Confusion as Spokane bishop asks priests not to join 40 Days for Life vigils

[gakroeger]

Priests have also been told that if they talk about abortion from the pulpit, they will traumatize women in the pews who have had abortions. I say, DO IT. Let those women feel their true guilt and pain, and let them heal. Keeping this secret is already doing them harm - actually having the priest condemn abortion - and speak of Christ’s mercy for post-abortive women - would be healing for them.

Not sure who said this, however, I do not agree that abortion is not talked about from the pulpit for fear of traumatizing women who had abortions. This topic can easily be preached about while keeping the path to helping these women open and charitible. Most pro-life speakers do this very well. I believe that the topics of abortion and contraception are avoided in many parishes for fear of scaring people away. Many people left Christ when he spoke because is message was hard to accept. The Church will have to accept sooner or later the fact that they must preach the Gospel regardless of how unpopular it may be in todays society.

 

[wynnejj]

Churches are under threat of losing their 501C3 status if they speak about political candidates, which means churches and the priests who run them are running away from stating unequivocally that Catholics may not vote for a party which includes the right to abortion as well as euthanasia, birth control and all manner of artificial insemination and embryonic stem cell research. But not one church has lost its tax-deduction status, it is just a threat. If churches stood up to the threat, it would disappear.

The government funding and tax exempt considerations has greatly affected our “respect life” versus social programs emphasis. IMO, political correctness for government funding considerations has robbed our portrayal of a true Catholic identity. Go to any Catholic charity organization and check their sources of revenue. You will be surprised how much comes from government funding. For example, Catholic Relief Services gets 2/3 of its revenue from government sources if I read their financial statement correctly from 2010. Only 1/3 comes from private individuals and corporate/NGO grants. So when you think of Catholic charities, don’t think of it as being charities primarily funded by Catholics. Don’t think of Catholic charities as a measure of Catholic generosity. The success of the Catholic charity is a measure of the success of obtaining government funding sources. This adds to the political intrigue and prudential pragmatism when fighting the war on poverty versus the war against babies. This is at the heart of the confusing messages that we are receiving about the priorities of our social programs versus “respect life” emphasis in our participation in civic affairs.

 

[seekerz]

“While recognizing the autonomy of the reality of politics, Christians who are invited to take up political activity should try to make their choices consistent with the gospel and, in the framework of a legitimate plurality, to give both personal and collective witness to the seriousness of their faith by effective and disinterested service of men” (Pope Paul VI, A Call to Action, 46).

What is it with the ‘out of context’ quoting? Did the Pope assert that abortion would end in the US if all Catholics voted for a particular type of politician? All I see is an exhortation to political activity, which seems akin to lobbying. I have no problem with that - matter of fact, I support it.

I do believe the Pope would also agree that any strategy needs to be re-examined for effectiveness and that any strategy (like all man-made endeavors) is vulnerable to misuse or to simply going off-track. Nowhere do I see political activism against abortion proposed as superseding other Christian responsibilities to our fellow man, such as the simple courtesy of respectful interaction and discourse.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I never really understood this. Do people from the government come into our churches to monitor what’s being said in the homilies? If so… that is wrong. That should not happen at all.
Furthermore, if they weren’t Catholic, and wanted to monitor the sermons in a Catholic Church, I bet any money that they would take Communion. Someone tell me I’m wrong. I think it’s got to be a reality that IF government bureaucrats monitor sermons for political rhetoric to threaten us that they’ll remove our exemption to taxes… IF they visit our Churches to do this, I have no doubt that they would invalidly receive the Eucharist as well. Tell me that isn’t a logical conclusion?

At the same time… the argument could be made that we must keep the tax exempt status. Because, if we lost it, the government would tax the Church, and then use that money to pay for abortion, the death penalty, unjust wars. The government would use it for evil purposes. That’s why rendering unto Caesar is so terrible today. I hate paying taxes, because I would never give 1 cent for birth control, I would never give 1 cent for someone to have an abortion. And yet, my tax money has paid for those things.

