AM I NEXT? MAYBE

Persons with Downs Syndrome can rest easy.  They will no longer be discriminated against in the termination of their lives.  A Columbus judge has determined that it is unconstitutional to limit abortion for the reason that parents don’t want their child because that child has Down Syndrome.  Planned Parenthood has lauded the ruling that “A woman should be able to trust her physician and have confidential conversations without worrying about government interference.”  What is left off of the end of that sentence is “concerning the death of their child that doesn’t meet up with their standards.”

What I just wrote is very divisive.  It would be difficult for a person who feels that such a child is not a human being to have a civil conversation with me I would imagine.  But A) such persons tend not to read my blog and B) it truly is a horrific path we are on and so many people are terribly blind to it.

Yesterday students from across the country walked out of their schools to protest guns and the death of students due to mass shootings.  “Are we next?” was one of the signs in the Akron Beacon Journal this morning.  The last time I encountered a sign that asked that question was from a person in a wheelchair in Washington D.C. protesting abortions.  What if that person could have been diagnosed in the womb of having some condition that would land her in a wheelchair?  Who could face her and say, “I would have protected the right for your parents to terminate your life for the simple reason that you would end up in a wheelchair”?

Is the problem really guns?  Maybe in part.  But could the bigger problem be that we keep chipping away at a general respect for life?  As we sanitize our culture of the dignity of the human person, cultural laws, turning inwardly as a humanity, thinking that there is no meaning beyond what men invent and falling deeper into nihilism, could it be that we are simply just losing the idea that life is inviolable?  Once one determines Jack can be done away with, is it much of a step to say that Jill could be also?  It is a slippery slope.

It is the difference between the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” and “Love they neighbor.”  Not killing is controlling outward behavior.  Loving is changing hearts and minds.  Go ahead and ban every last gun, but if you are not going to change hearts and minds toward the dignity of all human life, then you also better ban knives, nail clippers, razors, any liquids over 3 oz. . .

Oh wait.  We already do that.

"ONE OF THE WORSE CASES WE'VE SEEN IN A LONG TIME"

When a woman wants to marry a man, she should check out to see how he treats his mother.  That should give her some clue as to his character.  At least that is the theory.

If that is true, it might be divined that you might be able to tell how a country treats it’s most vulnerable citizens by how it treats its animals.  And recently a young Akron man was sentenced under a new Ohio law that makes cruelty an to an animal a felony.  A pet cat relieved himself on him and scratched him and then he threw the cat against a wall so seriously injuring the animal that it later died.  Since it was his first offense, he avoided serving six to twelve months in jail.  The judge gave him a suspended 9 month prison sentence with two years probation during which time he, “must stay away from and not possess pets . . . undergo assessments for anger management, mental illness, and drug dependency, remain drug and alcohol free, and have no contact with his former roommate.”

All this sends a clear signal that we will not tolerate cruel treatment of our animals.  The judge said that the defendant’s actions, “led to a death in one of our most vulnerable populations.”  These are lives entrusted to us, who are dependent upon us, who have no voice, no vote, few rights, and who are almost completely dependent upon the beneficence of humankind.  It is unconscionable that we should have been given such a great responsibility and then to be the agent pain and death.  So we have legislated morality to make sure that careless, thoughtless human beings will stand up to the task of caring for vulnerable animal life while at the same time having protected rights and even government assistance when needed to do away with their own children in the womb.  

RANT - COUNTER RANT: INCOHERENCY IS NO DETERENT

From the case file of "Why We Need to Teach Our Children Logic" comes this letter from Nancy Dollard in the Akron Beacon Journal.  It combines banning guns and abortion rights.  Put aside, for a moment, whether you thing guns should be legal or not and just take in the letter.

"I was horrified," she writes," to see a mass shooting at Planned Parenthood, a wonderful organization that helps women and men and is progressive about abortion rights."

Unless one is already opposed to abortions, this sentence seems logical.  Good people are shot by bad people.  However, if you see abortion as the taking of an innocent life, then this is a story of people taking the lives of people who take lives.  Only one of them profits by it though.

"Women have the right to have an abortion at any stage and to be free from gun violence."

This is true in our country.  Women have a right to take the life of the human being in their womb but they are themselves protected from any violence.

"Unfortunately, mass shootings are too common now because of the radical-right, National Rifle Association gun mentality which won't give up any rights."

So, you want someone to freely give up their rights, rights being something two sentences ago you held so dear, because somebody tangentially associated with them (albeit in a violent, and by the way, illegal way) wants someone else to give up their rights.  

