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!
JOIN THE ACTION: BE A PART OF THE NATIONWIDE PILL KILLS PROTESTS Posted: Monday June 2, 2008 at 10:38 pm EST by Judie Brown
Since the early 1960’s most medical professionals have known that the birth control pill can kill preborn children. Now, as we approach the 43rd Anniversary of the United States Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticutthat wiped out all laws designed to protect Americans from the side effects of birth control in general, American Life League has taken up the mantle of leading grassroots Americans across the country in a protest against the pill.
Before I tell you how irate our opponents are about this latest activity and our staff who are bubbling with excitement around American Life League headquarters, let me give a little history lesson about that particular Supreme Court decision. A little-known fact is that it was this decision that created, for the first time in American jurisprudence, a right to privacy in matters of intimate sexual relations. It was in Griswold v. Connecticut that the Supreme Court defined a "right to privacy" in marital relations as emanating from the penumbra of decisions relating to the meaning of the words within the various amendments to the United States Constitution.
Yes, what I have just told you is true and extremely confusing if not downright stupid. But I did not write the decision.
In his dissent, Justice Stewart, who had no problem with birth control per se, said this about the Constitution of the United States and the Griswold decision:
Since 1879 Connecticut has had on its books a law which forbids the use of contraceptives by anyone. I think this is an uncommonly silly law. As a practical matter, the law is obviously unenforceable, except in the oblique context of the present case. As a philosophical matter, I believe the use of contraceptives in the relationship of marriage should be left to personal and private choice, based upon each individual's moral, ethical and religious beliefs. As a matter of social policy, I think professional counsel about methods of birth control should be available to all, so that each individual's choice can be meaningfully made. But we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that I cannot do.
So from the very beginning the Griswold decision raised concerns among those who felt that the framers of the Constitution did indeed know precisely what they meant, and that they never intended for the Constitution to be interpreted to affect how birth control or abortion was legally treated in this country. But, as history has shown, political activist judges did not agree in 1965 and they do not agree today. The Griswold decision, in my opinion, was instigated by Dr. Griswold, a Planned Parenthood physician, to set the stage for decriminalizing abortion just eight short years later. It was, in essence, Planned Parenthood’s greatest victory.
But I digress!
In a few days The Pill Kills protests will take place in cities across the nation. Today American Life League premiered our latest video news report with the subject The Pill Kills.
And just today the National Organization for Women issued an alert, or should I say, an all-out attack on The Pill Kills events. They are, in a word, desperate. Their screed, "Expose the Lies: Protect Birth Control," is accompanied by a "fact sheet" and other hype. The real blessing in all this is, of course, that those who have been lying to women for the last 43 plus years simply cannot comprehend the idea that the facts about the pill are finally going to be told, shared and otherwise spread across the nation.
No wonder they are so distraught.
Perhaps this is why the pro-abortion, anti-family NOW says,
Birth Control Doesn't Intervene with Pregnancy, it Prevents it. Combination birth control pills function to prevent pregnancy by delivering a daily dose of two hormones, estrogen and progestin. These hormones stop the release of an egg from a woman's ovaries, eliminating the chance that an egg would join with sperm. These hormones also cause a woman's cervical mucus to thicken, blocking any sperm from joining an egg.
NOW conveniently leaves out the third mode of action of the pill which is to irritate the lining of the uterus so that the embryonic child cannot implant and therefore dies. The architects of the culture of death haven’t stopped deceiving people, even though the scientific evidence is mounting. They cannot afford to tell the truth because if they did, women would no longer invest in one of the most lucrative pharmaceutical discoveries of the past century!
But perhaps the most telling statement on the NOW "fact sheet" is this one: "Birth Control is one Component of Reproductive Freedom."
What exactly is reproductive freedom?
The American Civil Liberties Union says reproductive freedom is "everyone's right to make informed decisions free from government interference about whether and when to become a parent."
Or to put it another way, every person should have the right, with legal protection, to kill their babies before birth if they have chosen not to become a parent at the time they discover they are with child. Everyone has the right to ingest chemicals that will remove the possibility of the preborn child growing. Everyone has the right to be free of responsibility and free of moral guidelines when it comes to human sexuality.
To put it succinctly: Everyone should have the right to do evil regardless of the harm done.
This is the situation in America today; American Life League is striving to change it! But we need you!
We need you to get active and do something now. Please plan to be part of The Pill Kills protests on Saturday, June 7. Decide today to join thousands all across the nation – your fellow Americans who love life and want to tell the truth about the fact that the pill kills. They will be out in force protesting and hopefully you will be too.
Complete details including maps showing where protests are taking place can be found at www.thepillkills.com.
Griswold v. Connecticut is pretty darn confusing. So confusing, in fact, that I can't tell if it's downright stupid or not 'cuz it's so blasted confusing!
Judie,
Unfortunately, it would seem as if mainstream America doesn't give a care about morals. Morals are considered to be connected with religion, which is basically the opposite of our culture right now. People do care when others die, though. Whether it's moral to have affairs, do contraception, etc. is a gray area and to muddled to mess with with very high expectations, in my opinion. I would go with the hard science. Isaac K. | June 10, 2008
PERSONHOOD AND LIES! Posted: Sunday June 1, 2008 at 12:02 pm EST by Judie Brown
No sooner had the personhood amendment qualified for the ballot in Colorado than the outrageous comments commenced. One would have thought that Chicken Little had come back from the dead and was once again running around telling everyone that the sky was falling. Though in this case it wasn’t the sky falling but the culture of death’s sexually saturated cultural agenda getting a wakeup call – a call they not only detest but are committed to ending with defeat.
The amendment, known as "Definition of a Person" would provide protection to all human beings as persons from the "moment of fertilization." While it is clear that this language will not protect innocent human beings "created" by asexual methods such as cloning, the amendment is a huge step toward the victory we all seek – a victory that will end abortion in our nation once and for all if the Supreme Court ever decides to be honest and forthright in their decision-making process. But I digress.
The opponents, namely Protect Families, Protect Choice, argue that the language is "vague and deceptive" and they go on to tell the public, most accurately I might add, that the language would encroach on everything from abortion to contraception and in vitro fertilization. They are in an absolute frenzy because for the first time in the history of the pro-life movement the citizens of a state are going to be able to hear the truth and that is enough to frighten any member of the pro-death cadre that has used deceptive tactics since day one. Their brain-washing techniques are about to get shaken up. It is no wonder that they are screaming bloody murder. Excuse me, bloody murder is part of their business, now isn’t it?
Sorry for the poor choice in words.
When American Right to Life congratulated Colorado for Equal Rights on their stunning victory, qualifying for the ballot with at least 30,000 more signatures than they needed, Brian Rohrbough, president of American RTL, said,
For the first time in forty years of 'legalized' child killing, pro-lifers have moved an entire state to consider the God-given right to life of the unborn. We thank sponsor Kristi Burton of Colorado for Equal Rights, the 500 participating churches, and Colorado RTL for getting personhood on the November ballot.
But the pro-death Birth Control Watch organization took a different tactic, stating "It's Official: This November Colorado will Consider Whether Fertilized Eggs Are Human Beings." Already they are committed to dehumanizing the preborn child, calling him by an improper name in order to convince people that human embryos are no different than chicken eggs and doing all they can to obfuscate fact. This is nothing new, of course.
But I think that in this age of 4-D ultrasound, immense support from Colorado Christian churches and dedication the likes of which we at American Life League have never seen from a local grass roots effort, the pro-aborts are in for a huge surprise. They can persist, if they wish, in their deception but the truth will no longer be hidden from public view.