It’s not even the reality, it’s only the threat. And in that way, it could be considered terrorism. Churches (not only Catholic but Protestant as well) modify their behavior based merely upon a threat from government authorities. There can only be this threat if we fear something which we feel powerless to prevent. The entire Congress is only 535 individuals! And the President, only 1 man! How can 350 million people willingly give up ALL of our power to so few people? Yes, I know, we elect them to represent us. And we can un-elect them every few years, depending upon their position. And yet, relatively few of us even vote! The Founders could not have imagined that we would ever be this complacent, or they’d have put even more checks and balances in the Constitution, so the factions wouldn’t rule over the majority.

 

[seekerz]

It’s not even the reality, it’s only the threat. And in that way, it could be considered terrorism. Churches (not only Catholic but Protestant as well) modify their behavior based merely upon a threat from government authorities. There can only be this threat if we fear something which we feel powerless to prevent. The entire Congress is only 535 individuals! And the President, only 1 man! How can 350 million people willingly give up ALL of our power to so few people? Yes, I know, we elect them to represent us. And we can un-elect them every few years, depending upon their position. And yet, relatively few of us even vote! The Founders could not have imagined that we would ever be this complacent, or they’d have put even more checks and balances in the Constitution, so the factions wouldn’t rule over the majority.

How did this become about threats and terrorism and government power (incidentally, the same power that we’re supposed to harness to end abortion)? I have listened to enough sermons outside the country, in places where threats to tax-exempt status is not a consideration, to have some perspective on the topic. It’s just not something that is addressed too often from the pulpit except if there is some activity planned or some public controversy/concern over changes in abortion law.

On a whole, reproductive issues are sort of treated like sex, and not given too much pulpit time. There are multiple reasons for that, but I don’t think the silence is good as it leaves a vacuum to be filled by any and all sorts of notions. This is one reason there is so much ambivalence, confusion, ignorance and in some places I’ve been, even a culture of stigmatization resulting from lack of proper understanding of the ethical/medical issues.

 

[gakroeger]

“While recognizing the autonomy of the reality of politics, Christians who are invited to take up political activity should try to make their choices consistent with the gospel and, in the framework of a legitimate plurality, to give both personal and collective witness to the seriousness of their faith by effective and disinterested service of men” (Pope Paul VI, A Call to Action, 46).

What is it with the ‘out of context’ quoting? Did the Pope assert that abortion would end in the US if all Catholics voted for a particular type of politician? All I see is an exhortation to political activity, which seems akin to lobbying. I have no problem with that - matter of fact, I support it.

I am fascinated by your comments, I have followed many posts on many threads by people of your ideology, but I have usually been able to see the connection with their responses, however, your claim that his quote is out of context makes me think you are arguing a separate subject from everyone else on this thread. The quote is completely within the frame work of this topic (and especially for you who have stated that the abortion issue is a political football). Pope Paul VI is simply stating that political efforts should be directed by the Gospel and not one’s own ideology.

 

[wynnejj]

“While recognizing the autonomy of the reality of politics, Christians who are invited to take up political activity should try to make their choices consistent with the gospel and, in the framework of a legitimate plurality, to give both personal and collective witness to the seriousness of their faith by effective and disinterested service of men” (Pope Paul VI, A Call to Action, 46).

I see a plug for both sides of our arguments. In the context of the abortion controversy, I see an instruction that says be true to CCC 2273 in its mandate to outlaw abortion with appropriate penal sanctions, and an instruction to be effective and tone down the heated rhetoric. That is, “witness to the seriousness of their faith by effective and disinterested service of men”. The “disinterested” part suggests the idea of NO ulterior political agenda when witnessing to a serious issue. The phrase “legitimate plurality” suggests to me that some forms of “socialist democracy” can degrade to a point of being illegitimate. That is, just because a government has popular consensus, doesn’t mean that it is legitimate in the sense of God’s bestowing legitimate authority.

