I saw One like a son of man coming...

I've been trying to do this post for a while. Back when I was a CatholicVote junkie, one of the guys on the site, who is, I believe, an atheist, or at least cynical said something that caught my interest and I can't seem to shake it.

The discussion had centered and meandered around abortion, the response of the bishops, Notre Dame, Catholic politicians; you know, non-emotional, non-controversial, non-open-to-misunderstanding kind of discussions. And of course some of the pro-lifers (rightly) quoted Scripture passages about divine judgment, wrath of God, the fate of those who do evil and call it good, etc. One poster on the site made what he thought was a profound and highly insightful comment, which I'll try to reconstruct from memory: "All you 'real Catholics' on here seem like you're filled with anger and judgment. You want to vilify Obama and pro-choice Catholic politicians and you gravitate towards those passages of Scripture that satisfy your bloodlust. It doesn't seem very loving, patient, or kind."

What he and others seem not to understand is that we cannot choose the image of God that we want, at least not completely. Yes, God is the loving Father, the Good Shepherd, the Divine Healer, the spotless Lamb and the protector of orphans and widows, Who said "Let the children come unto me." Yet we cannot forget that Jesus is also the Alpha and Omega, He Who was, and is and is to come. He is a mighty warrior, and the Just Judge (!) who is pictured with the sword of his wrath coming out of his mouth, saying that he will spit us out of His mouth if we are lukewarm.

The comfort of the afflicted, and the affliction of the comfortable is our loving God. We may see these as opposing pictures, but in God they are one.

What do the pictures above say to you?

Mr. T in all his glory...

CMR directed us to JammieWearingFool to see an hysterical clip of Mr. T singing at Wrigley field.


Here's another video my friend Dan posted on his personal blog last Mother's Day.

I laughed so hard my stomach hurt.

Well...

This probably is not what God meant by that whole, "Vengeance is mine" passage...

Letter to the Editor, The Day

Dear Editor,

Was I the only one that noticed that in the article on Monday, May 18, regarding President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, the headline on the front page, above the fold, read "Obama takes on abortion debate," while the continuing headline on page A6 read, "Obama avoids specifics of abortion debate"?

I wonder, how is it possible that he both confronted the debate on abortion and yet avoided it at the same time?

I suggest that the headline should have read, "Obama exploits dissident Catholic school president's folly and arrogance in an attempt to further divide Catholics from their bishops over 1.7 million dead babies per year to appear as a moderate hero." Granted, that's a bit long, but it's much more accurate, and not contradictory.

Update: published by The Day May 27, 2009

Hi. My name is Mike. (Hi Mike.) And sometimes I listen to NPR.

But yesterday I almost drove off the road remembering why I listen less and less frequently. Sure, the news and talk shows can be very informative, and the weekend shows are very funny. But when I tuned in during a commercial break from another station I heard this report, which is the most infuriating thing I've heard in a while.

TEXT OF STORY

Kai Ryssdal: Earlier this week the president announced tougher fuel economy and emissions standards for car and truck makers. The White House figures the new rules will save almost two billion barrels of oil over the next nine years and at the same time make it easier for us to breathe. Seems like common sense. But commentator Paul Kedrosky says good economic sense is something else again.

PAUL KEDROSKY: After years of auto companies saying that higher fuel-efficiency standards would bankrupt them, the Obama administration figured out a fix. Cleverly, it wiped out the auto industry first, and then raised fuel standards.

Yeah, that sure was clever of him. (If you're not yet sure if Kedrosky is seriously patting Obama on the back for this or just being tongue-in-cheek, keep reading. It'll become crystal clear in a minute.)

The right calls the standards an unnecessary intrusion into the economic lives of average Americans. If people want to buy massive, steel-clad gunboats and race down highways at top speed, getting 5 miles per gallon, all the while padding the pockets of America-hating fuel exporters, then that should be their right.

Or, God forbid, buying a vehicle big enough to carry their larger-than-1.2-kids-per-family-family around anywhere...