Even bloggers are beginning to do their homework, digging down and attempting to discern the truth even though many medical organizations have been quick to deny that a human being exists at fertilization/conception/point of creation. For example, in a popular Christian blog, written by Presbyterian pastors David and Tim Bayly, we find this little-known quote from a 1998 medical journal:
Note the call for ACOG to start defining terms dealing with human beings and pregnancy with accuracy rather than political correctness.
It is our fervent hope and prayer that the effort in Colorado succeeds and there are signs everywhere that it just might do precisely that! Onward with PERSONHOOD!
CALIFORNIA THINLY VEILS EUTHANASIA Posted: Saturday May 31, 2008 at 6:30 pm EST by Judie Brown
The California Assembly recently passed AB2747, a bill that entitles those with less than one year to live or diagnosed with a terminal illness to receive information on end-of-life options from their physician if they request it. This may sound innocent on its face, but digging into the legislation a bit reveals the horrendous nature of what this bill actually approves.
If the health care provider does not want to provide the information to the patient, he can make a referral instead! While this is a violation of conscience for the ethical physician, I will comment on that later. First, I'd like to discuss the bill’s recommendations of options for end of life care. They are:
Refusal or withdrawal of life sustaining treatment
Voluntary stopping of eating and drinking
If this sounds acceptable to you, perhaps you need to review the definitions. For example, "'Refusal or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments' means forgoing treatment or medical procedures that replace or support an essential bodily function, including, but not limited to, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, artificial nutrition and hydration, dialysis and any other treatment or discontinuing any or all of those treatments after they have been used for a reasonable time."
Let us not forget that the use of a ventilator is sometimes the only way to provide comfort for a dying patient. We also know that the provision of nutrition and hydration protects the patient from the pain and agony caused by starving to death. The only exception that would be morally acceptable to this would be if the patient’s body simply could not process the nutrition or hydration or if the provision of either caused undue pain.
Clearly, these ethical principles are not the foundation for California’s legislation. I say this because the author of the legislation, state Assemblywoman Patty Berg has long been an advocate of various forms of euthanasia. She was described by Time magazine on May 28, 2005 as a lawmaker who was pressing for legalization of doctor-assisted suicide. At that time Berg said, "Aid in dying happens in every state. We need to bring it out of the closet, impose legal safeguards and careful oversight."
In 2007 Berg revived her attempt to decriminalize euthanasia in a proposal the Death with Dignity National Center identified as the Compassionate Choices Act. The bill was an exact model of Oregon’s physician assisted suicide bill.
Even the secular news reporting agency, Times-Standard On Line, defined "palliative sedation" in precisely the way the legislation does:
The practice of administering sedative medication to the point of rendering a patient unconscious as a way to alleviate intense pain and other clinical symptoms.
This is predicated on the subjective opinions of those medical professionals in attendance, of course, and is a definition that is easily abused. For, as Nancy Valko, R.N. has written:
While some euthanasia supporters have called Terminal Sedation "inhumane" compared with a faster death by a lethal overdose, other supporters view TS as a way of getting around the 'problem' of the euthanasia movement's inability – so far – to convince voters or state legislatures to enact Oregon-style assisted suicide laws.
Increasingly, TS is being incorporated into some hospice and other "end of life" programs, even though, as writer Brian Johnston points out, euthanasia supporters like Doctor David Orentlicher are admitting in prestigious medical journals that "terminal sedation is tantamount to euthanasia, or a kind of slow euthanasia."
Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families told the media, upon the narrow passage of this bill by the California Assembly,
Just as the assisted-suicide bills of the last three years have been rejected, so should the California Legislature reject AB 2747. Assisted suicide by total sedation ignores the sanctity of human life and violates life-affirming medical ethics. People who are ill need support, spiritual care and counseling if they're depressed. But AB 2747 would ensure the death of innocent Californians at the hands of an increasingly unscrupulous insurance industry that regards people cheaper dead than alive.
Indeed, that is precisely the problem. The ethical practice of medicine, which is based on using every precaution to preserve life and provide comfort care, will be replaced by the grotesque practice of redefining compassion as the active pursuit of death.
and...this is supposed to be compassonate..how? sounds like the days when the Nazis killed all the disabled and "useless people" during the holocost. oy. Emmie K. | June 3, 2008
HABITAT FOR INHUMANITY Posted: Thursday May 29, 2008 at 11:27 am EST by Judie Brown
In case you have not been following the latest Planned Parenthood saga, it involves a potential deal between a Christian ministry, Habitat for Humanity, and the world’s leading proponent of abortion, Planned Parenthood. It seems that Planned Parenthood could not get zoning privileges on its own for an abortion mill it wanted to build in the Rosemary district of Sarasota, Florida.
Can you imagine the whining that must have gone on among Planned Parenthood planners at that point? But then a Christian ministry willing to partner with the evil empire came to their rescue. It makes me sick to think about this, but then I recall how Planned Parenthood got its start and everything falls into place.
Margaret Sanger, so many years ago, set about the business of helping the poor by convincing them that through the use of birth control they could better themselves – at least that was her public message. But the truth of the matter was that she detested the less fortunate, as was made patently clear in her book The Pivot of Civilization in which she argued that,
organized attempts to help the poor were the ‘surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating . . . defectives, delinquents, and dependents.’ She called for coercive sterilization, mandatory segregation, and rehabilitative concentration camps for all inferior blacks, Hispanics, poor whites and Catholics.
One has to wonder if the leadership of Habitat for Humanity has ever examined the roots of this infamous organization they seem so willing to help in their time of need to build yet another killing center.
As Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League said:
I don’t see how building a residence next to an organization that kills babies, pushes pornography and covers up for rapists gives a family dignity or safety. We are calling on everyone to contact Habitat for Humanity and demand they break this agreement.
You can help by contacting Habitat for Humanity of Sarasota, Florida. That organization can be reached at 941-365-0700 and tsouza@sarasotahabitat.com. Habitat for Humanity International’s complaint line is 1-800-461-9330.
Habitat for Humanity International is a nonprofit, ecumenical Christian housing ministry. HFHI seeks to eliminate poverty housing and homelessness from the world, and to make decent shelter a matter of conscience and action.
Clearly the definition of ecumenical "efforts to promote Christian unity" could not possibly be construed to include the commitment to eugenics that provides the foundation for everything in which Planned Parenthood’s is involved.
In the Wednesday STOPP Report, American Life League’s Stop Planned Parenthood International has been keeping the grassroots constituents informed of this evolving story and most recently shared the following:
The CEO of Habitat for Humanity in Sarasota, Tony Souza, is telling callers that the paperwork has not yet been signed and that he is having some doubts. But, he says, it is ultimately up to Habitat's Board of Directors. According to its web site, the current board members are Zeb Portanova, James Frederick, Bob Ripley, Fred Scheerle, Brock Leach, Bill Johnson, Ken Pendery, Bruce Franklin, John Schaub III, Rich Gerrity, Erin McLeod, Mark Usher, Patrick Ryskamp, Laurin Ripley, Dr. Peter Wish, Bruce Wismer, Dr. Peter A. Wish and Janice Zarro.
Please add these board members to your mailing lists and send e-mails to them at info@sarasotahabitat.com.
Interestingly, Habitat board member Bruce Franklin is reportedly a principal in the ADP Group, the architectural firm for the PP abortuary.