 

[ishii]

Your last argument is a straw man. What are you asserting would be substantially different, if every Catholic voted for politicians who profess anti-abortion views?

By saying politicians can’t/won’t end abortion, I am by no means implying that the fight is useless (but perhaps particular strategies and weapons are). There are always multiple ways to skin a cat…without getting one’s eyes scratched out I might add!

I think this is a great example of how liberals argue: I say, " its a problem when catholics vote for the wrong politicians, the pro-abortion ones." That point is twisted by the liberal into saying, " if every catholic voted for politicians who profess anti-abortion views…" I would settle for a few more catholics voting for pro-life politicians. I call them simply pro-life, not the cynical, " who profess to be pro-life." If a candidate says, “I will make protecting abortion rights my top priority” I will take them at their word. If another candidate says, I am pro-life, I will take them at their word, and look at their actions to see if they are walking the walk. All of the restrictions on abortion, the pro-life legislation at the state level are passed by Republican legislators. The opposition is overwhelmingly from the Democrats. There is a difference.

How many catholics vote for the pro-abortion candidates? Too many. If there was more clarity and leadership from the bishops and more of the priests, then perhaps more catholics would come to realize that its wrong to vote for the pro-abortion Emily’s List candidate. If the archdiocese of Seattle didn’t chum around with pro-abortion politicians then maybe there would be less confusion as to what is our duty as catholics living in a democracy. If the archdiocese of L.A. didn’t say, “*sure come campaign on our grounds for your re-election, Barbara Boxer. You support infanticide? That’s ok, because you’re great on the issue of social justice for illegal immigrants.” * But that would entail the leadership to actually want to promote the sanctity of life over the pet liberal issues.

Ishii

 

[seekerz]

I am fascinated by your comments, I have followed many posts on many threads by people of your ideology, but I have usually been able to see the connection with their responses, however, your claim that his quote is out of context makes me think you are arguing a separate subject from everyone else on this thread. The quote is completely within the frame work of this topic (and especially for you who have stated that the abortion issue is a political football). Pope Paul VI is simply stating that political efforts should be directed by the Gospel and not one’s own ideology.

I doubt you understand my ideology because not many people voice it - I’ve met one or two on this forum. Simply put, at it’s most basic level, I believe in constant re-examination of motive, practices and ‘accepted norms’ (my own and that of others) because once that process ceases, it is very easy to stray from a path while firmly believing oneself to be on it (a mortally dangerous state of affairs).

As for the last sentence of your post, we are in total agreement: all political activism should be within the bounds of the Gospel: no condemning people as “criminals” without trials, for example…no accusing people of murder because of how they vote, when we know full well that the connection between abortion and elections is tenuous at best…no deliberate parading of shocking images regardless whether impressionable young minds may be scandalized/ traumatized by them just because abortion is more important than anything else because supreme over our ever issue, effort and passion, reigns Christ Himself whom many of these behaviors (if not all of them) offend.

P.S. For reasons why the quote was out of context, see my post below on the question of Catholic bloc voting.

 

[seekerz]

I think this is a great example of how liberals argue: I say, " its a problem when catholics vote for the wrong politicians, the pro-abortion ones." That point is twisted by the liberal into saying, " if every catholic voted for politicians who profess anti-abortion views…" I would settle for a few more catholics voting for pro-life politicians. I call them simply pro-life, not the cynical, " who profess to be pro-life." If a candidate says, “I will make protecting abortion rights my top priority” I will take them at their word. If another candidate says, I am pro-life, I will take them at their word, and look at their actions to see if they are walking the walk. All of the restrictions on abortion, the pro-life legislation at the state level are passed by Republican legislators. The opposition is overwhelmingly from the Democrats. There is a difference.

