Whether it's pro-life philosophy, activism or legislation, whether it's about a current topic or a situation pro-lifers face in their own lives and work, this is the place where we'll talk about it! Please forward any comments to me, Judie Brown. Thank you!
PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S INTOXICATING LIES Posted: Thursday November 29, 2007 at 11:53 am EST by Judie Brown
Every week, when the Stop Planned Parenthood Report (STOPP Report) is issued I read it from end to end and am usually not surprised, but inspired by the commitment that Jim Sedlak, Marie Hahnenberg, Andrew Flusche and Mike Sedlak have. How else could this team report weekly on all the evil that is propagated by the Planned Parenthood henchmen and henchwomen!
But this week's report shocked me as I had no idea that Planned Parenthood was in the business of visiting bars in order to market their porn.
The report states that Planned Parenthood of Utah and their allies are going to bars and handing out condoms as part of a campaign to prevent HIV transmission. The program is called "pub crawls" and the idea is that they are to approach customers in the bar and offer them condoms.
It does not seem to matter to them that experts report consistently that condoms may fail as much as 15 percent of the time in preventing transmission of HIV. And as our STOPP team points out, "If a 15-percent risk doesn't sound too bad, consider this: If you put one bullet in a six-shot revolver, spin the chamber, put the gun to your head and pull the trigger, the chance of killing yourself is 16.7 percent.
My summation of the problem is simply this: When Planned Parenthood's main stock in trade is the promotion and sale of porn to children as young as 5, they are clearly not concerned about the deadly consequences of their philosophy. If they were they would have already put themselves out of business.
Check out the STOPP Report yourself. You will find it a tremendous resource in your efforts to expose the gruesome underbelly of the culture of death.
Please let me make a couple of things clear before I get into my response.
--I have been involved in prolife/antiabortion work for over two decades, & I don't like abortion any more than you do.
--I decidedly do *not* endorse forcing people who oppose nonmarital sex and contraception to engage in practices contrary to their religious beliefs. To me, respect for (nonviolent/nonabortion) choice requires this.
That much said...I wish groups like ALL did not put so many of their resources into opposing contraception, gay rights, comprehensive sex education as if these were all mortal enemies of children and unborn children especially--w/ thewhole agenda under the rubric of "prolife."
People who agree in opposing abortion have far more diverse views on LGBT rights, contraception, comprehensive sex education, and nonmarital sexuality than this immense & unfortunate skewing of the prolife movement allows for.
Indeed, some of us even regard the right to choose such practices as foundational to the struggle to prevent abortion, by getting at its root causes.
Marysia, Nonviolent Choice Directory & Blog, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com Maysia | November 29, 2007
Dear Maysia
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I guess the biggest difference in your view and ours is that we have seen the sociological connection between contraception, promiscuity and abortion. There is a straight line that connects all these things, and that is why we are so serious in our commitment to rid the nation of the problem.
As you perhaps know, no law or individual can force another person to abstain from sex outside of marriage. That is a decision that is made by the people involved; but that is not an excuse for us to stop discussing the tragic downside of such behavior.
It is not a religious teaching but a clinical fact that sexually transmitted diseases are pandemic in America and among the reasons for this are promiscuity and the practice of contraception. That so many women are ill, have higher rates of breast cancer than ever, not to mention infertility and heart problems, is a serious difficulty for our nation and is not a religious belief.
These women suffer needlessly because they made bad choices in their sex lives. The facts are there for anyone to see.
I understand that not everyone who is allegedly pro-life is also opposed to contraception, premarital sex, homosexuality or any of the other practices so common in our nation today. However, Maysia, we are and we will continue to teach the truth about human sexuality as a gift from God, and the dire consequences suffered by those who treat their bodies with disrespect.
In fact, when I visited the website to which you referred me, that was the first thing that entered my mind--the fact that "nonviolent sexual and reproductive choices" divorce the individual who is making them from the truth about the level of self-respect required to remain chaste until marriage.
Thank you for your comments.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | December 1, 2007
Judie,
I can only speak for myself, but I can also assure you that what I say here applies to many others I know with similar viewpoints.
I think you are making some invalid assumptions about who a person of my viewpoint is and what his/her beliefs and motives are.
--First of all, a person like me is not "allegedly prolife" because we have a different view of sexual ethics & spirituality than you.