We encourage all STOPPers to contact Habitat for Humanity and ask that they break this agreement: Habitat for Humanity, 1757 N. East Ave., Sarasota, FL 34234, 941-365-0700, tsouza@sarasotahabitat.com.
We also encourage you to contact Habitat for Humanity International to register your complaint. You can reach them at 1-800-HABITAT. They also have a complaint line: 1-800-461-9330. Pease contact both of these numbers and let them know that Habitat should have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood. Contact, Duane Bates, Director of Public and Media Relations 404-733-3079, dbates@habitat.org.
In all of our communications with these people we should reflect our love of Christ and truth, never being harsh or judgmental in our comments. Let us focus on the truth about Planned Parenthood and remind Habitat for Humanity of its commitment to Christian principles.
Hi Judie! I hope Habitat For Humanity will find the courage to do what they know what is right, and not be so desperate for money that they compromise Christian values.
Chantell Chantell | May 29, 2008
Emailed Souza. Now he just has to read it. I remind you all, one email isn't gonna do much. It just takes 5 minutes of your time, 5 minutes that may save countless lives. Email! Isaac K. | June 2, 2008
Thanks for keeping us informed Judie, I\'ll post the info on other forums. Expose and stand. Robert in Colorado | June 5, 2008
Dear Judie,
Thank you for your tireless work on behalf of the unborn and the old and terminally ill. You are definitely part of the "Living Bible"! I just sent the following message to Habitat of Humnity and pray that thousands of others will send their thoughts.
To the directors of Habitat for Humanity in Sarasota, FL:
Having just read information saying that your group, which I have always admired and have encouraged my students to get involved with, is partnering with Planned Parenthood, I felt I had to contact you. I am just writing to ask you to please reconsider this position. Habitat for Humanity has always been about making life more livable for those who cannot make it on their own. I ask, who can be more vulnerable ... who can need more help to survive than an innocent baby in the womb. Yet, that is the target of destruction for Planned Parenthood. They kill innocent in vitro babies ... and they promote promiscuity among girls and women of childbearing age. Those actions are taking "the hammers of destruction" to our society. Your organization has always been about taking 'hammers of construction" up to build society ... to aid the family.
Once again, please, please, please for the sake of the voiceless ones in the wombs and the vulnerable moms, do not allow another abortuary to be built because of your actions.
Thank you,
Monica
Monica C | June 8, 2008
Is there any new news on this partnership? I emailed the contacts above only to get a scripted response. I would really like to know if this partnership is taking place. Compassion International has done projects recently with Habitat and we sponsor a child through them. We need info so that we can further encourage Compassion to not partner with Habitat, or withdraw our sponsorship. Thank you. Tara Shaver | June 12, 2008
Dear Tara:
As I reported in a blog last Friday, Habitat for Humanity cut off their relationship with Planned Parenthood. PRAISE GOD!
THE ARCHBISHOP’S CLARIFIER DISAPPOINTS! Posted: Tuesday May 27, 2008 at 7:54 pm EST by Judie Brown
Not too long ago I wrote a blog entitled "A Tale of Two Bishops". In that commentary I applauded Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann and his fellow Kansas bishops for taking a stern line with pro-abortion Catholic Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. His original commentary made it sound like the governor was going to be refused the sacrament of Holy Communion because the archbishop’s repeated efforts to persuade her to recant of her support for abortion had failed.
I was wrong!
As a matter of fact, in an article published by the Capital-Journal, the reporter references the archbishop’s most recent column. In that column the archbishop responded to questions about his original column. Here is the most crucial question and answer in the current article:
Q. Is a priest or another minister of Communion ever required to deny someone Communion?
A. Canon 915 of the church’s law states: “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” In my request to Governor Sebelius, I have made clear that it is her responsibility not to present herself for reception of Holy Communion. I am hopeful that she will comply with this request.
Pastorally, it is certainly preferable not to burden ministers of the Eucharist with the responsibility to refuse Communion to someone. Ministers of Communion do have an obligation to protect the sacrament from misuse or abuse. I have, at this moment, not asked the ministers of the Eucharist not to give Holy Communion to the governor.
There is a startling admission in the archbishop’s answer to this question which simply cannot go unexamined by anyone who thinks about the meaning of the words contained in Catholic Church law, Cannon 915. The archbishop is admitting that as far as he is concerned, this Canon Law does not apply to pro-abortion Catholic Governor Sebelius!
Please allow me to make it perfectly clear: The Church law the archbishop quotes specifically says that, “those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” In other words, those who will not publicly repent of their support for the manifest grave sin of abortion are not to be given the holy sacrament containing the body and blood of Christ.
This means that the ordained priest, deacon or extraordinary Eucharistic minister should deny the governor if she approaches one of them for the sacrament.
We know the archbishop has said that he has made repeated efforts to get the governor to repudiate her record and that she has been intransigent in her support of abortion, most recently her veto of the partial birth abortion law. Clearly the governor is recalcitrant!
Yet the archbishop explains that he is not asking his priests, deacons or extraordinary Eucharistic ministers to deny Holy Communion to the governor. He is not doing what he says the Canon Law requires of him and of those assigned to distribute the sacrament.
Why not? What kind of message is he sending to Catholics in Kansas?
He does not tell us. It is clear, however, that he is shifting responsibility away from those who should be protecting the body and blood of Christ from sacrilege. Who is responsible? Well, according to what he has said, we assume he trusts the governor!
To my mind this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read or heard in quite some time. And believe me, I mean no disrespect to the archbishop, but in contradicting his own quote of Church law he is spreading confusion among the faithful, and I cannot understand why he would do such a thing.
Perhaps the saddest part of all this is that had he chosen to enforce Church law in this case, he might well have provided Governor Sebelius with an opportunity to reflect in the seriousness of her actions, and maybe she would have wanted so desperately to receive Christ that she would have sought His forgiveness for her egregious acts of support for the deadly act of abortion. We will never know!
It is clear that Archbishop Naumann has created a scandal himself by misrepresenting the intent of Canon 915. He is sending a message to those entrusted to his care that abortion is really not such a grave sin after all. Otherwise he would have made it perfectly clear that he not only will be refusing the governor Holy Eucharist but making certain that his flock understands why this must be done.
How tragic! How very sad! How shameful!
I have to agree with my dear friend Barbara Kralis, a well-known Catholic columnist who has been writing on Canon 915 for the better part of five years now. Barbara e-mailed me earlier today about this sad state of affairs in Kansas and said: Woe to Naumann!
O my Judie! What is this archbishop's excuse? Does he want to be "tolerent of different views? I have heard of Catholic/Christian families who profess strong, moral, pro-life beliefs, BUT if their teenage daughter got pregnant outside of marriage, they would FORCE her to have an abortion! Like I said I'm not Catholic, I'm Evangelical, but I think we are all in the same boat here, especially when it comes to abortion. I'd say in a case like this, that unless they repent of their behavior in a situation like this, they should be excommunicated from the church!