How many catholics vote for the pro-abortion candidates? Too many. If there was more clarity and leadership from the bishops and more of the priests, then perhaps more catholics would come to realize that its wrong to vote for the pro-abortion Emily’s List candidate. If the archdiocese of Seattle didn’t chum around with pro-abortion politicians then maybe there would be less confusion as to what is our duty as catholics living in a democracy. If the archdiocese of L.A. didn’t say, “*sure come campaign on our grounds for your re-election, Barbara Boxer. You support infanticide? That’s ok, because you’re great on the issue of social justice for illegal immigrants.” * But that would entail the leadership to actually want to promote the sanctity of life over the pet liberal issues.

Ishii

You lost me there with the ideology/party thing - I think for myself, on every issue. By engaging in categorizing me instead of responding to my comment, you have almost succeeded in clouding the actual point I was making in response to your:

The problem is when catholics vote for the wrong politicians - the pro-abortion ones.

I will re-word the question (not so much out of interest in the answer as in having you address what I see as the unfounded implication quoted above:

What do you see substantially changing if Catholics voted as a solid bloc on abortion?

 

[gakroeger]

What do you see substantially changing if Catholics voted as a solid bloc on abortion?

I know this question was not directed tot me, however, I feel compeled to answer it.

The same thing that is happening today, but at a much faster pace; more and more people learning what abortion is and therefore speaking out against it. Once this reaches critical mass, the abortion industry is in for a drastic reduction in business.

Not to mention the benefit of Catholic’s finally learning and living their faith.

 

[seekerz]

I know this question was not directed tot me, however, I feel compeled to answer it.

The same thing that is happening today, but at a much faster pace; more and more people learning what abortion is and therefore speaking out against it. Once this reaches critical mass, the abortion industry is in for a drastic reduction in business.

Not to mention the benefit of Catholic’s finally learning and living their faith.

I respect your view, though honestly, I am hard-pressed to find anyone who can read a billboard who don’t know what abortion is. Most over the age of puberty understand very well what it entails.

I do agree that the majority of people do not have favorable views of abortion when their opinion is solicited but I am yet to see evidence that this necessarily translates into the corresponding actions, when faced with critical considerations such as: “what will happen to my daughter’s future or what will the people at church think”? Which to me explains the commonly expressed sentiment:“I don’t believe it’s right but I believe women should have a choice.” (Readers please note the use of quotation marks)

This is all anecdotal of course, personal examples from people I know. Most who chose abortion (quite a handful), at a young age or at a time of crisis, have seemingly preferred to fall into God’s hands than under man’s stare!

The point of my comments is not that there is no hope of ending abortion, but that if it were as simple as all Catholics voting together, then there would be little abortion in countries where Catholics have prevented its legalization. My experience (numbers are hard to come by for an illegal activity) is that this is far from the case. I do believe that this sort of comparison is helpful in plotting a strategic course, because from where I sit, ‘same old’ is not working and not likely to work any time soon. The moment a restriction is passed, people get busy working around it (and the providers have to have someone to perform procedures on, so either the law is not a great teacher or the target audience refuses to learn).

To sum it up, my experience is that nothing is ever as straightforward as it seems, so while your assessment is a hopeful one, I’ll reserve judgment on how realistic it is.

 

[ishii]

You lost me there with the ideology/party thing - I think for myself, on every issue. By engaging in categorizing me instead of responding to my comment, you have almost succeeded in clouding the actual point I was making in response to your:

I think the ideology/party thing is important: elections matter. In 1990, pro-abortion senators defeated the nomination of Robert Bork. Many of the senators - Teddy Kennedy comes to mind, and Joe Biden - were elected with the votes of lots of catholics. If more moderate views had prevailed in 1990 then perhaps the Bork nomination would have been approved, Roe V Wade would have been overturned and some states would have passed laws severely curtailing abortion. That is how things work - politics is the art of the possible isn’t it? I reject the twisted logic that says our only choice is to accept legal abortion on demand because we will never completely outlaw abortion and even if we do, people will get illegal abortions.

