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

[seekerz]

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.

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

I respect you views though I have to say that from personal experience, for most people I know, ideology is not what decides matters for them in a crunch.

You are correct about needing to do the right thing even if we don’t see an immediate result; however that was not the implication of your original comment. It is a very commonly voiced sentiment that the only thing keeping abortion going is that Catholics don’t all vote pro-life…a theory which you have quite comprehensively stuck a fork in with the above response.

It doesn’t make sense going into the ‘we’ve been down this road before with pro-life administrations’ bit. We disagree on strategy and that is fine. A more salient matter to address is the message coming from those with what I will term ‘your ideology’ which, being so close to it, you might not see.

There seems to be an almost immediate reflex association with partisan politics the moment the topic of abortion comes up and that - is in my opinion, self-defeating. Abortion may be opposed through political action but it is first and foremost a moral issue which anyone of any ideology can and should oppose. Inability to separate the issue from partisan politics is a hindrance to unity on the issue: trust me, there is more to abortion than voting choices and supreme court judges. Scratch that, don’t trust me: just take a hard look at our current and past presidents, politicians and SC judges.

 

[seekerz]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Kudos to KC!

As for attitudes regarding abortion: I have had the opportunity to observe them from the closest possible vantage point and the view is, to put it mildly, not encouraging. To a certain extent I also think I get your sort of viewpoint: this is so horrible and tragic a practice that most people could not possibly choose it if they really knew what it entailed. From where I sit and have sat, that view is mistaken; most people are upset by the details but often not to the extent of being willing to undergo hardship (or even simply a change of life plan) to avoid it. Even just by visiting online forums that support abortion, it is possible to pick up on the general attitude of ‘it’s my right no matter what’, an attitude sometimes driven home by use of scientifically correct graphics and language! So forgive me if I am used to a different reality.

 

[gakroeger]

Kudos to KC!

As for attitudes regarding abortion: I have had the opportunity to observe them from the closest possible vantage point and the view is, to put it mildly, not encouraging. To a certain extent I also think I get your sort of viewpoint: this is so horrible and tragic a practice that most people could not possibly choose it if they really knew what it entailed. From where I sit and have sat, that view is mistaken; most people are upset by the details but often not to the extent of being willing to undergo hardship (or even simply a change of life plan) to avoid it. Even just by visiting online forums that support abortion, it is possible to pick up on the general attitude of ‘it’s my right no matter what’, an attitude sometimes driven home by use of scientifically correct graphics and language! So forgive me if I am used to a different reality.

In an October 2008 poll by the Knights of Columbus 50% of Americans claimed to be pro-choice, however when asked specifically at what points abortion should be allowed only 40% thought abortion should be permitted in cases other than rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life. 8% said anytime during pregnancy, 8% During first 6 months, 24% during first 3 months, 32% only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, 15% only to save the life of the mother and 13% said never permitted. 84% of Americans thought that more restrictions on abortion were needed.

One disturbing fact in this poll (and in IMHO confirmation that more education on abortion and Catholic teaching on this issue is needed) only 35% of practicing Catholics thought that abortion should never be permitted or permitted only to save the life of the mother. This indicates that regardless if they call themselves pro-life or pro-choice, 65% are (by their answers) pro-choice.

However, as support of my opinion that more people are becoming educated and swinging to the pro-life position;

Latest news and statistics show that the persistent pro-life battle is gaining ground in the hearts and minds of Americans.
• There is a pro-life majority in America. In a January 2011 Fox News poll, 50% of Americans say they are pro-life. Just 42% identify themselves pro-choice. This represents a significant shift over the last decade, when in 2000 just 38% Americans identified themselves as pro-life.
• There is pro-life passion in young people. Teenagers and young adults are embracing the fight for life. Overwhelming demand led 2011 March for Life organizers to add a second arena site for the Monday morning Youth Rally in order accommodate more than 28,000 young people.
• There is reduced access to abortion. The number of abortion providers has declined 40% in the last 25 years, from a high of nearly 3,000 in 1982 to fewer than 1,800 today.
• There is a nationwide desire to restrict abortion. 86% Americans favor significantly restricting abortion.

birthmotherministries.org/for-volunteers/4-trends-in-the-pro-life-battle.htm

For more interesting statistics on these moral issues see the following links to K of C polls.

changingsea.org/maristpollmillenialFeb2010.pdf

priestsforlife.org/statistics/08-10-abortion-poll-kofc.pdf

 

[seekerz]

In an October 2008 poll by the Knights of Columbus 50% of Americans claimed to be pro-choice, however when asked specifically at what points abortion should be allowed only 40% thought abortion should be permitted in cases other than rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life. 8% said anytime during pregnancy, 8% During first 6 months, 24% during first 3 months, 32% only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, 15% only to save the life of the mother and 13% said never permitted. 84% of Americans thought that more restrictions on abortion were needed.

One disturbing fact in this poll (and in IMHO confirmation that more education on abortion and Catholic teaching on this issue is needed) only 35% of practicing Catholics thought that abortion should never be permitted or permitted only to save the life of the mother. This indicates that regardless if they call themselves pro-life or pro-choice, 65% are (by their answers) pro-choice.

