Is Father Newman correct?

[TMC]

Not quite all:

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.
(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not–

(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose–
(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which the provision is held to be unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.
This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.

As I’ve noted, this act would simultaneously:

1. Invalidate all current federal, state, and local restriction on abortion—including the Hyde Amendment (note Section 6).
2. Force Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors to perform abortions—note the red portion.

Barack Obama stated this would be the 1st thing he would do as President.

But how predictable that you would pooh-pooh the legislation, which is as clear as the Catechism is regarding abortion, and diametrically-opposed to it.

If it should pass, you have previewed for us your next excuse:

That it won’t do all the evil abortion opponents say it will.

Which just means you haven’t read “Humanae Vitae”, in which a great Catholic predicted just what the consequences of the sexual revolution would be, and which proved absolutely prophetic.

The Church knows what will happen in the wake of such legislation, which is why the bishops are lining up to oppose it.

Will you support them, or will you continue to make excuses for Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats?

The lobbyists and activists have hyped this legislation on both sides. No serious moderate analyst believes it would overturn the Hyde Amendment. That said, the bishops are lining up to oppose FOCA. I also oppose FOCA. But the bishops are not lining up to declare that voting for Obama is or was a sin.

The bishops just elected a new Director of Communications and spokesman. The candidates were Bishop Finn, one of the outspoken “Obama is evil” bishops and Bishop Zavala, a “seamless fabric” social justice and peace activist who said during the capaign that we are not a one-issue church. The bishops chose Zavala to speak for them. What does that tell you?

 

[clmowry]

That the United States, including the Church, is growing ever more full of moral relativists.

Chuck

 

[Clairdelune_89]

I personally know Fr. Newman. I live about 20 miles from the church he is over, and I know for a fact that Fr. Newman would never willingly try to mislead people. I agree wholeheartedly with his statements, and so does the catechism.
I cannot believe our diocese is reacting to him in such a way… He is one of the best in our diocese here in SC.

 

[Teflon93]

The lobbyists and activists have hyped this legislation on both sides. No serious moderate analyst believes it would overturn the Hyde Amendment. That said, the bishops are lining up to oppose FOCA. I also oppose FOCA. But the bishops are not lining up to declare that voting for Obama is or was a sin.

That is not hype; it IS the legislation. Read the thing—the Hyde Amendment is covered by Section 6. Archbishop Chaput is not a serious analyst? Who are you to say so?

The bishops just elected a new Director of Communications and spokesman. The candidates were Bishop Finn, one of the outspoken “Obama is evil” bishops and Bishop Zavala, a “seamless fabric” social justice and peace activist who said during the capaign that we are not a one-issue church. The bishops chose Zavala to speak for them. What does that tell you?

That you don’t know how the bishops think or operate.

Do you really think that Bishop Finn was viewed as an “Obama is evil” bishop by his fellow bishops?

Do you really think that Bishop Zavala and those who voted for him support Obama’s abortion policy or will not fight the Freedom of Choice Act?

More importantly, do you really think you’re demonstrating alignment with Church teaching on abortion or a desire to end the evil of abortion?

 

[Teflon93]

I personally know Fr. Newman. I live about 20 miles from the church he is over, and I know for a fact that Fr. Newman would never willingly try to mislead people. I agree wholeheartedly with his statements, and so does the catechism.
I cannot believe our diocese is reacting to him in such a way… He is one of the best in our diocese here in SC.

Clairdelune, may God bless you for standing up for this wonderful man!

A question came up earlier that you might be able to answer for us:

Did Father Newman address the positions on abortion of the two presidential candidates with the parish prior to the election?

Did he educate your parish on Catholic teaching on abortion so as to help them form their conscience before heading into the voting booth?

 

[Teflon93]

The petition is here, TMC—will you print it, sign it, and send it in?

nrlc.org/FOCA/FOCA2008Petition.pdf

You might have missed this, TMC—what say you?

I downloaded mine, printed it, and my wife and I filled it out. Tomorrow our friends will sign it (non-Catholics mainly) and by Monday it will be in the mail to the National Right to Life Committee, where it will be consolidated and sent to Congress to let them know we will not stand idly by as this abominable legislation is considered.

Will you print it, sign it, and send it in TMC?