For one, a very big one, there is a human being, my daughter, alive and well today primarily because I went through a lot not to abort her, to give her life and the best life I could, despite the fact that she was unintentionally conceived in the midst of a horrendously difficult situation, because the contraception did not work for its intended purpose.
In other words, my convictions about the humanity and preciousness of every life have already been put to the ultimate test, thank you very much.
I have also worked very hard for years and years in any capacity I could to ease the difficulties of other women & children in similar situations.
And , I have taken considerable flak and abuse for believing and acting on the belief that unborn children and women alike are human.
In sum, there is nothing "alleged" about my prolife views.
--You apparently assume that because I do not believe in uncontracepted sex only for male-female marriage, I do not regard human sexuality as a sacred gift and resposibility. This is decidedly not the case. Are the only possibilities your sort of view versus ethical anarchy and mayhem? I think not.
The practice of nonviolence in every domain of life has the utmost respect for one's self and for other persons written right into it. This is as true of nonviolence in the area of sexual and reproductive decisionmaking as in any other.
Apparently you define respect in the sexual domain as waiting for male-female marriage. My own definition includes this possiblity, if it is a person's own thoughtful and informed choice, but it also includes a wide range of other possibilities.
I don't think nonmarital and/or same-sex sexual expression let alone contraception is the problem per se. It's not the type or context of sexual encounter (between consenting adults) that matters so much as the mindfulness/unmindfulness of the partners towards themselves and one another, and (where applicable) the possibility that a child may be conceived despite their best efforts to reduce that chance.
The problem is that people end up in unhealthy situations and getting hurt because of enforced gender inequality, homophobia, ignorance, fear, coercion, and other species of unmindfulness and/or disrespect. That people for whatever reason do not treat one another not as ends in themselves. With such results as psychological harm, std'sincluding hiv/aids, and abortion. ..
You are wrong to assume that I don't see or acknowledge such problems. In fact I personally do whatever I can as a person of limited means and resources to alleviate and prevent them.
The difference between us, apparently, is that we have different interpretations of what causes them and how to address them. It's not that you have seen the truth and confronted the sociological evidence and I've run from those things.
Restricting human sexual expression to only men and women who are married to one another and don't use contraception also can have/has had its own dark side. It won't make all the problems go away. For example, historically and even today these norms have resulted in heavy burdens of shame and stigma being laid upon people who don't or can't conform to them. I became infertile at young age because of being exposed to common environmental toxins. Many infertile women are forced to feel as if they are somehow inadequate or unwomanly or inferior or less than human or "barren"--when procreation is hardly the only way a woman or any other human can give of herself and be fruitful!!
It costs lives. Humankind has lost so many wonderful LGBT people because the pressure has caused them to commit suicide, or because they've been victims of hate crime.
And single women still have abortions because they will be vilified if they don't destroy the evidence they were sexually active. I had to face down that particular gauntlet while pregnant with my kid and it is *an ugly scene.* No human being should be subjected to that, I hope you will agree.
What I'm looking for is a sort of middle way, something between your model of sexual ethics and the "anything-goes-and let's be-willfully-blind-to-the-wreckage" view you are apparently attributing to me, and people with similar beliefs. Please don't leap to the conclusion that I and people who share my views are somehow the equivalent of a Larry Flynt or Hugh Hefner. Marysia | December 2, 2007
Dear Marysia
I realize that the use of the word "allegedly" is pejorative. Sorry, but at the end of the day, I think the same basic differences would apply.
I have the utmost respect for what you have accomplished in your life, Marysia, including the most noble of decisions ... keeping your baby, loving her and providing for her. You are to be commended and I do commend you.
However there is a chasm between your view of human sexuality and mine. I would be in error if I did not say that my view is based solely on the teachings of the Catholic Church, which I have studied and which I not only believe to be true but would die for.
I am certain you feel the same way about your view.
You are absolutely correct in your assessment of the variance in viewpoints that we have, and while we do not agree, we certainly can honor the right of the other person to disagree on a single or multiple points. And we do.
There is nothing short of total commitment to the will of God that will ever make all the problems we face as humans go away. And even then, they will not go away but they will be far less burdensome. Whether our problems are sexual, intellectual, physical or psychological, we are human beings and we have to learn how to cope with our inadequacies, failings, and the like.
