Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, catachesis, Christendom, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, scandals, self-serving, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church, Tradition.
There has been a great deal of debate and discussion in (what is easiest to distinguish as faithful) Catholic circles regarding whether it is possible for Catholics to criticize a Pope at all. Some take the stand that such criticism is always extremely dangerous and imprudent and really should never be done. I have always found this argument silly, since it would at a minimum destroy historical analysis of the Church as a profession, and is a direct criticism of the writings of too many Saints and great Catholics to list, going back many centuries, who have certainly made critical analyses of papacies of the past. In practice, the rule really seems to be “it is impermissible to criticize the reigning, or recently reigning, pontiffs, especially those since the sainted, indefectible Council,” while it is OK to take to task the actions and judgments of pontiffs distant past.
Whatever. I’ve always tried to steer a middle course, avoiding gratuitous judgments of any Pope, past or present, while steadfastly pointing out imprudent actions or even errors promoted that could affect the faith of many souls. You cannot block papal PR coverage. Word is going to get out, and people, especially better formed souls, are not blind. They will make their own judgments. It has always seemed to me that it is far better to point out problematic statements or actions with charity and basic fairness, rather than attempt to cover up that which cannot be covered. Certainly, it is better not to point out Noah’s, or Francis’, nakedness, but when that nakedness is apparent for all to see (and receiving worldwide coverage), it is not only necessary, but vitally necessary to explain why the nakedness is wrong (or problematic with respect to the Doctrine of the Faith), rather than to pretend it doesn’t exist.
It may be a gross comparison, but I’d say such is the tack advocated by Steve Skojec in a long post at One Peter Five on the permissibility of criticism of the papacy. I will skip the quite extensive groundwork he lays (but will note, he is quite right that criticizing the papacy does not mean Christ’s promise that His Church will never fail is invalid, but is in fact a defense of that Truth), and get to some of the justifications he uses for his position (original, I add comments):
Put more simply: we didn’t make this mess, but pretending it doesn’t exist isn’t going to make it go away. Want people to stay faithful? Help them to see how what’s happening doesn’t mean Catholicism is false, but rather, is suffering exactly as we were always told it would. Show them what is true, and what the limitsand boundaries of assent require. Give them a path forward, not out. [An excellent point. I personally know 2 individuals who deferred, if not gave up on, their plans to convert, because they are now utterly confused on what the Church believes. That’s only my own narrow experience. The plain fact is, people are being exposed to the Pope’s more confusing/troubling statements, and without correction, their assumption is that what the media is telling them is true and accurate, that irreformable Catholic belief is changing, or may change]
To that end, we need to look to our Church’s history. Would we say that the bishops of the Third Council of Constantinople, which posthumously anathematized Pope Honorius I for heresy, were “spiritual pornographers” or scandalizers of the faithful? Would we make such claims about the Theology faculty at the University of Paris who opposed the heresies in the personal sermons of Pope John XXII — or King Philip VI, who forbade them from being taught? [Or really holy men like Bossuett, who made some value judgments about some preceding and even near-contemporary papal actions in public]
Taken further, would we make such claims about St. Paul, who publicly reprimanded the very first pope, the one chosen by Christ Himself?
But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. – Galatians 2:11
A pope is still a man — and thus, a sinner — and can make mistakes. Paul withstood Peter for the simple reason that he was “to be blamed” – in other words, culpably in error. [Long excerpt from St. Thomas Aquinas follows that I do not copy, you should read it]
……St. Thomas makes the important distinction between an exercise of authority — a papal action — and authority of ruling — the power and authority inherent in the papal office. He asserts that if public actions of a prelate — even the pope — cause “danger” that is “imminent,” then the “truth must be preached openly” and “the opposite never condoned through fear of scandalizing others.” Further, if it is true that these prelates must not “disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them,” then any argument that the faithful and clergy must not publicly address a pope’s public errors, misleading statements, or actions for fear of scandalizing the faithful is without merit. [I’d say this is a fair representation of St. Thomas’ argument]
On the contrary, there is a positive duty to keep such errors from spreading if one possesses the ability to identify and charitably elucidate them. This is of paramount importance in order to instruct or correct those who might be led into sin by believing these errors. This is not merely a hypothetical, but something that has become a real problem with (to use examples that quickly come to mind) misconceptions following the Synod that the pope has changed the rules for the divorced and remarried on receiving Holy Communion, or in the case of those who have taken Pope Francis’s “Who am I to judge?” as a tacit endorsement of same-sex relationships. The Spiritual Works of Mercy include “instructing the ignorant,” “counseling the doubtful,” and “admonishing the sinner.” At various levels, any (or all) of these three works of mercy might apply in a redress of these errors.
We would also do well to remember that the non-theological actions of popes can also be scandalous. Popes like Stephen VI, Benedict IX, Sergius III, John XII, Alexander VI, Innocent IV, and Urban VI come prominently to mind. These popes — all of them valid — were reported variously to have taken part in scheming, simony, murder, adultery, rape, torture, sodomy, bestiality, desecration of the corpse of a predecessor, and other horrific crimes. [It was these kinds of non-theological actions that Bossuett and others have pointed out were scandalous. That was no sin. Many others, also many holy men, have pointed out that Clement XIII’s politically-motivated suppression of the Jesuits was unfair and may have played a role not only in the French Revolution but the ascendance of liberal thought in the latter 18th and 19th centuries. That does not make them bad Catholics for doing so]
While Pope Francis has certainly not been accused of acts such as these, many of his papal appointments have empowered men who have no business in leadership positions in the Church, and whom, as in the case of Fr. Radcliffe, represent an actual danger to the faith. Men who speak to the media, making statements on the pope’s behalf, leading us to believe that he agrees with their heterodox agendas.