As for categorizing, I was merely commenting on the style of argument you used. I notice that style most among liberals - the straw men and all. I was not necessarily implying that you were a liberal. And having an ideology and voting for a certain party over another does not mean that I don’t think for myself, as you imply.

I will re-word the question (not so much out of interest in the answer as in having you address what I see as the unfounded implication quoted above:

What do you see substantially changing if Catholics voted as a solid bloc on abortion?

Well, if you’re not interested in the answer then why did you pose the question? Another poster gave a good answer in an earlier post. For starters, if Catholics voted as a more solid block on abortion, they’d be voting with the sanctity of life in mind now wouldn’t they - instead of ignoring the sanctity of life in favor of pet liberal issues which you see so much today. So that would be a plus. Also, more pro-life senators would be elected, and a pro-life president would more likely be elected. Its highly possible that Roe V Wade would be overturned so that the states could restrict abortion. And there would be fewer abortions. I would say that such a development might even help change the culture we live in to respect life more. You see, there does not have to be a guarentee of “substantial change” in order to do the right thing! We ought to do the right thing anyway. The substantial change will occur if enough catholics (and others) do the right thing and vote pro-life, maybe not right away, but it will occur eventually. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Ishii

 

[gakroeger]

I respect your view, though honestly, I am hard-pressed to find anyone who can read a billboard who don’t know what abortion is. Most over the age of puberty understand very ell what it entails.

While billboards are certainly one of the weapons against abortion; to say that anyone that can read one knows what abortion is, is just not true. They may have some distant concept, however, unless they have seen the babies in the dumpster, lived through the trauma like those who tell their stories from Rachel’s Vineyard or Silent no More, or just seen a prayer vigil outside of an abortion clinic; most people have the ability to compartmentalize these things, like driving by a serious automobile accident, it just does not touch me. I am very familiar with this concept, for most of my 72 years this was the case with me.

This is all anecdotal of course, personal examples from people I know. Most who chose abortion (quite a handful), at a young age or at a time of crisis, have seemingly preferred to fall into God’s hands than under man’s stare!

There are thousands of women (and men) who have had or supported abortions that do not follow your pattern. The groups mentioned above are made up almost entirely of these people.

The point of my comments is not that there is no hope of ending abortion, but that if it were as simple as all Catholics voting together, then there would be little abortion in countries where Catholics have prevented its legalization. My experience (numbers are hard to come by for an illegal activity) is that this is far from the case. I do believe that this sort of comparison is helpful in plotting a strategic course, because from where I sit, ‘same old’ is not working and not likely to work any time soon. The moment a restriction is passed, people get busy working around it (and the providers have to have someone to perform procedures on, so either the law is not a great teacher or the target audience refuses to learn).

I am not sure your statistics are correct, I am also not sure they are incorrect; in either case it certainly takes more than a government to make abortion legal or illegal; it requires people to follow a higher law. Deep in everyone’s heart they know abortion is wrong, the problem is we have become very good at rationalization (Relativism); we have developed the ability to lie to our consciences and convince them that truth is what I say it is instead of the actual truth that was placed there by God. This is why virtually no one will ever admit what they do is wrong and if they do get caught in some indiscretion that society still admits is wrong, their response is well I made a mistake and I will get therapy then I will be okay again. Many of our politicians on both sides of the aisle demonstrate this on almost a daily basis.

To sum it up, my experience is that nothing is ever as straightforward as it seems, so while your assessment is a hopeful one, I’ll reserve judgment on how realistic it is.

