Wondering Zygote Emeritus

Open Letter to "Catholics for Equality"

2012-01-25T22:54:00.001-05:00

Hello Catholics for Equality,

On your own FAQ page (http://www.catholicsforequality.org/page/frequently-asked-questions), it reports,

“Our message speaks of accepting yourself, your beliefs and values, your questions, and all you may be struggling with at this moment; accepting and loving your child as a gift of God; and accepting the full truth of God's revelation about the dignity of the human person and the meaning of human sexuality. Within the Catholic moral vision there is no contradiction among these levels of acceptance, for truth and love are not opposed. They are inseparably joined and rooted in one person, Jesus Christ, who reveals God to be ultimate truth and saving love.”

This is what Catholics for Equality believes and fights for.

This statement is a contradiction from the entire reference, "Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers" (http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/homosexuality/always-our-children.cfm). It goes on to say, "You can help a homosexual person in two general ways. First, encourage him or her to cooperate with God's grace to live a chaste life. Second, concentrate on the person, not on the homosexual orientation itself." And, "To live and love chastely is to understand that 'only within marriage does sexual intercourse fully symbolize the Creator's dual design, as an act of covenant love, with the potential of co-creating new human life' (United States Catholic Conference, Human Sexuality: A Catholic Perspective for Education and Lifelong Learning, 1991, p. 55). This is a fundamental teaching of our Church about sexuality, rooted in the biblical account of man and woman created in the image of God and made for union with one another (Gn 2–3)."

In light of the Pastoral Message that you cite yourself, your organization should change in its fight to support real marriage that is only between a man and a woman. Otherwise, please remove "Catholic" from your name.

May God bless you with His Truth,
[Gerry]
Baltimore, MD

Intergenerational Intimacy Abomination

2012-01-09T13:26:00.000-05:00

At LSN, I commented the following in response to the article, "Meet the academics who are trying to redefine pedophilia as ‘intergenerational intimacy’".

This man/boy abomination ('intergenerational intimacy') is specifically condemned in 1 Corr. 6:9. The original Greek there in 1 Corr. is specific to this pagan Roman practice. There's no way that the self-identified homosexuals can get around this condemnation like they try to with same-sex "marriage".

During the homosexual Bible study that was sponsored by the Rainbow Alliance at my public university (view my reflection of the study here), we discussed the Bible verses in 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10.

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

These specific verses (and others; Romans 1 et al.) were used to say that same-sex "marriage" was not condemned by St. Paul. Despite the fact that the point about "marriage" may be true, sexual relations between men and boys are still condemned here.

I wonder if some Christian denominations (ecclesial communities) will have a vote to determine if "Intergenerational Intimacy" is allowed or should be celebrated, because you know, voting determines morality.

This activity may be in the next Gay Pride parade near you. May God have mercy on us all.

Videos for My Liberal In-laws

2011-10-05T14:20:00.000-04:00

If only my Quaker in-laws would watch these videos:

"Hope [and] Change Liberals Protest Obama, So Why Aren't They Called Racists Like the Tea Party?"
(Uh-oh, an Af. Am. tea party member. BTW, I'm not a tea partyer, but I have their tendencies.)

"Afterburner: The Truth Is Out There"

"Andrew Klavan: The Facts of Life for Liberals" (Where does money come from?)

Contraception Stifles Grace

2011-08-01T14:21:00.002-04:00

In my view, the video below (from the Vortex with Michael Voris) shows the importance of the Catholic Church's teaching for chaste marital relations without contraception. Contraception stifles grace since it doesn't allow for the married couple to participate in God's Will of creation in their vocation. Stifling God's Will potentially, if not necessarily stifles His Grace.

I thought that marriage showed how Christ's love for His Church was present, but the oneness between Christ and His Church was really preeminent to marital love. In other words, if there was no fall, there would be a perfect oneness between Christ and His Church; it's just that the fall caused humanity to have to be re-grafted onto Christ through baptism, or through the remission of sin/reconciliation with God.

WARNING: the subject below may be too graphic for sensitive readers.

Finally, I thought of a few analogies that went with the use of contraption vis-a-vis receiving Holy Eucharist (stay tuned for a question for you):
(1) Condoms: putting a barrier around Holy Eucharist
(2) The Pill: taking a drug that put up a chemical barrier on the absorbing wall of stomach/intestines/esophagus so that Holy Eucharist could not become one with the Communicant
(3) Diaphragm: Putting a hollow balloon in one's mouth

What analogy do you think works for homosexual relations? Please comment below.

Mr. Cain Wrong

2011-07-18T11:45:00.000-04:00

Re: Herman Cain: Communities have right to ban mosques

Yes, Mr. Cain is wrong. I really hate to say that since I really like/d him as a presidential candidate.

His reason is that, "Let's go back to the fundamental issue that the people are basically saying that they are objecting to. They are objecting to the fact that Islam is both religion and (a) set of laws, Shariah law. That's the difference between any one of our other traditional religions where it's just about religious purposes."

There are two problems with his statement. First, building a functioning Mosque does not mean that the Muslims of the mosque are pushing Shariah law (they may be more liberal in Qur'an interpretation). Second, there is nothing Constitutionally wrong with any one person or mosque pushing Shariah law, as long as it does not conflict with the laws of the jurisdiction.

If the Shariah law that was being officially pushed by the mosque was illegal (say spousal abuse/murder of some kind/rape), than the mosque would have to shut down and/or be fined.

Lastly, any one person or organization may talk about changing laws, including mosques, while still abiding by current laws.

As a Catholic who tries to abide with Jesus' Laws and Canon Law through His Church, I think abortion and contraception should be illegal, and I talk and write about it. However, I don't force anyone to stop committing/using the acts/products or turn anyone in/report them to authorities because they are currently legal to commit/use.

I hope Mr. Cain recants on his statements regarding this issue.

Pro-life Link Party

2011-06-28T22:39:00.003-04:00

Here's a great pro-life link party at a great pro-life podcast site:
http://prolifepodcast.net/2011/06/link-party-8-your-favorite-postpodcast-from-june/

Remembering Blessed Teresa

2011-06-28T22:16:00.000-04:00

At the (U.S.) National Prayer Breakfast in 1994, Blessed (Mother) Theresa spoke to those in power.

God has blessed his creation with her.

Bl. Teresa, pray for us.

"The Life Zone" response from Justice for All

2011-06-06T12:00:00.003-04:00

I sent the following email regarding the new "horror" movie "The Life Zone".
---

Hello,

Do you have anything to do with [the new] "Justice for All Media"'s new "Horror" Movie, "The Life Zone"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn_Iq9D_Clg&feature=player_embedded You might want to make a press release about this.

Thanks,

Gerry

http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/

---

The response was the following.
---

Negative, we are not the "Justice For All" that created the movie or the trailer. Our approach (see our website at http://jfaweb.org) is quite a bit different than what appears to be the message in the trailer. What's your view of the trailer/movie?

David Lee

Executive Director, Justice For All

"Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who does nothing because he can only do a little." -- Edmund Burke

---

I think the movie's premise is a flawed view of the pro-life side. We are not about kidnapping women with child against their will (like the kidnapped person in the famous violinist scenario by J. J. Thomson). I'm all about getting all (legal and non-legal) baby killers out of business and informing women that abortion is a natural crime against them and their preborn boy or girl.

If there were no abortionists, this movie/trailer would not make any sense. If abortion was illegal, the abortionist, to whom the depicted pregnant mothers went, would be in jail or in custody. Kidnapping random pregnant women is also wrong.
---

What do you think?

Obama Made in USA

2011-05-19T14:48:00.002-04:00

So, Obama was "Made in USA". The new t-shirt says so (it must be true).

I would rather change it to "Created in USA". Would that change his mind on abortion, ESCR, the Declaration of Independence, etc?

Maybe Obama thinks it should read, "Born in USA"?

Hmmmm....

Review of Defending Life by F. J. Beckwith

2011-05-19T14:41:00.000-04:00

Someone liked my review below at Goodreads, so I thought I would share on my blog.
---------

Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice by Francis J. Beckwith

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This book summarizes all the most and best arguments against abortion choice. It can be a good book to bring to an abortion/ESCR/cloning debate since the section headings are a good guide. Although, the headings could have been outlined in the table of contents for quick reference.

This book does outline the non-religious grounds against abortion choice, but I still feel that the argument ultimately depends on the axiom that all humans (where a human if and only if a person) have inherent worth. This axiom is mostly found in faith traditions. If one does not have a faith tradition or other reason to uphold the axiom, the reasoning behind this book (and really all arguments for any protection for anyone) falls apart.

View all my reviews

Antidote to the Best Pro-Abortion Choice Argument

2011-05-04T21:23:00.001-04:00

There is, by far, a best pro-abortion choice argument out there: while acknowledging the personhood of the preborn human, a pregnant mother still has the right to kill/unhook her preborn child. Many know this argument from the famous violinist scenario by Judith Jarvis Thomson; many introduction to ethics courses use her argument for abortion debates in class (mine did).

Well, the video series below from Life Report answers the argument to an extremely high degree. (I have an article I'm working on that goes beyond the ideas in this video, but I'll disclose that later.)

Please take the time to listen to the videos in their entirety.

Prolifers Across the Parking Lot from Carhart

2011-04-01T21:14:00.002-04:00

(Dr) Leroy Carhart, the infamous late term abortionist now has his serial murdering business in Maryland (perhaps the most liberal state in the US). MD Coalition for Life is moving in across the parking lot from Carhart tomorrow at 2:30.

May God help us and convert Carhart's heart to see his victims as precious images of God. It can take only one Big Fish to start many more on the conversion path away from abortion killing.

Prolife Coexist Bumper Sticker MD Coexist I Stickervoice.com

2011-03-21T12:53:00.003-04:00

I like this sticker that was at the MD March for Life last week. It's about time there was a coexist bumper sticker that has a pregnant woman with a preborn child (yes that's redundant).

They're at Stickervoice.com

(click on the images below for larger versions)

UPDATE 7/29/2011:
I have a Pro-life Coexist T-shirt. I'll have to take a picture of it soon. Below is a picture from the website:
(Click here for a PDF of the Pro-life Coexist T-shirt.)

Archbishop Dolan on 60 Minutes

2011-03-21T12:00:00.000-04:00

I watched the (Roman Catholic) Archbishop of N.Y. Dolan on 60 Minutes last night. Of course, a great deal of the interview was about the sex abuse scandals. Another focus in the interview was about the image that the Church was a stern, old fashioned relic of the puritan past. It's all about world views as AB Dolan said:

I'm in one world. You're in the other. I'm glad you're visitin'.

This last focus reminded me of an interview of AB Dolan on wordonfire2 on Youtube.

He said in 1:41 to the end above, "The Catholic Church is all about one big ringing yes! It's an affirmation of all that is beautiful and noble and uplifting and exiting and liberating in the human drama."

This is opposed to the "double no" that he talks about later in the video above. When the world puts forth a no to the dignity of the human person, the Church says no, which tries to ultimately make the world better.

May God bless AB Dolan and my AB O'Brien. Two Irish AB's leading the Church at a tumultuous time in the US.

Orthodoxy Review

2011-02-26T22:16:00.000-05:00

Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

The argumentation in many sections of this book seems to come out of right field (yes, that's right), but it oh so nicely lands on target on his point.

The references to Quakerism (The Inner Light) and Buddhism were very apropos as well as his pity of the moderns. To him, pre-modern civilization is justifiably seen as the reincarnation of pre-"Christendom" (he doesn't use "pre-modern", only "modern").

His treatise on original sin is more expounded upon than in his St. Francis of Assisi that digs out and deepens my understanding of the doctrine.

He really does lay down the case that Christian orthodoxy is more liberating than the modern notion of freedom.

As I have said before with Chesterton's St. Francis of Assisi, Chesterton is supposedly hard to read, but I found that this is not the case with this book either. It's too bad that people don't read Chesterton as much as CS Lewis (as I have seen) since Chesterton really hits his points with real panache.

View all my reviews

Maryland SB 119 Reflection I

2011-02-10T22:14:00.000-05:00

I thought it prudent that my reflections of MD SB 119, "Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act" should be broken up so that each post was short and focused on one or a few connected points. These reflections are points that came and still come to mind as I listened to and reflect(ed) on most of the oral testimony for and against the bill.

To start it off, it was interesting how the different religious people gave their points for or against the bill. The Unitarian gave valentines to the Committee Senators. The Black Protestant Ministers for and against sounded like Dr. King in how they started low and calm while ending up loud and energetic, while the Catholic Religious and Ordained were calm and collected.

The one thing that really bothered me was when a Catholic Sister in habit came up and defended the bill. The Religious read a statement from a Priest that couldn't make it. After looking around the internet, I wonder if it was Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND of New Ways Ministries (based in Mount Rainier, Maryland) of which I spoke before. She said that there was "debate" within the Catholic Lay Community about what to do regarding bills like this one.

I understand that there can be debate within the Catholic Community. It has been said that young people "'believe that doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, Mary as the mother of God, Christ's real presence in the Eucharist and the need to be concerned about the poor are more important than teachings such as the need to limit the priesthood to men, the need for priestly celibacy, the church's opposition to artificial birth control and its opposition to the death penalty.'" However, instead of it being either/or, why can't it be both/and (please, please have a listen here; a good doctor reveals both good and bad). Catholicism is a big YES! about freedom unless it is to say "no" to "another 'no' that negates the dignity of the human person" (see after 1:53 here).

Further, I know that we moderns hate more than anything else the concept of authority, including many if not the majority of Catholics (unfortunately). However, Catholic Tradition, Scripture, and Vatican II assert that the Catholic Faithful are to be in unity with the local Bishop. In Maryland, as far as I understand it, the Archbishop of Baltimore is for upholding the real meaning of marriage in law. However, groups like New Ways Ministries have confused the faithful and divided us away from our Shepherd Archbishop.

Those in power know groups like New Ways Ministries can scatter the Catholic Flock, the Body of Christ. If they can get the Catholic Church to be divided, they can get what they want (Sor*os, Gat*es, Roc*kefeller, For*d, etc.); they pour in money to "Catholic" organizations (and politicians/political parties).

For those in power, the only morals are those that make it possible to get what they want (read Saul Alinsky). However, I believe that the Catholic Church reveals the truth that is given by the Holy Spirit. The Bishop should unite all the faithful together for all that is right. The wolves come to destroy that unity.

May we pray, worship, and publicly act as Jesus has called us to do through the one True Gospel. Amen.

My Maryland Senate Bill 119 (SB 119) Testimony

2011-02-09T20:02:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, I was planning to give oral testimony against MD SB 119, but I didn't get to speak. There was a finite amount of time allotted for testimony, and there were too many that wanted to testify to fit the time (it would've gone well into the night after starting at 1P). Thank goodness I submitted my oral arguments in writing.

The written oral arguments that I submitted are below (except for my real name and other info removed). Note that the quotes below are linked to the source at the first (few) word(s) of the quote.

I'll be writing about some points that stood out for me tonight and tomorrow that hopefully will be published tomorrow here at WZE.

---

Testimony of [Gerry] for

SB 116, “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act”

Hello, I am [Gerry], a husband and father of three children who lives in [a], County, District [#]. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about why I think this Senate Bill should be voted down.

First, before I talk about the bill, let me very briefly talk about marriage. One way to contrast the original and proposed definitions of marriage is to think about the differences between two types of jewelry, (1) a friendship chain with one heart attached that is divided in half and (2) a charm bracelet with two or more charms. The former illustrates that marriage has to do with the complementary of the sexes (“two become one”), while the latter is an arrangement of two or more people. The former has a definite physical orientation while the latter can describes any loving relationship of two or more people (brother/sister, aunt/nephew, sister/sister (convent of sisters?), three or more of varying sexes).

