George W. Bush, was asked who the person was he most admired. When I heard his response, “Jesus Christ,” I sat up suddenly and took notice. I marveled and wondered if this was the start of something much better, more honest and more innocent. Bush proclaimed Jesus in a secular setting, and we just don’t hear that anymore, and it was a brave and honest thing to do. And his words were the first (and since then the only time) that I had heard a child of the Reformation, an “evangelical,” proclaim Jesus without using it as his special haughty calling card in the political arena. I was impressed and have continued to send my good will toward him, although I came to see that he is also a pawn of the behind the scenes spiritual gypsies who combine love of money and power with “salvation” and arrogant self righteous “prophesying” about the “end of times.” I hope he does become a Catholic and get away from at least part of that thinking. (Though Catholics of course have their own subversive secret agents working within them to bring down the faith too, reducing it to the “hunt for the anti-Christ 216 reality show, with porn.”)
Well, so now is it so easy to have interpreted what I have said and done?
Try honesty, humility and dialogue sometime. It could have saved many millions of lives.
Friday, June 6, 2008
My opinion regarding birth defects and abortion
Many pro-abortions think that the question of allowing parents to abort children with known severe genetic and birth defects is the strongest argument for abortion in their arsenal. And I agree that it is there that the strongest temptation and intellectual rationalism exists. That is one reason that I felt that the medical procedure of abortion should not be illegal because there are faith non-believers who have a right to obtain an abortion in a genuine situation like this. However, Roe v. Wade was not argued on this basis, and the number of abortions of children with conditions such as Down's syndrome, while known, is hardly proudly trumpeted by the pro-abortions. This is because not only do they know this is a slippery slope to be proud of (I personally would agree to it only with a gun to my head, and probably not even then) but because they also instinctively know that this is not the compassionate response to a birth defect pregnancy that either God or moral men and women intended. Moral liberals encourage diversity except when it means allowing a child with severe defects to live and be cared for during their entire life.
My expectations all those years ago for how society would have responded to human's increase knowledge to diagnose birth defect and severe genetic conditions in the womb is entirely different than how it has turned out over these past forty years. I had a different vision and I have to be honest, so did God. God leaves decisions and free will up to humans, and even though in his wisdom and perfect knowledge of the flaws of humans and what they are likely to do, God continues to also "hope for the best." God hopes and encourages, through the Holy Spirit, for humans to make the better and more moral positions. Sadly, they often don't, and certain deep societal flaws (such as addictions) have skewed society even farther from God's vision and "hopes" for them. God is not surprised, since he is all knowing, but he is always "hopeful."
I had envisioned a society where medical prescreening, where desired by the parents, reveals conditions to be planned for in a kind and charitable way. I had envisioned a child health insurance system where the government and insurers had lifetime care for the birth of children with such conditions fully covered, and so parents would never have to worry that allowing a child with a genetic or birth defect would bankrupt them. I had envisioned a society where instead of abortions there were generous and loving adoptions, so that parents who give birth to a child with severe genetic conditions or birth defects could give up their child for adoption, should they feel that they could not emotionally support their child's upbringing, even if the financial means were there through the system I envisioned. Further, I thought that there would be specialized programs of adoption for these children that focused on providing adoption to prospective parents who felt a calling to love and take in these children. And where individual children could not be adopted they could live their lives in loving care communities. I had envisioned that the Catholic Church would have had a growth in vocations and callings to the faith of brothers and sisters, many of whom would serve their call to Christ by carrying his cross in these communities, tending to children whose parents at least said "yes" to life. And I envisioned ethical research for mitigation treatment, cures, nutrition, medication and technology devices to enhance the quality of life for all these children as they grow into adults. But we know that medical research goes in certain directions and not others.
So my vision and hopes of what would happen over the past forty years to respond to the quandary of humans being intelligent enough to test for severe genetic conditions and birth defects has not come to pass one iota. Instead of babies with genetic conditions and birth defects being a call for great humanity and greater morality, it has become the "slam dunk" of reasons to abort and forget. Humans have robbed themselves because of this "choice" that they have made. And as I said, I do not blame the parents because it is the area where an individual decision is fraught with pressure and lack of support for making the choice "yes" to life. I wish it were totally different and closer to my vision as expressed above about how humans could have made real choices for real love of life and mutual support.