And when reports of the pope’s more controversial (alleged) opinions or activities disseminate through the global press — reports which many faithful Catholics find troubling — they are very rarely addressed or corrected, despite a Vatican press office and a PR executive in his employ, both of which are meant to monitor the news and ensure that the Vatican is being represented accurately in the media. The mechanisms are in place to analyze the message the world is receiving, but a choice is made not to clarify. The impression given is that silence gives consent…….. [I’d add just a bit more. A Pope who behaves scandalously in his private life, or even somewhat publicly, by insisting on gaudy riches, a lavish lifestyle, sexual incontinence, etc – is one kind of scandal. Yes, especially since Popes have not been known to do so for many centuries, it would cause a great deal of confusion. But I’m not sure that is as severe a scandal, or causes such confusion, as troubling statements related to Doctrine, the right practice of the Faith, ecumenism, etc. Those affect the Faith on a more fundamental level, and, I think, are even more necessary to comment on]
…….If the Vatican does not choose to speak to these issues by reaffirming Church teaching, may we, the faithful, not do so in an attempt to mitigate the damage? We do not have the luxury of living in the historically disconnected world, where statements of the pope took months to reach any given diocese by letter, if at all. Our always-on, Internet connected planet presents a new reality not encountered by the ancient Church: every thought and action of a figure as high profile as a pope is instantly broadcast to billions, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike. They are forming opinions of what we believe based on what they hear and see, whether or not it is accurately represented. Is there to be no corrective action taken by anyone if the Holy See takes none itself?
As cited by Pope Leo XIII, Pope Felix III admonished:
“An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed…. He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity.”
It seems indisputable, then, that we must resist error — even from a pope, who may fall into such outside the parameters of the infallibility of his office and most particularly in his personal judgments.
In the 16th century, we see this understanding succinctly expressed by Melchior Cano, a Bishop and Theologian of the Council of Trent. It is taken from his De Locis Theologicis — a text the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates “certainly ranks with the most lauded productions of the Renaissance” and “in the estimation of some critics … made its author worthy of a place next to St. Thomas Aquinas.”
“Now it can be said briefly that those who defend blindly and indiscriminately any judgment whatsoever of the Supreme Pontiff concerning every matter weaken the authority of the Apostolic See; they do not support it; they subvert it; they do not fortify it… . Peter has no need of our lies; he has no need of our adulation.”
It seems equally clear that none of us may use such criticism as an excuse to abandon the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. [Agreed!] We may not decide for ourselves that any given occupant of the See of Peter is not the pope, for it lies outside our competence to make such judgments. We must submit to every legitimate exercise of his authority, showing obedience in all areas where obedience is due. [Which is really quite limited. And this Pope has chosen thus far to avoid invoking his charism of infallibility in official doctrinal pronouncements for the universal Church.]
OK, I’ve stolen more than enough, but I don’t think I took even 1/3 of the post’s material! As I said, it’s pretty long (~3500 words?), but quite valuable.
I generally try to go even a bit further on the side of prudent caution than the above, generally restricting my commentary to admittedly pointed, even leading questions, regarding this papal statement or that papal act. I’ve written a lot on this Pope, and certainly don’t recall every single thing I’ve ever written, but I generally try very hard from making definitive judgments regarding his deeds, limiting myself to those questions or addressing, at most, the prudence of whatever is under consideration. That’s just my point of view, it doesn’t have to be yours, and I generally don’t have a problem with those who vary on either side – towards a more cautious, non-critical approach, or a more openly critical one. I do start to have a bit of a problem when those who adhere to one of those positions tries to dictate to others what is permissible for them to do in this regard. I have always believed as Skojec (and many others) do, and as I think they have demonstrated through strongly reasoned argument, it is licit to point out problematic acts or statements if it is done in in a charitable manner that does not involve final value judgments (this Pope is a heretic, protestant, demon, etc).
YMMV. May the fireworks begin.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, shocking, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
Pat Archbold has an explosive post related to Pope Francis that is quite possibly the most troubling statement made by this Pontiff yet. After acknowledging that what he says may not only be controversial, but heretical, he then pronounces that he agrees with the devil that all Christians, be they evangelical, Orthodox, Lutheran, Catholics, or “Apostolic,” are “one.” He even pauses, announces out loud his doubts about what he is tempted to say, but then goes ahead and says it anyway. This starts at 4:10 in the video below:
Now, there are some people at CMR that are attacking Mr. Archbold severely, pretending that Pope Francis did not say what he plainly said. He is speaking in Spanish, which I read much better than I speak, but I’ve listened to the Pope and read the translation about 10 times now and it’s very close to how I would translate it. They leave out a bit that I think is important which I’ll include in the transcript below, which is mostly from the subtitles of the video but I make a few changes:
“I feel like saying something that may sound controversial……….or even heretical, I don’t know. But there is someone who “knows” (sabe – the verb used conveys knowing an intellectual fact) that, despite our differences, we are one. It is he who is persecuting us*. It is he who is persecuting Christians today, he who is anointing us with the blood of martyrdom** He knows that Christians are disciples of Christ: that they are one, that they are brothers! He doesn’t care (or he is not interested) that they are Evangelicals , Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics, or Apostolic……he does not care! They are Christians! And that blood unites. Today, dear brothers and sisters, we are living an “ecumenism of blood.”
* – So the devil is using muslims as the vehicle of his persecution? Is this statement intended to absolve muslims for their guilt in murdering Christians around the world in their thousands every month? “The devil made them do it?”
**- So the devil now anoints us? What is he anointing us with? The blood – grace – of martyrdom. So the devil is playing a key role in the dispensing of grace?
Now, there has been tremendous confusion in the Church on just this subject of the ostensible unity of Christians in the post-conciliar period. This confusion is a prime reason why so many Catholics of conscience have serious concerns over Dignitatis Humanae and other VII products, documents that played key roles in introducing novel concepts regarding just who constitutes the Church and what means unity. The souls arguing against Archbold on this narrow point (he also brings up the scandal of appointing Fr. Timothy Radcliffe to a position of influence at the Vatican, and the Pope’s silence on the Irish sodo-“marriage” vote – those concerns get crickets, everyone is focused on this devil-unity statement) seem very confused on this matter – some persistently argue that because protestant baptisms can be valid, that means unity with the Church. But “unity” properly understood extends far beyond that, and once a protestant, possessing the proper mental faculties, accepts protestant errors condemned by the Church, the Grace of baptism is lost as he has now chosen to place himself outside the Church. This used to be clear. Virtually all Catholics used to firmly believe that those outside the Church had only the dimmest chances of salvation – if they believed they had any at all. But not anymore – which is why a lot of very bright souls wonder how it is possible to reconcile major aspects of the pre-and post-conciliar Magisterium.