“Non-marital friendships are characterized by a union of hearts and minds; but marriage, being a comprehensive union of persons, extends this unity to the bodily dimension. For our bodies are integral aspects of us as persons, not merely our extrinsic instruments. And in coitus, a man and woman’s bodies unite much as a heart and lungs unite within an individual—by coordinating together toward a single biological good (here, reproduction) of the whole (here, the whole couple).”

The original definition does not depend on the fertility of the couple. “[Just] as a person’s stomach action retains its orientation to nourishment even when nourishment doesn’t occur (e.g., because of intestinal problems), so a man and woman’s [consummation] is still coordination oriented to the single biological good of reproduction even when reproduction doesn’t occur (e.g., because of ovarian problems)." Plus, the state shouldn’t go around asking people if they are fertile.

Now, I turn to the bill. In the California Supreme Court case that dealt with Prop. 8, it was concluded that procreation was not a rational basis for barring same sex couples from marriage. Theodore Olson, who argued for the same sex couples said, “’It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence to be dispensed by the state. The right to marry, to choose to marry, has never been tied to procreation.’”

First of all, the right to marry has been tied to procreation. “[The] 2,300-year-old philosophical tradition, originating independently of such policy considerations (and of Judaeo-Christian influence), that similarly distinguished the uniquely comprehensive unions consummated by coitus [and tied to procreation] from all others. Indeed, the three great philosophers of antiquity—Socrates, Plato and Aristotle— [and others] defended this view amid highly homoerotic cultures.”

Secondly, the US constitutional freedom of association currently allows same sex couples to say that they are married. I know same sex couples who say that they are married and have not been arrested. The debate about this bill should not be about whether same sex couples can marry. It’s about state sanctification of and civil benefits for their relationship, while still excluding others.

At the end of the day, I believe that if the definition of marriage is legally rewritten in view of the US Constitutional Equal Protection Clause (as currently interpreted by SCOTUS) to simply include all freely associated relationships beyond this bill’s prohibitions, all associations will want the same sanctioned privileges. Marriage will become meaningless and could be dropped from state protection to make way for a sort of overall welfare state unless there is a clear limit to what marriage includes (while also reforming divorce laws).

Third, as one from [a] County, people know that children who are raised by their married natural parents have the best chance of making it in whatever positive ways they can, more reach adulthood, are most often the best citizens, more often stay out of poverty, and have fewer children out-of-wedlock than do children of other family arrangements. The State should protect these consummated marriages that have or may result in the creation of children.

(“[Gay marriage will] encourage marital instability and broken homes, and children growing up in these situations are more likely to exhibit a variety of antisocial behaviors.

“Children growing up in traditional homes, on the other hand, have these problems to a significantly diminished degree. They have better emotional health, engage in fewer risky behaviors, are less likely to engage in premarital sex, and do better educationally and economically. Finally, a recent Utah study found that divorce costs the federal, state, and local governments $33 billion per year. For all these reasons, the state has a vested interest in promoting stable traditional marriages.” From The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage).

I have two quick comments. First, it is true that there are same sex partners who adopt or artificially create children for themselves. However, these matters should be handled by adoption and surrogate laws but not marriage statues.

Lastly, even though a religious exception is included to protect “an official of a religious institution or body authorized to solemnize marriages”, who does that exactly include? Also, can a bed and breakfast (often someone’s private residence) or similar business be protected from lawsuits? How about protecting employees who don’t want to condone same sex marriages on the job?

Thank you.

Bibliography of sources

Beyond Gay Marriage

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp?pg=1

The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/feb/040223a.html

Unitarians for Polyamory

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/01/19/unitarians-for-polyamory/

Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage; http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324

The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2004/feb/040223a

Incest and the Degradation of Our Vocabulary

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2316

Same-Sex Marriage and Formal Discrimination

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/06/1396

Does Marriage, or Anything, Have Essential Properties?

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2350

New Jersey Senate Kills Gay “Marriage” Bill

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/jan/10010711

---

The following were quotes that didn't make it to the testimony due to time constraints.

(1) Prior to the vote [in the NJ Senate of S1967, the "Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act"], Regina Griggs, director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), criticized the comparison of homosexuality to racial issues.

"Contrary to Bond's statement equating skin color with homosexual behavior, major scientific studies and mental health associations have stated homosexuality is not innate," said Griggs in a statement. "No replicated scientific study has found a gay gene, gay DNA, or gay center of the brain.

"Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. Many African-Americans have come out of homosexuality, proving sexual orientation can change, but skin color does not."

(2) Accordingly, in 1999 they created an organization, Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA), with the avowed goal of making Unitarianism the first denomination to endorse polyamory.

(3) The overwhelming consensus among scholars is that the reason for these [discriminatory interracial] laws was to enforce racial purity [of progeny from interracial marriage], an idea that begins its cultural ascendancy with the commencement of race-based slavery of Africans in early 17^th-century America and eventually receives the imprimatur of “science” when the eugenics movement comes of age in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries.⁶ In Loving, for example, the statue overturned, SB 219, The Racial Integrity Act of 1924, was the product of the eugenics movement.

(4) Spouses and same-sex "partners" are not taxed when one dies and the sisters have attempted to have the new laws interpreted to allow them to enjoy similar exemptions.

“Ask Them What They Mean By ‘Choice’” Blog Day

2011-01-21T14:27:00.003-05:00

Choice always requires an object since there are always two things to choose between. In any case, what do humans for choice "mean when they say 'choice'"?

Just one thing to add for those who think men have no room in the abortion debate: countless males are aborted too. Men certainly have a say in the choice to kill or support preborn males.

(This post was updated 21 January 2011 at 4:58 pm EST.)

Interesting New Conservative Action Committee in Maryland

2010-12-10T16:38:00.001-05:00

Since craigslist has supposedly changed its ways and is now off (one of) my boycott list(s), I went looking for and found one of those fire emergency ladders for my kids.

When I went to pick it up at the seller's house, I saw a Murphy sticker (for MD governor) on their front door. After paying for the ladder, I said, "Sorry about Murphy; I voted for him too."

Then they said something like, "Did you hear about the new conservative group that's forming to elect conservative, not just Republican candidates?"

"What, you mean not like Ehrlich?", I said.

Well, they gave me a flyer for registration for a MDCAN conference that's coming up.

From the flyer:

"Frustrated with last November’s election results in Maryland?"
"Weary of one-party rule that threatens our livelihoods?"
"Ready to re-build electoral politics from the grassroots up?"
"Then turn your frustration into ACTION, and join fellow conservatives in Annapolis to chart a new course for Maryland!"

Definition of "conservative" from their website (and here):

"We are assuming that conservatives come in all stripes (and from all political parties) and are not just fiscal conservatives, but support the US Constitution including especially the second and tenth amendments, respect the sanctity of life and support traditional marriage, respect the law on the question of immigration, wish to reform our education system, and are ready and willing to defend our great Nation against any and all threats to our national security." (emphasis added)

I hope this action committee works some good news!

Fr. Barron Spot On with St. Thomas More and the CofE

2010-11-04T15:15:00.000-04:00

Below is Fr. Barron on "St. Thomas More and the Bishop of Rome". This is a follow-up post to a previous post of mine here.

With all due respect, I wonder if the Queen Mother of the Britons wishes she could convert to Catholicism (from the "Church of England" -- CofE). Does she recognize the post-Christian direction of the ecclesial community she oversees?

Well, here is Fr.

Porn Still Rapes the Mind

2010-11-04T15:03:00.000-04:00

Charlie Sheen Rampage Tied to Smut Addiction Says Expert
White Ribbon against Pornography Awareness Week - October 31 to November 7
Porn - The Most Dangerous Threat in the Culture War, Says LifeSite Editor
(All articles from Lifesitenews.com)

As long as porn and contraception are widely available and/or legal, women and children will be worse off since men will have the opportunity to view them more and more as objects and products of conception (born and preborn) to divorce and discard (I have seen this in my experience).

May God have mercy on us all.

Atheists Respectable or Not

2010-09-23T15:16:00.000-04:00

Are Atheists respectable or not?

I commented this (see below) on a First Things On the Square article with no response (on many sites, I am just ignored: no one will be ignored on this blog).

(1) From the On the Square article the day before this article was posted ("Cogito and Christ" by Mr. Carter)
"Over the past few decades, many Christians—particularly those intrigued by postmodernism—have rightly questioned Descartes’ reversal. They have attempted to dethrone the idol of reason by pointing out the limits of rationality and questioning the human ability to achieve epistemic certainty, particularly about matters of theology. Unfortunately, in trimming away the underbrush they have failed to cut away the root of Descartes error: the faith in doubt.

"Among these Christians, as well as among secular intellectuals, doubt about metaphysical truths—such as the existence and creative actions of God—has become viewed as a form of intellectual humility. Once considered evidence of a poor intellect, agnosticism and atheism are now treated as evidence of intellectual virtue.

"Nothing could be further from the truth. This reliance on doubt requires that the doubter be the supreme judge of what can or cannot be known. Rejecting a dogmatic certitude about what is known in favor of a questioning attitude of whether something can be known with certainty merely shifts the idol of reason to a new location and gives it a more palatable, humble-sounding name. The doubters accept the limits of the human mind, embrace pluralism, and do not impose any one idea of truth upon others.

"However when we put our trust solely in our own reason we either become dogmatic or skeptical, and even dogmatic in our skepticism. But when we set aside our self-idolatry and seek true epistemic humility we can discover that the only reliable foundation for reason is found in special revelation."

(2) From this article:
"There are two answers to the question: 'Why does anything exist rather than nothing at all?' The atheist answers, 'There is no explanation.' The theist replies, God. An intelligent case can be made for either answer. But to say that the laws of physics alone answer it is the purest nonsense—as Hawking himself once realized."

I find the two passages above conflicting.

I talked to an in-law who claims to be an Atheist. I basically said that one of us has to be right (there is God or not), but that I respected my in-law's belief. My in-law has reasons, and I have my own.

From the first passage, it seems that the in-law's reasons contra-God's existence are directed to "self-idolatry", and from the second passage, the reasons derive an "intelligent case".

Which one is it? Can it be both at the same time like it is in so many philosophical/religious topics?

So what is it?

All One Needs to Know About Politics

2010-09-06T15:03:00.000-04:00

All one needs to know about politics can be thought to come from A Man for All Seasons (it's one of my favorite movies; I don't do favorites lightly). St. Thomas More, the patron of statesmen, knew that no one was above the law. He also knew that law was imperfect since it was written by men, especially if the law was disregarded or interpreted away.

If a law seems to be or is in fact wrong, it must be changed, not trampled underfoot alone or in the company of other laws.

The precedence of previous laws must be obliged. However, natural law must be upheld as its underpinning.

Finally, the oath that public officials take are not merely words but binding tethers to the path of an official's destination for the benefit of society and its tradition.

Officials cannot function on the will-to-power but must be grounded in the path toward the common good: otherwise moral, political, and ethical chaos ensues.

For the U.S., "And for the support of this Declaration [of Independence of the USA], with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Craigslist Boycott

2010-08-28T20:02:00.001-04:00

This news came not as a shocker but as a dark night of my American soul. One day I could browse dozens of hits for stuff I needed and the next I could only find ones that required shipping and handling. Woe is me.

I mean, I just bought all my work-at-home furniture and some more storage items for under $200. The night was not long enough to get all the things I bought. I'm sure glad I had my third child whose car seat wouldn't fit the other two car seats in a car so I could get a van to seat them all: I could get bigger stuff on craigslist Baltimore.

My dream is nevermore. I now have a computer which will never (?) search for a computer mouse nor a desk.

Darn principles (at least I have ones that stick).

LGBT Equality Nonstarter

2010-08-23T22:23:00.001-04:00

On Assumption Sunday, there was a visiting priest from Boston who said mass since the pastor was away. In his homily he mentioned that the Assumption was about how we come to God in our bodies, male or female, black or white, ..., gay or straight.

I never heard any ordained priest say anything like that where I could see them in person. It just shocked me.

I reflected a little about what he said. I wonder, should he have said, "adulterous and non-adulterous", "liar or non-liar", etc? Just because we have an inclination to sin, does it mean that we have to identify with a particular, potential sin?

Some people think that the LGBT label is their identity. Some people think that their profession is their identity. For some, the color of their skin links them to others.

How is an inclination of sinfulness regarded as identity? Those of the current LGBT subculture think they are discriminated against: they think they're hated. Should equality be not linked to sin (inclination and/or acts) but to dignity as human persons in our bodies?

Some more thought is needed. Just thinking as I write. (Be nice now if you comment.)

(Good read: Obedience vs. Conscience)

US Sen Mikulski (D-MD) is All About More Government

2010-08-23T21:50:00.000-04:00

I got this in my email from the Baltimore County Connector:

US Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) said (picture from here with Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith),

"We need small businesses so they can keep creating jobs and keep powering our economy. But small businesses can't do it on their own. They need a government on their side. They need government bringing down health care costs, supporting innovation, and preparing the workforce for the jobs of the future. They also need a level playing field in government contracting. I want them to know I'm on their side."

How about this:
We need government to get off the back of small businesses. They're already burdened enough by the tax code, paying taxes, and spending 7/8 of their company time trying to figure out government regulations or spending more time and money on a legal adviser. So much for the little guy: the big guy has more resources to figure out big government's mess.

Direct Killing Always Wrong

2010-08-11T21:50:00.000-04:00

Here's part of a dialog that took place over Youtube messaging behind the scenes. (It's from the video at the end of this post.)

If accepting the message on the video below is what it means to "trust black women", what do you think? I say, "Trust them to do what, kill the right preborn boy or girl?"

----------
[From other person, not me:]
@otaaac3 "always wrong" going to extreme is "always" a mistake. are you pro-surrendering to invaders so as not to kill them?
would you shout "dont shoot back at the planes" which bombed pearl harbor so they do not "kill" the pilot??
luckily law makers are not extreme and take into account bodily injury of the mother.
if you limit yourself to healthy births say so. but agree if mother will be injured by the birth to remove the fetus in small peices to save mom.

-----------
[From me:]
I said direct killing was always wrong.
"An abortion would be ***indirect*** if it were used neither as an end nor as a means. If a pregnant woman has a cancerous womb that must be removed, removing it would produce an indirect abortion. The child would die after the womb is removed, but the child's death would neither be an end nor a means." -_This Rock_ (emphasis added) http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/double%20effect

Shooting a plane is indirect killing of the pilot. Killing a shooter is indirect killing since the intent is to stop the gun.

-----
[From other person:]
'Shooting a plane is indirect killing of the pilot. Killing a shooter is indirect killing since the intent is to stop the gun.'
what about shooting 'the pilot' is that always wrong? you would answer indirect by 'intent' then abortion is always indirect since the intent is for the family finance

-----
[From me:]
"what about shooting 'the pilot' is that always wrong?"

The pilot himself outside of the plane is innocent until s/he tries to kill someone directly. If they are, say, eating a sandwich in the mess hall, no one has a right to kill them since they are just eating lunch.

A preborn boy or girl inside of his or her mother is doing nothing except eating lunch in his or her mess hall (the mother's womb). No one has a right to kill them for what they might do (potential finance burden). A preborn boy or girl has the same moral worth as you or me.

How much family finance has to be in jeopardy for his or her mother to kill them? $1? $50? $100? $1000? Over how many years? What about adopting to the plethora of people who are waiting to adopt to very little, if no cost to the pregnant mother?

How about born babies? Does the mother have a right to kill them? for how much?