Chantell Chantell | May 27, 2008
Sadly, many times, when one looks under the covers of purported Catholic statements, one finds that they are not so Catholic after all in that an 'out' is invariably given for the commission of Mortal Sin! Here is another case, as rightfully described by Judy Brown, and Barbara Kralis who sounded the alarms. Why is it so difficult for our bishops to act Catholic in the matter of Canon 915? The cold hard truth is that Kansas Governor Sebelius deserves formal excommunication many times over for her continued blatant promotion of the entirety of a culture-of-ETERNAL-death, for the love of God, as has been documented in detail to the extreme of her supporting the notorious 'Dr.' Tiller, who is guilty of infanticide! Do the bishops of apostates like Sebelius care so little for their immortal souls, and the souls of those put at risk of eternal perdition by this crowd, that they will do nothing in the face of their repeated public scandal caused to Holy Mother Church? Catholic bishops in more than name only don't do 'Pontius Pilates' when it comes to defending the Faith from the attacks of those who are destroying Holy Mother Church from within! Gary L. Morella | May 28, 2008
Praise God for your tenacity in keeping the public up-to-date on the actions of the archbishop regarding the governor of Kansas. I have read your \"Saving Those Damned Catholics\" .. I have shared it with others. I think what you are doing is so phenomenal. k You are the voice of Christ and whenever I can I am your echo. Thank you for all you do. Monica Caffarella | May 28, 2008
Mindful of the solemn words of our Lord (cf. Mt. 18:6, 7; Jn. 19:11) and the admonition of the Apostle Paul (cf. I Cor. 10:21; I Cor. 11:27-30), let us pray that our Bishops will uphold the Church's teaching" that "the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained" (cf. Catechism, # 1374) in the Most Holy Eucharist and enforce the personal conditions required to approach our Lord in Holy Communion devouty, reverently, and fruitfully (cf. Catechism, # 1385, 1415, 1457; Mysterium Fidei; Ecclesia de Eucharistia, # 35-39; Redemptionis Sacramentum, # 80-86; Sacramentum Caritatis, # 52, 55, 83).
Each and every Bishop has a solemn obligation to protect our Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist from sacrilege (cf. Canons 392, 897, 898, 915, 916, 1367, 1376). Indeed some clergy, religious, and lay faithful have risked and even sacrificed their very lives to prevent desecration and sacrilege, such was their faith and love for our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament.
In Pope John Paul II's final encyclical before his death, he reminded us that "there can be no danger of excess in our care for this mystery, for 'in this Sacrament is recapitulated the whole mystery of our salvation'" (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, # 61).
Likewise he issued an urgent plea that "in an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favoritism" (Redemptionis Sacramentum, # 183).
Pray and do penance for our Church!
For our Holy Father, the Bishops, priests, and deacons, consecrated religious, lay faithful, and fallen-away Catholics!
Make reparation for offenses committed against our Lord in the MOst Holy Eucharist! Joe Savey | May 28, 2008
RE: "...it is certainly preferable not to burden ministers of the Eucharist with the responsibility to refuse Communion..." But, unfortunately, in this case it IS their "burden" and "responsibility." There are a lot of things one would rather not have to do, but they do them because they are the right thing to do. The Supreme Sanctity of the Most Blessed Sacrament, good order of the Church, preaching the Gospel, avoidance of scandal and the salvation of souls are a burden and responsibility. For some reason the bulk of Bishop's do not grasp the gravity of the present situation. Fr. William J Kuchinsky | May 28, 2008
Chantell:
Some Christians often have trouble facing truth and teaching it without compromise; your analysis is correct.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | May 29, 2008
Excellent Judie...as always. I just sent it to William Donohue of Catholic League who was praising Archbishop Naumann.
Let's keep holding the feet of the bishops to the fire. Better to be burned now than for eternity. Nicholas Landholt | May 29, 2008
Nothing in Archbishop Naumann???s quote is untrue. Nothing in his quote is contradictory. Nothing in his process of pastoral discernment has been faulty???in fact, he has been stellar and one of our most courageous examples to date???he???s been on this consistently for his entire time as auxiliary bishop, bishop, and archbishop. Nothing indicates that he is unwilling to give the order of refusal to Eucharistic ministers???just not yet, according to this out of context quote from an interview.
Further; I do not think it is the place of a priest, deacon & much less an EME to make a decision as to the worthiness of ANYONE coming to receive the Sacrament. How is one to know if a person has come ???righted their wrong??? in the minutes, hours or days before. Archbishop Naumann would be placing an inappropriate and excessive burden on his people if he so directed them. This is clearly a situation to be worked out by the Governor and her alone. The Archbishop has /is giving her the opportunity to do so.
This kind of criticism is ridiculously counterproductive, I think.
Deacon Richard Petersen | May 30, 2008
Dear Deacon Petersen:
There is nothing akin to making a decision about the worthiness of anyone coming to receive Communion - the body and blood of Christ - in the enforcement of Canon 915 which applies to PUBLIC figures whose total support for abortion and their claim to be Catholic are both well-known.
I think you should review what the archbishop said again, sir. The Canon Law was written for a specific reason as Pope Benedict pointed out, as then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, when he set forth the rules regarding the WORTHINESS TO RECIVE HOLY COMMUNION.
You can find that document on the Internet at http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?RecNum=6041
Judie Brown Judie Brown | May 31, 2008
Dear Judie,
You read something into Archbishop Naumanns original words which was not there: that the governor would immediately be denied communion. YOU were wrong - the bishop did not mis-speak.
Now you are again not reading carefully. The bishop said (emphasis added by me): I have, AT THIS MOMENT, not asked the ministers of the Eucharist not to give Holy Communion to the governor.
Did the words AT THIS TIME not register with you? Why did you gloss over them?
Archbishop Naumann is one of the best friends you have. I hope in your zeal for the good you will not forget that. It is much easier to write blog entries than to be a bishop. Joe Bruce | June 1, 2008
Do we have no strong Christian leaders in this country? Or are we a bunch of apathetic, wishywashy wimps? Stick to your guns. If someone has committed or supported this heinous sin, they should not, I repeat should not, under any circumstances recieve Communion unless they have repented. Period, no compromise, no apologies. Isaac K. | June 1, 2008
Strong ???Pro-Life??? and ???Anti-Abortion??? concerns are not just a catholic issue, nor a religious or legal issue. It is a life issue honored by people all over the world, in various religions and political parties, because they have a conscience, a moral compass that is magnetized by God's influence. His influence is greatest in the hearts of those who believe the Bible (especially those regenerated by faith in Acts 2:38). But according to St John chapter 1, He still can speak even to unregenerate consciences all over the world. Charles Sproull | June 2, 2008
Dear Joe:
Thank you for your comments, but I want to tell you that I did not gloss over his words. I read them very carefully.
What is particularly sad is that while he continues to withhold the order to enforce Canon Law 915 Sebelius is partying with George Tiller, one of the most infamous abortionists in this nation.
I believe with all my heart that every bishops is a friend; I also believe that evil requires a response and that Canon Law 915 is not a matter of opinion.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | June 2, 2008
Judie,
May I first start by saying that I offer a prayer for you.
I am responding to your comments in regards to Archbishop Naumann, and his recent actions in regards to Governor Sebelius. I have a few comments bulleted by each paragraph.
I want to write and remind you of one simple fact: you are not a bishop! So often we are all quick to judge another\'s actions without having put ourselves in his/her place. You or I have NO IDEA what it is like to be a bishop and be in the position to make decisions such as Archbishop Naumann has had to face or other such decisions. Knowing Archbishop Naumann, I highly doubt that he would put out on the internet some slanderous writings telling everyone on his email list how he thinks you could do your job differently and how you have screwed everything up for everybody, which is exactly what you have done to him. As a Christian, keep in mind the commandment that God gives to us, ???Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.???