Back to the Pope’s statement – my good Lord, have mercy on us. Has there ever been a Pope who would preface a highly controversial (and dubious) theological proposition with, essentially, “This may make me a heretic, but…….?” Simply on the prudential level, for any Catholic to make a public pronouncement like that is simply incredible, but for a prelate, let alone THE POPE?!?!?! There simply are no words.
Even if what he were saying were 100% orthodox, to be so imprudent as to promote uncertainty in the Pope’s theological standing, to assail the dignity of the office with a statement that, according to the Pope, might be heretical, to scandalize millions by declaring “I’m just not certain if this is heresy or not, which could land you and me in hell for all eternity, but here goes!”……just wow.
We are in totally uncharted waters. Yes, yes, John XXII, but that was one narrow matter on which he was clear he spoke as a private theologian. We get no such reassurances here. And it is almost certainly much more than one narrow topic.
We are deep into the Passion of the Church, indeed. Our Lady warned us and warned us……
UPDATE: More analysis from Eliot Bougis. Much of his commentary is directed at Jimmy Akin’s endless, credibility-snapping apologias for papal statements over the past 2 years, including this one. A quote from that commentary, including a statement by Pope Francis I did not address above:
Third, the biggest problem arises from his claim that the wound of division exists “in the body of the Church”. This is utterly false, and in the “heretical” kind of way, to be sure. The Church is ONE and SPOTLESS; all such “division” is extrinsic to Her. Ironically enough, the divisions Pope Francis is addressing are themselves the result of schismatic Protestant history and an ongoing refusal to seek communion with Rome. So, by calling such divisions the work of the Devil, he’s right–all schism is diabolical, including that fostered by the organizers of the John 17 Movement! [Which meeting in Arizona the Pope’s video was addressing]
Fourth, by saying that “from 9 in the morning to 5 in the afternoon, [he] will be with [the John 17 participants] spiritually,” and that he desires to “join [them] as just another participant” in the event, he vaults over the otherwise safe area of merely praying with non-Catholics and dives into formal co-celebration with them. The event in Arizona included Bible teaching and worship, not mere prayers, so, by uniting his person and intentions with the participants, Pope Francis has formally and publicly united himself as a member of Protestant worship,* which is a no-no, even in the post-Conciliar age (cf.Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 8). But, hey, who am I to judge?
Not that any of the above matters, of course. It doesn’t matter what this pope says, whose pious ears he offends, what traditional doctrine and laws he undermines and obscures. He’s the pope, after all. It’s all his show. As “faithful Catholics” we’re just expected to smile and nod.
More shortly, God willing.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
In the United States of the 60s and 70s – but much more importantly, throughout the Church in the former Christendom – the disastrous undermining of Dogma by influential elements within the Church’s own hierarchy played a huge role in the advance of radically immoral social changes. This was apparent with Cardinal Cushing’s under the table deal with Planned Barrenhood to actually oppose Catholic opposition to the legalization of contraception in the Massachusetts legislature in the early 60s, American Jesuit leadership collaborating with the Kennedy family in orchestrating their switch from a pro-life to a pro-abort position, and weak to non-existent opposition to many liberal social trends throughout those two decades in state after state, court case after court case, from prelates all around the country.
We’ve seen another instance of the Church hierarchy not only failing in its duty to promote and defend the moral order, but even making statements that seem to argue for its dissolution, even against Church Doctrine, in the debacle that just occurred in formerly Catholic Ireland, where nearly 2/3 of the population determined that neither God nor Nature would inform their conscience, and approved the most unnatural perversions as being equivalent to “marriage.” Rorate Caeli reminds us of some of the very poor leadership given by two of Ireland’s most prominent prelates, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin and Bishop Donal McKeown of Derry. Both of these men, especially the former, have played leading roles in the destruction of the Church in Ireland over the past 30 odd years, from installation of perverse men and agendas at the country’s leading seminary to their – very apparent – tortured uncertainty over whether to oppose so-called marriage between sodomites. First, Archbishop Martin attempting to defend Church Doctrine (I add emphasis and comments):
The problem in many ways is that the Church has often in the past presented its message poorly. [I certainly agree with that, but not for the reasons Martin puts forth] What is a message of love was presented in language that was harsh. What was rational argument was presented as a dogma which all should accept. [Typical progressive belief: Dogma is somehow irrational. That is because they do not accept it] The truth about Jesus Christ can only be proclaimed in love.[This is an unfortunate and even dangerous statement. Such a careless statement can easily be taken to mean that the Church’s entire moral edifice, throughout Her entire history, has been dangerously wrong, or at least harshly expressed, and thus of dubious merit to every single living soul on the planet. This is a really terrible thing for a bishop to say] This is a challenge in today’s culture where often there is a clash of viewpoints and where we find it difficult at times to bring the message of our faith into a culture where faith is considered out of place in public discourse. The fact that in the past the Church was dogmatic in its attempted imposition of its views rather than engage in rational societal debate, does not justify people today replacing “sound-bite-ism” for dogmatism as a way of avoiding rational debate. [How many people alive today have any experience of the Church being “harsh” or “dogmatic?” The reason the Church’s message of morality in a context of love of self, neighbor, and God has not reached men is because IT HAS NOT BEEN TAUGHT! At all! Especially by men like Martin, who have always cowered from challenging the dominant cultural mores, such as they are, preferring to serve men rather than God]
****An ethics of equality does not require uniformity. There can be an ethic of equality which is an ethic of recognising and respecting difference. A pluralist society can be creative in finding ways in which people of same-sex orientation have their rights and their loving and caring relationships recognised and cherished in a culture of difference, while respecting the uniqueness of the male-female relationship. [How on earth can the few faithful Catholics in Ireland now defend the Doctrine of the Faith, deploring the evils of sodomy in every form, now that their Archbishop has told the entire world how wonderful they are within their own context and in a “culture of difference?”] I know that the harshness with which the Irish Church treated gay and lesbian people in the past – and in some cases still today – may make it hard for LGBT people to accept that I am sincere in what I am proposing.[Oh, go get ’em tiger! You’re a real rock of the Faith. I bet Saint Peter can’t wait to welcome you as a brother at the pearly gates. What he’s basically pleading is: “Though we’ve been wrong on the past on just about everything, can’t you at least throw us a bone, and especially me, tortuously conflicted as I am on this matter, so that I won’t even have to pretend to fight you on some later date? Can’t you make this easy on me and go with some “civil union” rigmarole that will let me play this matter off most easily to my constituency, both left and right?”]