My expectations all those years ago for how society would have responded to human's increase knowledge to diagnose birth defect and severe genetic conditions in the womb is entirely different than how it has turned out over these past forty years. I had a different vision and I have to be honest, so did God. God leaves decisions and free will up to humans, and even though in his wisdom and perfect knowledge of the flaws of humans and what they are likely to do, God continues to also "hope for the best." God hopes and encourages, through the Holy Spirit, for humans to make the better and more moral positions. Sadly, they often don't, and certain deep societal flaws (such as addictions) have skewed society even farther from God's vision and "hopes" for them. God is not surprised, since he is all knowing, but he is always "hopeful."
I had envisioned a society where medical prescreening, where desired by the parents, reveals conditions to be planned for in a kind and charitable way. I had envisioned a child health insurance system where the government and insurers had lifetime care for the birth of children with such conditions fully covered, and so parents would never have to worry that allowing a child with a genetic or birth defect would bankrupt them. I had envisioned a society where instead of abortions there were generous and loving adoptions, so that parents who give birth to a child with severe genetic conditions or birth defects could give up their child for adoption, should they feel that they could not emotionally support their child's upbringing, even if the financial means were there through the system I envisioned. Further, I thought that there would be specialized programs of adoption for these children that focused on providing adoption to prospective parents who felt a calling to love and take in these children. And where individual children could not be adopted they could live their lives in loving care communities. I had envisioned that the Catholic Church would have had a growth in vocations and callings to the faith of brothers and sisters, many of whom would serve their call to Christ by carrying his cross in these communities, tending to children whose parents at least said "yes" to life. And I envisioned ethical research for mitigation treatment, cures, nutrition, medication and technology devices to enhance the quality of life for all these children as they grow into adults. But we know that medical research goes in certain directions and not others.
So my vision and hopes of what would happen over the past forty years to respond to the quandary of humans being intelligent enough to test for severe genetic conditions and birth defects has not come to pass one iota. Instead of babies with genetic conditions and birth defects being a call for great humanity and greater morality, it has become the "slam dunk" of reasons to abort and forget. Humans have robbed themselves because of this "choice" that they have made. And as I said, I do not blame the parents because it is the area where an individual decision is fraught with pressure and lack of support for making the choice "yes" to life. I wish it were totally different and closer to my vision as expressed above about how humans could have made real choices for real love of life and mutual support.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Election advice
People often wonder who I vote for, when I do vote (I've relocated a lot so my record has been spotty as I'm driven from pillar to post the past 10 years or so). It does not matter who I vote for. I'm not saying that voting itself does not matter; it does matter very deeply and many patriots died for that right and privilege. I urge everyone to vote but consider this advice.
The country (or state or city) "deserves" whoever is elected. Even when elections are "stolen," the country or other government entity gets exactly who they deserve. So there is no wrong election, even when an immoral ignoramus is elected to office, because for whatever reasons, the electorate has sunk to the level that deserves that candidate to win. Often I would vote for the candidate I thought the country deserved to get, if you know what I mean.
Having said that, this is why this country MUST stop looking at the idiots in government to regain the morality that this country once had and has stamped on, polluted, and thrown away. Look at abortion as the key issue. I am totally against abortion, but I'm not proud of how pro life people have abandoned it as a government/legal/rights adjudicated issue. I have been saying from the first day after Roe v. Wade that abortion must be stopped at the grassroots level. Then it will not matter if it is "legal," if virtually no one goes for an abortion. Let them have their damned "right" to an abortion if that's the way the country votes and plays it. But if for the past thirty years those who are pro-life had economically and spiritually "adopted" mothers about to deliver and sponsor their babies we'd have a fraction of the aborts we have today. More money and treasure has been pissed away in this country on garbage, such as entertainment, usury interest rates and finance fees, consumerism, and "globalization" than would have been needed to pay pregnant women to not abort and to either raise their baby with support, give the baby to adopting parents, or to have quality orphanages with living in families who raise children in real group settings and love them as parents. If pro-life people had banded together thirty years ago we would have made abortion "rare and repugnant" because most girls and women would have chosen the alternatives I listed above for you. You will never end abortion if all you do is vote for pro life candidates and then give your money to trash causes and consumerism instead of helping out a couple that is in a pregnancy jam.