These questions have a very bad logical conclusion.

-----

CA Prop 8 Struck Down

2010-08-04T21:28:00.002-04:00

So, the homosexual judge struck down the anti-homosexual "marriage" proposition 8 of CA. Clearly, this judgment was made on factual grounds (finding of fact) as shown in Ace of Spades (I just got a link to it from CMR) so it's harder to strike down on appeal (As I wrote before, I just hope they get the history right).

However, on page 133, there is a vestige of finding of law based on Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pa v Casey (505 US 833, 850, (1992)) and Lawrence (539 US at 582) (I believe Lawrence was the case about consensual gay sex).

California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to “mandate [its] own moral code.” Id (citing Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v Casey, 505 US 833, 850, (1992)). “[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,” has never been a rational basis for legislation. Lawrence, 539 US at 582 (O'Connor, J, concurring). Tradition alone cannot support legislation. See Williams, 399 US at 239; Romer, 517 US at 635; Lawrence, 539 US at 579. (emphasis added)

I could have predicted that this supposedly current reading of the U.S. Constitution, seemingly now the law of the land, would creep into this and all other "culture war" court cases, i.e., there are no morals except the judicial interpretation of the living document that is the U.S. Constitution. (BTW, this legal positivism comes with Kagan too.)

This comes from Casey. It's worth a full read.

Men and women of good conscience can disagree, and we suppose some always shall disagree, about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage. Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. [From the current case] The underlying constitutional issue is whether the State can resolve these philosophic questions in such a definitive way that a woman lacks all choice in the matter, except perhaps in those rare circumstances in which the pregnancy is itself a danger to her own life or health, or is the result of rape or incest.

It is conventional constitutional doctrine that where reasonable people disagree the government can adopt one position or the other. That theorem, however, assumes a state of affairs in which the choice does not intrude upon a protected liberty. Thus, while some people might disagree about whether or not the flag should be saluted, or disagree about the proposition that it may not be defiled, we have ruled that a State may not compel or enforce one view or the other.

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Our cases recognize "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. (emphasis added)

This is what lead to legal assisted suicide in Oregon and to the continuation of abortion on demand. Until this interpretation of what's left of the U.S. Constitution is struck down utterly and without equivocation, there will be no stopping that which people are capable of imagining.

Really, how can the court know what the people in the voting booth were thinking when they voted? Who cares if people who brought Prop. 8 to the voting booth had a reason or not to do so: they only have one (1) vote a piece. The people of CA had their reasons to vote for it that only they know.

"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

The court has forgot. Sorry, dear Abe, may God have mercy on us.

(BTW, see Fr. Barron on the Casey decision near the end of the video below.)

Legal Positivism and the Source of Rights

2010-07-22T22:31:00.001-04:00

Lifesitenews.com conducted an interview with Christopher Ferrara, president and chief counsel of the American Catholic Lawyers’ Association.

I liked what he had to say. It was quite controversial. He actually said that monarchy was the best form of government. I never heard someone say that before even though I also think it.

What this post is really about are ideas about legal positivism.

Chrisopher Ferrara: We’re operating under the shadow of Roe v. Wade. But R v W is only one of the many emanations of the doctrine known as legal positivism. What is legal positivism? It is simply the doctrine that the law is what is posited. Put forth. So let it be written, so let it be done. It doesn’t matter whether there’s a natural law standard underlying a legal enactment, a utilitarian standard or any standard at all.

I then read this opinion article from Yahoo!News, "Elena Kagan: Could she defend the Constitution's purpose?"

The Holmes model: sneering at natural rights[sic]Instead, they follow the path marked out by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who sat on the Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932. “All my life I have sneered at the natural rights of man,” Holmes wrote, reflecting his view that the individual rights venerated by the Founders have no objective validity and therefore no role in discerning the Constitution’s meaning. ...
In a written follow-up, Kagan named Holmes as the last century’s most influential Supreme Court justice, stating: “His opinions ... set forth the basic rationale for judicial deference to legislative policy decisions.” Having discarded the Constitution’s actual purpose as irrelevant to judging, Kagan is left with Holmes’s concept of the Constitution as a mechanism for implementing unlimited majority rule. ...
Nor would she fail to find authority for the government to bully banks into joining bailout schemes, launch massive “stimulus” spending of taxpayer money, and cap carbon emissions. If it’s commerce, the majority can control it. During her testimony, Kagan even lectured Sen. Coburn on the majority’s constitutional right to (hypothetically) require that each individual eat three vegetables a day – allowing herself only an inconsequential personal opinion that such a dictatorial law would be “dumb.”

This got me to thinking about the scary lecture by Bill Schulz of Amnesty International and Unitarian Universalist Association, "What Torture's Taught Me", "...[W]e are left with public opinion as the basis for determining rights." (p. 14)

If we leave rights up to people, what basis will they use to determine the scope? Without direction to the telos of the person (God), we are only on the road to the real tyranny of the democratic majority and the oligarchy of SCOTUS.

This is one of the reasons why I think the abortion debate is so important. It boils down governance to the questions of 'what is man?’ and ‘what is man for?' as Christopher Ferrara said in his interview.

Revised Beckwith-McDonagh Abortion Argument

2010-06-23T14:36:00.000-04:00

I was thinking further about my argument in the previous post (reproduced immediately below):

(I) The ordinary means of survival are food, water, and shelter.
(II) It is the duty of society to provide ordinary means of survival to its members.
(III) The only person that can provide the ordinary means of survival to a preborn girl or boy is a pregnant woman.
(IV) It is the duty of a pregnant woman to provide ordinary means of survival to a preborn girl or boy.

Do duties have less argumentative power than rights? I think so. Well, I thought of the following revised argument of the above.

(I) The ordinary means of survival are food, water, and shelter.
(II) It is the right of each individual of society to safeguard his/her ordinary means of survival. Said safeguarding must be carried out by said individual, third party (A), or the state.
(III) Abortion by the mother or third party (B) is the forceful taking of ordinary means of survival from a preborn girl or boy.
(IV) Since the preborn girl or boy is not actually able to safeguard himself/herself from the imposition of abortion by the mother or third party (B), the state or third party (A) must safeguard the ordinary means of survival of said preborn girl or boy by stopping the abortion.

Let's reconsider the previous scenarios (they are changed below from the previous post):

Consider scenario A'.

There is country C that is ruled by monarch M. In country C, monarch M naturally controls all the ordinary means of production MP for country C. There are subject(s) S of country C that are under the natural care and jurisdiction of monarch M.

The only way that subject(s) S is/are able to survive is through monarch M providing the ordinary fruits F of the ordinary means of production MP for country C. Therefore, it would be a violation of the rights of subject(s) S if monarch M did not provide said ordinary fruits F. Fruits F include shelter, food, and water which are all ordinary means of survival.

Consider scenario B'.

In a spacecraft S that is solely under the jurisdiction of captain C, there is a reversibly-comatose homeless woman HW that was picked up off the street. She is sent up a futuristic elevator E from Earth that goes to spacecraft S. Through a feeding tube that goes up elevator E, homeless woman HW is fed and hydrated. Air is circulated up from Earth through elevator E.

The only way that homeless woman HW can survive is if she is fed, hydrated, and provided with air through elevator E that is solely under the jurisdiction of captain C. Therefore, it would be a violation of the rights of homeless woman HW if captain C did not provide homeless woman HW shelter (air), food, and water which are all ordinary means of survival.
-------------

BTW, since Dr. McDonagh thinks it the right of pregnant women to have money from the government (you and me) to pay for abortions through her right to consent idea (and here), my right to ordinary means of survival is even more basic than hers (right to tax payers money for abortion).

The result is a pro-consent constitutional argument for extending abortion rights to include public funding, at least for women who cannot otherwise afford it, that is to be distinguished from both the common pro-life and pro-choice perspectives.

Beckwith-McDonagh Right to Consent and Abortion

2010-06-22T14:20:00.001-04:00

I've been doing some research regarding the view that non-consented pregnancy is essentially equivalent with rape insofar as both are seen as violations of a woman's bodily integrity (et al). It seems to me that something was missing from the debate.

Dr. McDonagh of N. Western has the latest up in the debate: she views abortion not as a right to choose but a right to consent (1). I was unsurprised that she directly attacked the portion of Dr. Beckwith's book Defending Life in this regard.

Dr. Beckwith again brought up his conclusion that pregnancy is a prima facie good and argued back against Dr. McDonagh to that end.

In another article (2), "Consent, Sex and the Prenatal Rapist", he brought up that the telos (ends or purpose) of reproductive organs are reproduction (p. 11). I'm surprised he did not explicitly bring up this point again in the first linked article (1).

However, I propose that pregnancy is to maintained for the survival of the preborn boy or girl despite the fact that the mother does not consent to (a) the presence of said preborn and (b) the continuation of the pregnancy for another reason.

(1) Pregnancy is the natural and ordinary means (opposed to extraordinary means; a search is here of ordinary/extraordinary means) of survival for the preborn person (assume with Dr. McDonagh that a preborn human is a person). The above fact is independent of how the preborn person becomes present within the woman's body.

(2) In agreement with Dr. McDonagh, a woman is sovereign ruler of her body.

Consider scenario A.

There is country C that is ruled by monarch M. In country C, monarch M naturally controls all the means of production MP for country C. There are subject(s) S of country C that are under the natural care and jurisdiction of monarch M.

The only way that subject(s) S is/are able to survive is through monarch M providing the fruits F of the means of production MP for country C. Therefore, it is the duty of monarch M to provide said fruits F. Fruits F include shelter, food, and water which are all ordinary means of survival.

Consider scenario B.

In a spacecraft S that is solely under the jurisdiction of captain C, there is a reversibly-comatose homeless woman HW that was picked up off the street. She is sent up a futuristic elevator E from Earth that goes to spacecraft S. Through a feeding tube that goes up elevator E, homeless woman HW is fed and hydrated. Air is circulated up from Earth through elevator E.

The only way that homeless woman HW can survive is if she is fed, hydrated, and provided with air through elevator E that is solely under the jurisdiction of captain C. Therefore, it is the duty of captain C to provide shelter, food, and water which are all ordinary means of survival.

Basically the argument is this:
(I) The ordinary means of survival are food, water, and shelter.
(II) It is the duty of society to provide ordinary means of survival to its members.
(III) The only person that can provide the ordinary means of survival to a preborn girl or boy is a pregnant woman.
(IV) It is the duty of a pregnant woman to provide ordinary means of survival to a preborn girl or boy.

As a side note, the arguments of Dr. Jarvis, Boonin, et al. largely rest on the need to provide extraordinary means which are not central to the issue of pregnancy (ordinary means) at hand.

Please let me know what you think of the scenarios and argument. Thanks.
----------------

UPDATE (23 June 2010):
I have an update to the above argument here. I think it's a stronger argument.

Happy Janteenth

2010-06-19T20:18:00.000-04:00

Today is Juneteenth. It's today that the the Emancipation Proclamation was essentially effective in the State of Texas but was and is celebrated by many emancipated slaves and their descendants elsewhere.

Did you know that President Reagan also made an Emancipation Proclamation? It was for preborn children (he used the words preborn!) and was proclaimed 14 January 1988. (Should the March for Life change its date to that day?)

Obviously it wasn't effective to outlaw abortion, but it's nice to know it happened, esp in the Personhood campaign.

It took the 13 and 14th amendments to ratify Lincoln's Proclamation. It's been too long for Reagan's to go unamended.

I wonder when it will. Just like slavery, it took a while for the effect to take place, but it was the right thing to do (there's even slavery/human trafficking today). Abortion will obviously be a similar deal when outlawed, but it's worth all that comes with it.

I've recently read that outlawing abortion will be like prohibition since it will just essentially create speakeasy environments. However, you know what, there are people who are for decriminalizing currently illegal drugs AND outlawing abortion (Ron Paul for instance; BTW, I think some drugs need to be illegal). They are for decriminalizing the former since it has been a dismal failure. However, he and others are for criminalizing the latter (with similar laws as before Roe v. Wade) since the US Constitution is in effect to protect the innocent from unjust aggression.

Well, I can't wait until I can celebrate Janteenth.

Unitarian Universalist Obama

2010-06-17T21:10:00.001-04:00

I've been doing a heck of a lot of research on Unitarian Universalists (UU) and Quakers regarding their views on abortion, and I just realized that, by gosh, Obama is a UU!

Of course this is just speculation, but look at the facts about Obama that correspond to UU's:

He is pushing hard for the homosexual agenda - as hard as any President can. This is also gay pride month!
Abortion is really sacred.
He uses biblical references all the time without actually using their context in the overall picture of Christianity - the Bible (and sometimes Catholic tradition - soul of St. Aquinas via Aristotle) is used as a prop for his agenda. (Does he really believe it all? See the inaugural address too.)
His way defines sin.
He hasn't gone to any Church (or ecclesial community) for a while.
His daughters go to a Quaker school. (I was personally told once by a UU (and former Catholic) that Quakers are kissing cousins.)
One explanation why he's so open to Muslims.

I suspect many people who are not officially UU fit the above description. However, if Obama is a UU, he would be the first openly UU, a non-Christian sect (no baptism), as far as I know (T. Jefferson had Unitarian tendencies. Unitarians didn't join Universalists until 1961.)

Same Sex "Marriage" Questionable History

2010-06-16T15:51:00.000-04:00

From Lawyer: Gays denied right by Calif marriage ban:

Olson said the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized marriage as a fundamental right — one afforded to prisoners serving life sentences and child support scofflaws — while refusing to make procreation a precondition of marriage, as evidenced by laws allowing divorces and contraception.

"It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence to be dispensed by the state," Olson said. "The right to marry, to choose to marry, has never been tied to procreation." (emphasis added)

Whenever someone says that something never happened or was never viewed a certain way in history, my alarms go off. It first went off in the abortion debate with Roe v. Wade's biased, untrue, and socially devastating accounting of history. Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History by (lapsed Unitarian Universalist) Joseph W. Dellapenna has gone into excruciating detail against the following myths of abortion:

(1) that abortion was always a common practice in human history; (2) that voluntary early abortions were not crimes until the nineteenth century; (3) that the nineteenth-century abortion statutes were designed to protect the life of the mother rather the life of the child; and (4) that the statutes were enacted through a conspiracy of men to accomplish several nefarious purposes—to subordinate women, to eliminate competition from women health-care workers with male physicians, and to ensure adequate birth rates among white, Protestant women to prevent “race suicide.”

Well, guess what, marriage has been tied to procreation. Guess in which controversial issue.

Interracial marriage! (of all places right)

From F. Beckwith:

Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws believed in their cause precisely because they understood that when male and female are joined in matrimony they may beget racially-mixed progeny, and these children, along with their parents, will participate in civil society and influence its cultural trajectory. (original emphasis)

When (not if) this goes to the Supreme Court, I hope to God that the majority gets history right. If not, orthodox Christians and Mormons (LDS) get ready for some real romping on our Earthly pilgrimage, Indian style.

Unitarian Universalists for Life

2010-06-15T15:46:00.000-04:00

Last year, the community choir that I was in set up rehearsals at a Unitarian Universalist (UU) Church (really pseudo-ecclesial community). When you came in the door (or came up the stairs from the bathrooms), there was a big sign that read, "The inherent dignity and worth of all people" with some silhouettes of mature humans kneeling down.

I got to wondering since that's what I sometimes do.

Could a UU person be prolife, or OTAAAC since "The inherent dignity and worth of all people" is a principal held by UU's. After a long search, it didn't look like it was possible.

Even though it didn't look like it, I started a dialog with a UU here. I'll let you know how it goes.