However in the area of human sexuality, we can know on our own, by simply studying the sociological facts. Nobody including me ever said that the only way to be fulfilled is to be able to bear children. I realize full well that infertility can be difficult but also a source of great transformation as such people learn how to experience fulfilling love in other ways.
I want to close this exchange today on a positive note, Marysia. You are not an enemy, but rather a sister in Christ to me and I understand that you are seeking that middle ground you describe. You and I have different views but we certainly do have one thing in common ... an appreciation for the gift of life.
I hope you will be able to move on past the perceptions you have of me and my view, each of which is wrong but understandable. You have suffered greatly and I appreciate that.
Within the text we discover that there is a near pandemic of Chlamydia, with the highest rates being among teenage girls. Chlamydia can cause pelvic inflammatory disease and, of course, infertility. If fact, one official from the Centers for Disease Control told USA Today that there is every reason to think that most doctors do not report all cases of this sexually transmitted disease. What I wonder is what else they do not report.
We already know that abortion complications are often called something else. And we know that women die from botched abortions without the actual cause of death being cited. So what else don't doctors do?
Well, I will give you a hint. For more than 40 years the birth control pill has been aborting children and hurting women, yet report after report justifies the pill and rare mentions its abortive action. Indeed, even some pro-lifers deny it.
And then there is the entire quagmire of sex education courses, designed to equip our children to do the very things that are leading to this problem recently reported in USA Today. However, the report does not allude to either sex education or promiscuity as a possible cause for the escalating cases of Chlamydia. So what's the deal?
I think it is most succinctly described as the sexually saturated society in which we live where everything from a vacation to a car is best sold by suggestive clothing or a hint of nudity. Our children are exposed to this in school, on the tube and nearly everywhere they go, including shopping malls. The results are right there staring us in the face, but who is paying attention?
Why are so many people, including "responsible" journalists, so wary of pointing out the obvious? Could it be that when some behaviors are practiced by those reporting, there is a disconnect between truth and fiction? When does it stop being "all about me"?
I was thinking that maybe in the end, the "it's all about me" craze is going to result in a devastating consequence: it's all about death ... the physical and, sadly, the spiritual as well.
SCHIZOPHRENIA ABOUNDS Posted: Monday November 26, 2007 at 7:58 pm EST by Judie Brown
Sometimes when I read a sentence in a news report, like the one I am going to quote to you, my head hurts! I simply cannot understand how any thinking person could possibly be so duplicitous.
The news report from which this sentence is taken is about a recent Texas Supreme Court decision.
Further the Texas Supreme Court said, "The Supreme Court has emphasized that states may protect human life not only once the fetus has reached viability but 'from the outset of pregnancy.' The Legislature is free to protect the lives of those whom it considers human beings."
The case in point involves Terence Lawrence who was prosecuted for two murders because he killed a woman and her 4- to 6-week-old preborn child. So what this court is saying is that if a mother wants her baby and her baby's life is taken by a criminal act, the death of that baby is homicide, but if that mother pays an abortionist to murder her baby, that is perfectly OK!
My goodness, what kind of world are we living in? When is murder not murder? Well, it appears that that depends on who wants to do the killing and whether or not the mother agrees.
Judie I would like to purchase your book and read your column on the "Three Blind Mice," in the media. Catholic politicians who continue to sully our catholic faith by supporting abortion, gay marriage and embryonisc stem cell research have been dutifully reprimanded. I often wonder why more so-called "Catholics," in the media haven't received the same chastisement? They wield just as much influence as CINO politicians and continue to misguide too many lukewarm catholic viewers! Enough with these wolves in sheeps clothing! Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity should not be looked upon as journalists. They are simply money hungry ratings-mongers who have no problem tarnishing our faith, while allowing others to destroy it by welcoming them on their silly shows. God bless! Renee Xuereb | November 27, 2007
Dear Renee
You can purchase my book on our website, as you probably know. I might also point out to you that contrary to popular opinion, pro-abortion Catholic politicians have not been properly reprimanded by the Catholic Bishops. Oh yes, there are words uttered, but actual action taken to protect Christ from sacrilege is not being pursued except by 13 of the 165 Bishops who operate dioceses. So there is a lot to be done, and our prayers are needed.