Environmental sorts on the left have complaints too. Some are already saying that 39 miles per gallon is not high enough. They point to Europe, where it is common now for many popular cars to get 50 miles per gallon and more.

But a more compelling criticism comes from recent economics research. To an economist, most things come down to price. A car that gets 39 miles per gallon is cheaper per mile to drive than a car that gets 18 miles per gallon. Make iPods cheaper, and more get sold. Make the cost per mile of driving cheaper, and people will drive more.

OK, there's your first mistake, Houdini. Maybe people will just pocket the money they save to pay their BILLS! He also plays bait and switch by comparing buying a low-cost product that, once bought, is essentially free to operate with buying another product with a highly-inflated purchase price that runs more efficiently but is still expensive to maintain. Genius.

How much more? Research says it may be as much as 10-20 percent. People may not loiter on their way to work, but they will make more discretionary trips with their high-efficiency cars. And that has other effects too, like more highway congestion, and even more accidents and deaths.

More doom and gloom. But Kedrosky changes the subject here because more driving in a more fuel-efficient vehicle is still better for the enviro-crazies. Don't go out to the store to buy milk for the children, dear, that's bound to cause an accident and kill someone. (But wouldn't that in the end mean one less driver on the road polluting the environment?)

Most sane people, even economists, want more efficient cars on the roads. But is the best way to do it making cars cheaper to drive? To an economist, the answer is obvious: we need to make it more expensive to drive, not cheaper. The best way to do that? Raise fuel prices. Higher gas taxes will cause people to drive less, cause emissions to tumble and motivate companies to build and sell more efficient cars. Granted, it might not be the same auto companies doing it, but I think we're all OK with that.

IDIOT! How much discretionary driving does this guy think people do? As far as I know, the Miracle Mile is long gone, cruise nights are quaint and far between, and the driving for driving's sake like in car commercials only happens in car commercials.

I drive from home to work, to the store and back home. My commute is almost an hour. This bonehead proposal would only serve to make it more expensive for me (and millions of others like me) to go to work. It's not going to lessen people's need to drive places. It's one more way that the government would decide who should be doing what, when, how often, and in what way. And Paul Kedrowsky thinks he's the one to decide this?

And I am not OK with taking over American companies, bleeding their few remaining resources and then saddling them with regulations that they can not possibly navigate. Yet Kedrowsky seems to be gloating about it. There's a word for people like that. 3704558.

Furthermore... (sorry, I usually write better the second time) this guy must not understand the concept of taxes. See, taxes are collected in order to pay for necessary goods and services, not so that someone can conduct their social engineering experiments with my family's already stretched finances. Such grand-scheme planning may or may not have the long-term effect that Kedrowsky hopes for, but the immediate financial impact to families like mine is almost certain.

This is why the concept of limited government is so important: to protect our freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from mini-tyrants having the authority to impose their pet projects with real consequences on the rest of us.

While other bloggers hold their nose in the air,

I am not above the occasional sophomoric cheap shot.

When I saw this picture above, I couldn't help but think of this one.

I'll get to what he said at Notre Dame later on...

Did you ever have to paint around furniture?

In our attempt to cash in on house prices and interest rates being as low as dirt right now, we're trying to get our sardine can ready to sell so we can upgrade it to a shoe. For that reason, blogging is very light lately, as every waking moment at home follows in this regular pattern: compound, sand, paint; compound, sand, paint; compound, sand, paint. The fun part is painting without taking the furniture out of the room, and making sure not to drip paint on the carpet beyond the hastily laid out dropcloth, while holding on to the bed's headboard and not losing balance, stepping into the tray of fresh antique white paint; meanwhile trying to scratch the itch on my nose, as I'm allergic to the dust jackalopes I've kicked up under where the bed used to be...

Say a prayer for me.

Today in History

As a Catholic I don't think it's appropriate to celebrate it, but today in 1945 Adolf Hitler's last thoughts included the Soviet Army, Eva Braun, cyanide, and a handgun.

What do Joe Biden and Judge John T. Noonan have in common?