Intelligent Design Problems

2010-06-14T14:03:00.002-04:00

Please view this video before reading on:

At about 1:08 in the video above, Fr. Barron posits that the new Atheists make a "category error", i.e., God is one cause among many other causes of material processes. I think that the video above can be used in a previous discussion about Intelligent Design (ID). (BTW, Cathorick is my other poetic blog.)

There are many different approaches to ID theory.

I used to strongly believe in a version (I don't know the exact label) that went something like this:
All life, including human life, came about in an evolutionary way. The most efficient way to change said life is to change it at the conception stage. Yes, natural selection happens, but the process by which natural selection is made possible is through creating variations of, or changes in DNA. The way that one species takes on features that allow it to survive more frequently is through changes in DNA sequencing. These changes can occur through physical DNA problems, radiation (sun) changes, or other means. The above natural changes do not occur by random; there is no such thing as randomness since God directs things in a particular way that we can only view as random (at this point in our history). Since God directs the changes of DNA matter, God is the Intelligent Designer of all life. The end.

After viewing Fr. Barron's video, I think that those who hold ID views and I are making a "category error" in a similar way that the new Atheists are.

God is not one cause among many, but the cause of all things. God is "being", and all matter is contingent on God; if God, or "being" doesn't exist, than no matter can exist. (Fr. Barron said elsewhere that contingent creation still exists because of God's Love; Love is a matter of God's will.)

As a Catholic caveat, the idea that miracles take place, such as regenerating a lung or overcoming some deathly illness, I now find troubling. Please let me explain.

The reason that some events are seen as miracles is that there is no explanation for them. In other words, there is no scientific or physical explanation that would account for the miracle other than God's action. Another Atheistic way to frame the problem is that God is needed to fill in the gap of our understanding for why something unexplainable takes place.

One thing that ZippyCatholic was getting to (as I understand) was that God created life from a miracle or that life is a continuum of events that leads to said life. Why can't it be both in light of Fr. Barron's comments?

The way that life comes about is through God's being. We don't need God to fill in the gaps (the gap(s) would ultimately be infinite in width and number anyway), God is the reason said question and all questions exist anyway.

So for the miracles in general, why not view everything as a miracle? As far as the sainthood miracles, I'll leave that up to the Church.

While we're at it, you might like Fr. Barron's take on "The [Four] YouTube Heresies".

Aquinasblog Dialog VIII

2010-06-12T15:27:00.000-04:00

This is part VIII of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
----------------------

Hello again,

St. Aquinas also said, "But Debbora exercised authority in temporal, not in priestly matters, even as now woman may have temporal power." This says a lot (I can only say a little of it at this point). Even in his day (as well as in biblical time with Debbora), St. Aquinas acknowledged that many women had "temporal power", or power in everyday-goings-on. However, the matters that pertained to the Church have a proper order. Christ is head of the Church in the same way as male ordained ministers are head of the Church in priestly matters. Priestly matters have to mainly do with the Eucharist and handing over their life for the Church in persona Christi.

I would never say that Christ was in the state of subjection to the Church; the Church, the mystical bride of Christ, is in the state of subjection to Christ, the bridegroom (Eph 5; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ephesians/ephesians5.htm ). The essence of man and woman as St. Aquinas outlines, although controvertial to many, is still true and can't change (until Christ comes again).

Again, this is a matter of faith and not a temporal matter (as also explained by St. Aquinas).

[gbm3]
----------------------

[I also emailed back the reply below.]

Hello,

Really, when you get down to it, having the ministerial priesthood only for men saves women who would supposedly become priests from lying. I think this is the best explanation (however, as I have written, JPII made the final call and reasons).

Let me explain. At the consecration, the priest is to say, "This is my body." and "This is my blood." If a woman said it, it would be lying since the consecrated body is of male essence since Christ was male and a woman is of different female essence.

I've seen a Episcopal "priestess" "consecrate" their communion (it's definitely not valid orders there since they're separated brethren). I thought the process was ludicrous since she was essentially saying (literally in essence) that the body of Christ she was "consecrating" with her words was female (the words and body of the priest transubstantiates the bread and wine as I understand it).

The Catholic Church can't go there.

[gbm3]

[Aquinasblog author has not emailed me back after this email. I will post the reply if it is sent in the future.]

[What do you think about the dialog?]

A Pro-Abort Facade

2010-06-11T14:09:00.000-04:00

(1) Women Deliver: Panel Pushes 'Harm Reduction' as Effective 'Facade' for Dismantling Pro-Life Laws

(2) UN Leadership in Disarray as New Research Shatters Consensus on Maternal Health

The million dollar quote:

In a conversation following the session, a third audience member asked Csete about the objection that, because the model was being used to push abortion as a value, some may call the "value-neutral" claim a mere facade.

"Yeah, I think facade is the right word," Csete conceded. "Sometimes it's the only choice you have to get anywhere politically and protect services ... I think it's really the sort of desperate, structurally very hostile circumstances where that becomes a very useful thing to fall back on."

In other words, lie and the money will come.

I wonder what the guy on the right of the picture thinks (Vicente Diaz, Director IPPF WHR; Lifesitenews.com). Is he finally fed up with all he sees and hears? May God open his eyes and ears.

Aquinasblog Dialog VII

2010-06-11T10:22:00.000-04:00

This is part VII of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
----------------------

Hello,

I just found this site regarding St. Aquinas' logic on woman ordination in Summa Theologica: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum584.htm (I suggest doing a text search with "woman").

Summa Theologica was written in the 12 hundreds. I'd say at least about 800 years is a long time for debate.

I'd thought you'd be interested in the Angelic Doctor's thoughts since he is your blog's namesake.

Good day,
[gbm3]
-------------------

Hi [gbm3],

Here's what Aquinas says: "Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order."

He ties the reason precisely to the fact that a woman is in the state of subjection. That has changed, especially in the past 50 years. That is exactly the reason the question should be debated; women are no longer seen as being in the state of subjection.

[Aquinasblog author]

[More to come ...]

Aquinasblog Dialog VI

2010-06-10T10:27:00.001-04:00

This is part VI of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
------------------------

[Aquinasblog author],

Thanks for getting back to me again.

I think it's a good time to bring back what you first wrote,

"I take the long view -- a hundred years ago, the papacy condemned democracy, historical scholarship, biblical criticism, ecumenism, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and even freedom of conscience. It has reversed its position on all of those; I expect it will someday also reverse its position on women's ordination, which is why I think it should continue to be discussed. That's how we figure things out. Aquinas was never afraid to argue about anything. The spirit of disputation has been lost and should be regained because it's the practical result of the belief in the harmony of faith and reason."

The quote above actually reminds me now of the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem in Acts ( http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts15.htm ). "After much debate had taken place" a decision was made about circumcision of the Gentile converts. The faithful were to assent to the teaching.

I understand that "[I] consider authority [to be sufficient] and [you] do not." for the question at hand. In the end, more fundamental to the question of woman ordination is the nature and authority of the Catholic Church (both big C). If one believes that the CC has the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised would lead the Church to all truth, then the Church can't err in certain areas including faith and morals.

Reasons behind faith and morals can't be contrary to each other, but if there are reasons for two sides of an issue that are valid, the Church has to come to a decision that is binding (like that in Acts).

It seems like I'm using brute force, but I think that some questions just have to be deferred to a higher authority, namely the Holy Spirit.

As far as women being treated as chattel, it is obviously true that women have been in such a position. However, saying that since men can have a role that women cannot because women are just not worthy of it (or something), wife reminded me, is like saying that men are not as worthy as women since they can't bear children (she's done it a few times, but she is not more worthy of dignity than me because of it). We all have dignity no matter our gender or role.

Well, in the end it does come down to authority. I think the Church has it, you do not think so in this and many other matters. You believe the Church has changed its position 180 degrees on many things that I do not think it has.

Ultimately, in matters of faith and morals, I believe being Catholic is to ultimately defer to the authority of the Church as headed by the Pope and his fellow Bishops that is guided by the Spirit who Jesus gave in the Upper Room ("He breathed on them" John 20:22; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john20.htm ) and at Pentecost (Acts 2; http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts2.htm ) in Jerusalem.

I know that many who call themselves Catholic including yourself do not agree with the statement above, but ultimately what's the difference between being a Protestant and a Catholic if my Catholic statement above is considered false? Vatican II didn't make the CC Protestant, VII relied on "the authority of the Church as headed by the Pope and his fellow Bishops that is guided by the Spirit who Jesus gave".

At this point I'll leave the discussion in disagreement. Along our earthly pilgrimage, may we all strive to do God's will. Amen.

[BTW, the dialog isn't over yet.]

God bless,
[gbm3]
------------------------

Hi [gbm3],

Thanks for your response. Just to be clear, I do agree that being Catholic means deferring to the Pope and the Bishops; it's what has gotten us through 2000 years. On the question of women's ordination, I do defer to that authority -- I don't think Catholic women should go around ordaining themselves. That doesn't mean I agree with the Church's stand. I feel that unlike the Council of Jerusalem, much debate has not taken place, and therein lies the problem.

In any case, good luck and God bless!

[Aquinasblog author]

[BTW, the dialog isn't over yet.]

Aquinasblog Dialog V

2010-06-09T11:07:00.001-04:00

This is part V of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
-----------------------

Hello [Aquinasblog author],

Thanks for writing back. I won't keep writing you back indefinitely, but I think there's still something to the discussion.

As I understand you, you believe that cultural forces are the reasons for the Church's stance on woman ordination. In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ( http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html ), JPII brings up this point (asterisks and [ ] added by me):

... "To these fundamental reasons the document [by Paul VI] adds other theological reasons [for the Church's stance on woman ordination] which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ's way of acting did not proceed from ***sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time***. As Paul VI later explained: 'The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church's Tradition- Christ established things in this way.'

"In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: 'In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, ***without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time***.' ...

"Furthermore, the fact that the ***Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination*** cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them." ...

So, JPII did positively note in his Apostolic Letter (not Papal Encyclical, BTW) that cultural dicta did not influence Christ's call to men only for the ministerial priesthood.

I agree that the Holy Spirit moves and guides the Church to all Truth; that is why I believe that JPII and the constant Tradition of the Church all the way back to Jesus himself has concluded that ministerial priesthood is to be for men only.

You wrote, "That's where we have to look for evidence, not just in a trail of encyclicals." (a) In general, what specific "evidence" are you looking for? (b) Where are you specifically looking for this evidence? (a) and (b) for woman ordination?

As an aside, St. Aquinas' understanding of the Sacred Sacraments can help show that only men are to be ordained priests whose main function is to consecrate the host in persona Christi. The matter (of his "substance and matter" in all Sacraments (if I remember right)) for the sacrament of Holy Orders is a man since Christ was bodily a man. So when the priest says, "This is my body/blood." the host truly becomes Christ's body and blood that was of masculine essence.

St. Aquinas was giving theological reasons for the Truth of what is happening. I don't think he would conclude that a man was not necessary since Christ ordained or called men to do what he commanded at the Last Supper ("Do this in memory of me.").

As far as the cultural approval of slavery, see http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html (from an Evangelical magazine), _The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery_, "The problem wasn't that the leadership was silent. It was that almost nobody listened." The Church was against slavery since at least the 7th century (also against gladiator fighting; gladiators were slaves).

Thanks again for the discussion,
[gbm3]
-----------------------

[gbm3],

The fact that John Paul II said that the church's stand on the ordination of women did not arise from cultural forces does not make it so. I think that's where we differ; you consider that sufficient authority and I do not.

I look at the whole of history, in which women were treated as chattel until the 20th century in the West (and in many other places on the globe, still are), and find it impossible to imagine that this did not affect the attitude of the people in the Church thru time towards women's ordination.

[Aquinasblog author]

Aquinasblog Dialog IV

2010-06-08T10:06:00.000-04:00

This is part IV of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
-----------------------

[Aquinasblog author],

Thank you for getting back with the last email. Another good document for assessing development of Catholic doctrine is Cardinal Newman's "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine" ( http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html ). I haven't read it (or the book you cited), but I've heard Newman's Essay basically says that there can't be a strong break in teachings of faith and morals by the Church.

Your point about clerical celibacy is not really a controversial topic since, as even we speak, many former clergy of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) have swam the Tiber and have stayed married and have remained active clergy.

The thing is with the ordination of women is that it is not done, has not been done, will not be done, and that there are consequences for it ( http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10052008.html ). The reason: celibacy is a discipline question and woman ordination is a faith and morals question.

Again from JPII in "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis"

"Although the ***teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church*** and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate [i.e., it shouldn't be open to debate], or the Church's judgment that women are ***not*** to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely ***disciplinary force***." (asterisks and [ ] added by me)

To make the assertion that it's up to debate is to say that the doctrine of
transubstantiation is up to debate. A debate about transubstantiation with a Protestant would be understandable, but not with a Catholic.

Agreeing to disagree on this topic is like saying that the Church is
simply wrong (and has always been wrong) about a matter of faith. I can't say that.

It seems that you put into one basket topics of faith & morals and prudential judgments. (Did you read the post from First Things blog that I cited in the last email (on limbo)?)

Sorry, --deep breaths-- I'll just have to read that book you suggested. I don't want to attack (I don't think I have): I'll look at the book's (and Card. Newman's Essay) arguments since I might be ignorant of some thing(s).

God bless,
[gbm3]

http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/

http://cathorick.blogspot.com/
------------

Hi again [gbm3],

I would not put the topic of women's ordination in the same category as the transubstantiation. I agree one wouldn't argue about the reality of the transubstantiation, but I do think each generation has to come to an understanding of it on its own that both fits their perspective and is in line with the tradition, which would require thoughtful discussion. That's what keeps the faith alive, tradition recreating itself in line with itself.

I think an argument can and should be made that women have been excluded from ordination for cultural reasons, just like for cultural reasons the church once accepted slavery. Saying such a topic cannot even be discussed cuts off development of the idea. If the Holy Spirit chooses at some point in the future to move the church in this direction, forbidding discussion gets in the way. And who's to predict how the Holy Spirit moves the church?

As Catholics, I think we need to pay attention to the good developments of the secular world. As Ladislas Orsy says, "God is in the real." To me that means in the world fully and completely. That's where we have to look for evidence, not just in a trail of encyclicals.

[Aquinasblog author]

Aquinasblog Dialog III

2010-06-07T09:01:00.000-04:00

This is part III of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
---------------------

[Aquinasblog author],

Thank you for the time you put into compiling the list. I will read the documents promptly.

In the mean time, as far as woman ordination, please see Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html , section 4. This belief of the Church is also part of the reason why a whole lot of people converted to the Church from other Ecclesial Communities (see Dominus Iesus; http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html ), esp the COE one.

I'll email back when I read and take notes on the emailed documents (in about a week).

Thanks,
[gbm3]

http://cathorick.blogspot.com/
---------------------
[I replied again below]

Hello [Aquinasblog author],

I had a chance to read most of the encyclicals except the last one (Pascendi) in which I searched some terms. I am also familiar with the last encyclicals of JPII and BXVI first two. In general, when the Popes wrote about faith and morals, they were consistent and clear about the authority upon which they drew. When it came to more state related questions, it was less clear. Also, some of the ideas that you identified as changing have either not changed or not gone away completely. I’ll go through them in your order (from your last email).

In Mirari Vos, Gregory XVI condemned “liberty of conscience” and “freedom to publish”. The former was dealt in a similar fashion recently by Speaker Pelosi’s Bishop here http://www.catholic-sf.org/news_select.php?newsid=4&id=56744 . He wrote, “It is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching to conclude that our freedom of will justifies choices that are radically contrary to the Gospel—racism, infidelity, abortion, theft. Freedom of will is the capacity to act with moral responsibility; it is not the ability to determine arbitrarily what constitutes moral right.” Also, paraphrasing the Bishop, “liberty of conscience” still doesn’t mean “any old liberty of conscience,” it relates to a correctly formed conscience.