"I'm sick of guns and mass shootings, and it's time to tell the NRA and hunting groups that we need every gun and round of ammunition in a registered federal database so we can prevent the next mass shooting."

I might use the same argument against abortion.  I am sick of so many human beings being slaughtered in their mother's womb.  I am tired of hearing that human body parts are being sold by Planned Parenthood for profit.  It horrifies me that humans are now being found dumped in local trash yards, not only morally disgusting but illegal.  It sickens me that men can treat women like objects because there is no longer a consequence to their actions.

(I'm skipping a little here) ". . . and get a required yearly mental health exam for anyone who works with a gun or owns multiple guns and rounds."

The writer wants everyone who works with a gun to undergo yearly mental health exams.  I wonder if she would be equally open to women being fully informed about her abortion before it takes place along with a similar waiting period before the abortion as there is with the purchase of a gun?

"It is time to put the safety of normal people first."  That is, people who take human lives but not the many people who own guns and do not.  " They (normal people) abhor guns and gun violence."

Yes, they do.  They certainly do.

RANT - COUNTER RANT : WHEN WE NO LONGER FEEL

This is probably one of the more disturbing things I've read recently on abortion.  It was printed in "First Things" and is a recounting of Solveig Gold's class trip to Sparta, Greece and specifically to the Apothetai, the cliff over which Spartans would toss their unwanted newborns to their death:

The students laughed and posed for photos.  Less than a week later, Gold saw the Center for Medical Progress's videos of Planned Parenthood executives talking about organ harvesting from aborted children.  It put that visit to that ancient site into perspective. or, more accurately, that ancient site put our society into perspective.

"I shouldn't have laughed at the Spartan's barbarism that day at the Apothetai.  We may have hospitals and obstetricians, but we have not advanced from the cliff or the well; of anything, we have taken a step backwards by becoming so desensitized that we do to even realize or acknowledge that what we do is wrong.  Barbarism isn't throwing unwanted babies of cliffs.  Barbarism is throwing unwanted babies off metaphorical cliffs, and then laughing about it over lunch and a glass of red wine.  This is blasphemy.  This is madness.  But it is not Sparta - this is 21st century America."

A letter to the editor in the Akron Beacon Journal last week spoke about how denying people the "right" to an abortion was tantamount to trampling on their religious beliefs.  Siting a number of mainstream Protestant Churches he showed how they believed that abortion was perfectly Okay and said that since we cannot determine when a soul enters the body, our faith should be able to determine when it is too late to have an abortion and to do otherwise is interfering with matters of faith.

Sooooo . . . Now we understand why we NEED to start teaching our youth how to think logically.

But I don't have time or space to go into that.  Still . . . 

Are we really concerned about ensoulment - which, by the way, if you DO NOT know when it takes place, one should err on the side of caution which would mean no abortions. 

But what we are concerned about is being advanced and civil human beings.  This is something people of faith and atheists should agree.  When conception takes place, everything there is present for a complete, unique, human individual.  The question is not whether I believe the person has a soul (though I do) but whether it is a human being and are we Spartans that throw our unwanted human beings away.

You might make the argument that they are dependent, they don't look like humans yet, that conception was not intended, that they are too small, or that just plain nobody will know the difference, but thoughts like this have a sneaky way of making out of the womb into how we treat other human beings in general and that is a dangerous road to follow.

If you think this is an exaggeration, re-read the beginning of this post.  If you make the connection, you've got.  If you don't make the connection, you've proven the point.

JUST HOW EXCITED SHOULD WE BE?

NPR had a story on yesterday.  Later this year, Pope Francis is going to declare a year of mercy.  During that year, a priest may absolve penitents for the sin of abortion.  "But it is a limited time offer," NPR reminds us.  At the end of the year, things revert to they way they were.

Now, it is true that abortion is a reserved sin that may only be forgiven by the bishop.  This is because it is seen as an attack on the most vulnerable among us.  It is doing away with a life that can be hidden, legally protected, and forgotten.  And it is being reported as an extraordinary moment in the life of the Church, not to signal a change in Church teaching or to say this sin is any less severe, but to show mercy to those who need it.

The problem is, most Catholics will not notice a difference before the Year of Mercy, during the Year of Mercy, or after the Year of Mercy.  That is because as a practice, bishops have already given that authority (which is within their authority) to their priests.  It is a long standing practice already.  What does make this extraordinary is that the practice is coming all the way from the pope (for there are some bishops in the world that still adhere to this.)  Also, remember, John Paul II gave the same permission in 1983.  So although pastorally this is phenomenal, most people won't notice any real changes here.