Another suggestion that I have for you is to step back and put yourself in the place of an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist. Maybe you are already one. If a person such as Gov. Sebelius presented herself to you for the reception of the Body and/or Blood of Christ, what exactly would you do? It is easy to say that ideologically you would deny her Communion, but really, would you? Would you make the scene in the middle of Mass that it would cause? Please keep that in mind.
Additionally, I want you to understand that Archbishop Naumann is not a person to just act irrationally and without much forethought in his actions. He, undoubtedly, has spent much time in the actions with Gov. Sebelius and in his subsequent articles of explanation. Please give him more credit than you have dared to do. I challenge you that the next time you write such an article as this, that you spend as much time thinking about your words as Archbishop Naumann spent thinking about his words.
I realize that you are in a position of high authority. Many take what you write and receive it as gospel truth. I ask that you take that responsibility seriously and keep that in mind before you write such articles bashing the leaders of Holy Mother Church. I am asking that, in the name of setting an example, you send out an email with an apology to Archbishop Naumann for your comments.
You call yourself Catholic and yet are quick to judge those who, by being a Catholic, you believe that God has called to lead the Roman Catholic Church. I am assuming that if the Pope had done the same actions as Archbishop Naumann, you wouldn???t dare to make a comment due to his position. Remember that whether priest, bishop, or pope, all are vicars of Christ and deserve the same amount of respect.
Due to your actions, I do not plan on supporting American Life League anymore. It is a loss for you, and I apologize for this. Please remember that just as you have accused Archbishop Naumann of leading people astray, so, too, have you. You have caused people to have a hatred toward him and other bishops. As a Catholic, we are called to lead people to Christ and His Church. You have done just the opposite. I pray that you will review your actions on this and other such similar actions. Always remember the position of influence that you are in, as Archbishop Naumann does when he makes such decisions as he has.
I will pray for the state of your soul and for your conversion of heart on this matter.
Sincerely,
Katie Soer
Katie Soer | June 4, 2008
Katie,
Catherine of Sienna told the Pope what to do. What's new? Paul | June 5, 2008
Dear Katie:
Thank you for your comments. I would like to respond and will do so by paragraph, as you did in your message to me.
FIRST PARAGRAPH:
I have not judged anybody in the comments I have made about the archbishop's decision the matter of Kathleen Sebelius. His public statement is one that can be examined on its face and that is what I have done.
There is no slander in my commentary, and i do suggest you read it again.
SECOND PARAGRAPH:
If I were an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist and a Catholic politician well known to me who was also a public supporter of aborting children approached me for the body and blood of Christ, I would place my hand over the cup and express my hope that the person facing me would understand that public support for abortion means that she is not entitled to receive Christ until she has repented of her sin. That is my obligation as someone who should at all times he willing to protected Christ from sacrilege.
PARAGRAPH THREE:
I thought long and hard about my words, Katie, and again, it is a sadness that grips my heart when I see any bishop step away from what I know he knows is the right thing to do, regardless of how it might be perceived in the public square. I realize that refusing someone the Eucharist is not a popular action, but imagine the teaching moment he would have not only for the governor and the salvation of her soul, but for every one of his flock.
PARAGRAPH FOUR:
I am not in a position of "high authority" but rather a Catholic pro-life leader with a high degree of responsibility. Indeed I do take my responsibilities seriously, Katie, and prayerfully because just like you and anyone else who is a human being, I am a sinner by the very nature of who I am and thus more than capable of error.
PARAGRAPH FIVE:
Once again, Katie, I judged nobody. I did not slander the archbishop but rather commented on the public record. Each and every ordained priest and deacon deserves respect, Katie, but none are perfect. The One who IS perfect died for our sins.
PARAGRAPH SIX:
I am sorry that you will no longer support our work but I understand and respect your principles. I have caused no one to hate Archbishop Naumann, Katie, but I hope I have caused people to think seriously about WHO exists in the sacrament of Holy Communion and why it is only right and just to deny Christ to those who mock Him by their public actions.
Thank you, Katie, for your remarks. I hope that we will still remain friends and coworkers in Christ's vineyard. And by the way,
Just after Archbishop Naumann issued his clarification, news broke that last year the governor hosted a fund raiser attended by Kansas' Number One abortionist, George Tiller.
The report at KansasCity.com included this:
"Sebelius, a Democrat, is a strong abortion-rights supporter and she has repeatedly vetoed legislation sought by anti-abortion groups. Earlier this month, the Roman Catholic archbishop for northeast Kansas said Sebelius, who is Catholic, should stop taking Communion until she repudiates her stance and her past actions."
SCALIA THE ENEMY Posted: Monday May 26, 2008 at 9:47 pm EST by Judie Brown
It came as no surprise when a dear friend, Andy V. of Minnesota, wrote me concerning a comment Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made during an interview with Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes on April 27. Since I never watch network programming, which is, I presume, a blessing, I simply had no idea what the Catholic Scalia had said.
"What is the connection between your Catholicism, your Jesuit education, and your judicial philosophy?" Stahl asks.
"It has nothing to do with how I decide cases," Scalia replies. "My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don't count pregnant women twice."
If this shocks you, stay tuned – there’s more!
Paul Benjamin Linton, an attorney for a preeminent pro-life legal organization, Americans United for Life, pointed out years ago – six years ago to be exact – in an article published in First Things:
No present or past justice has ever taken the position that the unborn child is, or should be regarded as, a "person" as understood in the Fourteenth Amendment, including the late Justice White, perhaps the most eloquent critic of Roe v. Wade. And in the Carhart case, the Court refused even to consider Nebraska’s argument that a partially born child is a constitutional person. That question was rejected for review without dissent. So much for the naive notion of "forcing" the Court to take on the personhood issue.
But there is more than silence to indicate the justice's views. Dissenting in Casey, Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "The states may, if they wish, permit abortion-on-demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so."
Clearly the bandied about statement that Justice Antonin Scalia is "pro-life" is not only false but misleading to the core.
Whether we examine Scalia’s stated position in light of his alleged Catholicism or in light of his personal opinion of the yet-to-be-born individual whose life begins at the point he is created – whether through the union of human sperm and human egg or some type of reproductive technology – the justice errs.
One might wonder why it is, then, that legal scholars like Clarke Forsythe, Americans United for Life president, insist that those who support personhood for the preborn are wrong and Scalia is somehow more accurate! Oh yes, my friends.
In his recent article, "A Lack of Prudence," Forsythe writes about those who took issue with Scalia’s agreement in the recent Supreme Court decision dealing with the Partial Birth Abortion law, Carhart v. Gonzales. He suggests that we do not respect the justice nor do we treat him with the charity that is due him. While I guess that might be the perception in some quarters, I have to ask how much respect Scalia is showing the teachings of his own Church when he makes it patently clear that it’s wrong to think that we should treat human beings in the womb in the same way we treat other human beings who, thank God, have escaped the womb!
Where is the respect for those lives that Scalia dismisses as if they were simply unworthy of consideration?
Not only is Scalia’s comment on Sixty Minutes flip and downright ridiculous, as a matter of fact, it is heretical.
Yes, I said his comment was heretical and I do know what that word means. I am not calling the Justice a heretic, I am simply saying that his comment is a stark departure from the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. If you wish to check for yourself and understand what the Church teaches, see this from Pope John Paul II in his May 24, 1996 address to those who attended the symposium "Evangelium Vitae and the Law,"
While distinguishing between the sciences concerned, and recognizing that the attribution of the concept of person is a philosophical issue, we must assume, as our starting point, the biological status of the embryo, which is a human individual having the qualities and dignity proper to the person.