For the latter, there are still Imprimaturs who review Catholic books for doctrinal accuracies. The freedom to publish issue is still around in Catholic publishing yet not so severe. There are also commissions to determine if theology teachers/professors are heretical.

Regarding the Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX was unclear about Catholicism and the state. In errors 77-79 it seems that the only religion of the state should be Catholicism, but then immediately after the error list, he goes into how the city of God and man are different entities (from Augustine’s _City of God_). However, even in today’s Church, the idea that there is an *absolute* separation of church and state (from JFK speech) is not held. See here http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3489 . Regarding error 80, no Pope has fully reconciled himself with his generation in matters of faith and morals.

Regarding the last two encyclicals, like all systems of government, there are down falls to democracy (tyranny of the majority is cited). I couldn’t find what particulars about the freedom of speech or religion that were criticized. Regarding historical analysis in paragraph 9 of Pascendi, he made valid points about its problems.

Actually, most modern encyclicals I’ve read (I read most of JPII’s later ones) have had valid points with regards to many topics, but they have not all been about authoritative instructions about faith and morals.

One thing that really stuck out for me that not one of the popes’ encyclicals that you cited made a statement like JPII did in Evangelium Vitae or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis regarding faith and morals. For example, in the former JPII (in paragraph 57 and 62),

“Faced with the progressive weakening in individual consciences and in society of the sense of the absolute and grave moral illicitness of the direct taking of all innocent human life, especially at its beginning and at its end, the Church's Magisterium has spoken out with increasing frequency in defence of the sacredness and inviolability of human life. The Papal Magisterium, particularly insistent in this regard, has always been seconded by that of the Bishops, with numerous and comprehensive doctrinal and pastoral documents issued either by Episcopal Conferences or by individual Bishops. The Second Vatican Council also addressed the matter forcefully, in a brief but incisive passage.

“Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

“The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. ‘Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action’” -Paragraph 57

In the later, (paragraph 4),

“Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.” - paragraph 4

The Syllabus of Errors and the other encyclicals did not have a statement like those above. Lamentabili comes close with its preamble.

However, while the ideas in the encyclicals have been reduced in severity, the ideas are still within the Church. For instance, while individual members of the Church may read and talk about the Catholic Bible, no one has the authority to undermine the Church’s official teaching regarding it. For instance, the canon of the Bible was determined in the fourth century, however Martin Luther declared that some books were not to be included. He did not have the authority to decide what the canon of scripture included. A second example: regarding interpretation of John 6, the Church teaches authoritatively that bread and wine actually is transubstantiated into (not consubstantiated into or symbolizes) the body and blood of Jesus.

In the encyclicals I cited above from JPII, it’s almost as if there were ordinary ex cathedra statements, whereas the encyclicals you cited don’t have such clearly authoritative statements regarding faith and morals.

The wo/man ordination question would fall under a faith declaration since Jesus chose only men by His authority to be Apostles (Bishops/Presbyters). In a similar way, He declared that bread and wine would become his body and blood by His authority.

I found the discussion here ( http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/05/03/a-doctrine-in-limbo/ ) very relevant to our discussion. The question is whether limbo exists or not. It seems that the only authoritative declaration is that unbaptized babies enter hell. However, it was also authoritatively decided that water baptism is not needed to “count” as a baptism: there are baptisms by desire, Spirit, and fire. However, young babies and preborn babies can’t consciously desire baptism, so they most likely end up in hell. Yet, no council or Pope has authoritatively taught about limbo (for vs. against). Therefore, faithful Catholics are free to decide what they think about limbo and leave it up to God’s Wisdom and Will.

Well, thanks for hanging in there. I might have missed something. If I did, especially if it’s a specific passage in an encyclical, please bring my attention to it.

I look forward to hearing from you,
[gbm3]

You might want to read here ( http://article.nationalreview.com/432597/nun-sense-women-in-the-catholic-church/kathryn-jean-lopez ) about the women religious visitation. It’s an interview with a sister who heads an order that will be visited. I still don’t think the visitations are mean in nature just as my reviews at work are not mean, just necessary for the company and myself.

http://cathorick.blogspot.com/
-----------------------

Hi [gbm3],

[ ]

I think the real question comes down to what's called development of doctrine. In his book What Happened at Vatican II, John O’Malley S.J. states that the three underlying issues of the council were:

1. When change in the church is appropriate and how that change is justified.
2. Who gets to authorize that change.
3. What is the style or model according to which such authorization is exercised.

This is a difficult question and hinges on the understanding of authority that people share and what of the history of the Church they choose to remember (e.g., when we think of celibacy, do we choose to remember the traditions of the first millennium or the traditions of the second; do we remember when bishops were elected, etc.).

On this, we may need to agree to disagree.

[Aquinasblog author]

PS besides the O'Malley book, another really good book is Receiving the Council, by canon lawyer Ladislas Orsy, SJ. He grapples well with the questions of tradition, authority and change.

[BTW, the dialog is not over.]

Aquinasblog Dialog II

2010-06-05T16:30:00.000-04:00

This is part II of the Aquinasblog Dialog that was started here.
---------------------

[Aquinasblog author],

Thanks for getting back so quickly. I was wondering if you could send me some papal quotes/links (with originating document/encycl./letter) that show "[papal condemnation of] democracy, historical scholarship, biblical criticism, ecumenism, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and [] freedom of conscience." (If not, I understand.) People such as Sp. Pelosi and VP Biden have said similar things about abortion.

Also, what about the visitation issue is "rude"?

Regarding debating, you might be interested in my other more controvertial blog at http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/

God bless,
[gbm3]
---------------------

Hi [gbm3],

Well there's Gregory XVI's encyclical Mirari Vos, which condemned freedom of conscience and freedom of the press:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm

Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the following opinions:

That Catholicism should no longer be the established religion of the state
That non-Catholics should be allowed to openly practice their religion
That people should be at liberty to express their ideas
That the Roman Pontiff should reconcile himself with progress, liberalism and modern civilization

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

Two others of note are the 1907 decree called Lamentabili and the Pius X encyclical Pascendi. These works denounced democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, historical analysis, literary criticism of the Bible, the study of the early church fathers, and ecumenism.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

These things do change!

[Aquinasblog author]

Aquinasblog Dialog I

2010-06-04T11:49:00.001-04:00

I came across Aquinasblog after viewing new blogs at St. Blog Parish a couple o' weeks back.

I read a couple of the posts at Aquinasblog and thought I would inquire about the author's thoughts on women ordination since they were not clear. In a series starting in this post, the dialog that ensued will be shared for your evaluation.

Near the end of the dialog, I found this part of the website about a book the author is writing very telling on the author's view. Some examples:

The faithful then concluded that if something might change, it would change, so they just went ahead and acted as though it did change. As a result, they started taking belief on our own terms, no longer looking to the Church to define sin or dogma and often actively disregarding it. The tipping point was Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae which reaffirmed the papacy’s thoroughly illogical condemnation of artificial birth control (and which was subsequently thoroughly ignored). ...

As a result of the breaking of authority, the faithful tended to accept only what made sense and to turn away from the mysterious and that associated with authority and tradition. But the downside was that individuals had to figure everything out for themselves and had the full burden of making meaning in their lives, rather than receiving it from the institution.

You can read the rest if you'd like.

The dialog starts here:
-------

Hello,

I noticed that aquinasblog.com was just added to the St. Blog Parish as was my blog cathorick.blogspot.com. Upon reading some of your first posts and looking at your papal authority tags, I noticed that you're not too keen on the woman religious visitations and are actually for woman ordination. This does not seem to be a Catholic orthodox position on these issues. On the former, why can't Church superiors look into woman orthodoxy just as I looked at your blog? Finally, John Paul II closed the debate about women ordination and said faithful Catholics must assent to the teaching.

Please let me know what you think. (Please do not publish my email address).

Thank you,
[gbm3]
-------

Hi [gbm3],

I take the long view -- a hundred years ago, the papacy condemned democracy, historical scholarship, biblical criticism, ecumenism, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and even freedom of conscience. It has reversed its position on all of those; I expect it will someday also reverse its position on women's ordination, which is why I think it should continue to be discussed. That's how we figure things out. Aquinas was never afraid to argue about anything. The spirit of disputation has been lost and should be regained because it's the practical result of the belief in the harmony of faith and reason. As to the nuns, well, I think the way they went about it was just rude.

[Aquinasblog author]
---------------------------

Update: the other dialogs are here:
II III IV V VI VII VIII

US Sen Mikulski and the PPACA email

2010-06-02T16:13:00.000-04:00

I just got this email from the staff of my US Sen. Mikulski (D-MD). (She's up for reelection this year.)

Dear [gbm3]:

Thank you for getting in touch with me about abortion and health care reform. It's great to hear from you.

I appreciate hearing your opposition to the health care reform bills that have been signed into law - the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (Public Law 111-152). While these bills are not perfect, I am proud of what we were able to accomplish. We passed a health reform law that saves and strengthens Medicare; makes sure insurance companies can't discriminate against you because of a pre-existing condition, or because of your age or gender; provides universal access to health care, and emphasizes quality, prevention and integrative health to save lives and save money. These are the principles of health reform that I have been committed to and have been fighting for throughout my career.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) follows settled law on abortion and prohibits federal funds from being used to fund abortions. On March 24, 2010, President Obama signed an executive order ensuring enforcement of these abortion restrictions in the PPACA. To make sure that no federal funds are used to fund abortions, the final version of health care reform bill requires women to write two separate premium checks - one for abortion and one for all other health care. These premiums collected in state insurance exchanges will then remain in two separate funds.

I would also like you to know that no health care plan can be required to cover abortion. PPACA requires every state insurance exchange to include at least one plan that does not cover abortion. States will also have the right to pass laws prohibiting any plan participating in a state insurance exchange from covering abortion.

I also support the rights of health professional to choose whether to perform abortions. That's why I also support the strong conscience clause in the bill which protects providers and hospitals from having to perform abortions if it goes against their religious, ethical, or moral beliefs.

Again, thanks for contacting me. Please let me know if I can be of help to you in the future.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator

The first paragraph in red above is a red herring for the second paragraph. One can be lead to believe that women have to solely use their own money to pay for abortions. Why have two checks and two funds for two "premiums"? Shouldn't abortions be paid with a personal check (etc)?

The way I read it, a health care plan that covers abortion requires two checks for two funds, one for abortion and one for healthcare to be paid into. (Abortion is not healthcare.)

Tax money (including mine) will be used to subsidize all insurances (unless a State explicitly ops out of ones that carry abortion coverage; I bet in MD all plans will have abortion coverage).

In the end, I will be paying for abortion since tax money is used to subsidize all insurance, including the ones which have a separate fund for abortion. I don't want my tax money going to any insurance plan which has an option for abortion.

Further, money is money; the insurance companies with abortion coverage can allocate money however they want. I don't expect the government (esp. Obama's) to be keeping tabs on the money flow.

Anyone have comments about my conclusion and/or the email above?

(I) No One's Born Gay and (II) New Ways Ministry

2010-05-21T15:02:00.000-04:00

(I) I wrote before that people think same-sex "marriage" should be permitted because gay people are born that gay or that being gay is an accidental property like skin color. Well, I've seen some recent articles (besides the one I cited in the linked post above) that go against that inkling of some.

(1) "Luiz Mott, the undisputed leader of Brazil's homosexual movement, has admitted on national television that no one is born homosexual, and that people can change their sexual orientations."
(2) Analysis: Childhood Family Structure Linked to Rate of Female Homosexuality
---

(II) Regarding the last posting here on WZE, I cited an advertisement of "New Ways Ministry" (NWM) that was inside a program of a "Catholic" Postulate, "The Murphy Initiative for Justice and Peace". NWM is a group for practicing gay "Catholics".

I find the title "New Ways Ministry" extremely telling of their heretical Catholic views. In Acts of the Apostles of the (Catholic) Bible, Christians were said to follow "The Way" of Jesus the Christ.

But when some in their obstinacy and disbelief disparaged the Way before the assembly, [Paul] withdrew and took his disciples with him and began to hold daily discussions in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. Acts 19:9

The ones who founded, run, and are part of NWM are like those "in their obstinacy and disbelief disparaged the Way" in their New Ways. Faithful Catholics should have nothing to do with NWM as they continue to cause division within the Church upon which Christ gave His Spirit.

May NWM (and organizations like "Catholics for Free [Abortion] Choice") be denounced by faithful Catholics whenever possible.

People who want to destroy the Church know that the presence and strength of these organizations divide Catholics so that the witness and mission of the Church is weakened.

May God have mercy on all of us.

The Murphy Initiative for Justice and Peace

2010-04-14T08:46:00.000-04:00

(Click on the images to see a larger version.)

I acquired this program and am simply reporting some of its content. Take it as it is.

Page 4 ad from Baltimore Catholic Worker, "The sin of sexism in the Church:/ordain the women./Plain and simple truth./No hedging./Frank Murphy, bishop./Our bishop./One of those shepherds who didn't run,/who spoke the truth/and lived it./Deo Gratias!"

Page 13 quote from Bishop Frank Murphy, "I do not believe, however, that we will be credible as a church in our call for justice ... until we find a way to integrate the full humanity and dignity of women within our ecclesial community."
[I don't know what this means exactly.]

Page 6 ad, "New Ways/Ministry/A gay-positive ministry of/advocacy and justice/for lesbian and gay Catholics/and reconciliation within the/larger Christian and civil/communities."

Personhood Proofs

2010-04-06T15:07:00.002-04:00

The below personhood proofs have been in the works for a while. The comments/debate here made me push a little on the publication of the proofs.
(Click on it to see a larger version)

A not-perfectly-reproduced production is below:

A+ = (I) Active and (II) actual properties of an adult human with moral worth (high reasoning/moral conscience/etc)

A- = (III) No active and (IV) active potential (capacity) for properties of an adult human with moral worth

wT(x) = Total worth of x

wa(x) = Actual worth of x

wc(x) = Capacitive worth of x

w(x) = 1 = actual worth

w(x) = 0 = no actual worth

[equations are on picture above]

(Total worth of A+ is equal to total worth of A-)
and
(Actual worth of A+ is equal to capacitive worth of A-)

Inductive Reasoning

Assume: Actual properties of adult human (high reasoning/moral conscience/etc) are required for moral worth.

Postulate: When sleep, coma, etc., adult human does not have actual properties of adult human, only capacity for such.

Postulate: When sleep, coma, etc., an adult human that does NOT have actual properties of adult human has moral worth.

Conclusion: Actual properties of adult human (high reasoning/moral conscience/etc) are NOT required for moral worth, only capacity for such.

Corollary: A human zygote has capacity for properties of adult human, therefore, they have moral worth.

LSN Letter to Editor

2010-03-30T19:58:00.001-04:00

I wrote the following letter to the editor to Lifesitenews.com. It was published on 25 March 2010.
---

Re: LifeSiteNews is Under Attack

Mr. Westen,

You said, "Some Church leaders have shown that they do not comprehend the great social and spiritual dangers of our times - the D&P and US CCHD scandals have demonstrated that more than a few within those organizations have no understanding of the Christian principles they supposedly strive to promote and would rather continue their 'inadvertent' funding of pro-abortion and otherwise anti-Christian groups than admit the truth."

I understand what you mean. I once gave a few printed articles that you had on Amnesty International (AI) to someone in my Church (Catholic) who financially contributed to AI. He said that he didn't believe the articles and that AI continues to do great humanitarian work.