I agree with you, as well, that we must do all we can, consistently, to expose the wolves in the media, on college campuses, and anywhere else where their influence misguides the faithful and jeopardizes immortal souls.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | November 28, 2007
Dear Judie,
I recently heard a young Planned Parenthood employee state, "We save more babies than we kill." I have not been able to get her words out of my head. I believed that maybe they did not know what they were doing, but this woman's statement made me see reality. I do not know how she thinks they are saving babies; I do know that she is fully aware that they kill, they murder, babies. Christine | November 28, 2007
Christine
It has often been said that evil can work in a person's mind, blinding them to the reality of what is right and wrong. By evil, of course, I mean the devil. The woman to whom you spoke is one such person and we need to pray for these people.
God bless you!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | November 29, 2007
Since you often speak of the confusion among Catholics regarding what exactly the Church teaches, I thought I'd let you know about this blog I came across. I've never seen so many confused people in all my life. How does an orthodox Catholic like me respond to something like this? Check out the blog at http://www.glamour.com/lifestyle/blogs/pregnant
Read the post titled,"JD is getting baptized!" Then read some of the comments.
Sad, isn't it?
Keep up the good work and educating Catholics about what the Church is really all about.
Elizabeth | November 30, 2007
Dear Elizabeth
I did read the blog and frankly felt very sad. The attitude the praish priest had toward her resulted in alientation and, obviously, a rather flip attitude about the proper solution.
One of my daughters was a single Mom, and I will never forget the extent to which our pastor and the entire parish made her feel and the special celebration that occurred during the Mass to welcome my grandson into the Church.
By the same token I do not believe that JDs mother understands the error of the premarital sex she engaged in which led to the birth of her son, nor do I think most of the people who commented on her blog have a clue.
The problem in all this is, of course, that the process of catechizing average Catholics like you and me has pretty much fallen by the wayside. That is one of the reasons why we at American Life League continue to insist that the truth be repeated with love and clarity as often as possible.
Thanks for sending me to that blog. I learned a great deal.
AMAZING DISCOVERY Posted: Thursday November 22, 2007 at 10:52 am EST by Judie Brown
When we first heard the news about the breakthrough in stem cell research I was, frankly, quite leery. So often we have seen scientific news, proclaiming some "ethical" marvel that has turned out to be nothing more than a step further down the road toward evil. But this latest news is for real!
Many expert bioethicists have concurred that the work most recently reported by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto, Japan is going to change the way scientists look at the entire stem cell question. This newest technique does not require the killing of a single human embryonic child, but rather uses skin cell stem cells.
As our own expert, Nathanael Blake, told me in an email after he read the actual scientific presentation in Cell magazine, "I'm in a celebratory mood. Since last summer, when the mice results were published, we've said that this is a promising option for ethical stem cell research. There are still some technical hurdles to work around, but this is a huge leap forward, and the closest thing we've seen to victory on this in a while.
"The pro-cloning and embryo-killing side won't pack up and leave yet, but this knocks a lot of wind out of their sails. This is far ahead of clone-and-kill in producing patient-specific pluripotent stem cells (and though it still has safety issues, they seem less than those of clone-and-kill).
"I think this is a wonderful discovery for us to give thanks to God for," and most assuredly it is precisely that. Let us hope and pray that this ethical research continues and that those who favor killing-for-cures will stop the madness and work with the scientists who have made this most recent discovery.
These latest discoveries are encouraging despite the media hesitance. The science is ethical and now all we need is admission from the death peddlars that these recent advances represent the wave of the future. Let us hope this comes to pass.
QUINTUPLETS ALL SPARED Posted: Tuesday November 20, 2007 at 11:22 am EST by Judie Brown
It is always a blessing to read good news, particularly so close to a holiday where we traditionally praise God in thanks for all that He has done for us.
So I am eager to share with you the story of a Russian mother who escaped aborting some of her babies by going to London to deliver them --- all five of them.
But of course the news coverage has to make the point that giving birth to five can be dangerous and, "historically it has been rare that all five children survive." In case you wonder why, one of the reasons is that frequently doctors convince expectant parents that the only way for even one baby to survive is to submit the others to "selective termination" early in the pregnancy. That is what was suggested for the Russian couple as well.
But the death peddlers did not succeed. A Russian charity reached out to this couple and helped them get to London where they had the babies.
Today, thankfully, there is a mother and a father with five little ones who are no longer in intensive care, and who will, please God, go home within the coming four or five months.
What a wonderful Thanksgiving they will have. Of that I am certain.