Now for Bishop McKeown:
Although he maintained that legalizing same-sex “marriage” would be a “dangerous experiment,” especially the ramifications in the lives of children and future generations, he equivocated that people could vote yes or no in the referendum “in good conscience,” if they were as informed as possible before voting and were making a “mature decision.” [Ah, the good ‘ol primary error of Dignitatis Humanae, the “primacy of the individual conscience,” no matter how badly, even demonically formed, strikes again! But do you think Bishop McKeown or any other Church progressive would grant so much latitude to, say, a rapacious “capitalist” that thought and prayed about his decision to defraud his workers of their wages?!? Of course not! Because being a greedy, conservative capitalist is not on the list of “approved” sins by the progressive hierarchy!]
“People have to make their own mature decision, be it yes or be it no. I would hate for people to be voting no for bad reasons, for bigoted reasons, for nasty reasons, for bullying reasons. People have to make up their own minds and I’m quite happy that people can do that in front of God, be it yes or be it no,” Bishop McKeown said. [And now he equivocates voting against sodomite pretend marriage with bigotry, nastiness, and bullying! Oh, we sure have an heir of the Apostles in this pathetic creature, don’t we?!?]
“I don’t doubt that there are many people who are practicing churchgoers of whatever church background who will in conscience vote Yes, and that’s entirely up them. I’m not going to say they’re wrong,” he added. [I doubt you’d ever say anything that weighs against the prevailing secular pagan orthodoxy.]
The main argument of Archbishop Martin was basically this: neither I, nor my post-conciliar predecessors, have lifted one finger to express unpopular Church Doctrine for decades, especially on sexual issues, and now that the fruit of our failure is manifesting itself, we throw up our hands and declare the war lost.
Or: different religion, and all is going just brilliantly according to plan.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, contraception, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, North Deanery, paganism, pr stunts, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Victory.
UPDATE: So, I got a call from the woman who apparently leads the McKinney 40 Days for Life campaign and led the prayer vigils outside the former McKinney Planned Barrenhood for several years. I think it fair to say she was none too pleased with my post. She thinks a lot of progress is being made, and that this is a big victory. She also claims I made a factual error, which is that there were actually 3 Planned Parenthood’s in Collin County at one point, and now there is only one. And, this is true, I had misremembered or misunderstood when one of Planned Parenthood’s Plano locations opened and closed. The McKinney office opened in June 2008, a Plano office closed in 2011, so for about 3 years there were 3 Banned Parenthoods in Collin County. So, however significant that is to you, duly noted. The rest of the post stands, this small detail doesn’t change anything else I wrote below
There has been some excitement in certain local pro-life circles of late regarding the recent closure of the Planned Barrenhood McKinney office. This is being presented as a great triumph for the pro-life cause, since a rather large town (pop. ~ 150,000 and a county seat, to boot!) will now not have a Planned Barrenhood facility, even if it was a facility that never performed surgical abortions (but certainly did provide referrals).
But those of us with longer memories are not so sure. To some of us, it looks like Planned Barrenhood simply executing a small administrative change which will have only the most minimal effect on the availability of abortion and contraception in North Texas.
Why do I always have to be such a party-pooper? Let me elucidate:
In 2011, the State of Texas under Rick Perry made the decision to stop using Planned Barrenhood as an outlet for the falsely named “Women’s Health Program,” which was really just a program to provide highly subsidized contraception to low-income women. But since Banned Parenthood is so prominent in support of abortion and all manner of hideous moral evils, Governor Perry and others determined that de-listing PP from the program would be both a good PR move and also help wound the pro-abort giant. This was big news back then, as this article at LifeNews indicates. The state wound up losing federal funding to the tune of about $40 million per year due to blocking Planned Parenthood from the program, but Perry and others, to their credit, stuck to their guns, and as a result, numerous Planned Barrenhood facilities around the state closed. A partial list of those closures below:
Planned Parenthood Arlington North Clinic (August 31st)
1305 East Abram Street
Arlington, TX 76010
Planned Parenthood Gainesville Health Services (August 29th)
316 South Chestnut Street
Gainesville, TX 76240
Planned Parenthood Mesquite Health Services (September)
3220 Gus Thomason Road, #231
Mesquite, TX 75150
Planned Parenthood Plano Health Services (August 31st)
1400 Summit Avenue, #CA
Plano, TX 75074
Planned Parenthood Sherman Clinic (August)
2114 Texoma Parkway. Suite 700
Sherman, TX 75090
Planned Parenthood Terrell Health Services (September)
804 East Moore Avenue, Ste A
Terrell, TX 75160
Planned Parenthood Waxahachie Clinic (Closed in July)
507 North Highway 77, #508
Waxahachie, TX 75165
Note that the McKinney office, which was not included in the 2011 closures, continued to operate, having started up around 2007 or 08.
Now the big news coming out of pro-life groups is that this McKinney office is now closing. But, as my old radio pal Vicki Middleton (God rest her soul) used to say, “hey, guess what?!”……..Planned Barrenhood had already re-opened their Plano office sometime between 2011 and 2015, and plans to expand it with the closure in McKinney and relocation to a new office in Plano right off Central Expressway……..where Planned Barrenhood had operated a no-surgical-abortion facility for years.
So……from late 2011 to today, the number of Planned Barrenhood offices in Collin County (population: 1.1 million) remains at one. They closed Plano, but kept McKinney open, re-opened Plano, then closed McKinney while expanding Plano. This is a nice little thing for folks in McKinney, I suppose, but I can’t help but viewing this as at best a marginal “win” for the pro-life movement overall. I also don’t think it means Planned Barrenhood is still reeling from the 2011 effort to defund some of their activities – if anything, they seem to be adjusting to the new conditions and rolling along quite well.