The country (or state or city) "deserves" whoever is elected. Even when elections are "stolen," the country or other government entity gets exactly who they deserve. So there is no wrong election, even when an immoral ignoramus is elected to office, because for whatever reasons, the electorate has sunk to the level that deserves that candidate to win. Often I would vote for the candidate I thought the country deserved to get, if you know what I mean.
Having said that, this is why this country MUST stop looking at the idiots in government to regain the morality that this country once had and has stamped on, polluted, and thrown away. Look at abortion as the key issue. I am totally against abortion, but I'm not proud of how pro life people have abandoned it as a government/legal/rights adjudicated issue. I have been saying from the first day after Roe v. Wade that abortion must be stopped at the grassroots level. Then it will not matter if it is "legal," if virtually no one goes for an abortion. Let them have their damned "right" to an abortion if that's the way the country votes and plays it. But if for the past thirty years those who are pro-life had economically and spiritually "adopted" mothers about to deliver and sponsor their babies we'd have a fraction of the aborts we have today. More money and treasure has been pissed away in this country on garbage, such as entertainment, usury interest rates and finance fees, consumerism, and "globalization" than would have been needed to pay pregnant women to not abort and to either raise their baby with support, give the baby to adopting parents, or to have quality orphanages with living in families who raise children in real group settings and love them as parents. If pro-life people had banded together thirty years ago we would have made abortion "rare and repugnant" because most girls and women would have chosen the alternatives I listed above for you. You will never end abortion if all you do is vote for pro life candidates and then give your money to trash causes and consumerism instead of helping out a couple that is in a pregnancy jam.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
A Man with a Spine
Excerpt from a strongly worded sermon to be delivered on Thursday afternoon (31 May) at St. Mary's Cathedral in Edinburgh by Cardinal Keith O'Brien:
We see the affirmation of the immense value of life from its very conception. The redeemer in the womb unites himself with all of humanity. By becoming incarnate in the womb of Mary, God raises to a new level the greatness of every human life.
The joy of that meeting holds out to us the message of delight that should accompany every pregnancy. With every life conceived God acts directly to create a new and unique human being, a person destined to life everlasting. Sadly, joy is not always the dominant emotion evoked by news of pregnancy in the world we live in today.
Today as we remember the Visitation we mark the “Day for Life” in Scotland, with a mixture of emotions, celebrating the gift of life but remembering also the tragic loss of life. Abortion is the theme for this year’s “Day for Life” which significantly is the 40th anniversary of the passing of the abortion act. In those 40 years the loss of life has been staggering. Around 7 million lives have been ended as a consequence of that one piece of legislation.
We were told that backstreet abortions were killing women and had to be decriminalised. We were told abortion would only be used in extreme cases. We were told medical scrutiny would be rigorous. We were told a – lies and misinformation masquerading as compassion and truth.
The scale of the killing is beyond our grasp. In Scotland we kill the equivalent of a classroom full of school children every day. For many women abortion has become an alternative form of birth control. The lives of the babies involved are not at risk any more than the lives of their mothers are threatened by pregnancy. Abortions to save the life of a woman are almost unheard of. As a society we wilfully ignore these realities.
We need to build, once again, a society, which joyfully accepts new life. The abortion industry has impacted massively on the values of our society as its proponents continue to spread their culture of death. There is acceptance of a philosophy, which permits the destruction of children in the haven of their mother’s womb.
We must remain witnesses to the truth and be unambiguous in defending life in all that we do. I have campaigned on behalf of the developing world, urging the G8 nations to act in defence of life. I have campaigned against the indiscriminate killing power of nuclear weapons and in defence of innocent life; I speak out today in defence of life at its most vulnerable and defenceless.
It is not easy to turn societies against the natural urge to protect young life. Yet care and concern for children is still very much alive. We are gripped with concern when news coverage of a child snatched or harmed appears on our television screens. We have ached over the disappearance of young Madeleine McCann in Portugal; together with her parents we know the inestimable worth of one precious life. Yes life is precious and precious also are those lives that are snuffed out in darkness hidden from the world.