TRUTHFULLLY ... SOME SIMPLY LIE! Posted: Saturday November 17, 2007 at 11:43 am EST by Judie Brown
Headlines yesterday were enough to send me into a state of total disbelief. It seems that there are far too many people involved in the pro-life effort who cannot see why the only goal worthy of our effort is personhood ... for every single preborn child without exception. Politics and polls appear to be the only moral guidelines they recognize.
In South Dakota, for example, where some pro-lifers want to bring back another legislative initiative, this time with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother, there is disagreement about what voters think.
The pro-lifers claim that 55% of residents actually oppose abortion while another 30% believe it should be legal in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. In other words, the residents do not understand that abortion is an act that results in the death of a human being.
Many pro-lifers themselves cannot spell MURDER and do not realize that every preborn child is equally important. They are squandering not only their own credibility but the truth.
Thompson does not believe that abortion is an act of killing.
The Times opines, "... we think it is interesting that the nation's premier pro-life organization would back a candidate with such a checkered past."
Well, blow me down! Perhaps the Washington Times does not understand that the "premier" organization is as waffly on abortion as Thompson ... they are made for each other.
In the final analysis, it is certainly accurate to say that as long as the act of abortion is presented to the public as an "issue" which can be debated, permitted, regulated or controlled, the citizenry will continue to view the murder of the innocent as merely a Republican versus Democratic thing. As I have said for more years than I care to count, there is no excuse for such ambiguity and when the source is within our own movement, there is no doubt that victory will evade us.
Sadly, the babies will continue to die as the deceivers continue to raise money and explain away why they simply cannot stand on principle. What a shame!
Interestingly enough in Europe we had fascists on the right wing and the Communists on the far left. The fascists countries like Austria, Italy and Spain, predominantly Catholic countries, had clerics who were shamefully involved in politics. We have some of that today going on in Human Life International, Priests for life, even though Fr. Pavone and Fr. Euteneuer haven't said this directly, they agreed with the Republican party by principle when they shamefully endorsed the ban on partial birth abortion. But even on the far left, when Poland, Russia, and Hungary were communist, there were priests who shamefully worked with the communist government. We have some this going on in the Jesuit orders today. Just look at Fr. Reese, who was asked by Cardinal Ratzinger to step down from National Catholic Reporter. Many Cardinals like Mahoney, and bishops like Donald Weurl, Skylstad and the USCCB in general have shamefully endorsed the pro-abortionists, many of them Democrats, when they refuse to enact canon law 915! The pro-lifers who support the ban on partial-birth abortion; and the ban on abortion except in the case of the mother , incest and rape, claim that "this is the best defense against those who support abortion on demand".
Well, many people thought that supporting Nazism was the best defense against defense against communism. And many conservatives endorsed the Nazis, priests and bishops among them! But after the Church found out what Hitler was up too, many Catholics disassociated themselves with the Nazis. Not to mention that any Catholic who was in fact in the Nazi party was banned from communion! Isn't it amazing how history repeats itself? Well the Republican Party is deceiving Catholics in that same fashion. Paying lip service pro-lifers when in fact the Republican party doesn't at all practice what they preach. The democrat party is far far worse. The Nazis and the Republican Party have one thing in common, they pay lip service and are only interested in power and politics. No wonder they lost so many seats! God help us. Nick | November 17, 2007
not everyone has that strong of an opinion about something. Some people don't really have an opinion on the issue. Just because you're neutral doesn't mean you're pro-abortion. Brian | November 19, 2007
Dear Nick
I think the most fundamental problem in all this is a total lack of confidence in God and trust in His will. At the end of the day, these babies are His, not the Republican or Democratic parties', and until a united pro-life movement focuses on personhood instead of flawed incrementalism, we are going nowhere.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | November 21, 2007
Dear Brian
Face the truth: Abortion is an act that results in the death of an innocent human being. "Opinions" do not count when we are discussing murder. You are either for it or against it.
The "strong opinion" is reflected in the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."
The bishops tell the reader that, "The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many." This is in paragraph 28 and is a fabulous statement. But, in #42 they say, "As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate's position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter's support. Yet a candidate's position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support."
What??? Abortion and racism? Could it be that a hateful attitude and an act of direct murder are equally evil in Church teaching? Where is that written?
And why, pray tell, would the bishops tell us that support for such an evil "may legitimately lead a voter..."? Does that mean that a voter could cast a vote for someone who supports such an evil?