Which brings me to my broader point: there is frankly a lot of gamesmanship and politicking in the pro-life movement that I am not entirely comfortable with. Both my wife and I (my wife in particular) are about as committed to the pro-life movement as they come (while still recognizing others even more so), but both of us fear that it has become institutionalized, and in so doing has developed its own interests and appetites and, to some degree, we both fear there are elements in the movement that, maybe even on a subconscious level, don’t really want to see abortion go away anytime soon. There is a huge amount of money tied up in the pro-life movement (and things presented as “wins” like this are almost always used for fundraising), money means interests, and those with interests often times don’t want to see them threatened. They become reliant on the industry for their livelihood. I’m not saying there are a lot of people in the pro-life movement who consciously are just in it for the money, but I do think there are elements within it that may see it more as a career or a source of income than a real, life and death moral struggle, and one critically tied to the salvation of souls.
Which gets back to the primary evils that underlie abortion and create the demand for it: the twins of fornication and contraception. Sandra Day O’Connor in the Casey vs. Planned Parenthood decision was diabolically right when she wrote – in favor of keeping abortion legal – that abortion forms the indispensable backstop for the entire post-modern American existence, which revolves around “sexual freedom” (really slavery) and the means to “not be punished with a baby,” as our President so demonically put it, while still “enjoying” unlimited sexual license. That is to say, until we convert souls back to a moral life, meaning a Christian moral existence, and until contraception use is not just made illegal but viewed by the vast majority as the horrendous assault against nature and God that it is, we’ll never be rid of abortion. Even today, as we congratulate ourselves on the reduction in the rate of surgical abortion, the movement tends to be very quiet about the explosion in chemical abortion through RU-486, “morning after pills,” and the like.
And if you want to hear crickets, outside a few stalwart groups and individuals, bring up the subject of contraception. The infusion of more and more protestants into the pro-life movement over the past 2 or 3 decades has been both a blessing and a curse, as many of these protestants are ambivalent at best regarding the abortion-contraception connection, and some simply refuse to see it. Even among outwardly Catholic pro-life groups, there are many who are not comfortable condemning contraception.
So, enjoy your marginal victory, but don’t get too excited about it. It’s very likely PB will decide to re-open a McKinney facility within a few years if the market dynamics change again.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Interior Life, manhood, paganism, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, true leadership, Virtue.
I will be praying outside The Men’s Club, 2340 W. Northwest Hwy, Dallas, on Wednesday June 3, at 8 pm. I will actually be across the street in the parking lot of the US Post Office. This is directly across from the entrance to the inappropriately named “gentleman’s club.”
There was a great turnout last month. I pray all of you are able to come back out next Wednesday. For those who made suggestions on how to improve this effort going forward, I’ve replied to some but not all. Please have patience with me, I will get back to you or we can discuss June 3 in person. I do have a failing in always replying to folks who contact me because I get quite a bit of correspondence.
The post office parking lot is well lit and set back some distance from the very busy roadway. It is public land so we cannot be harassed for being there. It’s really an ideal situation, we are basically impossible to miss by patrons leaving this SOB. Men over 18 only. All men are welcome. You don’t have to be a member of a particular parish.
No protesting, just prayer. No interaction with the patrons at this time. That may come later. We’ll see.
This is a small way to push back against the culture of license, perversion, and death. Maybe it’s even a way to get that canonized “smell of the sheep” we hear so much about.
I pray you are able to make it. Bring your friends. Fly in from out of town! Rent buses!
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, Basics, contraception, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, shocking, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
Well, well, well…….if it isn’t Robert Gates, continuing his disastrous leadership in yet another critically important American institutions. After essentially destroying the defense acquisition process in his turn as Secretary of Defense, he now apparently intends to insure the BSA (Boy Scouts of America) is well and truly leveled during his administration.
Not that their present position – admitting Scouts with perverse inclinations into their ranks, but not Scoutmasters with the same affliction – is in any way tenable. I wrote at the time they disastrously surrendered that it would’t be more than a year or two before just this happened, that they would have men given over to the most unnatural lusts, the vast majority of whom allow their faculties in that regard to run wild, serving in leadership positions. Well, I was just about spot-on, Gates has all but called to lift the ban on sodo-Scout leaders (thanks to MFG):
The Boy Scouts of America’s ban on gay leaders “cannot be sustained,” said president Robert Gates in remarks prepared for this week’s National Annual Meeting being held in Atlanta.
In his speech, which was posted to the Scouts’ website today and is available below, the former U.S. Defense Secretary and CIA director says he is not asking for a policy change — not yet, anyway. But, he says, “I must speak as plainly and bluntly to you as I spoke to presidents when I was director of the CIA and secretary of defense. We must deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.”
The Irving-based Boy Scouts lifted its ban on openly gay youth members at its May 2013 meeting at the Gaylord Texan — much to the displeasure of then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry. But it continues to prohibit openly gay adults from serving as volunteers or paid BSA staffers.
In his speech, Gates points out that many councils are “openly” challenging the current policy — among them, for instance, the Boy Scouts’ Greater New York Councils, which recently hired an openly gay 18-year-old as a camp counselor. Said Gates, expect that trend to continue.
“While technically we have the authority to revoke their charters, such an action would deny the lifelong benefits of Scouting to hundreds of thousands of boys and young men today and vastly more in the future,” he says in the prepared remarks. “I will not take that path. [So, you’ve given up. Shocking. If you took a strong stand now, you could nip this trend in the bud, but by announcing you will take no action, you are not only insuring many more poor, morally lost souls will try to gain positions of influence in the Scouts, but, even more, you are positively encouraging them to do so. You’re basically announcing, on the QT, I’m in support of this, I will do nothing to stop it. Remember to check out the Troops of Saint George for a solidly Catholic alternative to the Boy-Rape Scouts]
Further prediction: it won’t be more than 10 years or so before two things happen: there are massive lawsuits against the Scouts due to sex abuse that occurs between scouts and “masters,” and the BSA will become a predominately left-wing sexular pagan advocacy organization a la the Girl Scouts. You are going to allow at least some men with powerful inclinations towards “twinks” unfettered access to them in remote, rural locations. Normal boys will flee in spades, within a few years virtually no normal boys will join up, and you’ll be left with a much smaller sodomite-advocacy group. Satan couldn’t be happier, and Baden-Powell must be spinning in his grave.