The human embryo has basic rights, that is, it possesses indispensable constituents for a being's connatural activity to be able to take place according to its own vital principle.
Let’s say you are reading this and have little concern about what the Catholic Church teaches on the identity and status of the human embryo. You are of course entitled to an opinion on that, but what about the scientific evidence? As John Shea, M.D. wrote in his article "The Pre-Embryo Question,"
It was first demonstrated in 1980 by Jean Smith of Queen's College, Flushing, New York, that the human body has a shape from the moment of fertilization. This was confirmed by Richard Gardner, an embryologist at Oxford University, U.K., in 2002. Which side of the microscopic embryo will form the back and head are not left to later development as has been believed by embryologists, but are determined in the minutes and hours after the sperm and egg unite to form a new human being. The "newly fertilized egg has a definite top - bottom axis that sets up the equivalent axis in the future embryo." The early mammalian embryo is no longer a "featureless ball of cells."
The scientific verification of the human embryo as human being is available to anyone who has the desire to study the development of the human embryo and understand that he or she has unrepeatable characteristics from the beginning.
Regardless of your preference – Catholic teaching or scientific fact – when examining the positions taken by a United States Supreme Court Justice who is allegedly pro-life, the above documentation makes it perfectly clear that Justice Scalia does not deserve that title. He may be conservative and yes, he may be a strict interpreter of the Constitution of the United States in the opinion of some, but he is not pro-life.
In fact, having thought about his most recent comments on 60 Minutes, I would venture to say he is one of the preborn child’s worst enemies.
Hi Judie! I think politicions sometimes flip-flop on issues to get votes. That's awful! They need to stick by their beliefs, and not constantly worry about getting votes!
Chantell Chantell | May 26, 2008
The more I read on ALL website, the more I am convinced that if we are to become a pro-life country and become a Culture of LIfe, it will have to come from the grassroots--and not any of the 3 branches of government. Making laws that support human life or having pro-life judges, will not change people\'s hearts. This is a spiritual battle between good and evil more than anything--and there are some evils that can only be conquered by prayer and fasting. Yes, education does play a big part, but love for the child and the mother must be the primary motivation and supercede all other motives. vl | May 27, 2008
Notice how Justice Scalia says, "You don't count pregnant women twice." He made this statement deliberately. What he is referring to is his belief that unborn children aren't persons because they've never been counted/included in the Census. For a great rebuttal of this argument, please read this article: http://shinbone.home.att.net/nino.2.htm
This article is a rebuttal that I don't think Justice Scalia has heard. If we had the resources and technology to include all hobos in the Census, then we would and should, as we would and should for babies. Well, we actually do have the resources and technology to go out and rehabilitate hobos so that we can register them, and we could require or strongly encourage mothers to register their unborn babies upon detection.
But just because we don't do these things, and just because we don't include all unborn babies and hobos, does NOT give Scalia justification to discount babies as persons and citizens. If he doesn't do it for hobos, then he shouldn't do it for babies.
Presented with a constitutional amendment that establishes preborn personhood and preborn citizenship at the state-level, it'd be very hard for Justice Scalia to argue that unborn babies are not also citizens at the federal level.
It seems Justice Scalia would uphold a state personhood amendment, but not a federal personhood statute like The Right to Life Act. It seems that he'd be committing heresy if he opposed both, but the fact that he supports the state personhood amendment does mean that he favors preborn personhood. And if he was a federal legislator, then he would vote for a federal personhood amendment. But as a Justice, he honestly believes that the 14th Am. doesn't apply to unborn babies. So, either the Constitution itself is heretical for not protecting unborn babies, or it does protect unborn babies in which Justice Scalia is heretical.
What do you think? Daniel | May 27, 2008
In regard to this article, the following thoughts are in order.
Scalia cannot get the seminal Catholic truth right that the state deserves no say whatsoever on whether abortion is OK. The state is obliged to obey God\'s Law for promotion of the common good in leading ultimately to a supernatural good in accord with God\'s Divine Plan for His Creation. In the traditional Catholic view, the state derives its authority from God (although the people may from time to time decide who exercises that authority), and the state is subject to the law of God including the Natural Law. In the Enlightenment view, the state derives its authority horizontally, from the people. It is the people, rather than the Law of God, which defines in what way, if any, the power of the state will be limited. And, if the people give rights, the people can take them away. Just who or what is appealed to in the absence of universal moral absolutes as a function of God\'s Law? What do you do when your neighbor\'s personally created \"universe of rights,\" as a function of his \"autonomous unencumbered self\" conflicts with yours? Easy answer - anarchy results!
To fallaciously argue, as Scalia does, in a strictly positive law sense, that the federal government has no constitutional right to allow abortion while there is no problem at all with deferring the killing of innocents to the individual states, i.e., let the people democratically decide, is pure a simply a violation of the fundamental philosophical principle of non-contradiction in that \"Something cannot \'be\' and \'not be\' at the same time in the same respect.\" Killing innocents in their mothers\' wombs is an abomination regardless of whether it is done on the federal, state, or local level, PERIOD!
To \"Render to Caesar what is Caesar\'s and to God what is God\'s\" does not exempt Caesar from rendering to God to Whom Caesar owes his existence! Someone needs to ask Scalia \"How is the common good served by seeing no problem with baby killing on the state level if the mob decides that such barbaric behavior is acceptable? And just where, in the Constitution of this Country, Mr. Justice Scalia, does it say that we must check our faith at the door upon entering public life? Moreover, where, Mr. Justice Scalia, does Catholic teaching call us to do so when God trumps everything for the sake of man\'s eternity, i.e., where does the Church teach that unjust laws that are contradictory to God\'s in the moral order must be obeyed? Sed contra, Mr. Justice Scalia, we are called to witness to the eternal truths of the Catholic faith for the sake of the common good leading ultimately to a supernatural end intended for man by God, not the devil! For shame, Mr. Justice Scalia, that you cannot see the seminal Truth Who is a Someone, not a something! - Gary L. Morella
Gary L. Morella | May 27, 2008
I saw that show. Antonin Scalia was selling his new book.
Leslie Stahl, the interviewer, is a clown. Paul | May 27, 2008
Mr.Morella, a well reasoned comment but as always we come back to the question: in a representative type of government how are the arbiters of God's Law or Natural Law selected? If a US Supreme Court with FIVE Catholics and two Protestants is not to your liking, then how would you propose they be chosen? The dream that somehow abortion will be outlawed is worse than fantasy - it takes away from the positive steps that could be taken to incrementally limit abortion (as in Europe to 12 weeks) and promoting non-abortive contraception. All or nothing will result in nothing. Petra Spahr | May 28, 2008
Thank you again, Judie, for your astute observations. This one on Scalia confirmed what has been bothering me for months. Your clarification was critical and helpful in that we can zero in on just what the debate is all about.
God bless you and thanks for being there. Prayers for the preborn! Charles N. Marrelli | May 28, 2008
Judie, you misunderstand Scalia's remarks - although I will readily agree that his remarks lent themselves to misinterpretation.