They are both famous this year for receiving the honor for which they weren't the first choice.

A Pertinent question with Prom season coming up...

Will the Plan B pill be available for purchase by 17-year old guys, too?

Alternate post title: "Guys, why store those bulky condoms in your pocket when you can carry these little pills?"

Review of Heaven's Song

Well, I'm finally getting around to an earlier promise here and here to review Heaven's Song, by Christopher West.

There have been few books I've read recently that have proved to be so captivating as this one. Heaven's Song explores John Paul II's Theology of the Body in light of two recently discovered sermons on the topic not previously published in English.

The book is in two basic parts, the first linking Mary with the beloved in Song of Songs and showing how the poetic and erotic language of that book is essential to understanding the passion with which God loves us and wants to be united with us. That unity came through Mary.

The second part of the book centers on the marriage preparation of Tobias and Sara in the book of Tobit and shows how, step by step, our suffering, united to the suffering of Christ on the cross, enables us to love in the marital bond in the fullness of Christ. Our humility towards our own sinfulness and our complete gift of self to one another give us the power in Jesus to live a love stern as death.

This treatment refines and makes more complete this understanding of human love, human sexuality, and God's eternal plan, but I would recommend that those unfamiliar with JPII's Theology of the Body not start with this book. TOB for Beginners or TOB Explained will provide a more foundational context for Heaven's Song.

We as Catholics need to understand better and live better God's plan for human sexuality. God created this gift for freedom, but mankind always tries to pervert this gift, which leads to self-slavery.

Heaven's Song is a must-read for those preparing for marriage, as well as married couples who wish to grow deeper in their love for God and for one another, and who wish to better know what a great sex life is supposed to be.

For the fifth time...

Lila Rose exposes Planned Parenthood staff covering up statutory rape in order to provide abortion services, despite state laws to protect young girls.

Nope, no problem here. No investigation necessary.

And at Creative Minority Report, the story goes that PP is now trying to smear Lila Rose, calling her a liar, despite the full and unedited video she has provided to legal authorities.

follow up to abortion question

Hello Fr. A.,

Ave Maria.

I have a question regarding a debate I've been having online about abortion and was wondering if you could help me. The discussion turned at one point to the example of the little girl in Brazil which led to the general question about exceptions for saving the life of the mother. I did my best to explain the principle of double-effect (which even to me sounds a little like splitting hairs, but it does make sense, so onward) and used the example of ectopic pregnancy/ salpingectomy, but I think I got back up against a wall when posed with the scenario of when the life of the mother is in imminent danger and the baby must come out, even if it is unable to survive outside the womb. It seems to me that this is morally reasonable (if the mother dies, both die; but if at least one can be saved, we would have the duty to do so), but I couldn't help but wonder. If the baby must be removed with the intention of saving the mother, isn't the direct action still an abortion? The duty to save the life is there, I believe, but how do we explain this without undermining the definition of a direct, intentional abortion being morally forbidden? In other words, don't both aspects have to be negated for double-effect? And how do I explain this? Please help!

Mike,

The principle is that no harm may be directly done to the innocent life. The position of the Church is that there are no exceptions for direct abortion, even in the case where the mother's life is in danger. Indirect abortion is permitted only when there is a proportionate reason, namely, when the life of the mother is in danger. Indirect abortion would include such things as the removal of the womb with the child intact in the case of uterine cancer, or the "salpingectomy" (which I presume is the sectioning of the fallopian tube with the embryo in it) in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. Based on the principle the "salpingectomy" would be permissible, but a chemical abortion would not, even if it is safer for the woman and if it more likely to leave her fertility intact.

Catholic tradition resolves moral questions on the basis of principle, because morality is, in fact objective. The Church always distinquishes, and rightly so. When people who are testing our moral system pose hard cases, they take the application of the principle to the smallest detail and to the most fine distinctions. Those distinctions may seem to be paper thin, but they are nevertheless consistent with the prinicple. People will take the hard case and test the principle, in the case of direct abortion when the mother might otherwise die, asserting that its application is heartless; however, once the coherence of our moral system is thus compromised, it becomes the pretext for resolving any case that one deems "hard" without a principled solution.

