An interesting conversation

[vern_humphrey]

We do not have a pregnancy crisis center in this small town. So we support a pregnancy crisis center in another county. One thing we have done recently is to raise money to buy signs, giving the number of that crisis center. We intend to post them on all roads leading into town.

After finding sites for our signs, we realized we would have to put them up pretty high and the sign posts we had counted on weren’t high enough. I did an internet search for sign posts – and the posts would cost as much as the signs did.

So I called the County Judge, a Democrat, and asked for help. After I explained it to him, he said, “Y’all are a non-profit, aren’t ya?”

Yes, we are. “Well, I can let you have some signposts from the county road department.”

Then he said, “I’ll help you all I can. It’s a shame we have people here raising so much money for an animal shelter, but no shelter or help for pregnant girls.”

 

[chewchoo]

hopefully this contact will help your efforts grow.

 

[vern_humphrey]

hopefully this contact will help your efforts grow.

I hope so. We want to get a story, with pictures, in our two local weekly newspapers – with the judge’s picture and an account of how he helped.

 

[jsphbeale]

I hope so. We want to get a story, with pictures, in our two local weekly newspapers – with the judge’s picture and an account of how he helped.

Please think twice before doing that. He may not want the recognition because of the hostile media. He has done a great service for our cause but sometimes it will backfire if too much attention is given a public servant. It’s a crying shame but true.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t ( I know you are greatfull just as I am) but just something to think about.

 

[CapIV]

America’s political correctness has made the State morally backward.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Please think twice before doing that. He may not want the recognition because of the hostile media. He has done a great service for our cause but sometimes it will backfire if too much attention is given a public servant. It’s a crying shame but true.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t ( I know you are greatfull just as I am) but just something to think about.

I already talked to him about it – it’s his decision.

America’s political correctness has made the State morally backward.

Yes. But perhaps we can do a bit to change that.

 

[SoCalRC]

I’m not sure why he (the official) would be particularly concerned about media, etc. It’s a non profit and a crisis center. When it comes to offering alternatives to abortion we’ve always found plenty of help across the whole political spectrum.

That’s the problem with the rhetoric of hate and division, we lose opportunitys to build on common ground. The most interesting thing to me is that Vern reached out. I say good for him, and good luck.

 

[jsphbeale]

I already talked to him about it – it’s his decision.

Great. The only reason I posted what I did is because I work with more than a few county shops and I know that Commisioners do alot of favors for people but they don’t tell anyone. It is after all the peoples money he is giving away and when a pro choice person or even someone who dislikes him find out it could be the end to his political career. It’s not his to give away is my point. I think it’s great what he did but sadly thats politics.

 

[rwoehmke]

Isn’t it interesting that a Democrat would help out a pro-life effort? We have lots of Democrats in our parish, and the whisper that goes around among some of our parish busy-bodies is," You know he has a Democrat bumper sticker on his car. He must be pro-choice." It is a sad situation in my estimation when one’s political preference is automatically used to put one into a pro-life or pro-choice slot. I don’t find it at all strange that a Democrat judge would help a pro-life effort.

 

[jman507]

Just because a person may be pro-choice doesn’t mean that the person would be against a pregnancy center. I would assume most who are in favor of abortion do not look at it as a good option, but do so out of sympathy of those who feel it is the best of option of the many bad ones.

I guess while we are on the subject, one other thing that drives me a bit crazy, are those who will say “why don’t people who are against abortion help out those who feel the need for one?” I’m thinking well, probably because you don’t care to actually see if any pro-life people are out there trying to help.

But I guess we should have Vern give them a call. Good on ya, and a big thank you. Sometimes you just need to ask.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not the only one who does a bit to help young girls keep their babies – and slowly but surely, what little bit we do is reducing the numbers of babies killed.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Isn’t it interesting that a Democrat would help out a pro-life effort? We have lots of Democrats in our parish, and the whisper that goes around among some of our parish busy-bodies is," You know he has a Democrat bumper sticker on his car. He must be pro-choice." It is a sad situation in my estimation when one’s political preference is automatically used to put one into a pro-life or pro-choice slot. I don’t find it at all strange that a Democrat judge would help a pro-life effort.

Most democrats are pro-choice, though. The party’s official stance is pro-choice. Every single Democrat candidate that is running for president is pro-choice.

 

[SoCalRC]

Most democrats are pro-choice, though. The party’s official stance is pro-choice. Every single Democrat candidate that is running for president is pro-choice.

For a Catholic point of view, it is hard to argue that any presidential hopeful in either party embraces “right to life”.

"In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of therights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: <<All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>" - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, #38

I hear the first two paragraphs quoted a great deal, but almost never the third, where “right to life” is defined. Note that the quote in the third paragraph is from an ecumenical council, giving the teaching tremendous weight (CCC 884, 885).

What I find interesting about the constant obsession of Democrat vs. Republican is the odd lines it draws. A good portion of the GOP ‘base’ believes that Catholicism is a non-Christian cult. Further, the majority of the GOP coallition is not in true agreement with Catholics on abortions themselves. That is, the majority believe in exceptions, like rape and incest, while our belief is that it is always gravely immoral.

Yet, it is perfectly acceptable to find common ground despite a disagreement over not just our Christianity, but even over the abortion of innocents. Yet working with Democrats, who share considerable moral common ground in their platform with Catholics, is inconceivable because they disagree on the priority, suitability, or effectiveness of secular law.