MFG also recommends this: interesting analysis that indicates that parishes that host Boy Scout troops but who refuse sodo-marriage could be held liable. The wheels, the wheels are coming off: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/BSALegalRamifications.pdf
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Christendom, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, priests, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
A commenter in my previous post already noted this, but I thought this a sufficiently huge topic to break it out into another post. That article I linked to that examined more details of the Pew religious attitudes survey goes on to paint a really bleak picture of the future of the Church. Based on present trends, and assuming they arrive at some equilibrium point in the future (and discounting certain factors like immigration), the author estimates the Catholic Church will wind up with only 6% of the total population of the US at some indeterminate future point (I did not see the article declare when this would happen, but I would guess, based on present trends, within 50-80 years – i.e., within the lifetime of my children). This data shows the Church has already essentially reached a point of near-total collapse, and is only coasting on the 59% of her prior membership who hasn’t left the Church for a sect or complete religious apathy. Once this generation dies out, the Church will be smaller, percentage-wise, than it has been since the early 1800s in this country (you have to go to the link for the tabular data, since its embedded in their html code for the article):
If conversions went on as they do today and all other factors were held steady, America would wind up with the religious demographics of the stable distribution.
Unaffiliateds would wind up modestly gaining ground (from 23 percent at present to 29 percent). And Christian denominations would drop a little (from 69 percent at present to 62 percent at equilibrium).
But there would be substantial redistribution among Christian groups, with evangelical Protestants gaining (26 percent at present to 32 percent) and Catholics losing more than half their current share of the population (21 percent to 8 percent).
Why do evangelicals wind up ahead of other Christian sects in this model? They’re better at holding on to the people born into their tradition (65 percent retention compared to 59 percent for Catholics and 45 percent for Mainline Protestants), and they’re a stronger attractor for people leaving other faiths. According to Pew’s data on conversion rates, 10 percent of people raised Catholic wind up as evangelicals. Just 2 percent of people born as evangelicals wind up Catholic. The flow between mainline and evangelical Protestants is also tilted in evangelicals’ favor. Twelve percent of those raised evangelical wind up in mainline congregations, but 19 percent of mainline Protestants wind up becoming evangelical.
This data only confirms what most of us already know: a very large number of people leaving the Catholic Church in this country (as well as many others) do so because they are spiritually starved, tired of being fed baby food and pablum in the form of happy-clappy liturgies and never-offending, never-challenging “catechesis.” And in my personal experience, it is these people who have already made up their minds that the Church has nothing to offer them that are the most resistant to any propagandizing in the name of the Faith. They have tried Catholicism, found it grossly wanting, and will not be back. Former Catholics, in point of fact, make up over HALF the growth seen in the evangelical sects – and, again, data from other countries shows that the situation is even worse there.
This data also shows it not just cultural changes that have been responsible for the destruction of the Faith in the lives of millions of souls. Some groups are growing quite rapidly, as are traditional Catholic communities. It is the banal, heck, spiritually dead product of Novus Ordo land – with its worldly focus, left-wing political bent, and its grave fear that it never, ever, offend anyone (except true believers) – that is driving souls from the Church en masse.
Just a few caveats: like all projections, this one is based on a limited data set, ignores important factors like immigration (little wonder bishops stress it so much, they probably have access to a lot better data than this), and is predicated on things staying just as they have. In fact, with regard to whatever positive growth areas it sees, I tend to imagine those are going to be under heavy stress as the prevailing culture becomes increasingly pagan and anti-Christian. Once being visibly, publicly Christian (of any type) starts to carry a heavy cultural cost, the numbers could become much worse than they show above.
Nevertheless, the data above shows the Church in a uniquely bad position. The Church is being accursed by low rates of retention of those born into her, the highest rates of flight out, very low rate of conversion, and, finally and most momentously, a very low birth rate for those within. That is why, cumulatively, the Catholic Church, based on the data above, may suffer an even greater collapse than the mainline protestant sects. Given how much those have imploded, that is beyond depressing, but, then again, when you model your corporate institution on a bad copy of an already failing one (mainline protestantism), should one be surprised that it fares even worse than the original? Especially when moderately well-formed Catholics can simply look to the recent past and say: “These things are not the same?”
So, the new evangelization has either massively failed, or succeeded beyond a modernist’s greatest hopes and dreams, depending on how you look at it.
I’ll be blunt – the Church is being bled white by doctrinal indifference (and chaos), left-leaning politics, and managerial incompetence. The Church in this country as it exists today is likely to be a shadow of its former self in a few decades. Heck, it already is, but the process is only going to accelerate. And the thing is, many leaders in the Church, up to and including the past several Popes, are apparently fine with this. They are so taken in by the (I’ll say it) demonic lie of ecumenism that they probably see the collapse of the Catholic Faith as an OK thing, so long as it doesn’t happen too much in their diocese, and their finances remain OK. Which of the last several pontiffs has repeatedly presented a cogent explanation to the souls in their charge (that is, the entire world) why they must either remain, or become, Catholic? I seriously question whether our present Pope Francis would agree with the statement: “I undeniably did the right thing, and immeasurably increased my chances for salvation, in becoming Catholic).”
These men have been so taken in by their blind adherence to the ecumenical indifferentist modernist socialist materialist philosophy that they are allowing – no, encouraging, forcing – the Church to rapidly die on their watch. This is a tragedy of biblical proportions and almost forces me to conclude that we have to be well into the end times in order to comprehend their behavior and the death of faith in the hierarchy. As a local priest says, we are now deep into the passion of the Church, a passion prophesied by St. Paul, St. John, and others. Pope Saint Pius X, the last great Pontiff the Church has had (over 100 years ago), concerned over the perversion of so many priests and bishops he saw in HIS time (God was merciful to let him live and die when he did), wondered:
“whether such a perversion of minds is not the sign announcing, and the beginning of, the last times, and that the Son of Perdition spoken of by the Apostle (II Thess II:3) might already be living on this earth.”