In fact direct abortion is rarely, if ever, necessary to save the life of a mother, and the distinctions that are involved are not as thin as our opponents assert. Those opponents often fail to distinguish between a physical act and a moral act. Since there seems to be little difference, physically, between indirect and direct abortion, especially when the end result is the same, they deem the moral act to be the same in each case; however, morality is not determined by physical factors but by metaphyscal ones: object (nature) of the act; intention and circumstances. In the case of direct abortion, namely, the direct and intentional killing of an innocent child, regardless of its physical similarities with justifiable indirect abortion, the object of the act is intrinsically evil and may never be done.

I hope this helps.

Father A

I'm still not quite resolved on this, though. It would seem that we come to the conclusion that it is not permissible to surgically remove the baby, but it is permissible if we take the whole uterus with it. I have to admit, that's a hard pill to swallow.

But I come back to Fr. A's assertion that such cases where direct abortion to save the life of the mother are rarely, if ever, necessary. I believe he is right, but in the case at hand of the girl in Brazil, there are too many unanswered questions and other options for us to be able to answer this question with certainty.

My feeble fence-sitting on such a hard case, as Fr. A called it, is a luxury I can now afford, but I pray for all those faced with such a decision. God grant them guidance, and grant us all mercy.

I'd appreciate any help on this from my fellow pro-lifers.

Mary's baptism and other busy-ness

Well, blogging has been light lately because my workload is never constant. Sometimes I'm twiddling my thumbs; right now I'm drowning in work. It's a good problem to have these days, so I'm not complaining.

However, this past weekend, on Divine Mercy Sunday, my daughter was welcomed into the Body of Christ. Above is the moment she was cleansed of Original Sin.

It is an awesome responsibility to know that my wife and I are entrusted with four little souls whose destiny is to be with the Father forever. We are all called to be saints; we specifically are called to mold our saints. Please pray for us to have the strength, love, and humility to be faithful in our mission. God bless.

Completely Random Movie Quotes #2

"Fingerpainting?"

The tragedy in Brazil

a repost from a comment on CatholicVote.com:

so last night I said this: "abortion, as the direct and intentional killing of an unborn person, is never morally acceptable. It can never be justified as the lesser of two evils," which didn't sit right with you guys. Let me make it clear first that though I said it is not morally acceptable, I never said that the alternative is easy. I'm not minimizing the dangers and risks associated here, nor am I dismissing the trouble brought about in this family (of the girl in Brazil).

That said, we have to understand that the reason abortion is wrong has nothing to do with the external circumstances that surround the decision. It is wrong because it is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being. A baby in the womb is not an aggressor. The CCC references that MA posted explain that in the act of defending one's life against an aggressor, one may be justified in using force, even deadly force, if it is necessary to fend off the attack (though if deadly force is not necessary, it is not morally justified). But a baby in the womb's only "crime" is existence, not violent assault. There are, as MA pointed out, certain circumstances that pose a problem, such as tubal (ectopic) pregnancy, etc.

Let me step back for a moment. The Church's teaching on this doesn't pit the life of the mother against the life of her child, as many confuse the issue to be. The Church doesn't tell women that they have to die and their child has to live. The intention must be to protect the lives of both persons to the extent possible.

But what about ectopic pregnancy? In such a case, the zygote has implanted in the fallopian tube instead of in the uterus, thus threatening to rupture the tube and lead to the death of the mother. This is where the notion of double-effect comes in. When I said above that abortion is the direct and intentional killing of the unborn baby, I wasn't adding those modifiers to be emphatic. "Direct" means that the action undergone is the actual killing of the baby, "intentional" means that the purpose is a dead baby primarily, for whatever other reasons may be included. So what? Well, in the case of ectopic pregnancy, one can wait for a while to see if the baby miscarries on its own, which is somewhat common. The only other morally acceptable option is called salpingectomy, in which the section of the fallopian tube with the implanted zygote is removed.