The bigger news in my estimation (one that will show a change before, during, and after) is the recognition for a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X to hear confessions at all.  During this Year of Mercy the faithful may approach priest of SSPX, and go to a valid confession.

Wow.

Wow.

Wow.

That is news,

But it is not the Year of Mercy yet.  Go to you local priest until December and then you have a year, if you should so desire, to go to an SSPX priest.

"PERSON"AL

I wrote a letter to the editor recently and it hasn't appeared so I thought I would share it with you.

 

 

Dear Editor,

 

In her letter, Maria Miranda (Resist Campaign to Restrict Abortion) states that “the decision to terminate a pregnancy is intensely personal and private. . .”  Unfortunately she does not tell us why this is so.  This statement is the same that has been used throughout history to shut down interference and conversation concerning the way husbands have treated their wives, how parents disciplined their children, and how persons have treated their slaves.  The only way Maria’s statement could make sense at all is if the being within the mother’s womb, that has all of the chromosomes and DNA of a unique human individual, is not a person at all.  That such a large percentage of citizens of the United States do recognize the humanity of the person within her womb makes the argument that this is a private matter as untenable in this case as it had at one time in those others mentioned above.

 

To quote Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a pioneer of the American Women’s Rights Movement, on her views on abortion, “When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

 

Rev. John A. Valencheck

UPDATE:  I spoke about this letter in my homily this past weekend at it started some interesting philosophical debates after Mass.  One of the most interesting was a distinction between a personal and private belief and that of action.  Our government has always been involved when actions start effecting other people, but personally held beliefs and thoughts of the individual we hold sacrosanct.  So that a person believes that abortion is a good that should be available to anyone at anytime is a right in our nation, but what we focus on is when that belief is put into action (and in this case, an unique human person's rights are destroyed.)  To have it any other way would have our nation act as thought police.  Nice distinction. 

THEY ACTUALLY USED THE "A" WORD!

Yesterday there was a story about abortion on NPR and it is quite newsworthy alone to note that they actually used the “A” word.  The piece covered whether a new law in Texas was too burdensome on women seeking an abortion.  The new law would close a number of abortion centers because they did not meet the standard of an entity that medically treats people.  The burdensome aspects that were pointed out in the segment were three:

 

ü  Some women would have to drive further within the state.

ü  Those women would have to take more time off from work.

ü  They would also have to find childcare for the children they decided to keep.

 

The legal question asks is this law such a heavy burden that this new law must be thrown out.

 

Conversely, in today’s readings we are told that if we love God we will follow His commandments and His commandments are not burdensome.  They certainly seem so, however, given the poor way we have taught them.  They are presented largely as a set of “Don’t”s.  1) Don’t have sex outside of marriage.  2) Don’t use contraception.  3) Don’t support same sex marriage.  Etc. etc. etc.

 

So why does societies laws seem so pastoral and Christ’s seem so burdensome?  Because Christ is concerned about tomorrow and society is worried about today.  Society wants to solve your problem or need right now.  Christ wants you to experience freedom and joy in the long run.

 

Here is a silly yet pertinent example:  The last piece of pizza!

 

After having their fill of pizza, your friends say for you to have the very last piece.  They couldn’t possibly eat another bite.  You are full also but there it is: warm, salty, melted cheesy goodness.  Your mouth waters.  Your brain screams, “Take it!  Take it!”  The scent fills your nose with the promise of greasy delights.

 

Now, you certainly have the right and license to take that last piece.  You have the desire.  You have the support of the gathering.  So you go ahead and eat it and it is every bit as wonderful as you hoped.  But within minutes you ask yourself, “Why didn’t I stop?  Now I am stuffed to the gills.  I feel terrible.”  You go to bed on an overly full stomach and the next morning it is still sitting there and the thought pops into your head, “I’m going to have to work that off today.”

 

OR

 

Let’s say you take your faith seriously which means watching out for yourself mentally, spiritually, and physically.  You exercise your freedom from having to eat that last piece and put it in the refrigerator.  In an hour you will not be thinking, “Darn!  I wish I had eaten that last slice of pizza.”  In fact, you feel comfortably full.  You wake up the next morning appropriately hungry for breakfast AND there is a slice of pizza in the refrigerator for lunch.

 

That is the freedom and joy God wants for you.  That is why His ways are not burdensome even when they seem that they are.