However, as support of my opinion that more people are becoming educated and swinging to the pro-life position;

Latest news and statistics show that the persistent pro-life battle is gaining ground in the hearts and minds of Americans.
• There is a pro-life majority in America. In a January 2011 Fox News poll, 50% of Americans say they are pro-life. Just 42% identify themselves pro-choice. This represents a significant shift over the last decade, when in 2000 just 38% Americans identified themselves as pro-life.
• There is pro-life passion in young people. Teenagers and young adults are embracing the fight for life. Overwhelming demand led 2011 March for Life organizers to add a second arena site for the Monday morning Youth Rally in order accommodate more than 28,000 young people.
• There is reduced access to abortion. The number of abortion providers has declined 40% in the last 25 years, from a high of nearly 3,000 in 1982 to fewer than 1,800 today.
• There is a nationwide desire to restrict abortion. 86% Americans favor significantly restricting abortion.

birthmotherministries.org/for-volunteers/4-trends-in-the-pro-life-battle.htm

For more interesting statistics on these moral issues see the following links to K of C polls.

changingsea.org/maristpollmillenialFeb2010.pdf

priestsforlife.org/statistics/08-10-abortion-poll-kofc.pdf

Your links are very interesting…for example when I follow the one that says there is less access to abortion, it takes me to an article, dated January of this year, which essentially confirms my impression of the trends:

REPORT: ABORTION NUMBERS ESSENTIALLY UNCHANGED
More than 100,000 unborn children aborted monthly

That article also indicates an increase in the number of late term abortion providers and an increase in medical abortion, which go to support my contention, that (like politicians) what people say they feel about abortion is not necessarily what they do.

Statistics are all about the interpretation, but thank you for proving the need for a change in direction/strategy. In general, behavior change is difficult to achieve whether in abortion matters or otherwise. Such change has a better chance of success when linked to religious faith. Efforts against abortion need to be predominantly based on faith and morals - not on the shifting sands of politics.

 

[gakroeger]

Excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI homily in Berlin.
“He said people need to realize that although the church contains some bad members, “if only these negative aspects are taken into account, then the great and deep mystery of the church is no longer seen.”

When that happens, he said, the church is no longer a source of joy.

“Dissatisfaction and discontent begin to spread, when people’s superficial and mistaken notions of ‘church,’ their ‘dream church,’ fail to materialize,” he said.

The pope said that when the church goes through troubled times, its members should take comfort and strength from their closeness to Christ. This sense of “abiding in Christ” is especially needed in “our era of restlessness and lack of commitment, when so many people lose their way … (and) when loving fidelity in marriage and friendship has become so fragile,” he said.”

Full article on Pope’s homily

 

[seekerz]

Excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI homily in Berlin.
“He said people need to realize that although the church contains some bad members, “if only these negative aspects are taken into account, then the great and deep mystery of the church is no longer seen.”

When that happens, he said, the church is no longer a source of joy.

“Dissatisfaction and discontent begin to spread, when people’s superficial and mistaken notions of ‘church,’ their ‘dream church,’ fail to materialize,” he said.

The pope said that when the church goes through troubled times, its members should take comfort and strength from their closeness to Christ. This sense of “abiding in Christ” is especially needed in “our era of restlessness and lack of commitment, when so many people lose their way … (and) when loving fidelity in marriage and friendship has become so fragile,” he said.”

Full article on Pope’s homily

Realistically, (and that is what I am, a realist) no organization made up of human can be perfect, but the Church’s enduring strength is its “abiding in Christ” as your quote of the Pope points out. My highlighting of the fallacies in some of our notions regarding abortion, in no way diminishes the Church’s role as moral compass for society.

Accepting the reality of practices and actions which do not measure up to professed faith or values, is not an admission of defeat but should be a reminder of the constant need for re-evaluation and refining of strategies aimed at bringing about change (with regard to abortion or any other moral issue).

 

[ishii]

I respect you views though I have to say that from personal experience, for most people I know, ideology is not what decides matters for them in a crunch.

Maybe not outwardly ideological. I think many people are basically conservative in outlook even if they haven’t really thought it out and would consider themselves apolitical or even moderate. I will admit that it is just my gut feeling on this- I have no proof to offer. In a crunch, I think financial matters or security matters will trump ideology. If there is a recession people will want to throw out the incumbents, and if there is an attack, people will rally around the president, for a while.

You are correct about needing to do the right thing even if we don’t see an immediate result; however that was not the implication of your original comment. It is a very commonly voiced sentiment that the only thing keeping abortion going is that Catholics don’t all vote pro-life…a theory which you have quite comprehensively stuck a fork in with the above response.

Well, I hope I never implied that all abortion would cease if catholics voted pro-life. Certainly *legal *abortion would cease or become seriously curtailed in certain states if more catholics voted pro-life. There would be illegal abortions occuring, and some states would have liberal abortion laws.