Let us build up within our society a generation of medical professionals who are unwilling to cooperate in the slaughter. I call on our universities and medical schools to teach that all human life deserves protection. I call on our hospitals to end testing procedures designed only for targeting and killing the weak and infirm. I call on all politicians to answer one simple question: will you protect the right to life of all persons in our society from conception until natural death? And I call on you to hold these elected representatives to account.
For those unwilling to give this support we must be unwilling to give our vote. History will judge us on where we stood in this crucial issue. But there is a judgement more important than history. We shall all stand before the judgment seat of God.
I urge politicians to have no truck with the evil trade of abortion. For those at Westminster this means finding means of overthrowing the legislation, which makes the killing possible. For those at Holyrood that means refusing to allow our health services to participate in the wanton killing of the innocent. Peace cannot be built in the shadow of the abortion rooms.
In making this call, I speak most especially to those who claim to be Catholic. I ask them to examine their consciences and discern if they are playing any part in sustaining this social evil. I remind them to avoid cooperating in the unspeakable crime of abortion and the barrier such cooperation erects to receiving Holy Communion. As St. Paul warns us “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.”
I would be failing as a pastor not to highlight the gravity of this situation not just to law makers but to anyone: mother; father; boyfriend; counsellor who in any way leads a mother to abortion.
********
I first saw the horror of abortion as a freshman in college. I lived in a dorm and was close friends with several girls there, and the next year four of us would move into our "first apartment." But the freshman year in the dorm, one of my friends became pregnant by a boy who was also in our circle of friends. Even though my friend was an Italian Catholic, she never once thought of having the baby, because of the certain anger of her parents and because it would mess up her very ambitious college plans. As far as I knew she only confided in me, though years later, I came to suspect that was not true. But anyway, as there was no changing her mind, I owned one of the few cars available on campus (that was a rarity in those days, to own a car as a freshman, but my stepdad was a mechanic and got a great car for only $400 for me) I had to drive her to the "clinic." Her boyfriend had nothing to do with it, and I was her only friend in this situation. I figured, if I brought her in a car, and she didn't have to go alone on the bus, we had up to the LAST MINUTE for her to change her mind. I would have been thrilled to have been her friend as she had her baby. (I had already cared for my niece when I was only 14 years old, when both my brother and his wife were working one summer.) The waiting room was packed... an image that still sickens me. Abortion was NOT "rare" even then, in the mid-70's. None of the girls in the waiting room would meet my eyes.
Ironically, my friend married and had some children and a successful counseling practice, and I never got a chance to meet her living children, because she drifted away in friendship after graduation. I got to see her get an abortion, but not to see her have a family. Hmm.
We see the affirmation of the immense value of life from its very conception. The redeemer in the womb unites himself with all of humanity. By becoming incarnate in the womb of Mary, God raises to a new level the greatness of every human life.
The joy of that meeting holds out to us the message of delight that should accompany every pregnancy. With every life conceived God acts directly to create a new and unique human being, a person destined to life everlasting. Sadly, joy is not always the dominant emotion evoked by news of pregnancy in the world we live in today.
Today as we remember the Visitation we mark the “Day for Life” in Scotland, with a mixture of emotions, celebrating the gift of life but remembering also the tragic loss of life. Abortion is the theme for this year’s “Day for Life” which significantly is the 40th anniversary of the passing of the abortion act. In those 40 years the loss of life has been staggering. Around 7 million lives have been ended as a consequence of that one piece of legislation.
We were told that backstreet abortions were killing women and had to be decriminalised. We were told abortion would only be used in extreme cases. We were told medical scrutiny would be rigorous. We were told a – lies and misinformation masquerading as compassion and truth.
The scale of the killing is beyond our grasp. In Scotland we kill the equivalent of a classroom full of school children every day. For many women abortion has become an alternative form of birth control. The lives of the babies involved are not at risk any more than the lives of their mothers are threatened by pregnancy. Abortions to save the life of a woman are almost unheard of. As a society we wilfully ignore these realities.
We need to build, once again, a society, which joyfully accepts new life. The abortion industry has impacted massively on the values of our society as its proponents continue to spread their culture of death. There is acceptance of a philosophy, which permits the destruction of children in the haven of their mother’s womb.