RANT - COUNTER RANT: DON'T MESS WITH MY LITTLE SISTERS

Today I was poised (poised I tell you) to write a scathing article about reporters and editorialists who never took (or have completely forgotten or ignore) a theology class, a philosophy class, or an ethics class that dealt with the Catholic faith (which is a significant part of the population – more than half of all Christians are Catholic after all so this is no small matter) and then imagine they can think over an issue in the shower and come up with a sensible solution with which the Catholic Church, if it were in its right mind, should agree.  The problem being is that their level of competence is rarely up to the task.  This is not to say that they may not be extremely knowledgeable people in other fields, but sometimes I despair that it is obvious that a reporter has failed to even ask what an orthodox, faithful, and knowledgeable Catholic might have to say on a topic.

 

But then, Kevin O’Brien wrote an editorial in today’s Plain Dealer, E3 (January 8, 2014) concerning the health care mandate and the Little Sisters of the Poor entitled “Even the Little Sisters of the Poor are subject to Big Brother’s bullying.”  (On a side note, I am not sure why capitalization for titles is no longer in use in newspapers, but perhaps the rules have changed.)  I will grant that the article is a tinsy wincy bit acidic, but of course I like it because I agree with him.  But he nailed the issues that so many other news sources have not grasped, cared about, or have ignored for other motivations.  Read the article here.

 

It’s sad to see how much money the government is wasting defending desire to provide every man, woman, and child with contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilizations.  It is interesting to note that many of these very things have been offered for free from clinics for decades and others at very minimal cost.  Considering the vast amount of extremely expensive exemptions that have already been granted (government, you don’t have to participate – unions, you don’t have to participate) why is there such an effort to have the Catholic Church submit to this comparatively inexpensive item?  We are not opting out like the government itself is doing or unions, we just want this one exception.  (Not that I am recommending it, but it would be interesting to see how many decades the government could have supplied these services for free through clinics with the money they would have saved by just granting the exemption instead of having these expensive court battles that seem will continue well into the future.)

 

Of course, maybe it isn’t really about contraception or (an already very un-) level playing field.  Could it be that Catholics are not as worthy citizens as those who work for unions or in the government?  Is there another agenda at work here?  (Okay, maybe I am becoming jaded.)  But this seemingly little crack in religious freedom could be a hole in the damn.  Unless the Little Sisters stick their thumb in the hole, what will happen when another issue comes up effecting another matter or another faith and we look at precedent and decide, “Well, it was constitutional, for government interests, to force the Catholic Church to act against its core beliefs, therefore we may turn on you next.”

 

In this light, this is no small matter.

TRUST ME - THIS IS A KILLER

Yes . . . It’s a guilty pleasure . . .

 

I will admit that I watch “Dexter.”  For those unfamiliar with this show: it is the story of a mass murderer trying to live a normal life – except for those pesky murders.

 

For those familiar with the show: Don’t worry.  I will not be giving anything away.  I’m only on season three. 

 

Now, let me say from the start that much of the show is reprehensible.  That is the great thing about Netflicks: the “ff” button.  I do not recommend the show.  That being said if one pays attention carefully (at least in the three seasons that I have seen) they do grapple with lots of hot button issues concerning life, love, the role of faith, the dignity (or lack thereof) of the human person and so forth.  I rarely agree with the title character no matter how sympathetic they try to make him with swelling music, kind words, and someone saying to him, “This is the right thing.”

 

Dexter supposedly is unable to have feelings; particularly complicated feelings such as love.  He works hard then trying to figure what to do to express love to those close to him and make them feel love.  It is a radical decision for the other with little consolation to himself.  Inside his head he is saying, “This is all fake.  If they only knew I don’t know a thing about love.”  From a spiritual standpoint he is in the deepest throws of love.  If he acted lovingly toward those for whom he had great feelings of love, big whoop.  As Scriptures says, “even the pagans do the same.”  But he overcomes his deficit to love mightily.  His is probably the purest love in the show. 

 

Well, except for those murders.

 

That is the part of the show that peaks my interested.  The producers go through great lengths to make Dexter a lovable character.  And he had a code by which he lives; he will only kill those who kill and have escaped responsibility for their murders and who will most likely kill again.  So if you would become friends with Dexter, you most likely would never experience the dark side of him that “needs” to kill.  You would only know this great guy.

 

Think of that for a moment.  Allow Dexter to not be safely on the other side of the screen.  Suppose he was a true friend of yours and you know about his propensity for snuffing out life.  Could you be his friend and allow him to live his life as he allows you to live yours?  Though a bit odd and maybe a tich distant, he is thoughtful, friendly, pleasant, helpful, and fiercely loyal.  And really, he only takes the life of those many would say “deserve to die.”  Some would day that he is making the world a better place.