Catholics, such as the Catholics at my Church or the Catholics at Zenit, just can't believe the truth about their social justice organizations in relation to abortion no matter what facts are presented to the contrary. Even when they entertain the possibility that their organization contributes to the killing of innocents in abortion, they downplay their significance.

I answered my fellow parishioner's conundrums in two ways. (1) Like the segregation issue (read David Duke), if some entity or person is for abortion, they should be automatically disqualified from anyone's money and/or vote. (2) It's a priority issue; I would venture to say that there are fewer people killed or imprisoned unjustly in one year around the world than there are killed in abortion in one year or even one day. Everyone in the world, especially Catholics, should fight as hard as they can against abortion: the most tragic civil rights violation of our day.

I pray that you keep up the Good Work that God has given you and your staff to do in telling the Truth no matter what the consequences.

Sincerely,
[gbm3]
Baltimore, MD, USA

Open Letter to US Senator Mikulski (D-MD)

2010-03-13T16:11:00.005-05:00

Back in 2008, I visited US senior Senator Mikulski's office to present ideas about FOCA.

Below is a series of inquiries about a quote from Sen. Mikulski found here that was very peculiar.

"Now, abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." -Sen. Mikulski

First I wrote this via email:
---

Ms. [Medical Staffer],

I just read a speech given by Sen. Mikulski on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (at http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=81192&keyword=abortion&phrase=&contain= ). She said, "Now, abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." Could you let me know what this really means in layman terms? According to the Senator, when should abortion be used if not for family planning? The vast majority (>>50%, not ready/cannot afford baby) of abortions are used for family planning. I am confused about the Senator's position. Please clarify.

Thank you,
[gbm3]
Baltimore, MD

---

I received this politically correct response via email.
---

Dear [gbm3]:

Thanks for getting in touch with me. It's nice to hear from you.

I appreciate knowing of your opposition to abortion. I have given the abortion issue very serious consideration. As someone who represents such a diverse constituency, I support respecting the individual conscience, so that each woman can decide for herself whether and when to have a child. That means that I also support the rights of medical students and doctors to choose whether to perform abortions.

I also support a ban on all post‑viability abortions except where necessary to save the woman's life or to protect her from a serious and debilitating threat to her physical health. I voted for a bipartisan bill which would have done just this, and I am disappointed that this alternative was not passed by the Senate. I am disappointed because this measure was built on common ground which reflected the views of the American people. [Is this FOCA???]

In my view, abortion should only be an option of last resort. We need to concentrate on the prevention of unintended pregnancies ‑‑ from support for abstinence programs for teenagers to support for family planning information and services.

Again, thanks for contacting me. Please let me know if I can be of help to you in the future.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator

Responding to your message
Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:48 AM

---

I wrote this in reply to the office comment form:
---

(1) "Now, abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." ( http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=81192&keyword=abortion&phrase=&contain= )

(2) "As someone who represents such a diverse constituency, I support respecting the individual conscience, so that each woman can decide for herself whether and when to have a child."

Senator Mikulski,

I originally contacted you and your staff to clarify the first statement above that was voiced by you on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (regarding what "a tool for family planning" meant).

As a reply, the second statement was sent by you and your staff.

I am now more confused than before my first inquiry. If abortion is never to be used for family planning, how can it be said that a woman can decide between bearing a child or terminating that child once s/he is conceived after fertilization? (A woman is pregnant if and only if she is bearing a child after fertilization.)

I know you are a champion against human trafficking, or the slave trade. Consider two statements that would not make sense on the 30th anniversary of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857):

"Now, working a slave is never and never should be used as a tool for farming or industry."; and

"As someone who represents such a diverse constituency, I support respecting the individual conscience, so that each plantation or industrial owner can decide for himself whether and when to own a slave."

I agree with your statement that "[ ] abortion is never and never should be used as a tool for family planning." Viability, skin color genetics, nor nationality of a preborn boy or girl should be criteria whether abortion is to be used.

I agree that "abortions [can be used] where necessary to save the woman's life or to protect her from a serious and debilitating threat to her physical health" as a compromise, but abortion, like human trafficking or slavery should be outlawed nationally (even in Southern States of the Union).

Instead of a compromise, consider changing your position on this most pressing issue of our time by legislatively limiting abortion only "where necessary to save the woman's life or to protect her from a serious and debilitating threat to her physical health", whether the preborn human is viable or not?

As a final note, please consider Francis Beckwith's pro-life position in Defending Life (p. 57):

1. The unborn [I prefer preborn] entity, from the moment of conception [or fertilization, depending on the conception definition], is a full-fledged member of the human community.

2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.

3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.

4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.

I encourage you and your staff to read Mr. Beckwith's book.

Sincerely,
[gbm3]
Baltimore, MD

---

I wonder if anyone will join me in writing Sen. Mikulski to try to outlaw abortion?

Zygotic Inquiry V

2010-02-06T11:03:00.005-05:00

This is the last post in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---

Hello,

Thank you for writing back so promptly. I understand if such a timely response will not be forthcoming.

I will contact the researchers regarding my morula question. I'll let you know what I find out (after all the holidays).

You mention that you do not have "a checklist" for rendering an answer for the moral worth of a human, ie a person.

However, at the end of your last response you assert, "[I]t is impossible for us to reconcile or differences on this issue once we move beyond the black and white of what is observable and testable."

What observable and testable criteria are to be shown? What is the purpose of these observable and testable criteria? ("Brain activity"? What specific activity(ies)?)

I assert that these observable and testable criteria of which you speak, whatever they (it) are (is), will by necessity require you to make a moral or metaphysical determination of whether a human has moral worth, ie, s/he is not to be killed.

My criteria is the capacity for sentient cognition, not the actual realization, if ever, of these capacities, but the capacity itself. I'm glad you brought up the example of "adults with severe mental handicaps [that] may have cognitive abilities below those of a healthy infant." I have a nephew who probably won't mentally reach beyond 9 mo. However, since he is the son of my sister and brother-in-law who are human persons with the same capacity, he is a person with moral worth who should not be killed for any reason.

Without your specific definition of a person with moral worth (who should not be killed for any reason, save self defense in clear and present danger), I cannot go forward with that part of our mind opening dialog (I thank you for being so civil).

Good day,
gbm3
---

[Extra email]
Hello [ThiZ],

A while back, you wrote:

"No, I'm actually ok with embryonic stem cells too. There are methods of removing cells from a morula in a way which then allows the main body of cells to continue development. The morula then becomes a blastula, ready for implantation and fetal development, and the cells which have been removed can be grown as a culture composed entirely of undifferentiated, pulripotent cells. It's a win-win if you ask me, but most people who support one side or the other just hear the term 'embryonic stem cells' and stop paying attention when anyone tries to explain further."

I looked up some references for further information before I contact scientists directly. Are the following references relevent towards the procedure of which you write above regarding obtaining ESC from morulas? Which articles are not relevant (and why)?

http://wf-f.org/OAR_StemCells.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec06/stemcells_08-24.html
http://www.cbhd.org/content/%E2%80%9Cethical%E2%80%9D-embryonic-stem-cell-research
http://media.www.lewisflyer.com/media/storage/paper638/news/2009/02/11/News/The-Church.And.Stem.Cell.Research-3623523.shtml

Thank you for your time,
gbm3
---

I'm sorry for not getting back to you sooner, and I apologize for this profuesly, but I will not be able to continue to communicate with you on this subject. I am not qualified to give your questions the treatment they deserve. I am a science fan, and a student, and while I have my own opinions, I am not an activist for either side. I'm having a difficult time restarting this blog after a few incidents last semester, and I cannot afford the time or energy to play devils advocate for subjects for which I am not entirely devoted.
I would, however, like to thank you for your courtesy in our conversations, despite our differing opinions, I am truly grateful for that.

-[ThiZ]
---

[[My last email:]

Hello [ThiZ],

Well, I'm sorry to read that you're not going forward on this fruitful dialog (I like to read your point of view). I hope you all the best in your studies and in all that you do. If you feel like starting this conversation up again, by all means do so.

Thank you and God bless you,
[gbm3]

Zygotic Inquiry IV

2010-02-06T11:00:00.004-05:00

This is forth in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---

Hello,

Way back, I thought it prudent to wait a while before responding to your last email ("I may not have as much time to write long emails after tomorrow").

I would like to first take up the issue of personhood (again). You said, "I do not believe it is possible to say 'this is a person and that is not' based on legally-decided criteria, but I will admit I do not believe a zygote is the same as a child, it has the potential to become one." I totally agree that a zygote is not a child in the same way that a 2 mo. infant is not the same as an adult (say, >30 yrs). There are criteria of being a human that are met by the adult that the infant cannot realize in actuality. An infant cannot reproduce since the reproductive organs do not function yet. The infant cannot actually communicate about last week. Yet, the infant has the potential to become an adult.

I don't think there can be any argument about the above observations, but do you really mean to say that the "[human zygote (with a gender assigned at fertilization)] has the potential to become *a person*"? In other words, are you saying that an infant has moral worth that needs to be protected and the human zygote potentially has moral worth which s/he does not have at his/her level of development? Please advise on these important questions for my understanding of your position (I'm still not clear, sorry).

At this point, I would like to posit an important distinction between potential and capacity, or passive potential and active potential. I pile of metal and parts has a passive potential to become a car since outside forces must do the work to assemble the car. A monarch caterpillar has the active potential to become a monarch butterfly since the monarch itself causes itself internally to obtain wings. Active potential is a peculiarly particular aspect of biological systems. A monarch will never have the capacity of talking about last week while a human does not have the capacity to fly with wings.

"By binary system I do indeed mean that I do not see life as a black and white situation. Before you formed a brain, your cells were alive, yet when your brain dies, 'you' will be considered dead, even though many cells in your body will still be functional. It is an uncommon position, I do not expect anyone to sympathize with it, and I understand many people actually find it somewhat unpleasant."

This phrase curiously mixes beginning of life ideas with end of life ones. On its face, it seems (probably mistakenly in confusion) that if one does not have a brain, s/he is dead. Further, a zygote actually is forming a brain from fertilization in that the zygote has the information (programmed) to form the brain internally. However, objectively the human zygote is not dead since it is constantly creating by itself the systems of the body including the brain. The human without a brain with an active potential of human cognizance has already lived its life to its conscious end (although s/he still has worth / is a person; see below).

The criterion of having a functioning brain (human level cognition) is a troubling one since in a metaphysical sense, if one does not have this, one is not a person (moral worth attached as a human). (I disagree that this is "an uncommon position".)

Consider the example of a reversibly comatose human. S/he does not have human level cognition in actuality, but they have the active potential, or capacity to gain it in a finite time. This state is analogous to a human zygote: the human zygote has the capacity to gain human level cognition in a finite time. The fact that one has an actual brain is irrelevant since they both have the same potential (finite time needed) to gain human level cognition. Of course this assumes that the reversibly comatose human has moral worth, or is a person.

So, please permit me to deal my cards. To have moral worth as a person does not come down to what one does (human level cognition), but what one is (capacity for human level cognition). As soon as a human zygote is created with a gender (no longer gametes of sperm or egg; "fertilized egg" is a misnomer since an egg has no gender), they must be protected as every other person must be protected.

"Whether or not abortion is made illegal again, it will continue, if you believe it can be stopped by purely legal means than you are doing nothing but perpetuating an illusion. People will still be able to obtain the drugs and even the procedure itself via illegal means.

"As a religious person, and therefore a student of the nature of humanity, do you really believe humans, especially scared, desperate ones, wouldn't do these things, just because the government threatened them?"

Even though it may seem convoluted in some way, can't your observation be said about all crimes? As a Christian, I realize all people sin, some to criminal proportions. However, the rule of law set by our US and state constitutions must be observed unless they be ignored and lay the path toward anarchy and destroy the common good.

Obviously not all crimes carry the same weight in penalty. However, crimes against humanity (even if technically legal; I suggest reading Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html ) cannot be condoned by any civilized society including ours.

Slavery was once legal. Now, even though its still illegal, slavery/human trafficking is still going on right under our noses in this country. Should it become legal again? Of course not.
[break]

About the ESCR ("morula-derived stem cells"), none of the articles mention what is done with the embryos after they survive the taking of some of their cells.

Well, I'm done for now. Let me know what you think.

BTW, I noticed you like debates on line. I didn't know if you saw this one: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102308.html .

Good day,
gbm3
---

Mr. gmb3,

Thank you for waiting, my schedule has indeed been extremely full in recent weeks, and I am taking advantage of my Thanksgiving free time to respond to this message before I have to return to my previous schedule.

Before anything else, I would like to address your question about the morulas used during the research we discussed earlier. While I do not have an exact answer, I do know that many embryos are either re-frozen, or discarded. If you wish to know more, I suggest you contact the researchers themselves about the matter.

Regarding your position on personhood, I do not view the matter in the same way as you do. Nor do I, as you seem to insinuate with your comments regarding communication and reproductive ability, have some kind of check off list about whether or not something has a “moral worth”. Furthermore, while I do understand your analogies regarding the two types of potential you have outlined, I do not agree with your position that a potential brain is equal to that of an active one. I apologize for troubling you, but as someone who does not believe in the metaphysical, I have no evidence that there is any sort of consciousness or “anyone” in a given body if there is no brain activity.

You bring up the case of a reversibly comatose human, but not an irreversibly damaged one. If a person has been damaged to that extent, then I do believe that what has made them, them, is indeed dead. Furthermore, while the body that remains is human, there is no “person” inside. In the case of a reversibly comatose human, they are still functioning to a degree as to be visible to outside forces, perhaps not physically, but brain scans are fantastic sources of information, and there are obvious differences between someone in a vegetative state, and someone who is simply trapped. If moral worth is a matter of one’s capacity for human level cognition, then one is presented with a new problem as adults with severe mental handicaps may have cognitive abilities below those of a healthy infant.

Your conclusion that a zygote must be protected rests on the following propositions: that there is such a thing as moral worth, that people have moral worth, and that people are those members of homo sapiens who are capable (or will eventually be capable) of “human level cognition”. However, I do not agree with these propositions, as such I cannot accept the conclusion, nor will I be able to change your mind of the matters (not that I would ever intend to do so). I am grateful for having someone with whom to speak, and I hope I have helped you in some way, but it is impossible for us to reconcile or differences on this issue once we move beyond the black and white of what is observable and testable.

-ThiZ

Zygotic Inquiry III

2010-02-06T10:58:00.008-05:00

This is third in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---

Hello,

Could you please provide some resources for the [non-destructive?] ESCR procedure you describe below? I can't find any with ease. What happens to the embryonic human when the stem cell is extracted? Implanted into woman? Discarded? Dies (I assume not)?

It is refreshing to hear that you think the "personhood" concept is "patently ridiculous".

"Would you propose a woman who illegally purchases a morning-after pill, or has an abortion before organogenisis be punished in the same manner as a mother who killed her toddler?"

Abortion, the Pill, and the "morning-after pill" were once illegal. They can be again. When they were illegal before, the punishments were not equal for each crime against humanity. Further, the doctor usually received the punishment in accordance with the severity with the crime. Nonetheless, abortion was still a crime.

Even M. Sanger (founder of Pl. Parenthood) said, "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." and "...abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life.." (from "Margaret Sanger Was Against Abortion?")

"What about other organisms besides humans, is there something, in your opinion, that makes a [I assume "human"] fertilized egg "better" or more deserving of life, than an animal without [I assume you meant "with", not "without"] the sense of self-awereness?"