And of course we know that Pope Leo XIII – who some consider to have been quite liberal compared to his predecessors – had a vision of satan being unleashed on the Church for 100 years in 1884. That doesn’t mean satan was unleashed then, it just means the vision happened then.
So sad……if this is not the end times, future historians will have to look on the Church from 1958 – ??? as the greatest mass suicide of an incredibly large, influential, and resilient cultural institution ever.
Yeah, I knew this post would get long with my ranting – there is so darned much to rant about – that’s why I did two posts on this subject. Do go to the link, there is more analysis and data there.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, General Catholic, Society, scandals, foolishness, disaster, Papa, horror, episcopate, priests, error, secularism, self-serving, abdication of duty, the return, paganism, the struggle for the Church.
I found a post that digs a little deeper into the Pew religious attitudes survey I covered last week. The news, if anything, is even more bleak for Catholics. I reported last week that the percentage of self-identified Christians had fallen by about 15% – that 15% of the overall population, whereas a few years ago 85% of Americans self-identified as Christians, only 70% do today.
But now for the really bad news – it seems that of that 15% drop, nearly 3/4 of it has to do with Catholics falling away from the Church. Whereas nearly 1/3 of people surveyed responded they had been raised Catholic, only 21% now self-identify as Catholic (and what tiny fragment of those actually accept all the dogmatic beliefs of the Church? That in itself is a puny fraction).
O Glorious new evangelization, will your wonders every cease?!?
Look at those dismal, pathetic numbers! Which religious body has experienced the single largest hemorrhage of members? The Catholic Church. Which one has experienced the second smallest rate of conversion of new members into it? The Catholic Church, and the only one with a smaller influx are the historically black congregations, which are infinitesimal in comparison to the size of the Church, and yet, and YET – the difference is paltry. Relative to its overall size, the Catholic Church makes fewer converts than every other group identified above, and by a factor of at least 2-3, if not more.
And mind you, this is even with three decades of basically unconstrained (and morally dubious) illegal immigration from predominately Catholic countries! Without that influx the numbers would be even more pathetic, to the extent that it is quite possible that former Catholics would outnumber Catholics without it. No wonder the bishops are so irrefutably wedded to mass immigration no matter how many families are broken up, lives are ruined, how much economic damage it inflicts both here and in the countries suffering mass emigration, or how many Americans lose their jobs to low-paid illegal immigrants – it’s the prime, and quite possibly sole factor keeping their dioceses, by and large, somewhat afloat.
But here is the really important question – is this collapse simply the accidental result of the implementation of disastrously destructive post-conciliar novelties, or is it by design? Were those policies implemented in the sure and certain knowledge they would leave the Church prostrate?
We’ll likely never know the answer in this life, and I imagine it features a good deal of both, but either way, the entire “new evangelization” of soft liberalism, moral decadence, and catechetical chaos has resulted in the total implosion of the Faith in this country and many others around the world. If anything, this country remains a relative bastion of a stalwart faith in this hemisphere and in comparison to all of Europe, as surveys show an even greater collapse in the practice of the Faith in Latin America and virtually every European country. I am by no means a professional historian, but I’ve read far more than my share of Church history, and never in the history of the Church has their been such an across the board implosion of virtually every measure of the vitality of the Church as their has been in the past 50 years. Modernist ideologues, congratulations, I imagine you have succeeded beyond even your wildest dreams.
So….what next? The human leadership of the Church seems to have vehemently rejected even the mild restoration efforts of Pope Benedict in favor of the continued advance of the radical humanism and reflexive leftism of the immediate post-conciliar period. Hey, the political leaders demand it, the culture seems to be rushing headlong into the kind of barbaric paganism not seen in the West in a thousand years or more, and since the final collapse probably won’t happen on a particular bishop’s watch, why not just go along for the ride? Even more, a large majority of Church leaders remain so blinded by ideology that even if they cared about the fate of souls and the material state of the Church, they would be highly disinclined to do anything, anyways. For them, this is the realization of the vision of the left-wing anointed, and nothing will prevent them from seeing their ideological triumph set in stone, souls be damned (and they will).
Lord have mercy on us. We have surely failed in our prayers and penance to deserve prelates such as these. Have mercy on us and send us those we so desperately need, true shepherds of souls who know their sole duty is to save every soul they are given charge over, and who will make no compromises in that effort.
St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Alphonsus Marie de Liguori, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Isidore of Seville, St. John Chrysostom, St. Peter Chrysologous, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. John Fisher, St. Andrew Corsini, St. Anselm, St. Peter Damian, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Peter and all the Apostles……..pray for us and our bishops! May your prayers for them work miracles of conversion that will result in all of our bishops emulating your superior piety and virtue in every respect!
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, General Catholic, Society, scandals, awesomeness, foolishness, sickness, episcopate, Virtue, Glory, Tradition, persecution, error, Holy suffering, sexual depravity, true leadership, secularism, Grace, manhood, paganism, the struggle for the Church.
And there was a particularly awesome picture that accompanied the article, too:
If one were to judge from the overall media coverage, one would think Archbishop Cordileone is veritably besieged in the chancery building, holding off crazed masses of whooping, dancing Catholics with a flintlock rifle and a bag of powder. Or, alternatively, using his iron hand of repression to destroy the lives of innocent teachers who just happen to oppose virtually the entire moral edifice of the Faith.
Obviously, the situation is not so one-sided. While it is difficult to discern from this distance just how “divided” actual believing Catholics are over Cordileone’s insistence on a bare minimum of doctrinal integrity from the teachers in the Catholic schools in that afflicted city, hundreds of Catholics rallied to his support recently, and I would wager that’s just the tip of the iceberg. It is well past time for Catholics, and especially the leadership, to start making public distinctions between those who call themselves Catholic, but who reject all manner of belief and practice, and those who truly do accept the Faith whole and entire. The latter should receive the praise and thanks of Church leadership, while the former should – must – be told in no uncertain terms that their lack of faith is not only disturbing, but places them outside the Church and on a path towards eternal suffering.
Yeah, I won’t hold my breath, either, but a man can dream. The report:
San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone smiled for photos, blessed the faithful and accepted thanks from many among the hundreds of Bay Area Catholics who showed up for a picnic Saturday in San Francisco in support of the religious leader.