 

But he is in your living room having a beer with you and you can sense that you about to have a severe disagreement about something.  Though he says he would never turn his butchery on you, do you completely trust him?  Can you?  Would you not have some fear that the line that separates the “worthies” from the “worthless” might slip – maybe even for just a moment – and in a moment of passion you would become a victim instead of one of the protected class?

 

I submit that this is a wonderful analogy for our modern state which Pope Benedict calls a throw away culture.  The list grows of people we can discard – that are on the wrong side of the line.  This week was a story that there are more people on death row in Ohio than in a long time.  There is physician assisted suicides, euthanasia, abortion, and now we are on the verge of federal mandates forcing churches to be direct agents in actions they believe to be violations of human dignity.  There are questions about how we treat the poor, the insane, the refugee, the addict, the ignorant, the disenfranchised, and even the criminal. 

 

For every person added to this list of undeserving of life, the line that separates each of us from the undesirables creeps up.  It may seem a far distance away, but it is only an accident, a false accusation, or change in government away.  Many priests talk about the future and wonder if we will now end up in jail some day for teaching something that has been a part of our core beliefs for 2,000 years.

 

It’s the Dexter effect.

 

And it makes me wonder.

RANT - COUNTER RANT: SOME REFRESHING ARGUMENTS

I must say that I started off enjoying Mark Ira Kaufman’s letter to the editor in 11 September’s edition of the Akron Beacon Journal supporting abortion rights.  Not that I agree with him, but that he supplied some different things about which to think – until he fell into the pothole of mudslinging at the end.  But if you don’t mind, let us take a look at what he said.

 

Concerning whether a pregnant woman is one person or two, he makes the arguments that it is completely subjective and up to the woman.  Those who see things otherwise “cannot distinguish between an acorn and an oak tree.”  Using his same metaphor I would argue that the actually is referring to himself.  The root of the word semen means “seed.”  There is the seed, not after it has been sown.

 

Referring to another letter he writes, “the writer and her ilk insist that one is a person from conception.  Do they calculate their ages from conception of from birth?”  This is a clever argument though he is debating a convention, nothing scientific or theological.  That is why they are called “birth”days and not “having become a person” days.  Can you imagine trying to calculate when a person was conceived (especially in ages before modern science?)  With some couples it might be easy, with others – it could have been any number of times.  Celebrating birthdays is a convention, not a theological declaration.

 

“Do they demand citizenship for the conceived?”  Yes.  Well, at least protection from the government that is charged for the protection of all in their care.  But once again, it is highly impractical.  If one travels out of the country much, how does one prove where one is conceived?  It is far easier to prove where one is born.  This again is a convention, not a statement on personhood.

 

“How about habeas corpus for unlawful incarcerated “citizen” inside a pregnant prison inmate?”  Interesting but silly.  This one made me smile.  Of course the natural place for a baby is in the womb.  That is where the baby experiences health and the baby’s most ideal freedom.  That is true almost wherever the mother is.  The baby is not also incarcerated, he is where he is supposed to be.

 

“Can a pregnant woman take a tax deduction the moment the test strip turns blue?”  No she can’t.  But this argument supposes that the state has the power to make morals.  It does not have that power unless there is no God.  If there is no God, then those with power make the morals.  If there is a God, persons have dignity no matter what the state says since it is their inalienable right given to them by their Creator and not by any human person or action. 

 

So can a woman be the only person who can decide if she is two persons or one?  No.  Either a person is a person or they are not.  If the issue is in doubt, we must err toward the possibility that we are dealing with a human person.  If we are willing to take the risk that we are killing off thousands of our own human beings, then I throw Mr. Kaufman’s line back at him with slight modifications: 

 

Any nation allowing its mothers to kill the babies in their wombs surrenders the privilege of self-identifying as civilized. 

 

The rest of his letter is unsubstantiated statements and little mudslinging and not worthy of comment.

RANT - COUNTER RANT: WHY WE STILL NEED TO THINK

It is time to return to the ancient craft of thinking.  We have handed over so much of our thinking to remembering devices and calculating devices, and instead of freeing up our brains for more lofty endeavors, have mindlessly given over that time to other devices that whittle away life for us while we put thinking on hold aside from wondering who might get kicked off of the island next.

 

As a counter to this a book was recently suggested to me: Peter Kreeft’s, “Socratic Logic; A Logic Text Using Socratic Method, Platonic Questions, and Aristotelian Principles.”

 

There’s a winning title.

 

And I will admit, as admirably as Mr. Kreeft tries to make it a fun exercise, it is a lot of work learning how to think.  But the pay offs are magnificent.  Like learning another language, if you can put up with the long fuse, the boom at the end is well worth it.