AgingCatholic, feel free to join us as well. Stand up for the unborn!

 

[Teflon93]

Note well:

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.
This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.

TMC will have to educate us on how the Hyde Amendment would not be covered under Section 6 of the Freedom of Choice Act above.

 

[jean8]

In his letter, Father Newman says:

Link

Is he correct? Does he have any basis?

I agree with Father newman.
I’m solid pro-life! Always have been.

People that vote for the president of the United States are just as dull- witted about the person they are voting for as they are about the church they attend.
'B.O. is a democrat, I think I’ll vote for him. he supports gay issues and ,killing unborn babies, cool. He’s got my vote.

That’s as far as they go with their descision.’ O he’s for the poor people who are to lazy to get a Job. Do they have a work skill? Of course not, that’s why they don’t want to work.

God help us,
jean8

 

[MIZER]

Aging catholic,

I don’t have time to read this whole thread to see if you’ve offered a definition for “other attacks on human life.” Would you please define this for me so I may jump in here? What are “other attacks on human life” which we Catholics promote and support through our tax dollars and proliferate through our vote?

 

[chris_molter]

I will oppose Obama policies that are antithetical to Catholic teaching, just as I oppose immoral policies of his predecessor and of the guy before that. The point is that all of the Presidents and all of the candidates are a mixed bag and you have to make the best choice you can.

Agreed.

The proportionate reasons here are not that unjust war trumps abortion, that torture trumps abortion, or that social programs trump abortion. The proportionate reasons come from asking what a President will actually do about any of these things. The facts are that a President can do something about many issues, but can and will do very little or nothing about abortion.

Besides nominating SCOTUS appointments that would be amenable to enshrining it as a constitutional right, issuing executive orders making it taxpayer funded here and overseas, signing and not vetoing abortion legislation, and generally giving aid and comfort and receiving large sums of money from the abortion industry, you’re right. He really can’t do all that much.

The next President will not make a significant change in abortion law in this country. The chance that the next President’s appointments, or the one after that or after that, could result in illegalizing or significantly curtailing abortion in America is virtually zero. The chance that any law or order passed by the next President will do anything to liberalize abortion in America is virtually zero.

So, the part about Obama immediately overturning Bush’s order on not funding abortions with taxpayer money… that’s just an aberration, right? He won’t do anything else to liberalize abortion in the next four years. Is that what you’re telling us?

Bush’s last minute executive orders are grandstanding meant to give some political fodder to toss at Obama when he overturns them.

Possibly, but I was talking about the OTHER executive orders issued before Obama was a twinkle in the media’s eye.

FOCA is grandstanding on the left, will never pass, and would not change the law if it did.

You really want to roll those dice? What happens if you’re wrong? What do you say then… oops?

Neither can make significant changes in the ‘right’ to abortion in America because the courts have defined the outlines of that right. There just isn’t much room to move it around. And neither side has the political will to try to.

And the courts just leave everything alone and never redefine ‘rights’ or engage in political activism from the bench, right?

Humanae Vitae makes it very clear that any law that keeps abortion legal is an unjust law and must be fought and resisted by all Catholics. Just giving up and saying “oh well, it’s a right now, can’t do anything about it but reduce the number of murdered children” isn’t an option.

Think about it a minute. Do you think that Clinton was not pro-abortion? Was Bush not pro-life?

The first is a definite yes, the second… well… he’s a very mixed bag.

How different were abortion laws when Bush was president with a Republican majority in Congress from when Clinton was president with a Democratic majority in Congress? If you actually believe that the President will make a difference next year, why didn’t he make a difference for the last sixteen years?

You’re talking about two separate issues here. Congress, who passes legislation, and the Chief Executive who can introduce and sign legislation into law or veto it.

16 years? I thought Bush was in office for 8.

Do I think McCain would find a way to overturn Roe? No. Do I think he’d at least keep things status quo, legally? Yes. Do you think abortion laws or regulations will become more restrictive or liberalized under the Obama administration?

here’s some of the things a President can do:

Clinton: The Freedom of Access to Abortion Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) passed in late 1993.