Scalia is not saying that he doesn't believe that unborn children are people. He is saying that they do not qualify as "persons" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Scalia's view of legal interpretation, originalism, requires him to look to the original meaning of the text, which means that for purposes of construing the Fourteenth Amendment, the criterion is not what Scalia thinks of foetal personhood, or what America at large thinks of foetal personhood, but rather, whether foetuses were commonly regarded as persons in 1868 when the text was ratified. It is difficult to frame the argument that they were, as abhorrent as that might seem now. Consider that the very next section of the Fourteenth Amendment uses the same word, "persons": it apportions representatives between states, counting "the whole number of persons," and since they never counted unborn children for that purpose, to sustain the idea that unborn children were understood to count as persons in Section 1, you would have to argue that the word "person" meant two different things in adjacent clauses of the same text. The other alternative is to abandon originalism entirely because it produces results you can't stomach - the very definition of results-oriented activist judging.
I have little doubt that Scalia likes that result no better than he likes the result that the first amendment protects flag burners, but unless you want judges to rule based on personal predilection, they will be handcuffed (as Scalia is) by the application of their interpretative philosophy to a text, even if that produces a result they find abhorrent. Simon Dodd | May 28, 2008
Judie,
I think this is the worst article you\'ve written. Clearly you don\'t have a strong enough grasp on Constitutional Law to understand what Scalia is saying and the reasons behind it.
Scalia is not siding with either side; he is simply stating that his job is to interpret the Constitution. He is saying that many people have misinterpreted the Constitution to say that it has the power to prohibit the states from prohibiting abortion through the Equal Protection Law.
Like someone else said, Scalia would most likely favor a state- level personhood act because he is interpreting the Constitution correctly (which is his JOB).
He is saying that Constitutional basis of Roe is NOT in the 14th amendment. Some people say it???s in the 13th, others say it???s the 9th! Where is the basis? He is most likely saying that there is NONE... thus Roe V Wade/Doe V Bolton are POORLY decided cases. Shocker.
When Blackmun, in Roe V Wade, mentioned the clause of the Constitution that states the need to extradite any \"person charges with any other State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice,\" he was actually CORRECT in stating that this clause doesn\'t apply to the unborn (it probably doesn\'t apply to toddlers, either). Where Justice Blackmun went wrong from there is where he twisted the interpretation of the Constitution, and thus we have abortion-on-demand.
Basically, Scalia is most likely alluding to the fact that proper interpretation of the Constitution neither grants nor prohibits abortion. It SHOULD be a state right, and prohibition of abortion is NOT found in the 14th Amendment. But neither is the ???right to abortion.??? That is what his words say, and he is a smart man. Again, he\'s not taking either side in this statement; he is interpreting the Constitution for what it says.
Judie, I think you are shooting our side (yes, I???m avidly pro-life) in the foot by attacking Justice Scalia. We need Justices who interpret the Constitution correctly, because that???s actually in OUR favor. You later quote him saying that ???The states may, if they wish, permit abortion-on-demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.\" AMEN. That???s what we want! He is stating this abortion is NOT protected by the Constitution.
Justice Scalia does not deserve the comments about heresy. In fact, his son is a well-respected priest of the Arlington, VA diocese. Justice Scalia is doing his job of interpretation. We must do OUR job to correctly spread the truth about how to end abortion. Spreading myths about Constitutional Law is not the way to go.
Thank you.
Finally, an above reader called mentioned that Scalia is only doing this ???to get votes???? Are you serious? Supreme Court Justices are APPOINTED, not ELECTED.
Catherine | May 28, 2008
Judie,
The Michigan SB 776 should be VETO'd.
A review of the text of the bill has at
least two defects from a pro-life point
of view;
1. The text has a loop hole as wide
as an open barn door which will allow
all forms of abortions to be performed
if the doctor stays within the defined
body landmarks.
2. The text of the bill defines person
to start at birth; where pro-lifers are
looking for personhood to start at
'conception'.
Thanks and Good Luck
Frank Henry
Frank Henry | May 28, 2008
Dear Judie, One has to wonder about Justice Scalia's choice of wording even farther than you went in this article. If he spoke correctly when he said "I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons", how does he characterize a 1, 2, 3-to-8 months old infant that is not capable of "walking around"? Is he, in fact, suggesting the legality of infanticide? Shouldn't somebody be asking these questions??? Carol Luscomb | May 28, 2008
Dear Petra:
I think the point here is lost. It is not a matter of the actual descriptive identity of the members of the Court, according to their religious persuasion, that is the problem, it is their actions that contradict their self-described faith identity.
One can incrementally limit abortion without giving away the principle of personhood. We should be consistent, not politically correct.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | May 29, 2008
Catherine:
Scalia is giving his personal opinion about the dignity of the preborn child versus that child's mother; he is not addressing law.
Justice Blackmnun is the one who said, in the Roe v. Wade decision,
"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."
Clearly Scalia does not agree.
We need justices who interpret the Constitution correctly indeed. Catherine, you are right about that, but if a justice is going to deny that a preborn child has value then something is seriously wrong with his thought pattern.
The Constitution of the United States was drafted on principles including the right to life, and until that right applies to all human beings equally, the Constitution will remain a document without substantive meaning.
I do appreciate your comments, however I simply do not agree with you.
Judie Brown
Judie Brown | May 29, 2008
Dear Simon:
If it is true that the justice has to look at the meaning of the words in the Constitution in the context of the time in which they were written, then it is equally true that he should recognize that at the time those words were written, abortion was a despicable thought that no one believed would ever become a practice in our great nation. In those days abortion was defined as murder, not a right.
Many Constitutional scholars concur that the drafters of the 14th Amendment, had they thought that preborn children would ever be in such dire danger of direct murder by abortion, would have addressed that specifically.
But thanks for your comments.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | May 29, 2008
Judie,
First, because it ties into my broader point, to respond to your reply to Catherine (that "Scalia is giving his personal opinion about the dignity of the preborn child versus that child's mother; he is not addressing law"): that is not correct. You're interpreting his remark that he thinks it's wrong to treat the unborn as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment because it clearly means walking-around persons as giving his personal opinion about the dignity of the preborn child, but that is not so. He's telling you what he sees the Fourteenth Amendment as saying, which within his approach to legal issues is a question of what the law says rather than his opinion as to the unborn.
Second, while it is certainly true that abortion was almost universally criminalized at the time that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted (a point made by then-Justice Rehnquist in his Roe disssent), at most, that point supports the argument that it is inconceivable that criminalizing abortion could be inconsistent with the Constitution (which is the thrust of everything Justice Scalia has written on the subject). It does not, however, follow from the point that the Constitution does not prevent the criminalization of a given act that it therefore requires the criminalization of said act, or still less that the Constitution itself is a self-executing criminalization of that act (that position would be truly untenable; the Constitution itself creates no criminal law at all; even Article III's treason clause is most sensibly read as a limitation on Congressionally-defined criminal legislation rather than as a self-executing delineation of the crime of treason). Consider an analogy: capital punishment for a broad range of crimes was normal in the founding era, so much so that the framers felt it necessary to place several limits on its use (most directly, the Fifth and Eighth Amendments). Nevertheless, it would be foolhardy indeed to argue that the broad consensus in 1791 that some actions should be punished by the death penalty means that today, the Constitution requires that we impose the death penalty for those crimes.