 

I would love have a course like this taught in our parish school and even open it up to the rest of the parish.  (We shall see.)  This is for two reasons: first, it would prevent people from embarrassing themselves writing mindless drivel as Mr. Richard Kunkel did in his letter to the editor in the Akron Beacon Journal on Wednesday, August 14^th concerning abortion, and second, it would help students to see mindless drivel when it appears before them.

 

There is so much to write about in this letter I doubt I can do it in one post but here are some high – er – lowlights.  After stating that a recent letter to the editor really made him think, he wrote, “Suppose Honda had a bad model, and it was recalled.  Should we make a law forcing Honda to close?  Or how about a law that would close every automaker in the state?”  Is this a fair comparison?

 

To begin with, Honda does not design anything that is intended to kill anybody.  Their products are supposed to be convenient and safe.  Therefore, if something goes wrong, we make them fix their product and make them safe once again.  Abortion is not designed to keep a person safe but to kill them.  If we don’t want people killed, then yes, we do shut them down.

 

Further, the product that Honda makes does not affect the morality of a nation, the family structure, religious freedom, or health care.  It is a false example.  A better one would be independent brain surgery clinics (if such a thing existed.)  If they were in violation should we keep letting them perform brain surgeries and work with them in eventually coming around to being a safer clinic?  No.  I would say stop all surgeries now.

 

Mr. Kunkel also states that the only problem here is that one group doesn’t want abortion so therefore it should be legal.  Really?  There are (essentially) three groups out there: those who want abortion, those who don’t, and those somewhere in between.  In a democracy such as ours that is always the case and we vote to see what we should do.  For example, there are a great number of people out there who enjoy smoking.  There are those who think it should not be done in public, and the somewhere in between group.  I could use his same argument to say that only one group wants there to be no smoking in our country – therefore the rest of us should be able to smoke next to him at his favorite restaurant.  Bet he doesn’t buy it.  (All of a sudden his call for tolerance disappears.)

 

Ah!  See?  I’m already going too long.  But I can’t stop.  “If you don’t want abortion, don’t have one,” is another tired and silly diatribe.  He likens it to, “If you don’t like alcohol, don’t drink,” as if it were an equal case.  How about this better one: If you don’t like racial prejudice, don’t use racial slurs, but don’t trample on the rights of those who want to use them or burn crosses on public property as long as they have a permit.  But that hardly solves the problem.  (And really, there is only one group that wants us to get rid of racial inequality – right???)

And he calls this a “war on women.”  Switching the conversation to women’s health and rights is a clever way of covering over what is at the center of this debate: another innocent human being.  It is a war on humanity and the rights of the weakest and least politically connected among us.  And as we become a nation that takes the throwing away of human life more and more easily, we become less human, appreciate all human life less, and take another step backward in the advancement of human dignity, worth, and love.

 

Last point and then I will try to stop.  Mr. Kunkel states that we should be able to do whatever is legal and not be unfettered “by my or anyone else’s dislike.”  The tyranny of tolerance.  Of course what I want to do may be in direct contradiction to what you want to do.  Who gets to win?  My Aunt had a neighbor who put in a chimney that met code but only caused smoke to be trapped between the houses and forcing smoke into her house, leaving an odor and making a mess.  Yet it was legal.  Was the neighbor therefore morally in the right because the city said they had their hands tied because he was up to code? 

 

And once again (I know, I said I would stop) we forget the idea that there is a human person in the womb.  He was a human person at conception, as he develops he is a human person, and he will only ever be a human person as he develops.  He struggles for life and will be born and grow if we let him.  I would say these are signs of what this human person wants.  But we silence him so that he does not have a say and we can do away with him without giving him any real consideration.  It is legal after all and therefore must be morally right and good for us as a nation.  Right?

RANT - COUNTER RANT: PROs VS ANTIs AND ABORTION

Well . . . today I had planned on patting our local newspapers on the back.  (We only really write about them when we are disappointed in them don’t we?  When was the last time you heard someone say, “Did you read that article?  Not only was it fair and balanced, it was in proper form, with no grammatical errors and I feel a better person having read it?”)  Anyway, I was going to pat them on the back for finally (backhanded compliment there I realize) writing something about the pro-life rally in Washington D.C. where hundreds and hundreds of local residents go each year for 40 years and nary a peep is made of it.  Yes, I would have complimented them even though they persist in labeling the movement anti-abortion, said that thousands were in attendance, (while technically true, the actual number was close to half a million) and that the Plain Dealer thought the article needed to be buried because a front page above-the-fold article on women taking a taxidermy class was more important.  That aside, it was a decent article and I thank them for it.