What in the world does section 42 really mean? And, believe me, it gets worse.
In #64 the bishops say, "Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is never morally acceptable and must always be opposed," but in #32 they say that "incremental improvements in the law" can be acceptable. One has to wonder if that includes exceptions such as rape, incest and life of the mother which the bishops have supported for years.
The bishops further state in #33 that, "prudential judgment is also needed in applying moral principles to specific policy choices in areas such as the war in Iraq, housing, health care, immigration and others." Are we to conclude that like abortion, which is apparently a political issue, these other questions are of equal moral value when examining how a Catholic should vote?
Well, here is your answer. In #34, the bishops advise: "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position." But they continue in the same paragraph to instruct that, "At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity."
If you are now totally confused about what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is telling the faithful about the murder of innocent preborn babies and the supremacy of this question versus all others, join the club!
I am disgusted with this statement. By the way, tell me why abortion is mentioned by name 15 times, but war is mentioned 21 times and poverty is mentioned 17 times--and the word "murder" which defines abortion is never mentioned.
As my good friend Phil Lawler wrote, when analyzing the USCCB statement:
Quoting that statement, and citing the list of causes that runs on (and on and on and on) in the USCCB statement, a Catholic voter could attempt to justify support for a candidate who favors unrestricted legal abortion and same-sex marriage, explaining that his favored candidate takes the right stand on such "morally grave" issues as gun control, the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, global warming, Medicare and Medicaid, teachers' salaries, or immigration."
Wonder where these bishops got their theological training from? The theological school of Judas Iscariot maybe?! Who are they going to defend next? The Nazis? Reminds me of what our Blessed Lord said,
John 6:41 "The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven."
John 6:61 "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?"
and
67 "After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him."
Our Pope of immortal memory Pope John Paul II, would disagree with our Bishops! he said that abortion was the worst form of execution there is. Here's a message to Catholics, do not obey the Voters Guide by our Bishops! Nick | November 16, 2007
Dear Nick
As usual, we appreciate your insights.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | November 17, 2007
iN YOUR COMMENTARY ISSUED 19 OCT 07 " CATHOLICISM'S ACHILLES HEEL" YOU SAID IT ALL. THE BISHOPS ARE FAILING MISERABLY IN PROTECTING AND TEACHING THE FAITH.
THE CATHOLIC POPULATION IN THIS NATION AND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD IS IN NEED OF A WAKE-UP CALL. IN ISSUING THE LATEST DOCUMENT " FORMING CONCIENCES FOR FAITHFUL CITIZENSHIP " THEY HAVE ONLY SUCCEEDED IN MUDDYING THE WATER. THE ONLY ONES WHO WILL EVER HEAR OR SEE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS ARE THOSE WHO ARE FAITHFULLY IN THE PEWS ON EVERY SUNDAY. WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER 70% WHO CALL THEMSELVES CATHOLIC ?
DO THE BISHOPS REALLY BELIEVE THAT OUR LORD IS TRULY PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST ? I THINK NOT. IF THEY DID, THERE WOULD BE NO HESITATION IN REFUSING THE HOST TO A PUBLIC SINNER. INSTEAD THE BISHOPS HAVE ALLOWED THIS SCANDAL AND PUBLIC BLASPHEMY TO CONTINUE FOR OVER THIRTY YEARS.
SHOULD NOT THE BISHOPS BE CONCERNED ABOUT OFFENDING THE GOD THAT THEY PROFESS AT THE ALTAR? DO THEY HAVE TRUE FAITH? IF THEY DID THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION ABOUT THE COURSE OF ACTION TO TAKE. PLEASE PRAY FOR THE CONVERSION OF OUR BISHOPS. THERE WILL BE NO END TO ABORTION AND THE CULTURE OF DEATH UNTIL THAT HAPPENS.
PAUL C. PAUL CARON | November 17, 2007
Another case of the SEAMLESS GARMENT approach. What school did the Bishops go to for LEADERSHIP training is the question. I have heard more people upset at the Bishops than the support they get in the pass 10 years. They devide more than they unite. To win the Pro-life battle it's best to do it locally. You'll get little help from anyone on the National level. To many ego's God Bless. Leo | November 17, 2007
quit whining! Matt | November 19, 2007
I was listening to the conference at work on the internet. When Raymond Arroyo tried to nail the one Bishop down on "racism" point and he tried to weasel out of it- I had to leave my desk because I started to cry. It is a shame some of our shepherds are cowards. Teri | November 20, 2007
Dear Judie,
I attended a "Faith and Public Policy" workshop on Saturday that was presented by our Archdiocese. Our Archbishop is not supporting the Human Life Amendment in our state. We were told on Saturday that it would do "no good" and would cost too much money.