I have been watching (and working) the pro-life movement for several years now and it is obvious that the momentum is moving toward more people becoming pro-life. One of my projects is helping to place Ultra Sound Machines in qualifying pregnancy centers (ones that do not recommend abortions) through the Knights of Columbus Ultra Sound Initiative program. Statistics show that 80 to 90% of women who are considering abortions change their minds and carry the pregnancy to a successful birth after seeing an Ultra Sound Image of their babies.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I have been watching (and working) the pro-life movement for several years now and it is obvious that the momentum is moving toward more people becoming pro-life. One of my projects is helping to place Ultra Sound Machines in qualifying pregnancy centers (ones that do not recommend abortions) through the Knights of Columbus Ultra Sound Initiative program. Statistics show that 80 to 90% of women who are considering abortions change their minds and carry the pregnancy to a successful birth after seeing an Ultra Sound Image of their babies.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! One of those magnificent machines was put into The Big Blue Bus which is a mobile pregnancy care center that is parked in front of the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. It is 4D - the women can see their baby in real-time, in 3D, moving around, doing those things that babies do, and so far, if the women see their baby, they do NOT get the abortion.

You see, since PP moved to their gigantic baby killing center, their parking lots are totally within their property and we are not able to get access to their clients as we used to when the clients parked in lots surrounding the center. We were sad that many mothers who might have changed their minds, simply drove into PP and we had no way to give them information about alternatives. Also, at the old location, there was a pregnancy care center directly behind PP, so if they needed a pregnancy test, FREE sounded good to the women. Now, when The Big Blue Bus is right in front, we have something to offer them.

Here are some photos of the inside and outside of this bus. Scroll down to see just how beautiful it really is on the outside.

Saving Babies With The Big Blue Bus

Thank you for saving babies!!!:bowdown::yup::aok:

 

[mark_a]

Confusion as Spokane bishop asks priests not to join 40 Days for Life vigils

lifesitenews.com/news/confusion-as-spokane-bishop-asks-priests-not-to-join-40-days-for-life-vigil

Since when is praying anywhere against the Majesterium of the Church ?

Bishops are not immune to sin, or supporting wrong causes. Pray for them.

This Bishop has much work to do regarding educating Catholics in his Diocese since some voted for euthanasia.
blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/11/05/washington-passes-initiative-1000-legalizing-physician-assisted-suicide/

My bishop, Bishop Robert Guglielmone of the Diocese of Charleston, has a radio spot asking us to participate in Forty Days for Life…

How 'bout them apples?!?!?!?!

 

[gakroeger]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! One of those magnificent machines was put into The Big Blue Bus which is a mobile pregnancy care center that is parked in front of the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. It is 4D - the women can see their baby in real-time, in 3D, moving around, doing those things that babies do, and so far, if the women see their baby, they do NOT get the abortion.

You see, since PP moved to their gigantic baby killing center, their parking lots are totally within their property and we are not able to get access to their clients as we used to when the clients parked in lots surrounding the center. We were sad that many mothers who might have changed their minds, simply drove into PP and we had no way to give them information about alternatives. Also, at the old location, there was a pregnancy care center directly behind PP, so if they needed a pregnancy test, FREE sounded good to the women. Now, when The Big Blue Bus is right in front, we have something to offer them.

Here are some photos of the inside and outside of this bus. Scroll down to see just how beautiful it really is on the outside.

Saving Babies With The Big Blue Bus

Thank you for saving babies!!!:bowdown::yup::aok:

Fantastic… Thanks for all you do…

The video is great too.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

My bishop, Bishop Robert Guglielmone of the Diocese of Charleston, has a radio spot asking us to participate in Forty Days for Life…

How 'bout them apples?!?!?!?!

:clapping::dancing::bowdown2:

That’s wonderful. I hope you have hundreds of people who show up to pray, it makes a huge difference!

 

[Tigg]

My bishop, Bishop Robert Guglielmone of the Diocese of Charleston, has a radio spot asking us to participate in Forty Days for Life…

How 'bout them apples?!?!?!?!

Absolutely wonderful news!!!

 

[Tigg]

My apologies if this has already been posted. You can read about the number of clinics closed and former abortion workers converted at the national 40 Days for life website:

40daysforlife.com/blog/