You might be thinking to yourself that I'm splitting hairs here, but I'm not-- The direct action here is not the killing of the baby, but the removal of the fallopian tube, which should it burst, will kill both the mother and the child. And the intention is not to kill the child, but to save the life of the mother. While one effect of the procedure is the death of the child, it is an unintended effect of the procedure to save the life of the mother. Therefore, if another procedure could be developed where an ectopic pregnancy could be treated without the child dying (such as removing the zygote and helping it to implant correctly in the uterus), then salpingectomy would no longer be the morally acceptable option. (I had a friend that this happened to.)

Now, how does this apply to the girl in Brazil? Let's point out that we don't know all the facts, so we have to consider a few possibilities. The doctors were saying that this 9-year old girl's body could not possibly carry these babies to term. I won't refute that, but I also imagine that if that's the case then they might very likely miscarry anyway. If they didn't miscarry, might they be able to grow long enough so that they could be taken out by cesarian section and cared for in an incubator or other technological treatments? The point is that I doubt that this girl was in IMMEDIATE danger, like say, it's Tuesday and if they don't get these babies out Tuesday night she'll die. But let's consider that she didn't miscarry and the babies did put her in serious imminent danger; then they could be removed and any possible steps taken to care for them must be taken. If they die despite medical efforts to save their lives, you must recognize that that is VERY different from intentionally killing them.

Now some of you have said that he decision is easy, that to save your kids, you would choose abortion. I hope the decision is not that easy, because we're talking about the decision to kill your grandkids. If it were my decision, I would do whatever was necessary to save all their lives, if possible. "But the doctors said she would die." Maybe, but as much respect as I have for the medical profession, they don't know everything either, nor do they have a crystal ball to tell the future. In fact, doctors told my mother she should have aborted me just on the POSSIBILITY that I might have had Downs Syndrome. My father should have been dead five years ago, except that he had a miraculous healing from asbestos cancer. Why do we have so little faith not to do all that we can to allow God to solve this in His way? (I know some of you won't accept that point, but why rush anyway?)

I've also been called naive for my position; we can't always look to the textbook, etc. But if we don't study the textbook how can we expect to pass the test? If we don't understand these moral choices and how to come to moral decisions, how can we expect to come to the right decision when faced with difficulty in real life?

Again, abortion didn't magically become morally right because the mother is a young girl. Expedient? Yes. Tempting? I'll even admit that. But right? No. If abortion is wrong, it is wrong because of what it is.

One last point--more outrage and anger have been expressed over the fact that the Church is being consistent to say that abortion is wrong, even in this case, than is being expressed over the fact that some jerk raped a 9 year-old girl.

The Paschal Mystery at the Movies

An on-screen acquaintance named MA came up with a great idea the other day and I'd like to put it here for more examples.

She asked to list movies that portray the paschal mystery. This is not a list of movies about Jesus, nor is it a list of movies of singular personal redemption, but movies that reflect the mysteries of suffering, self-sacrifice, atonement and redemption for others.

Therefore, the Passion of the Christ is not what we're looking for, nor are Bella or The Count of Monte Cristo. But movies that make this list would be:

The Matrix
Braveheart
A Tale of Two Cities
The Grapes of Wrath
Shawshank Redemption
Chronicles of Narnia
Cool Hand Luke
one of the thousands of Joan of Arc movies
Star Wars
Dune (though I take this on hearsay)

Any others?

Outlaw contraception?

...so Wifey and I had dinner with some friends the other night, one of whom teaches RCIA in our parish. We got into the conversation, as is pretty common, about pro-life issues. He told us that when he discusses the history of abortion he'll point out the three major US Supreme Court cases that have led to the current state of affairs, Griswold v Connecticut, Roe v Wade and Casey v Planned Parenthood. What is most interesting is the connection between contraception and abortion. If we are to have a serious discussion of the problems, we must recognize this relationship:

This link between the contraceptive mentality and abortion was well illustrated in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey which confirmed Roe v. Wade. This decision stated that "In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception. ... For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."