Lastly, I do not disagree that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment might have done things differently had they been blessed with an epiphany of how their words would later be twisted to initiate a mass slaughter and multi-decade political conflagration. But that proves nothing; if anything, what they might have enacted only goes to throw what they did enact into yet starker relief. It is often said that the framers of the Second Amendment might have drafted that text different had they realized what the future of crime and arms mhad in store. But they didn't, and for better or worse, they bequeathed us a Second Amendment that prohibits government from infringing the right to keep and bear arms, a point that doesn't settle every gun control question, but does substantially settle the parameters of the debate. Likewise, for better or worse (I think the latter), the framers bequeathed us a Constitution that permits a state to ban abortion, but that does not require a state to do so. The Constitution does not answer every question; it is silent on most issues, and where it doesn't speak, either directly or by necessary implication, it does not bind what a state may do within the ambit prescribed by its own constitution. And that is all that Scalia is saying - it is not, I fancy, an outcome he particularly likes. Simon Dodd | May 30, 2008
Political science is very, very messy.
If you're "pro-life", be pro life. It's that simple. Prolife as a personal principle doesn't cut it. That means that you don't care about what others do, just your baby. Stick to your guns. All babies matter, everywhere, no matter what nationality, religion, disability, whether they belong to you or not (!), whatever. Justice Scalia, you need to either stick to your guns and pick a side or get off the Supreme Court. Isaac K. | June 1, 2008
Judie,
Do we know if Henry Wade of Roe v. Wade was the right person for the job? He was noted for withholding information. Paul | June 2, 2008
Dear Simon:
You and I have a completely different view of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment in particular - clearly Justice Scalia has his as well.
The simple truth of the matter is that the Constitution is designed to protect human rights for all citizens and preborn children are not considered to be citizens at this time. This is why they are the only class of people in this country whose wholesale murder is permitted.
Establishing their personhood, which is something you and I and Justice Scalia already enjoy, is not that difficult to comprehend. Once personhood is established, the criminal laws will follow, not vice versa.
Thank you for your insights and God bless you.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | June 2, 2008
Dear Paul:
I certainly do not know, but it is a bit late to be worried about that now.
CONVERSING WITH ABORTED CHILDREN Posted: Friday May 23, 2008 at 12:40 pm EST by Judie Brown
Ever since the famous Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger memo was issued in 2003, debates have raged among well-meaning Catholics regarding precisely what the cardinal (now Pope Benedict XVI) meant by "proportionate reasons". In case you missed the memo, here is what the final paragraph said:
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
The whole question of voting is a complicated one for many Catholics, particularly in recent times. So I was quite gratified to read a recent statement by Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, which, in my humble opinion as a lay Catholic, clarified precisely what the term "proportionate reasons" means:
What is a "proportionate" reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It's the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life – which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.
These words have profound consequences for those who are searching for a valid reason to cast a vote for someone who has, in all likelihood, not only favored the direct killing of the innocent but also worked hard to protect the so-called "right to abortion" in his or her political activities. We all know that such people exist and have witnessed some of the most egregious offenders in Congress, for example, who claim to be Catholic while continuing to support abortion. You and I know these people are sadly misled, and yet we know people who disagree and would support such pro-abortion people in a heartbeat.
But I wonder what that scene described by Archbishop Chaput would look like. Let's close our eyes for a moment and think about it. Can you imagine standing before the chorus of millions of preborn babies who are with God in eternity because their lives were cut short by abortion, and saying to them,
I am sure you can understand that while I was personally opposed to abortion on earth, I never wanted to impose my beliefs on anyone. I had no problem supporting powerful people who worked very hard to make sure that people like you could continue to be killed, if that is what their mothers wanted. Abortion should be legal for those people, and so I voted for those who agreed.
Maybe the scene would be a bit different from that or the argument more nuanced, but the bottom line would be the same. And if that is so, I cannot imagine how anybody could make such a statement, with a straight face, to the millions of aborted children, can you?
Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin looked at this question as well, and when he wrote about it, he asked, "What kind of reason would be needed to vote for a pro-abort candidate for president? Something unimaginably huge."
I don't expect that this debate, which is really centered on the "lesser of two evils" argument, will disappear any time soon, but I do think that Archbishop Chaput has given us a scenario that we can imagine in our mind's eye and get our thoughts around as we grapple with this situation prior to casting a vote this November.
I further believe with all my heart that until you and I have convinced a majority of our fellow Americans that the act of abortion is nothing less than an act of murder each and every time it is committed, the debates will only foster further apathy and confusion, and will achieve few substantive results.
So let's put our thinking caps on and really concentrate on those children who are now no longer with us. Imagine them gathered all around us, singing and praising God.
As we stand there listening to them, see if you can imagine one reason to excuse abortion even in a case like rape, incest or life of the mother.
Hold that thought and consider what comes next when you are asked, as you, me or anybody else surely would be,
"Why did you turn away from me when you had the chance to teach others the reasons why killing me was wrong?"
so...the pope said that if the canidate is for abourtion it can still be ok to vote for him? I don't get it. Emmie K. | May 23, 2008
That would be a interesting scene! ITA, you have to stand by your convictions!
Chantell Chantell | May 23, 2008
Archbishop Chaput says we have about \\\"a million abortions a year.\\\" I wrote him to say that, according to Judie Brown, this number is off by a factor of between six and eleven. He responded politely, but I don\\\'t believe that he (and most of the Catholic clergy) want to call attention to the fact that commonly used contraceptives (the pill, Norplant, Depo-Provera, the IUD) cause abortions, at least some of the time. The parish priest simply does not want to tell parishioners that the pill kills, and if used with full knowledge, you are excommunicated. Planned Parenthood also wants to keep secret the fact that contraceptives so often cause abortions. Please explain in detail how you got the 6 to 11 million abortions per year figure. We need to spread this info as widely as possible in anticipation of the Humanae Vitae 40th anniversary in July. We also need to evangelize National Right to LIfe and other pro-life organizations which are \\\"neutral\\\" on the use of contraception. They must be made to understand that while we need to continue to protest the surgical abortions at Planned Parenthood, we also must understand that chemicals are being used, much more frequently, quietly to accomplish the same thing. Let me know how I can be of help.
Charles O. Coudert | May 23, 2008
Judie, I saw a response on Zenit from a gal who attempted to balance with the execution of criminals, deaths in the war in Iraq and threw in what has G. Bush done? Maybe he hasn't done a lot of things we wanted, but we have two pro-life justices and would have a raft load of conservative judges if the people she supports didn't block them. There are a number of other life initiatives on the international scene. Versus a pro-abort- no contest!
Herb Herb Zischkau | May 26, 2008
Emmie:
The pope said that one CAN vote for someone who is for abortion if he or she has proportionate reasons for doing so. However, such reasons do not exist.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | May 26, 2008
Charles:
One of the most enormous challenges we have is in dealing with Catholic priests and bishops who really do not want to preach against contraception, telling the people it is a sin to use them and that the most popular among them can kill preborn children.
But we must continue to insist that the truth be told.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | May 26, 2008
Dear Herb:
I realize that there are people in our cause who tie abortion to a raft of other concerns that have no bearing on the direct killing of the preborn child.
I further realize that some have the mistaken idea that a sitting president of the United States can actually wield the power to end abortion, but sadly that is not the case.
When we have convinced a majority of our fellow Americans that abortion is an act of murder, not a political issue, we will win.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | May 27, 2008
I've said it multiple times before and I'll say it again: education is one thing (not easy), but getting people to care is a whole new ball game (really not easy). Show people the unvarnished truth, and they can't deny it. (At least not convincingly.) Isaac K. | June 1, 2008
Pro-Life Story: "Million Voices" Posted By Robert Ryan Capeder on Apr, 19 2007 The following is a poem I wrote at a men's retreat in Cold Springs (and yes it was cold there is your wondering) GOD stired an amazing brokeness in me for the generation that ... Read