Actually, it's a human zygote. Calling it a "fertilized egg" is like calling you and me a "fertilized egg" at our current stages of devel. A human zygote is part of the human family, the animal (mature) is not. From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights<, "...the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..." "Binary system"? What do you mean by this (please clarify)? Either one is alive or dead? Black and white for morality/ethical nature of abortion/destructive ESCR? Thank you in advance for your reply.

gbm3
---

I am running low of time for today, so I apologize in advance for the inarticulate manner in which I will be attempting to answer your questions as soon as possible. I actually did mean "without" a sense of self-awareness. While the capacity for self-awareness if difficult to test in animals, it is impossible for it to exist in an embryo of any type before the creation of even the most rudimentary of neural systems. I do not look to any religious system OR man made entity such as the UN as my source of guidence about how to regard other living creatures. Whether or not abortion is made illegal again, it will continue, if you believe it can be stopped by purely legal means than you are doing nothing but perpetuating an illusion. People will still be able to obtain the drugs and even the procedure itself via illegal means. As a religious person, and therefore a student of the nature of humanity, do you really believe humans, especially scared, desperate ones, wouldn't do these things, just because the government threatened them? Here are links to four scientific papers addressing the topic of morula-derived stem cells:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109898906/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/303/5664/1669
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15670408
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120703181/abstract

By binary system I do indeed mean that I do not see life as a black and white situation. Before you formed a brain, your cells were alive, yet when your brain dies, "you" will be considered dead, even though many cells in your body will still be functional. It is an uncommon position, I do not expect anyone to sympathize with it, and I understand many people actually find it somewhat unpleasant.

Furthermore, you are twisting what I said in regards to "personhood" and while I apologize for any unintentional obfuscation on my part (I do not believe it is possible to say "this is a person and that is not" based on legally-decided criteria, but I will admit I do not believe a zygote is the same as a child, it has the potential to become one.) I must also state that I am somewhat taken aback by your manner of drawing attention to the matter.

Again, please forgive my terseness, and I thank you for being so civil, despite our different backgrounds. I look forward to hearing from you again, but I must also warn you that I may not have as much time to write long emails after tomorrow.

-ThiZ

Zygotic Inquiry II

2010-02-06T10:57:00.004-05:00

This is second in a series (started here) of an email conversation about beginning of life issues.
---

Hello,

Thank you for your response.

I did hear about the prenatal short-term memory from a site I visit daily: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09071602.html.

Re. ESCR, you seem to indicate that you are only for adult stem cell research ("just" stem cells) and against embryonic SCR. Correct?

Re. abortion, you are against it unless external factors (not related to the preborn human's self-perpetuating development) should potentially suppress the preborn human's "brilliant" future. Correct?

Do you believe that a human starts as a non-person and then turns into a person at some point? (person=human with value/worth: to be protected by laws) If so, what are criteria(n) for personhood (when is a human a person)?

Thank you for answering my questions in advance.

Good day,
gbm3
---

No, I'm actually ok with embryonic stem cells too. There are methods of removing cells from a morula in a way which then allows the main body of cells to continue development. The morula then becomes a blastula, ready for implantation and fetal development, and the cells which have been removed can be grown as a culture composed entirely of undifferentiated, pulripotent cells. It's a win-win if you ask me, but most people who support one side or the other just hear the term "embryonic stem cells" and stop paying attention when anyone tries to explain further.
What a waste.

As for your other topic, I am not of the mind that it matters what one believes about "personhood." Personally, I think that all things are transitional, but that means nothing to the legislative process. We, as a species, like to draw lines and put boxes around things, but nature doesn't work like that. There is no magical instant when something is transformed into something else, so trying to define what is a person and what is not is patently ridiculous. Even if abortion was illegal, people would still do it, and what then? Would you propose a woman who illegally purchases a morning-after pill, or has an abortion before organogenisis be punished in the same manner as a mother who killed her toddler?

What about other organisms besides humans, is there something, in your opinion, that makes a fertilized egg "better" or more deserving of life, than an animal without the sense of self-awereness?

I don't mean to be dramatic, but it truely is diffcult for me to understand those who see this, who see life itself, as a binary system, and I apologize for that handicap.

-ThiZ

Zygotic Inquiry I

2010-02-06T10:07:00.003-05:00

Since I'm snowed in, I thought I would start a series of posts (now instead of later) that will consist of an email conversation I had with "ThiZ", an atheist who writes from Colorado (each post will begin with my email and end with hers). It regards beginning of human life issues, mainly abortion and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). I think it was a fruitful discussion in which I learned some new things about a unique perspective.

Enjoy! I surely did.
---

Hello,

I have a question: As a thinking person who used to be a zygote, do you think abortion and/or ESCR are immoral/unethical? (I didn't get a hit with an "abortion" search of your site.)

Thanks. [gbm3]
---

Greetings Mr. gbm3,

I apologize profusely for my tardiness, as you may have noticed by the great length between blog posts, I have been indisposed for several weeks.

My answer to your question is a rather complicated one, and worthy of discussion and perhaps a post of its own, however, I will attempt to give you the best quick answer I can.

I am a strong supporter of stem cell research, but only so long as the cells in question are just that, stem cells. I'm actually more upset when the created zygotes (human OR animal) are allowed to actually differentiate and grow, only to be killed because they are no longer useful.

Additionally, while I do advocate the use of the morning-after pill and do not believe abortion should be outlawed, I still wish it wasn't necessary. Yes, "necessary", certainly not under all circumstances, not even close, but I truly do believe there are times when there is no other option.

When I consider the actual processes of fetal development, I find it remarkable, beautiful even. I don't like to think of it being interrupted, not for any religious reasons, but simply because life itself, is so amazing. However, if there is a chance that a child, or an animal, will only experience pain when it enters this world, if would be unwanted, hurt, or abandoned, then I would rather see the whole thing stopped before it can even begin, because once it is, it's BRILLIANT.

If you want to see to fascinating studies regarding what we do as early as 30 weeks in, check out this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090715074924.htm from Science News. Also, here's an abstract about how we first learn taste for certain flavors: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/6/e88.

I hope this email has answered your questions, at least partially. If you have any more, please don't hesitate to write again. I hope you enjoy the articles

-ThiZ

Same-Sex Conversation

2010-01-08T11:35:00.007-05:00

This week, I had a conversation with someone from the Episcopal Church. He has a family member that is a "woman priestess" (Christians in the Protestant Ecclesial Communities don't have valid sacramental ordinations). Obviously, he's not from the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), but the more liberal portion of the Anglican Communion (of which the Episcopal (U.S.) Church is a part, at least in the state of Maryland).

After he talked about some of his family swimming the Tiber (converting to Catholicism from the liberal "Christianity" of the Episcopal Church), we talked about the openly and practicing lesbian (I don't know her name) who is originally from Maryland that is to be newly "ordained" in the Episcopal conference of California. She would be the second practicing homosexual to be "ordained" Episcopal bishop behind Gene Robinson of New England.

We then got onto same-sex "marriage". His main point was that gay people were born gay, and we all have to accept it and not discriminate against them. Among other things I've said before (on Youtube etc.), I countered briefly that we are all born into sin (except for two people, Jesus and Mary (Immaculate Conception) via Catholic theology), implying that same-sex attraction was one among many sins.

Well, in New Jersey's Senate, of all places, this point about being born gay has come up again. From Lifesitenews.com:

Regina Griggs, director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), criticized the comparison of homosexuality to racial issues.

"Contrary to Bond's statement equating skin color with homosexual behavior, major scientific studies and mental health associations have stated homosexuality is not innate," said Griggs in a statement. "No replicated scientific study has found a gay gene, gay DNA, or gay center of the brain.

"Sexual orientation is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. Many African-Americans have come out of homosexuality, proving sexual orientation can change, but skin color does not."

Further there are more testimonies at a Catholic Apostolate website that ministers to people with same-sex attraction, Courage Apostolate.

Well, if two thousand years of Tradition and the Bible (and current science) won't convince someone, I wonder what will?

(BTW, as far as I know the man with whom I was conversing does not have same-sex attraction and is married (without quotes) to a woman.)

Feast of the Holy Innocents

2009-12-28T20:21:00.003-05:00

When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi. (Matthew 2:16)

Today is the Feast of the Holy Innocents during the season of Christmas (ends on the Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord [Jesus]). This is when children under King Herod's rule and "its vicinity" where killed because he didn't want another king to threaten his rule and his power.

This feast reminds me of the tragedies of abortion and miscarriage. I wrote the motet below because of the tragedy of miscarriage, but I also realized that while my wife and I mourned the pre-birth death of our son or daughter, millions of mothers voluntarily and directly cause the death of their preborn son or daughter for no reason other than inconvenience or their "own way". They are the modern King Herods.

Judging these mothers is not the purpose of this post; it's just to show that some things never change: we all sin and deserve its proper wage. However, thanks be to God for forgiveness through the blood of the Lamb, Jesus the Holy, Innocent Child we celebrate during this season.

The motet I wrote:

The Manhattan Declaration

2009-12-03T20:40:00.002-05:00

I'm a Catholic signer along with many others of The Manhattan Declaration (summary and link below)

The summary from the website (link below):

The Manhattan Declaration
A Call of Christian Conscience

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
the sanctity of human life
the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Best OTAAAC Speech Ever

2009-11-20T22:05:00.004-05:00

It's from Gov. Casey, Sr. Why can't junior live up to this?

Address by Governor Robert P. Casey
Delivered at the University of Notre Dame in 1995

Just a part of it...

Prior to 1973 [and Roe v. Wade] - just think about this for a minute - the laws of America reflected an overwhelming pro-life consensus that children before birth deserve the protection of the law. That consensus was a secular consensus. Those laws were not written by clerics, or in monasteries, or by the great organized religions of America. They were written by people who respected the truth. And that secular, pro-life consensus was both popular and national. And those two words are important. Popular because it came directly from the people, and national because it was not sectional or regional. It covered the entire country .. not unique to any one class or any region, but embodied in the laws of virtually every state in our nation. Not unique to our left or to the right, Democrats or Republicans, Liberals or conservatives, it represented the mainstream of America. My friends, it still is the mainstream of America, so don't be fooled.

The American people have not accepted abortion on demand. They've been hammering away for twenty-one years, but they're hammering a square peg into a round hole. It's like a bone in our throat. We can't swallow it. We cannot assimilate it. We cannot become comfortable with it, because it's fundamentally contrary to what we believe as Americans. It's in our history. Every poll shows a vast and growing unease with the abortion license and the industry that serves it. I believe a pro-life consensus already exists in America. And it grows every time someone looks in a sonogram.

USCCB Strongly Worded Marriage Document

2009-11-19T13:53:00.004-05:00

On 17 November 2009, USCCB put out the document:

Marriage:
Love and Life in the Divine Plan
A Pastoral Letter of the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

There is some strong language regarding same-sex "marriage" and Natural Family Planning. Please see below.

About same-sex "marriage":

Today, advocacy for the legal recognition of various same-sex relationships is often equated with non-discrimination, fairness, equality, and civil rights. However, it is not unjust to oppose legal recognition of same-sex unions, because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. "The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it." To promote and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman is itself a matter of justice. In fact, it would be a grave injustice if the state ignored the unique and proper place of husbands and wives, the place of mothers and fathers, and especially the rights of children, who deserve from society clear guidance as they grow to sexual maturity. Indeed, without this protection the state would, in effect, intentionally deprive children of the right to a mother and father.
(original emphasis)

About Natural Family Planning (NFP; not the traditional rhythm method):

Natural family planning (NFP) methods represent authentic family planning. They can be used both to achieve and to postpone a pregnancy. NFP makes use of periodic abstinence from sexual intercourse based upon the observation of the woman‘s natural signs of fertility, in order to space births or to limit the number of children when there is a serious reason to do so. NFP methods require that couples learn, accept, and live with the wonders of how God made them. This is essentially different from contraception. (emphasis added)

Openness to procreation in the marital act involves "acknowledg[ing] that one is not the master of the sources of life." Using the technology of contraception is an attempt at such mastery. By contrast, couples using methods of NFP do nothing to alter the conjugal act. Rather, they abstain from conjugal relations during the portion of the woman‘s menstrual cycle when conception is most likely. This practice fosters in couples an attitude of respect and wonder in the face of human life, which is sacred. It also fosters profound respect for one‘s spouse, which is necessary for the mutual enjoyment of authentic intimacy.

As Pope John Paul II observes, any couple who tries to live out this openness to procreation will find that it requires a sacrificial love. At certain difficult times in life, the procreative meaning of marriage may seem to be at odds with the unitive meaning. Though this can in fact never be the case, preserving unity may in some cases require a considerable sacrifice by couples. They should take heart from St. Paul‘s assurance that God will not test us beyond what we can endure: "God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength; but with the trial he will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to bear it" (1 Cor 10:13).

I fully agree with the above analysis.

Phillies in It for Me

2009-10-28T21:58:00.006-04:00

Last year, the Phils (Philadelphia Phillies baseball) were in the world series. Unfortunately, my back was in really bad shape last year, so when my first born's Godfather called me when they won the world series (he's a real, real fan), my wife had to tell him that I was asleep in bed.

I thought it was a once-in-a-lifetime-event that I would regret for a long time, if not the rest of my life.

Well, you know what, the Phils had to come back to the world series just so I could redeem myself and have a second chance to watch as much of every game as possible, no matter what the cost (yes, woman; I hope she doesn't read this).

Let's Go Phils! (I do root for the Phils no matter what game I'm attending including the Pirates and Orioles. I'm not weird, I'm a Phillies fan. )

(PS: my full-of-myself wonderings above have been inspired by the full-of-themselves players that we're watching. My wife and I really love Derek Jeeter's aura.)

Amateur Catholic Post

2009-10-06T19:58:00.002-04:00

Below is listed at Amateur Catholic (14 May 2009). I spent a while writing it, so I thought I would post it on this blog:

Hello Amateur Catholics,

I would like to join your list of Amateur Catholics.

Who would you list among Professional Catholics? I would like to argue that there is only one Professional Catholic.

I would say that individuals who make a living from their Catholic writings and speaking engagements are professional writers and speakers. They just happen to know a bunch about Catholicism.

Many Catholic bloggers have the same knowledge and devotion to the Church and its teachings, but they just can't write or speak as well.

What we have in common is that we love the Church in which Jesus lives that is directed by the Holy Spirit for the Glory of God the Father. We are all Amateur Catholics, save one, since amateur means one who loves.

The only Professional Catholic is Jesus Himself. He worked in order to purchase the Church, us, at a very high price.

1 Cor 6:17-20
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians6.htm

But whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Avoid immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the immoral person sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore, glorify God in your body.

One thing we Amateur Catholics do is glorify God in our bodies by blogging for Christ and His Church.

May we always work for our Lord in the whatever we do, say, think, or write.

Oh Lord,
save us all from the powers of hell,
and bring us together in Your Spirit,
Amen.

Wondering Zygote Emeritus
http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/

Anti-Personhood Arguments

2009-09-30T21:33:00.002-04:00

Below, you'll find the written testimony against the Maryland personhood amendment (2009 MD HB 925).

If anyone is available for commenting against the con-side below, please by all means do so. I'll be doing it soon.

Thanks in advance.

Two New Motet Recordings

2009-09-21T14:25:00.005-04:00

Below are two motets I recorded with some great singers.
Many thanks to Robin, Jamie, and Craig.
My musical CV/Resumé

Une Voix dans Rama

This Christmas Joy

Une voix dans Rama s'est fait entendre,
pleur et longue plainte:
(et d'abondants sanglots amers)
C'est Rachel pleurant ses enfants;
et elle ne veut pas qu'on la console,
car ils ne sont plus.