Commenting on this Supreme Court decision, Professor Janet Smith said: "The Supreme Court decision has made completely unnecessary any efforts to 'expose' what is really behind the attachment of the modern age to abortion. As the Supreme Court candidly states, we need abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles. It is not because contraceptives are ineffective that a million and a half women a year seek abortions as backups to failed contraceptives. The 'intimate relationships' facilitated by contraceptives are what make abortions 'necessary.' ... Here the word 'intimate' means 'sexual'; it does not mean 'loving and close.' Abortion is most often the result of sexual relationships in which there is little true intimacy and love, in which there is no room for a baby, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse."

--http://www.armyofgod.com/Contraception1.html

Well, wifey brought the subject up in the CatholicVote chatroom and was called fascist, theocratic, and foolish for wanting to outlaw contraception.

The question is, though, is that wrong? First off, let's point out that the words "should, could, would, ideal, practical and likely" all have different meanings and are not interchangeable. This seems to be the mistake my wife's scoffers made.

The case is often made that abortion and contraception are not the same thing; they don't have the same moral weight. Well, that's sort of right. In the eyes of the Catholic faith, both are mortal sins; however, abortion is more grave matter because it is the direct taking of an innocent life and automatically brings excommunication. Contraception, on the other hand, is intentionally making infertile the marital act, preventing an unintended pregnancy.

These differences alone will make it obvious that the response of law to these two actions should be different. While abortion should clearly be against the law, and such a case can be made without any recourse to a theological basis, the burden of argument is on the side that would outlaw contraception. This is in part because it can be shown that there is civil interest in protecting the integrity of every individual, but it is more difficult to show the civil interest in preventing every act of contraception. It is not, however, sufficient to note the differences between these two actions. As the Supreme Court decision points out, they are geared toward the same end: sex without responsibility.

Contraception affirms that a couple wants to have sex and avoid the responsibility of bearing a child. Abortion affirms that the couple is so strong in their desire to avoid that responsibility that they are willing to end the child's life. Keep in mind, my choice of language here is not to convey lack of compassion for the circumstances in which many women make the decision to abort their child, but I am convinced and will try to convince you also, that it is always the wrong decision. Euphemisms about what the decision involves will serve no one in reaching the truth.

Let's try a thought experiment here for a moment. What happens if abortion were outlawed in the U.S. today, including surgical abortions, Plan B pills, RU-486, and even contraceptives that are known to have abortifacient properties, but other forms of contraception were allowed to continue? I think the answer is obvious: there would be a lot more pregnant women.

Let's consider that proponents of contraception-awareness argue about its effectiveness (ignoring the arguments made by the abstinence-only community), claiming that education and availability of contraception leads to fewer unintended pregnancies. But if that is actually the case, why are there 1.7 million abortions every year in the U.S.? Did these women (and their husbands/boyfriends)change their minds after becoming pregnant? No, they never intended to be pregnant, but they nonetheless engaged in the only natural activity that makes one pregnant. And the existence of widely-available contraception makes for a culture in which individuals need no qualms about recreative or non-committal sexual encounters.

So let's go back to our thought experiment for an analogy. Say, for instance, I call the local gas company to install my new stove. In the process, something goes wrong and the gas ignites, exploding my house. (Let's assume no one is hurt.) I can sue the gas company for redress of wrongs. I paid them for a service; they burned my house down. I have recourse when I buy a product or service that fails to live up to its expectations.

But what recourse is there for a couple that contracepts in their sexual activity and finds that the contraception fails? In our world without abortion, there is no recourse to avoid responsibility. Either the child must be supported and raised, or given to others who will support and raise her. (Or there is the awful alternative of illegal abortions.)

I think it is not likely nor wise (at this time) to even consider outlawing contraception, but we need to be absolutely clear that a contraceptive culture is an abortive culture; to end abortion we need to make the case that we need to leave contraception behind. The only way to do that responsibly is to promote chastity.