It doesn’t make sense going into the ‘we’ve been down this road before with pro-life administrations’ bit. We disagree on strategy and that is fine. A more salient matter to address is the message coming from those with what I will term ‘your ideology’ which, being so close to it, you might not see.

Could you elaborate? I’m not sure I get what you’re saying here.

There seems to be an almost immediate reflex association with partisan politics the moment the topic of abortion comes up and that - is in my opinion, self-defeating. Abortion may be opposed through political action but it is first and foremost a moral issue which anyone of any ideology can and should oppose. Inability to separate the issue from partisan politics is a hindrance to unity on the issue: trust me, there is more to abortion than voting choices and supreme court judges. Scratch that, don’t trust me: just take a hard look at our current and past presidents, politicians and SC judges.

The thing is, if I have ever implied or said that being pro-life is merely or exclusively voting for candidate X who will appoint pro-life judges or vote to eliminate PP funding or vote to establish restrictions, then I apologize. You seem to attribute such a belief to me which I don’t subscribe to. I think people can make powerful contributions to the pro-life cause by acting locally and by evangelization, and doing things other than political acts. You are right: anyone of any ideology should oppose abortion. But I would turn what you said around - I think that the desire to separate this issue from the obligation to vote pro-life out of a distaste for “partisan politics” is to neglect ones moral duty as a catholic living in a democracy. I know many catholics who didn’t like the GOP candidate but “plugged their nose” and voted for them anyway because they knew they couldn’t vote for the Democrat who was joined at the hip to Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby. I for one think that if the Democrat party became pro-life then they would get a lot more support from people who are pro-life, but not necessarily conservative on the issues.

Ishii

 

[wynnejj]

But I would turn what you said around - I think that the desire to separate this issue from the obligation to vote pro-life out of a distaste for “partisan politics” is to neglect ones moral duty as a catholic living in a democracy.

Exactly. This obligation to vote pro-life for Catholics must be met regardless of whether it is effective. Whether we achieve pro-life laws or whether pro-life laws are effective in reducing abortions is immaterial to the CCC 2273 mandate that unborn persons must have the protection of law and abortion must be made illegal with appropriate penal sanctions. The reality is that we, as Catholics, have a moral imperative.

 

[gakroeger]

Some liberal bishops in the US and Canada seem to be more openly ignoring or twisting Catholic teaching. Now a Canadian Bishop places more emphasizes on pastoral correctness than on the intrinsic evil of abortion and illicit sexual acts. And good Catholic priests are persecuted by not pagans but their own bishops.

I am not sure how he interprets pastoral correctness (looks like political correctness). It appears the bishop refuses to acknowledge homosexual behavior and abortion are sins.

Didn’t Jesus say;

Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three; a father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” Luke 12:51-53

Elderly priest suspended for denouncing abortion, homosexual behavior

 

[gakroeger]

Some help for our Bishops from St Gregory from todays office of readings;

The Pastoral Guide, by Pope St Gregory the Great

Let the pastor be discreetly silent, and to the point when he speaks

A spiritual guide should be silent when discretion requires and speak when words are of service. Otherwise he may say what he should not or be silent when he should speak. Indiscreet speech may lead men into error and an imprudent silence may leave in error those who could have been taught. Pastors who lack foresight hesitate to say openly what is right because they fear losing the favour of men. As the voice of truth tells us, such leaders are not zealous pastors who protect their flocks, rather they are like mercenaries who flee by taking refuge in silence when the wolf appears.

The Lord reproaches them through the prophet: They are dumb dogs that cannot bark. On another occasion he complains: You did not advance against the foe or set up a wall in front of the house of Israel, so that you might stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord. To advance against the foe involves a bold resistance to the powers of this world in defence of the flock. To stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord means to oppose the wicked enemy out of love for what is right.
When a pastor has been afraid to assert what is right, has he not turned his back and fled by remaining silent? Whereas if he intervenes on behalf of the flock, he sets up a wall against the enemy in front of the house of Israel. Therefore, the Lord again says to his unfaithful people: Your prophets saw false and foolish visions and did not point out your wickedness, that you might repent of your sins. The name of the prophet is sometimes given in the sacred writings to teachers who both declare the present to be fleeting and reveal what is to come. The word of God accuses them of seeing false visions because they are afraid to reproach men for their faults and thereby lull the evildoer with an empty promise of safety. Because they fear reproach, they keep silent and fail to point out the sinner’s wrongdoing.

The word of reproach is a key that unlocks a door, because reproach reveals a fault of which the evildoer is himself often unaware. That is why Paul says of the bishop: He must be able to encourage men in sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For the same reason God tells us through Malachi: The lips of the priest are to preserve knowledge, and men shall look to him for the law, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. Finally, that is also the reason why the Lord warns us through Isaiah: Cry out and be not still; raise your voice in a trumpet call.

Anyone ordained a priest undertakes the task of preaching, so that with a loud cry he may go on ahead of the terrible judge who follows. If, then, a priest does not know how to preach, what kind of cry can such a dumb herald utter? It was to bring this home that the Holy Spirit descended in the form of tongues on the first pastors, for he causes those whom he has filled, to speak out spontaneously.