However, there was much support for "illegal" immigration and amnesty and prison reform, and no support for a new tax plan that would lift the burden from property owner through a state sales tax because a sales tax would "burden" the "undocumented."
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the Catholic "consistent ethic of life". We have to be consistent. Human life has dignity and should be protected and defended across the board. However, when I counted all the proposed lobbying efforts of which there were about 15 only two were even remotely connected to abortion.
How sad!
BTW, I, too, am discouraged by the Bishops' statement. It is confusing doublespeak.
Dr. Lyn | November 20, 2007
Dear Dr. Lyn
When I reflect on the immense damage that the "consistent ethic of life" promoters have created for the defense of innocent children who reside in the womb, it becomes increasingly clear to me that the laundry list of "issues" makes it possible for some Bishops to avoid working to end abortion yet claim they are pro-life.
Without personhood, no other right or cause matters. The person who dies before birth never has the chance to understand a principled consistent ethic of life.
Let us pray for our bishops.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | November 21, 2007
Dear Teri
In the sorrow we find in such deliberate attempts to avoid the intrinsically evil act of abortion we must remember that Christ died for us and has given us the chance to defend His babies and His truth.
We praise and thank Him!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | November 21, 2007
Dear Leo
Amen to that. Far too many bishops kowtow to the same godless enticements that national pro-life leaders do: power and politics.
God save us from ego.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | November 21, 2007
Dear Paul
Thank you for your compliments on my commentary. I am saddened that such a thing had to be written, but the most recent USCCB document on "conscience" only proves your point and mine as well.
I love your remarks, agree with them one hundred percent and pray that one day soon the bishops wake up and choose to serve the Lord and His truth while never counting the cost.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | November 21, 2007
Dear Matt
You may call it whining, but my commentary is viewed by others as simply a fact of life.
Why not pray for our bishops instead of defining my words one way or the other.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | November 21, 2007
I want to say that I agree with you, that the bishops are waffling on the issue of abortion, as well as other important issues, but to sling mud at the those who are directly descended from the Apostles is loathsome. To thank someone who asserts that the bishops are going to defend Hitler is a disgusting comment that ought to be removed from this board. I do not disagree with you or ALL, but I think that the great saints of the Church would show outrage at the way this organization routinely chastises the bishops. I will pray for the bishops, that they may faithfully guide Christ's Church and that they may become more active and outspoken in regards to abortion, but I will also pray that those who publicly and maliciously chastise the episcopacy may begin to practice what they preach.
Pax Christi,
Matthew Matthew | November 29, 2007
If the bishops were parents and tended to their children the way they tend to their flocks most of their kids would be dead or in jail. Can you imagine telling your 17 year old son, on his way out the door, that using alcohol or drugs is "Not desirable" and he should carefully consider all his actions? Mike | November 30, 2007
Dear Matthew
I have no idea where in my commentary you discovered any mud, slung or otherwise. What precisely do you mean?
I did not thank anyone who asserted that the bishops would defend Hitler, sir. Again, what in the world are you saying?
There is no reason for us to chastise the bishops. We do objectively analyze what is and is not said. We point out the facts regarding those matters which are intrinsic to the defense of Christ in Holy Communion and the preborn child in the womb. I did not help the bishops write their statement; it is they who are responsible for what has been stated and not stated.
I too have studied the great saints, the fathers and doctors of the Church and realize that the one thing they all had in common was their consistency in defending truth, even when they were roundly criticized, exiled and in some cases martyred. I praise God for them and their inspiring lives every day.
Thank you for your views, Matthew. May the Lord bless you.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | December 1, 2007
Dear Mike
We have to continue to pray for the bishops; their actions are indeed unbelievable and your analogy is quite accurate. The problem is that I do not believe they see it that way.
Pro-Life Story: Parents killed a sibling I never met Posted By Heather i on Mar, 30 2010 For most of my younger years , I (like my parents) believed that abortion was a women's right. As I grew older I slowly began to understand the U.S. Supreme Court really gave ... Read