Again, collapsing the broad teaching quoted above down to the incredibly narrow definition of secular law can be a barrier to common ground and progress.

 

[vern_humphrey]

For a Catholic point of view, it is hard to argue that any presidential hopeful in either party embraces “right to life”.

I hear the first two paragraphs quoted a great deal, but almost never the third, where “right to life” is defined. Note that the quote in the third paragraph is from an ecumenical council, giving the teaching tremendous weight (CCC 884, 885).

What I find interesting about the constant obsession of Democrat vs. Republican is the odd lines it draws. A good portion of the GOP ‘base’ believes that Catholicism is a non-Christian cult. Further, the majority of the GOP coallition is not in true agreement with Catholics on abortions themselves. That is, the majority believe in exceptions, like rape and incest, while our belief is that it is always gravely immoral.

Yet, it is perfectly acceptable to find common ground despite a disagreement over not just our Christianity, but even over the abortion of innocents. Yet working with Democrats, who share considerable moral common ground in their platform with Catholics, is inconceivable because they disagree on the priority, suitability, or effectiveness of secular law.

Again, collapsing the broad teaching quoted above down to the incredibly narrow definition of secular law can be a barrier to common ground and progress.

And constantly advancing arguments that there is no “real” pro-choice candidate is the biggest barrier to common ground and progress.

Given two candidates, one who espouses the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and one who espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

 

[KarenNC]

Great. The only reason I posted what I did is because I work with more than a few county shops and I know that Commisioners do alot of favors for people but they don’t tell anyone. It is after all the peoples money he is giving away and when a pro choice person or even someone who dislikes him find out it could be the end to his political career. It’s not his to give away is my point. I think it’s great what he did but sadly thats politics.

Yes, it’s the people’s money, and the people have a right to expect a full accounting of how that money is spent and to expect that it is spent in accordance with community laws. It is either legal for the judge to do this according to the laws of the community (it is, in fact, “his to give away”) or he is stepping outside his legally proscribed role to do something that is at best questionable and at worst illegal. Doesn’t matter what the cause is.

“Favors” need to be done within the limits of the law or not done at all. I have no reason to believe that this particular judge is not acting entirely within his legal limits or that the nonprofit in question doesn’t “deserve” support, but your reply certainly makes it sound as if you believe he is doing something covert and therefore should hide it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Legally the county can make donations to non-profit organizations which are working for the common good. This particular donation was within the County Judge’s discretionary authority. A significantly large donation would have required a vote by the Quorum Court.

 

[SoCalRC]

And constantly advancing arguments that there is no “real” pro-choice candidate is the biggest barrier to common ground and progress.

And you base that claim on what?

Given two candidates, one who espouses the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and one who espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

Neither, pro life is non negotiable. You can’t be ‘right’ on euthanasia and ‘wrong’ on abortion and still be acceptable pro-life in our faith. The Church has given some small lattitude to Catholic politicians in terms of “limiting the harm”, but has granted most of us no grounds for compromise on what it describes as “fundamental and inalienable ethical demands”. In fact, it expressly warns us what is at stake:

“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine.”
…
“When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

We all fail, it is just a matter of degree. That is, we are all sinners and we all make moral compromises. But we should not try to convince ourselves that our Faith does not ask more. Like our profession of unworthiness at Mass, being equal in our failures in this regard should open the door to even more unity and progress.

Which makes the obsession with tribalism in the form of extreme partisanship (complete with demonizing one’s opponents) even more inexplicable to me.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

America’s political correctness has made the State morally backward.

Chicken? Egg?

I’m inclined to think that the so-called “political correctness” to which you refer is a result of moral relativism, rather than the other way around.

Peace,
Dante

 

[deb1]

And constantly advancing arguments that there is no “real” pro-choice candidate is the biggest barrier to common ground and progress.

Given two candidates, one who espouses the pro-life position (albeit imperfectly) and one who espouses the pro-choice position, can a Catholic morally vote for the latter?

Imagine that there are two canidates. One thinks that people should be allowed to kill the members if a minority group, but in every other political viewpoint they hold line up with yours. Now imagine there is a second canidate, imperfect in every way but against killing minorities.

Most people would vote for the second canidate-hopefully. I think that is how we should view the canidates’ stance on abortion, as killing of a minority group.(unborn babies)

The problem is that society is slowly beginning to devalue human life. So, we are finding fewer public figures who are willing to take a strong stance on such issues.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Imagine that there are two canidates. One thinks that people should be allowed to kill the members if a minority group, but in every other political viewpoint they hold line up with yours. Now imagine there is a second canidate, imperfect in every way but against killing minorities.

Most people would vote for the second canidate-hopefully. I think that is how we should view the canidates’ stance on abortion, as killing of a minority group.(unborn babies)

The problem is that society is slowly beginning to devalue human life. So, we are finding fewer public figures who are willing to take a strong stance on such issues.

And that is why we must support those who take a strong pro-life stance, and reject those who are pro-choice.

Again and again, I say, if you idenfify with either party, purge your party. Deny pro-choice candidates the nomination. Support pro-life candidates for the nomination – and not just for the Presidency, but for every elected office.

And look at what the parties say they stand for:

From the Republican Party Platform for 2004:

We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

From the current Democratic Party Platform:

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right.