Also reversed the “Mexico City” policy in 1993

Resumed funding UNFPA

Increased funding to Title X (nearly double) to provide ‘reproductive health’ to low income women

Passed National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 (allowing research on aborted children)

Bush:

While he continued funding for Title X and otherwise allowed funding to flow to abortionists, he also

Passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban 2003

Passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act

Reversed Clinton’s reversal of the Mexico City policy (which Obama will reverse)

Limited funding going to ESCR (which Obama will reverse)

So, as we see, while Bush was a mixed bag, there were some victories for the pro-life movement. Clinton on the other hand was a total disaster. Obama is even MORE beholden to the abortion lobby than Clinton. So, again, please tell me what proportionate reason you have to support the man, given that a President apparently DOES have rather broad power to restrict or liberalize access and funding to abortion (as well as restrict and criminalize effective dissent)?

 

[Teflon93]

Bush:

While he continued funding for Title X and otherwise allowed funding to flow to abortionists, he also

Passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban 2003

Passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act

Reversed Clinton’s reversal of the Mexico City policy (which Obama will reverse)

Limited funding going to ESCR (which Obama will reverse)

Indeed, per Section 6 of the Freedom of Choice Act Obama has promised to make his 1st priority, all of these will be wiped away and replaced with a universal right to an abortion.

 

[chris_molter]

So, again, please tell me what proportionate reason you have to support the man, given that a President apparently DOES have rather broad power to restrict or liberalize access and funding to abortion (as well as restrict and criminalize effective dissent)?

nix that. I apologize for acting like I’m trying to win a debate. I’m not. This is far too serious for that sort of thing.

You can respond if you’d like, but I think I’d feel better if you also just thought about and consider the points I’ve presented and really commit yourself to opposing all the things that Obama can and will do to enable and encourage people to murder their own children or patients (and thereby not only ending an innocent life, but cutting themselves off from God, which is an even greater tragedy). I think that only the pro-lifers within the Democratic party have any real chance of convincing their more liberal fellows of the sanctity of life and the moral wasteland that is their current stance on abortion, ESCR, and euthanasia. I hope you’ll work towards that goal.

 

[James_Tetreault]

Not according to the Archdiocese of Charleston, under whose authority Fr. Newman falls.

I went to the St. Mary’s Catholic Church website yesterday to check the story out, and Fr. Newman had a statement that he had been misquoted by the Associated Press. When I went back today to double-check Fr.'s response, his statement was not there, but this was.

It’s a link to the Archdiocese and a formal statement about communion and an individual’s conscience. (I’d quote it here, but I can’t cut and paste from a PDF format.)

They are afraid to lose too many parishiners, more catering to cafateria Catholics.

 

[James_Tetreault]

Father Newman is correct. Look up “abortion” in the Catechism. Then look up “scandal”.

Beltway bishops are unfortunately very unwilling to speak truth to power. Thus we have been left with high-profile Catholic political leaders who see fit to scandalize the Church with a wink and a nod from people who are supposed to be guardians of the Church and the Eucharist.

If Father Newman sees someone take the Host and not consume it, he is supposed to literally chase them down and demand they consume it on the spot or get it back, lest they abuse it in some way.

Those who support infanticide and insist upon approaching the Eucharist unworthily commit and compound a mortal sin. All priests are called upon to protect the body and blood of the Lord from such contamination. The problem is typically that the priest cannot always know whom to refuse, a problem which does not exist for Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and other Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion. When a priest administers Communion to such unrepentant infanticide proponents, he scandalizes the Church.

Far fewer Catholics would have voted for the most radical pro-abortion presidential candidate in U.S. history had their priests and bishops taken their responsibilities as seriously as Father Newman.

Here in Charlotte, we are blessed in our cathedral with at least two such men—Father Roux and Bishop Jugis.

May more of their like stand up for the unborn, for the Church, and for the Lord!

I totally agree!

 

[AgingCatholic]

I totally agree!

The problem, of course, is that we are not Protestants. We are part of an apostolic Church. We have the Vicar of Christ as our undisputed moral leader. That leadership gave us some specific instructions on voting:

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

Read #4 in its entirety. For better or worse, Rome makes it clear that it is “incoherent” and a “detriment” to the faith to elevate individual teachings at the expense of others. The section then concludes with a list of 9 examples (highlighted in the text) of moral principles that do not permit compromise.