For months, the archbishop has been the target of demonstrations by teachers, students, parents and others who disagreed with changes he has proposed for the staff handbook and high school employee contracts atRiordan and Sacred Heart Cathedral high schools in San Francisco, Marin Catholic in Kentfield and Junipero Serra in San Mateo that defined adultery, masturbation, homosexual relations and the viewing of pornography as “gravely evil.”
“He’s like a rock star,” said Eva Muntean of San Francisco, who organized Saturday’s “family picnic day” at Sue Bierman Park near the Ferry Building in support of the archbishop, as she watched Cordileone try to inch his way through the throng of well-wishers. [OK, the ‘rock star’ comparison may be a bit disordered. Move on]
Muntean, who started the website sfcatholics.org, said she organized the event because she believes many Bay Area Catholics feel their support of the archbishop isn’t being heard. [And I’m quite certain that’s true. Did that effort to run an ad supporting Archbishop Cordileone in the San Fran newspaper ever succeed?]
The archbishop appeared to have felt that support Saturday. “I’m just here to thank my supporters,” Cordileone said to a reporter, declining to comment further. He did not speak before the crowd at the picnic.
Cordileone became the center of controversy in one of the country’s most gay-friendly cities for requiring that staff at archdiocese high schools “affirm and believe” what many Catholics say is simply the tenets of their beliefs: that marriage is between a man and a woman, that sexual relations outside of marriage are wrong and that certain types of reproductive technology and surrogacy are against the teaching of the church. [See how the media tries to twist this into a “he said, she said” kind of situation. The Church, even today, even with all the confusion and demonic chaos, does not hide the Doctrine of the Faith. Few prelates and priests convey it whole and entire, and fewer laity accept it, but it still stands, in spite of decades of heresy run amok, in spite, even, of destructively opaque papal statements]
Adele Lindberg of Danville said she wanted to support the archbishop because she feels he’s being “demonized” for being faithful to the church’s doctrine.
“Nobody’s saying you have to be Catholic or that you have to send your children to school,” said Lindberg, 59. “But don’t change something that has stood for more than 2,000 years just to meet your agenda.”
Many in the crowd said the controversy was not about hate or disapproval of gay people or others but rather about loving others despite differences and following the teachings of the church……
…..A small group of protesters stood on the edge of the picnic waving a rainbow flag and holding signs. [It was about 3 or 4 rather pathetic older gentlemen. They held signs saying “Why aren’t gay families welcome here?” which were pregnant with error and demonic oppression. Of course everyone is welcome, but your sin remains a sin, and until you give it up, you continue to place your eternal soul in grave jeopardy. This life is short, eternity is forever, and your existence does not have to revolve around your loins]
It appears Cordileone, in a rare display of episcopal backbone, plans to stick to his guns, which makes Bishop Vasa’s collapse in nearby Santa Rosa Diocese all the more pathetic. I certainly pray he continues to do so. Who knows what heavy pressure he is experiencing behind the scenes, not just from well-heeled San Fran Katholycs who have grown very accustomed to having things their way for decades, but also from his fellow bishops in the USCCB, many of whom are as aggrieved as the San Fran sicko community over +Cordileone’s stand. Which, go figure, right, I’m sure not a one of them has a personal stake in this matter, right?
Stay strong, Archbishop Cordileone. No one can make you do anything. It’s all up to you. Serve God, and not man. And let this not be a single step, may this be the first of many in restoring sanity to the Church and world. One man can make an enormous difference. One man can literally change the world. Keep being a man, brother!
Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, family, General Catholic, horror, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
Hmmm….what do you make of this video below, where young children (say, maybe, 4-11?) are asked about abortion? On the one hand, I think it is a pretty powerful piece against this unspeakable evil, but on the other hand, part of me recoils at seeing children 1) asked about abortion in this kind of setting, and 2) used, in a manner of speaking, to further this surely noble cause. I pray God those children really had been delicately introduced to this subject by their parents and formed into comprehending what abortion is. My wife and I have certainly done so, and I am absolutely not a parent who thinks children mustn’t know about such things. In fact, since we spend a good amount of times outside mills with our children, they got introduced to the subject at a pretty young age, but it was my wife and I doing the introducing, and we judged how far to go and what was an appropriate level of knowledge for each child.
From the video, I am far from certain that was the case here. It seems more like children were being introduced into this very uncomfortable and really ghastly subject for the first time. That could potentially cause some avoidable trauma. I don’t know anything about the organization that put this on, other than that it appears to be one of the many protestant abortion abolitionist groups that have sprouted up in the last several years, railing against the fact that the “church” (meaning the sects) hasn’t been speaking out against abortion. And that’s true, they haven’t, but, hello, even though our own Church hasn’t done enough to oppose abortion in this and many other nations in the wake of the most awesomest Council ever that you will never, ever question in any depth to avoid exposing its internal contradictions, Catholics have been the heart and soul of the pro-life movement since it started. So it always makes me get a sardonic smile when I see johnny-come-lately protestants say “goodness, where is the ‘church’ in this terrible evil we see?!?” We’ve been there, folks, welcome to the fight, stop acting like you invented opposition to abortion.
I’ll stop ranting incoherently and get to the video:
It is always heartening to see the innocence that lives in children. Their answers are so direct and honest. It is only when we get older that we begin to allow satan and our fallen natures to convince us that up is down, right is wrong, and killing defenseless children OK. It is amazing what lies and evil people can convince themselves of. I’ve been there, I speak from experience.
I have been accosted a few times by women – it is always women – in cars driving past our vigil outside mills with a child or two in their car. I’ve had them pull up next to us and shout how terrible and evil we are to try to stop mothers from killing their babies. Strange motivation, to be sure, to defend abortion with your child in the car with you.
I’ve been tempted at times to just look at the child and tell them……why don’t you ask your mommy what they do in this place and why she thinks it is so good? Of course, I never have. Even though I am completely, unalterably opposed to anyone who supports abortion even slightly, I don’t want to traumatize a child with the knowledge that mommy maybe killed her older sister, or thinks some kids, at least, are disposable objects to be thrown away when inconvenient. How would you handle that situation? Or maybe you already have……..let me know.