 

Then the Beacon Journal printed a letter to the editor on Tuesday, January 29^th written by Corey Raleigh which the editorial staff entitled, “A Woman’s Decision.”  Seeing it, I pulled my cup of coffee over closer to me, hunkered down, and hoped to find something worth engaging.  Actually I was quite intrigued at the writer’s second paragraph in which (I know both men and women named Corey so I’ll go with the grammatical “he”) he wrote, “Forty years is a long time, and we are still using the tired label of “pro-choice” and “pro-life.”  These labels cannot fully describe the complexity of this issue.”  Intriguing no?  It is true that labels such as these carry 40 years of baggage with them and cloud any conversation with great presuppositions.  (Glimmer of hope in my heart that something of interest might be said.)

 

Unfortunately the writer then goes on to say that abortion is a complex and emotional issue and therefore nobody can really have a say in it except the woman.  “. . . you should realize that while you may not feel you could support abortion, you could support a woman’s decision.”

 

So . . . the argument boils down to this: abortion is a complex and emotional issue so only the woman involved can have anything to say about it.

 

There is no argument here.  What about this issue being complex and emotional has anything to do with nobody being allowed to have a say in it?  (You may have reasons – but according to the writer that alone is enough.)  People face all kinds of complex and emotional situations all of the time.  In fact, I would say that it is exactly at these times that we engage the community, pull in other people who will be affected (in the case the father, the other children, the grandparents . . .) and that we look toward societal norms, and seek advice from those who have gone through similar situations.  Even in a country that holds up the Lone Ranger as the ideal American figure (a sad thing that) we tend toward this notion which for Catholics (and others) is very essential and part of the building blocks of civilization.

 

Although suicide is a very complex and emotional issue, it is illegal (at least mostly.)  Alcoholism is a complex and emotional issue.  Cutting is a complex and emotional issue.  But do we say, “No interventions!  This decision has to be up to the individual!  We cannot possibly understand!”  No.  We see that something is clearly wrong here and that the person is not only doing grave damage to himself but to others.  Sometimes in a deadly way.

 

The point:  Be wary of arguments that are not really arguments.  Taken quickly, one might be moved to silence with a position such as Corey Raleigh’s.  But in truth, there is no real argument here.  It is smoke and mirrors not really addressing anything and not advancing the conversation.

RANT: COUNTER RANT - SORT OF

Lori Thorat wrote a letter to the editor in the Plain Dealer stating, “I can’t stop thinking about the infuriating logic behind the idea that a pregnancy resulting from a rape is God’s will as espoused by Republican U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock.”  In a horribly misguided statement recently Mourdock is reported to have said, “. . . I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."  Taken by many, including Thorat, that he means that God wills for children to be conceived by rape, this statement is not one that even the most ardent prolife person can stand by.  It is certainly not the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

Does God will the conception of a child from rape?  Clearly not.  That is not the plan.  Even a rudimentary understanding of Scripture would reveal that this is not the way God intended for human beings to live and procreate.  “For this reason a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife . . . they are no longer two but one flesh.”  That is the plan that God wills.

 

But there is still the difficult question of the person that was conceived under horrific conditions, the effects of which will not be completely erased even if that person is removed from the situation by abortion.  The question might be phrased this way, “Would God will that another innocent person be harmed in order to help mitigate the horrendous damage done to another human being by such an evil abuse of God’s gift of sex?”  I believe that is the question that Mourdock really wished to address (and indeed tried to clarify later but it was too late.)  And an answer must go further than a simple “yes” or “no” but must also deal with the further consequences of the “yes” or “no” answer.  Either is a theological answer (including whether a conceived person has any rights and can be afforded the social justice teachings of the Church) and requires a response.

MONDAY DIARY: OBSFUCATION

Before we get to the Monday diary there is at least one thing you need to know and I am generally surprised at how many people do not know this: The HHS mandate DOES cover abortion. You will have to provide a co-pay for your child to be treated with penicillin, but abortions under this plan will be absolutely free and, if allowed to go forward, is to be paid for in part by the Catholic Church – or at least they will try to make this happen.

So this past Friday there was a rally in Cleveland to protest the HHS mandate. I was feeling rather low that I would be unable to make it as we had school confessions that had to be cancelled once already, and having the pressure of being awfully close to Easter thought it an impossibility. But low and behold we were out of confessions earlier than I had anticipated and running into another person from St. Sebastian who was also lamenting the fact that we were not there, we jumped in the car and headed to Cleveland (not being wise enough to check and make sure where it was before we left.)