If there was any doubt if Rome was serious, Pope Benedict cleared the matter up in Sacramentum Caritatis:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html

See #83, “Eucharistic consistency”. The Pope cites the above document and reiterates that the values “are not negotiable”.

This presents a huge problem for US Catholics, because all our major party presidential candidates hold intrinsically evil positions, including abortion. In this case, the words are not hyperbole. Abortion is an absolute, that is, there are no recognized licit applications. So, as Pope John Paul II explained in Vertitatis Splendor, some acts can be deemed intrinsically evil.

Fortunately, in addition to a Pope, we have a college of bishops, whose job is to help us properly apply Church teaching in our particular culture and circumstances. Since there is only one Vicar of Christ, and all bishops’ authority belongs to him, the bishops try to work collectively and in communication with Rome, since only when they are in communion with Rome are they acting as authentic teachers. The USCCB, working in such a collaboration, produced a document on developing a proper moral conscience for Faithful Citizenship:

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

If one looks to chattering by the laity, you can find dismissals and complaints, but conservative Catholic theologians, like Fr. Richard Neuhaus, have been extremely complimentary of the document’s doctrinal accuracy. This should be no surprise, since very conservative Bishops, like Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, oversaw its preparation.

If we look at #27-#30, we find that the bishops reiterate Rome’s instructions regarding our requirement to not elevate certain teachings at the expense of others. However, the bishops also give some guidance on what to do in a moral dilemma like the one we face. #36 and #37 acknowledge that such dilemmas exist and list a variety of options available to dealing with them. One of those options is to apply a concept normally referred to as “proportionate reasons”. We know that this did not just come out of nowhere, because we have a leaked letter from then Cardinal Ratzinger to the bishops which explains the concept as well as some of its limitations.

The key is at the end of #37:

“In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.”

This is not a random concept, but a core Catholic teaching. See the Universal Catechism:

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” - CCC 1790

Catholics cannot go against their certain moral conscience, because to do so puts their salvation in peril. But the second part is important to, we must be mindful that, even when we are CERTAIN we are right, we must remain mindful that we can be wrong, and act accordingly. In their statement on voting, the Bishops did not ignore this, going back to #29, where they explained that we cannot compromise some teachings at the expense of others:

1. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues. Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.

The Bishops are bringing up an even broader point, about the breadth of our obligation to Christ. But perhaps most importantly, when we are not acting in the spirit and name of Christ, we are not acting as true Catholics.

 

[Teflon93]

You might have missed this, TMC—what say you?

I downloaded mine, printed it, and my wife and I filled it out. Tomorrow our friends will sign it (non-Catholics mainly) and by Monday it will be in the mail to the National Right to Life Committee, where it will be consolidated and sent to Congress to let them know we will not stand idly by as this abominable legislation is considered.

Will you print it, sign it, and send it in TMC?

AgingCatholic, feel free to join us as well. Stand up for the unborn!

bump

Since we must support one another, AgingCatholic, what precisely are you doing to support the unborn?

 

[Teflon93]

AgingCatholic apparently may not realize that [the U.S. Conference of Bisops issued guidelines prior to the election which, given the nature of Church hierarchy, ought to have been heeded](http://www.usccb.org/bishops/catholics(name removed by moderator)oliticallife.shtml):

We speak as bishops, as teachers of the Catholic faith and of the moral law. We have the duty to teach about human life and dignity, marriage and family, war and peace, the needs of the poor and the demands of justice. Today we continue our efforts to teach on a uniquely important matter that has recently been a source of concern for Catholics and others.

**It is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, founded on her understanding of her Lord’s own witness to the sacredness of human life, that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified. If those who perform an abortion and those who cooperate willingly in the action are fully aware of the objective evil of what they do, they are guilty of grave sin and thereby separate themselves from God’s grace. This is the constant and received teaching of the Church. It is, as well, the conviction of many other people of good will. **

**To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong. This is the point most recently highlighted in official Catholic teaching. The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law. In the United States of America, abortion on demand has been made a constitutional right by a decision of the Supreme Court. Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good. **

As our conference has insisted in Faithful Citizenship, Catholics who bring their moral convictions into public life do not threaten democracy or pluralism but enrich them and the nation. The separation of church and state does not require division between belief and public action, between moral principles and political choices, but protects the right of believers and religious groups to practice their faith and act on their values in public life.