I know this is not the last word on this subject by me or any of you, but I hope this sparks some reasonable conversation. I welcome your comments. God bless.

Completely Random Movie Quotes!-#1

"If my boy says he can eat fifty eggs, he can eat fifty eggs!"

Today begins a new series on the Exultet blog. Completely Random Movie Quotes! reflects the fact that I watched much too much TV and movies growing up and I have a knack for remembering most of the lines ad nauseum. So I like to throw them out at'cha and see what sticks. If you can name the movie it came from, I'll think you are cool. But, sorry, prizes are only sent out on days ending in the letter Q.

Pro-life Youth Conference was a success

Well, the Pro-life youth conference I spoke at this past weekend was a success. About 20 speakers presented their organizations, suggestions, tips, and visions for being pro-life in America, and in CT in particular. Among the groups represented were the CT Right to Life, Birthright, CareNet, Missionaries for Life (Truth Squad), Silent No More, diocesan Family Life Office, CT Catholic Conference, as well as videos from Priests for Life and one on Theology of the Body for Teens.

The girls of the Teens of Pro Life Club at the Academy of the Holy Family are to be commended for doing such an immense amount of work in such a short time. Any time an event like this is started from scratch, it is a daunting task. Of course there are improvements for next time, but I believe that it was an overall success.

I hear from Leticia that 500 people watched from the feed at AirMaria.com. If you were one of them, let me know your thoughts; I'll be sure to pass them along.

Thanks and God bless.

Running the risk of feeding the troll...

...I didn't consider him my Messiah either.

Pro-life Youth Conference this Saturday

Alright, the Pro-Life Youth Conference that Sister Marie Andre roped me into is this Saturday! Barring any technical difficulties, you can actually watch it 3-8 pm streaming live at AirMaria. If there are trolls chewing through the wires and you can't catch all the great action, you can at least read the text of my talk about the dignity of the human person below.

God bless and please pray for a successful conference!


The Dignity of the Human Person

I find it astounding that our entire legal system is designed for the freedom and welfare of the human person, and yet the human person is not defined! Laws are written to account for fair trade between people, regulating what one can and cannot do in civil society. They help us to keep order and we make laws in order to shape the world in which we want to live. And yet, out from underneath us, the sand is eroding away very quickly. The structure that governs us all will collapse without the foundation that is the human person.

There’s a book that’s been out for some time now called Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives, by William Brennan. His study was simple: throughout modern history, language (and consequently, the law) have been used to dehumanize certain groups of people. He studied the plight of the Native Americans, blacks in the South, Jews in Nazi Europe, women, and more recently, the unborn and the elderly and handicapped. True to form, Brennan found that every single group was described by the same categories of words: non-human, animals, parasites, diseases. And when the meaning of these words took hold in the public consciousness, all sorts of heinous actions could be justified against these vulnerable and outcast people.

The pro-life community is not just against abortion, or euthanasia, or capital punishment, or embryonic stem cell research, though being pro-life encompasses all that. The pro-life community is and must be for building a culture of life, a culture that upholds and defends the dignity of the human person.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the human person as the human individual, made in the image of God; not some thing but some one, a unity of spirit and matter, soul and body, capable of knowledge, self-possession, and freedom, who can enter into communion with other persons—and with God.

Anyone who has studied the development of the human body and is honest about the facts that he or she has observed has to admit that the only point at which we can say with certainty that there now exists a distinct human person where a moment ago there was none is conception. At the moment when the sperm cell fertilizes the egg, all the DNA the human body will ever need to grow is already present. Cells begin to split, develop and differentiate almost immediately. In fact, the fastest rate that a human being’s body will ever grow is within the first few months of development in his mother’s womb. Human life begins at conception and ends, of course, in death. If we are to defend and uphold the dignity and rights of the human person, we must recognize, in language, culture, and in law that human life begins at the moment of conception and must be protected until natural death.