We ended up on the wrong side of town (where everybody was heading for the Film Festival) and had to hoof it across downtown to make it to the correct spot by the giant “FREE” stamp. We were only about 5 minutes late. There was a decent sized crowd there (I am horrible at guestimating crowd size. I am always way off when compared to an actual number.) I don’t know why, but I was rather surprised that it was an actual protest. There were signs and banners, petitions to sign, motivating speeches over loud speakers, singing and chanting. I leaned over and said to the person I was with, “Oh my gosh, we are radicals!”

You know, at one time and not all that long ago, everybody taught and generally believed what the Catholic Church teaches about sexual ethics. Since the 1930s when the Anglicans made an exception in contraceptive use for extreme circumstances slowly everybody else moved away from that common understanding to what we have today. (Apparently after 2,000 plus years God started to change His mind.) Now enlightened people believe that the virtuous path is to sicken our bodies to make them reject their natural functions, to sterilize ourselves, or destroy the living presence in the womb that can only be a human being at our whim. Some enlightenment.

So the Church did not change, everybody else did – and there is a general push to make the Church Red Rover, Red Rover let Catholics come over. All of a sudden instead of being the mainstream we find ourselves countercultural rebels. I’m not sure if I think it is cool or scary.

There is one thing for sure however, Catholics do not make good protesters. As a lot we sit in back, mumble our responses, and slip out early so we don’t have to fight traffic. So to get them to chant in full voice, “HEY! HEY! HO! HO! THE HHS MADATE’S GOT TO GO!” is rather an ominous task.

The crowd was lively and very well behaved. I was extremely proud at how well Saint Sebastian Parish was represented! It was a long drive at a difficult hour and we showed in good numbers. I am glad I will be able to say that this is one of the ways that I tried to make a difference in this matter one day.

THEN THE NEWSPAPER COVERED THE STORY

I was very glad that the Plain Dealer covered the story front page above the fold. But then I read the article and became very disappointed. The article was very misleading. It was misleading in the following points:

1. It repeatedly states that the protest was about contraception. Yes, in part. Totally missing was any mention that the HHS mandate also covers abortion. Not once was this mentioned. If “the powers that be” truly believe in this mandate then be honest. Be very clear what it is about. Let it pass on its own merits and don’t be sneaky about it. Want to know the Catholic Church’s position on this matter? It has been perfectly public for over 2,000 years. Have the courage of your convictions.

2. It says that the mandate will effect “some faith-based institutions.” This is so highly understated as to be funny. Besides parishes there is barely another institution that will qualify outside of the Amish Church. Schools, hospitals, Universities, Social Services, almost NOBODY meets the criteria to be exempt. It is doubted that the work of Jesus Himself would have been exempt.

3. Most misleading of all is the end of the article stating that the “morning after pill” is not an abortion inducing drug. This is from the EWTN site, “So how can it be said that the "morning-after pill" or any "emergency contraception" is not abortifacient? Or that it merely prevents implantation? In fact, those who say that the "morning-after pill" is not abortifacient but prevents implantation do not realize that they are affirming its abortifacient nature when they say that it prevents implantation: since this action can only take place after fertilization and works by preventing the continued development of the embryo, it can only be abortifacient.

"This is so true that, in order to deny its abortifacient action, those who are proposing its use have also had to redefine pregnancy. By calling into question years and years of scientific certitude on the basis of which the period from fertilization to birth has always been defined as "pregnancy", some now maintain that pregnancy only begins after the embryo's implantation in the uterine wall, therefore not before the sixth day at the earliest or before the l4th day at the latest. Thus, a product that prevents implantation could not terminate a pregnancy and could not be abortifacient!

"Some, of course, are hesitant about this redefinition of pregnancy and, in order not to press the issue, will merely speak of a similarity between an action that prevents implantation and one that is abortifacient: but it is obvious in any case that this semantic manipulation has a precise purpose. In this way—as The New England Journal of Medicine says—it is possible to manipulate public opinion into accepting "emergency contraception". Merely redefining contraception to include the prevention of implantation does not alter the fact that the prevention of implantation is problematic for some people (NEJM, 1993, 328/5, pp. 354-355)."

4. Finally the PD drags out the found wanting statistic that 98% of Catholic women support the use of contraception. It is obvious they did not read the report from which it came but are parroting what they have heard. The survey did not include all Catholic women but only those who would consider themselves “in danger” of becoming pregnant. (If you did not think it a “danger” you would not be included.) You were also excluded if you were open to being pregnant, if you were pregnant or recently pregnant. There was also no effort to see if you were a practicing Catholic or a cultural Catholic.

Not fair, not accurate, not complete. Makes you wonder.