Our obligation as bishops at this time is to teach clearly. It is with pastoral solicitude for everyone involved in the political process that we will also counsel Catholic public officials that their acting consistently to support abortion on demand risks making them cooperators in evil in a public manner. We will persist in this duty to counsel, in the hope that the scandal of their cooperating in evil can be resolved by the proper formation of their consciences.

Having received an extensive interim report from the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, and looking forward to the full report, we highlight several points from the interim report that suggest some directions for our efforts:

**We need to continue to teach clearly and help other Catholic leaders to teach clearly on our unequivocal commitment to the legal protection of human life from the moment of conception until natural death. Our teaching on human life and dignity should be reflected in our parishes and our educational, health care and human service ministries. **

We need to do more to persuade all people that human life is precious and human dignity must be defended. This requires more effective dialogue and engagement with all public officials, especially Catholic public officials. We welcome conversation initiated by political leaders themselves.

Catholics need to act in support of these principles and policies in public life. It is the particular vocation of the laity to transform the world. We have to encourage this vocation and do more to bring all believers to this mission. As bishops, we do not endorse or oppose candidates. Rather, we seek to form the consciences of our people so that they can examine the positions of candidates and make choices based on Catholic moral and social teaching.

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

We commit ourselves to maintain communication with public officials who make decisions every day that touch issues of human life and dignity.

The Eucharist is the source and summit of Catholic life. Therefore, like every Catholic generation before us, we must be guided by the words of St. Paul, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27). This means that all must examine their consciences as to their worthiness to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord. This examination includes fidelity to the moral teaching of the Church in personal and public life.

 

[Teflon93]

Continued

**The question has been raised as to whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand. Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action. Nevertheless, we all share an unequivocal commitment to protect human life and dignity and to preach the Gospel in difficult times. **

The polarizing tendencies of election-year politics can lead to circumstances in which Catholic teaching and sacramental practice can be misused for political ends. **Respect for the Holy Eucharist, in particular, demands that it be received worthily and that it be seen as the source for our common mission in the world. **

Catholics in Political Life was developed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians in collaboration with Francis Cardinal George, OMI, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, OFMCap, and Bishop Donald W. Wuerl. It was approved for publication by the full body of bishops at their June 2004 General Meeting and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned.

Msgr. William P. Fay
General Secretary, USCCB

Were the bishops wrong, AgingCatholic?

Did you not read this before the election?

 

[sodak]

When I was growing up overseas, my parents played Santa and Mrs. Claus for orphans every Christmas.
Once a year, we went to a special picnic in which we “adopted” at least two orphan boys for the day. Most families only adopted one boy for the day, but I come from a large family. The idea of this “adopt an orphan” for a day was to give these children a chance to glimpse of what family is like. This picnic was held at a special sporting facility with swimming pools of all sizes. I always had fun. My mother usually packed fried chicken and her famous potato salad.
My daughter advocates for homeless families.

Fantastic, good for you and your family! You’ll never, ever fully understand the good that you’ve done and just how far it spread until you all meet again in heaven! But trust in God that it is a wonderful thing!

I personally know Fr. Newman. I live about 20 miles from the church he is over, and I know for a fact that Fr. Newman would never willingly try to mislead people. I agree wholeheartedly with his statements, and so does the catechism.
I cannot believe our diocese is reacting to him in such a way… He is one of the best in our diocese here in SC.

If he every wanted to move to Colorado, I have no doubt that Archbishop Chaput would love to have him. I’d love to shake his hand and thank him in person.

 

[MIZER]

We have no idea why individual people choose particular sins. We only know that the majority of women procuring abortions in the US live at or near the poverty line and about half of them are already mothers.

Yes, Jesus said that the poor will always be with us, but he also answered questions on salvation the same basic themes. In Matthew 25 they are repeated four times in a parable to make them crystal clear.

If you think that we are not deeply obliged to service the poor, then you might want to look up the origins of the word Gospel.

Your thinking is skewed. It is not true that the majority of women seeking abortions are poor. That is utterly false. And how exactly is giving anyone license to kill their offspring a viable way of serving them? I didn’t even mention serving or not serving the poor. It looks like you are grasping at straws. Typical, when one has run out of ideas. How much more crystal do you need “THOU SHALT NOT MURDER” to be?