We must remain witnesses to the truth and be unambiguous in defending life in all that we do. I have campaigned on behalf of the developing world, urging the G8 nations to act in defence of life. I have campaigned against the indiscriminate killing power of nuclear weapons and in defence of innocent life; I speak out today in defence of life at its most vulnerable and defenceless.
It is not easy to turn societies against the natural urge to protect young life. Yet care and concern for children is still very much alive. We are gripped with concern when news coverage of a child snatched or harmed appears on our television screens. We have ached over the disappearance of young Madeleine McCann in Portugal; together with her parents we know the inestimable worth of one precious life. Yes life is precious and precious also are those lives that are snuffed out in darkness hidden from the world.
Let us build up within our society a generation of medical professionals who are unwilling to cooperate in the slaughter. I call on our universities and medical schools to teach that all human life deserves protection. I call on our hospitals to end testing procedures designed only for targeting and killing the weak and infirm. I call on all politicians to answer one simple question: will you protect the right to life of all persons in our society from conception until natural death? And I call on you to hold these elected representatives to account.
For those unwilling to give this support we must be unwilling to give our vote. History will judge us on where we stood in this crucial issue. But there is a judgement more important than history. We shall all stand before the judgment seat of God.
I urge politicians to have no truck with the evil trade of abortion. For those at Westminster this means finding means of overthrowing the legislation, which makes the killing possible. For those at Holyrood that means refusing to allow our health services to participate in the wanton killing of the innocent. Peace cannot be built in the shadow of the abortion rooms.
In making this call, I speak most especially to those who claim to be Catholic. I ask them to examine their consciences and discern if they are playing any part in sustaining this social evil. I remind them to avoid cooperating in the unspeakable crime of abortion and the barrier such cooperation erects to receiving Holy Communion. As St. Paul warns us “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.”
I would be failing as a pastor not to highlight the gravity of this situation not just to law makers but to anyone: mother; father; boyfriend; counsellor who in any way leads a mother to abortion.
********
I first saw the horror of abortion as a freshman in college. I lived in a dorm and was close friends with several girls there, and the next year four of us would move into our "first apartment." But the freshman year in the dorm, one of my friends became pregnant by a boy who was also in our circle of friends. Even though my friend was an Italian Catholic, she never once thought of having the baby, because of the certain anger of her parents and because it would mess up her very ambitious college plans. As far as I knew she only confided in me, though years later, I came to suspect that was not true. But anyway, as there was no changing her mind, I owned one of the few cars available on campus (that was a rarity in those days, to own a car as a freshman, but my stepdad was a mechanic and got a great car for only $400 for me) I had to drive her to the "clinic." Her boyfriend had nothing to do with it, and I was her only friend in this situation. I figured, if I brought her in a car, and she didn't have to go alone on the bus, we had up to the LAST MINUTE for her to change her mind. I would have been thrilled to have been her friend as she had her baby. (I had already cared for my niece when I was only 14 years old, when both my brother and his wife were working one summer.) The waiting room was packed... an image that still sickens me. Abortion was NOT "rare" even then, in the mid-70's. None of the girls in the waiting room would meet my eyes.
Ironically, my friend married and had some children and a successful counseling practice, and I never got a chance to meet her living children, because she drifted away in friendship after graduation. I got to see her get an abortion, but not to see her have a family. Hmm.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Recovering love for babies and paternal tenderness
Recovering love for babies and paternal tenderness
The pro life fight is so wearying yet it is the vital issue of our times. As relief from just the sadness and terror of the subject, every few days I'm going to post something positive and loving about babies, and about being a parent. Some will be quotes from the Bible, but many will be just sweet, secular musings about the family. For the first, here is one of seven births in the Bible that were foretold.
Genesis 16: 7 And the Angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
Genesis 16: 11 And the Angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.
The pro life fight is so wearying yet it is the vital issue of our times. As relief from just the sadness and terror of the subject, every few days I'm going to post something positive and loving about babies, and about being a parent. Some will be quotes from the Bible, but many will be just sweet, secular musings about the family. For the first, here is one of seven births in the Bible that were foretold.
Genesis 16: 7 And the Angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
Genesis 16: 11 And the Angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