We fight against a culture of death, which attacks the premise of the definition of the human person, leaving disastrous consequences. It says that in order for a human to be a person, it must meet some qualifying criteria.
1. The stage of development
The culture of death says:
• Babies in early gestation are not human, but merely a blob of tissue, a human-like animal.
• Babies in middle gestation are not yet viable and so therefore are expendable.
• Babies in late gestation may be a threat, a disease, a parasite on the health of its mother.
2. Level of intelligence/ awareness
The culture of death says:
• Those who are senile or in a persistent vegetative state are no longer human and shouldn’t take up valuable resources.
• Such is a life not worth living.
• They are a burden, a drain, sucking the life out of family members (parasite)
3. Level of independence
The culture of death says:
• Mentally or physically handicapped patients are not productive members of society.
• Also take up too much valuable resources. (The Naxis called them “useless eaters” and killed them systematically)
4. Quality of Life (real or perceived)
The culture of death says:
• ¬¬¬A terminal illness should not be endured—and recommends physician assisted suicide.
• The elderly in long-term care are taking up too much of our time and money. It would be quicker, easier, and less expensive to kill them mercifully than to care for them. (Especially ominous with the prospect of universal health care and medical rationing)
• A baby shouldn’t be born into poverty or other bad circumstances; (every child a wanted child) for those unwanted, it would be better if we prevent her from ever being born.

These are the threats to a culture of life. Many of these threats already have the force of law in this country. Some of these threats are looming on the horizon. What can we do?

First, do not be fooled by the lies that qualify a person’s existence by other factors. A human person is inviolable as a child of God. Speak out and defend the dignity of all people, no matter their age, stage, or walk in life.

Challenge your friends, family, teachers when they have been duped by the lies of the culture of death. Show them that life must be guarded from the moment of conception until natural death. Explain why people are not commodities to be created in a laboratory and discarded.

Some of you here today will be going off to college soon, deciding what direction you’d like to take in life. Some of you may become writers, journalists, doctors or lawyers. Use your work to proclaim our need to respect life in our culture, our medical practice, our legal structure. Do not let the authorities of this age define some people as non-human, for if they have the power to dehumanize some of us, they have the power to dehumanize all of us.

Let me leave you with these two passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Paragraph 2273:

The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.

The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined….

Paragraph 1929:

Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society; which is ordered to him:

What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.

Some photographers...

...just can't help themselves.

(Then again, neither can some bloggers.)

Thanks, but I already have a Messiah.

Ora pro nobis

Hail Mary

We speak to this woman of flesh and blood. We recognize her presence and know that she hears our greeting.

Full of Grace

Not burdened by the weight of original sin, she is completely fulfilled in God and she seeks always to do His will.

The Lord is with Thee

God is present with her, within her, around her. Her path is blessed indeed, prepared by our Heavenly Father for His glory. She can call upon His aid at any moment and be assured of God’s help.

Blessed art thou among women

Whereas Eve, the first woman, failed to trust in God’s infinite goodness, Mary is fully woman, as God intended for all humanity before the Fall. She is prepared thus so that she can become the Ark of the New Covenant, Jesus the Christ.

And blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

The co-eternal Son of God, united with the Father in substance, lays aside His heavenly throne to come in flesh, dependent on the care of His finite creatures, being born into the world after remaining in the womb of Mary.

Holy Mary, Mother of God

The unique relationship Mary has with Jesus reminds us that He also was fully human, and through Mary’s body came the wedding, the knitting together, of God and man.

Pray for us, sinners

Not through disdain or condescension, but with the love that God intends for us to share through His grace, Mary pleads to God for us; we who suffer temptation, trial, and the effects of sin.

Now and at the hour of our death

…for death is the destiny of all, but with God’s mercy, death is birth to everlasting life. God grant that we may have the grace to repent of our sins before our last moment, and seek His kingdom in this world and the next.

Amen.

Yet another Planned Parenthood coverup of a felony

Live Action films released this video of two Planned Parenthood clinics in Arizona covering up felony statutory rape.

UPDATE: use this link instead. The Youtube link is no longer any good.