A voice was heard in Ramah,
sobbing and loud lamentation;
(and profuse bitter weeping)
Rachel weeping for her children,
and she would not be consoled,
since they were no more.

Matthew 2: 18

Bible verses taken from la Bible du Semeur. (text in parenthesis)
Copyright © 1992, 1999 Société Biblique Internationale. With permission.

Bible verses taken from la Bible de Jérusalem. (text without parenthesis)
Copyright © 2003 Les Éditions du Cerf. With permission.
---

This Christmas Joy
by Gerald McClain

In swaddling clothes to us arrive,
This Jesus Christ, our hopes revive!
In Marys arms, her little boy:
This tiny babe, death to destroy.

Was not in clouds, come down to reign
But from a girl in labor pain; (Revelation 12: 2)
Not in a throne was he to lay
But in a manger full of hay.

Welcome to Him from us today,
This Christmas joy, in us to stay.

From foreign lands their homage paid:
To Bethlehem, the star did say.
Fall prostrate where did shepherds come;
Laid out their gifts a costly sum.

Then in a dream: from Herods gaze,
Another path to home was made.
A furious king proclaimed forthright
That innocents shall loose their life.

Though in a world with evil known,
This Christmas joy, Love has outshone.

Give glory to the Fathers Son:
Begotten of the Holy One.
Though evry part is from the same,
The Word to us in flesh he came.

A preview of the coming years,
A final act to wipe all tears:
From nursling small to mature man,
Fulfillment of the Godheads plan.

All praise and laud and glorious powr,
This Christmas joy, tis Jesses flowr.

Gerald McClain
© 2005 Musique de McClain
8-19-05

Nobody for Chatting?

2009-09-16T16:25:00.003-04:00

I just discovered that my only follower, Pro Life Girl, took me off her list to follow my blog. Might it be that I'm on the fence about healthcare?

I'm not for government climbing into and devouring our wallets from the inside out, but government does take our money for everyone's use on roads and for defense.

I'm a Republican for one issue only for the most part (I am also against overspending/borrowing), but I would love to join the Democrats if only the new feminazis would stop pushing baby killing (for all four trimesters).

The thing is, it seems that only people who agree with you 100% follow what you have to say. I think it's important to discuss through or chat about our disagreements. Maybe we'll dispose with some nonsensical heresies theological and otherwise.

(How can one be against abortion and for torture? Does Judie Brown really believe this? What's here definition of torture?)

Obamacare Oxymoron?

2009-09-10T09:55:00.010-04:00

Last night during [Pres] Obama's congressional healthcare speech, US Rep. Joe Wilson of SC yelled out that [Pres] Obama lies. He tweeted (according to govtrack.us),

Happy Labor Day! Wonderful parade at Chapin, many people called out to oppose Obamacare which I assured them would be relayed tomorrow to DC. (Sep 7, 2009)

Some would say that this outburst during the speech would end his career, but I think it will galvanize his electorate to vote for him. (Is it a coincidence that he was a staffer for Senator Strom Thurmond of SC?)

Yes, Obama lies out of both sides of his mouth all the time, but what politician doesn't? I'm not excusing [Pres] Obama; he just wants to do a good job in his latest drive-by position (he spends very little time in his jobs; would a HR manager hire him now for a union position if s/he saw his resume?).
---

About Obamacare as an oxymoron, does [Pres] Obama really care about people and/or their intelligence when he lies so much, though. Is he just pandering to the health insurance industry to get them more business on the taxpayers dime, no 3/4+ paycheck? Is he just a moron to think people don't realize that he lies so blatantly? If he told the truth more often and/or care about people's intelligence, would he get more done (am I just naive)?

Just wondering.
---

Despite all the lies from the left and fear mongering from the right, I'm still on the fence if a public option is the way to go. Actually, I think the main problem is tort law: the amount of money from lawsuits is astronomical. Also, the pay for service system is fishy.

Nonetheless, people I know who don't have jobs and are mid-aged or less can't get health insurance. Yes, rationing may well happen under a public option but rationing also happens now. Those without a job or extra money to burn are out of doctor offices and into ER's (what if they might have (early stage?) cancer?).

My stance now is simple. I will stay out of the debate unless abortion is to be mandated, because I don't assume to know all the answers about health care/health insurance.
---

One last question, if Obama thinks that pinpointing the starting point of human life is above his pay grade (he knows as much now about this question as he did before he became (perhaps legitimately) US President), how can he think that figuring out how to (solve forever, supposedly) the healthcare system (and all the other issues) is within his paygrade?

Is This Saying Hard?

2009-08-24T10:47:00.003-04:00

Three years ago (as I guest posted at my friend's blog), the same readings were read at mass yesterday. One of them was from Ephesians 5.

Brothers and sisters:
Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.
Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is head of his wife
just as Christ is head of the church,
he himself the savior of the body.
As the church is subordinate to Christ,
so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything [see my note below].
Husbands, love your wives,
even as Christ loved the church
and handed himself over for her to sanctify her,
cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
that he might present to himself the church in splendor,
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing,
that she might be holy and without blemish.
So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no one hates his own flesh
but rather nourishes and cherishes it,
even as Christ does the church,
because we are members of his body.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.
This is a great mystery,
but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.

I asked what people's priests (deacons) said about this reading if anything at all. My priest avoided the reading explicitly.

This year, however, he said some good things about it. The wife being subordinate does not mean doing the laundry, he said, or doing more chores. For the husband, it doesn't mean that we are to be waited on, necessarily, but that we are to also wash the feet of our wives and our neighbor. (These are my priest's ideas.)

I think people now a days would perhaps cringe less at the idea of drinking Jesus' body and blood than at this Ephesians reading. People think that the (RC) Church believes that women are less than men in some way(s). No, we are to "[b]e subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ."

So, what did your priest or deacon say about this reading this year, if anything?

Which Came First? The Chicken or the Egg?

2009-07-23T08:53:00.001-04:00

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

The question and answer have many very important implications.

This is a three (3) part video:
I. Introduction and answer
II. Reapplication of the answer
III. Social and political consequences (prolife? OTAAAC?)

References:
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/26/chicken.egg/
(2) http://science.howstuffworks.com/genetic-science/question85.htm
(3) http://people.cs.uu.nl/hansb/religion/chickenegg.html
(4) http://business.fortunecity.com/johns/139/index6.html
(5) http://www.arrogantatheist.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=729&page=1

Same-Sex Marriage and the State Youtube Video only

2009-07-17T15:47:00.001-04:00

How Will Same-Sex "Marriage" Hurt Marriage?

2009-07-14T22:06:00.014-04:00

How Will Same-Sex "Marriage" Hurt Marriage?

Besides the detriment to religious institutions and those with religious objections to those in same-sex "marriages" (and teaching it as a norm in public schools), what harm to "traditional" or "real" marriages will occur from codifying same-sex "marriage" into law?

Some resources:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/06/259
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/UST_fall2004.pdf
http://www.marriagedebate.com/ssm.php
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/07/what-marriage-is-and-what-it-isnt
(Will be available free in a few months after July 2009!)
http://www.iptv.org/video/browse.cfm/program/20022
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/11/priority-of-strengthening-families.html
http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2009/05/pseudogamy-101.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1908243,00.html
http://positivelywaiting.blogspot.com/2008/05/marriage-from-teens-point-of-view.html

OTAAAC (pro life) Debate Advice

2009-07-09T15:41:00.005-04:00

I just (sort-of) finished two debates with people who are PAAAC (pro-choice). One wanted abortion to come to Ireland, one wanted ESCR to stay on-board, respectively below.

Of course, at the end of the day, it only matters if a human is a person from conception onward. Both debaters came to this point, but their responses were puzzling:

I asked, "At the end of the day, I have a question: If personhood is established for a non-viable human that is found to be inside a woman's body, does the woman still have a right to kill the non-viable human in your view?"

She said, "Yes, no one has the right to use anothers body without their permission, fetus or rapist."

The other man (heatmourning33) said (after I believe his personhood definition was destroyed), "I don't have all the answers, your way could be the better way to go, I havent [sic] been convinced."

Do you notice that the question of personhood doesn't really matter in the end to these PAAAC (pro-choice) people?

This leads me to the following advice:

Before starting to debate, ask explicitly the following question:

If personhood is established for a [zygote or equivalent], does the [woman/state/scientist/president/etc.] still have a right to kill the [zygote or equivalent] in your view?

FYI: The US Supreme Court:

If the suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth Amendment].

Abortion is Just War for Obama

2009-06-23T13:38:00.017-04:00

Barack Obama has spoken about abortion on various occasions. One of the last times he spoke about abortion specifically was at Notre Dame when he received an honorary doctorate of laws degree. The other two times of note were during his “100 Days Press Conference” and during the campaign after he spoke at Pastor Rick Warren’s Church during a presidential debate with Senator McCain. The relevant parts of Obama’s words are reproduced below.

Interview with Mr. Stephanopoulos on ABC
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcVN8DpwWE0]

...As a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into (Stephanopoulos interrupts: As respect to Augustine) It does. It's a pretty tough question and so all I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions. What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue. That's it's one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions. I think the better answer, and this was reflected in the Democratic platform, is to figure out how do make sure that young mothers or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices including adoption....

100 Days Press Conference
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/obama-100-days-press-conf_n_193283.html]

You know, the -- my view on -- on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.

I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest -- and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.

The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that -- that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their doctors, with their clergy.

So -- so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.

Obama's Notre Dame speech
[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-barack-obama-notre-dame-speech,0,2951798.story?page=2]

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let's make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction.

I noticed that in all three monologues above, he said that abortion is a moral, ethical, or spiritual issue. Further, he said that women, mothers, or families must make this choice without government interference.

After some reflection on these common principles, it seemed that Obama was applying just war theory to abortion. Mothers (et al.) take the role of defending entity (defender), while the baby takes the role of the aggressing entity (aggressor). The defender decides, through parallel applications of just war theory to abortion, whether going to war is just or unjust.

In 1991, Francis Kissling, former president of Catholics for Choice, wrote, "If War is Just, So is Abortion." [http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/op-eds/1990s/19910417ifwarisjustsoisabortion.asp] In addition, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, former president of Chicago Theological Seminary, wrote two articles and one speech that picked up on Ms. Kissling’s ideas.

In essence, Ms. Kissling said that women, who were once not considered moral agents, are in reality the primary moral agent to decide if pregnancy termination is necessary. Ms. Thistlethwaite agrees, writing, “Obama Acknowledges Women as Moral Agents.”

In comparing the need for war and abortion, Ms. Kissling writes, “Both constructs would recognize that the taking of life in war and in abortion (though not equivalent acts) are never in themselves moral goods. But these values are not absolute. They can be overridden in serious circumstances and after reflection on the moral guidelines established by the church.” These circumstances, according to her, include self-defense and “[the protection of] a nation's integrity”, or “a woman's physical and emotional health”.

Ms. Thistlethwaite goes further in saying that it is not possible to know if a preborn person has a soul in her speech (to Planned Parenthood), “How Is It With Your Soul?” Ms. Kissling mentions this conundrum briefly, but does not expand the thought. It would seem, for the moment, that the preborn human is a person in the same way that an enemy soldier is a person. The topic of personhood of the perborn human is beyond the scope of this essay.

If it were accepted that abortion could be analyzed with just war theory, the four-prong test of just war theory must be applied. In order to pass the test of a just war or abortion, all four prongs must be true at the same time. The test includes the following (http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp).

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor [preborn person] on the nation or community of nations [pregnant woman] must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it [the pregnancy] must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success [in terminating pregnancy];
4. the use of arms [abortion] must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated [death of mother or “a woman's physical and emotional health”]. The power of modern means of destruction [chemical and surgical abortion] weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Right away, prongs two and three are almost guaranteed. Only a few preborn persons have survived abortion. The real questions are one and four.

How is damage inflicted by the preborn person on the pregnant woman lasting, grave, and certain? For one, the clear and present danger of the woman (immanent death) would suffice. Since pregnancy lasts nine months and not the lifetime of the woman (assuming adoption used), pregnancy itself would not be lasting. Since miscarriage is very probable, pregnancy is not certain.

Does abortion produce evils and disorders graver than the death of the mother or “a woman's physical and emotional health”? Assuming that the preborn human is a person, killing the preborn human and letting a mother die are equivalent evils. Killing the preborn human produces a greater evil than a detriment to a woman's physical and emotional health.

It seems that the only reason an abortion can be just is for the life of the mother if death from the baby's presence is a clear and present danger. However, just as in the application of war, the objective of defense is not to kill people, it is to stop the means of destruction. In order to stop bombings, bomber planes may be shot down; it just happens that there are people flying them. The "enemy" person must be protected as humanely as possible. In abortion, the preborn person must be protected whenever possible. If the fallopian tube or uterus is removed, or drugs must be administered to protect a clear and present danger to a mother, the secondary effect of killing the preborn person is not unjust.

The caveat is that a woman cannot choose abortion if the framework of just war theory is applied. Since the only just war against the preborn person is for the clear and present danger of a mother’s life, only a doctor (or team of doctors) can justly "wage war" on the preborn person. Only a doctor can determine the gravity of a life-threatening situation.

In conclusion, if Barack Obama is using the ideas of Ms. Kissling in terms of applying just war theory to abortion, he is incorrect in his evaluation. No woman or family can justly determine if a preborn person should die for his or her desires (inconvenience, pride, need for adoption, &c), only an objective doctor can conclude that a pregnant mother is in clear and present danger due to the mere internal presence of the preborn person. If the just war theory is applied to abortion, the moral, ethical, and spiritual decision must conclude that abortion is not the just action to take. Government must make sure that unjust wars against preborn people are not undertaken at the whim of any other person’s will.

Despite the fact that the preborn person in the mother’s body may present clear and present danger to the life of the mother, how can the preborn be considered aggressors? Ms. Kissling addresses this in one sentence in "If War is Just, So is Abortion.” “As we have seen, even in high-tech modern warfare, innocents will be killed.” Does this make sense? If abortion is the equivalent to just war, who is the person that is threatening the mother’s life? Is the preborn person “innocent” according to Ms. Kissling? The preborn person is not an innocent bystander; she is an innocent participant in an intrinsically evil act.

If Barack Obama does not think that preborn humans are people (until the soul enters at some undetermined time by him), why does he call abortion a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue? If he thinks that preborn humans are not people, abortion should not be an issue at all to him; if it is so, he should be honest and say so now.

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion?
-Mother Theresa

The Absolute Tyranny of Autonomy

2009-06-11T21:12:00.004-04:00

I finished a conversation with a female (from Ireland) on youtube (in my personal mailbox). It's below (my comments are in parentheses).

---

"Your essential question/holdings:
(1)"Why is being human so special?"
(2)"A human is a person when they are sentient and capable of consciousness."
(3)"my [sic] issue is with your attitude that a fetus has the 'right' to use a woman's body against her will- that's it, plain and simple."

Re. (3), the US Supreme Court: "If the suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth Amendment]." Therefore, your opinion (3) has no value if the woman carries a "person", according to US law. (This is apart from my or your opinions; The rule of law is what counts ultimately, apart from appeals/dictates from "Nature's God".)"

Thats quite laughable. NOBODY has the right to use anothers body without their consent- how is establishing personhood in a fetus going against this? What is unclear here?

"(1) begs to question, "Why is being a person is so special?" (To me, they are the same question.) What value does life have? Who is entitled to bestow value on someone else? [I should've asked "Who is entitled to negate the value of someone else?"] If you respect animals so much, why not respect all humans (subset of animals in your view)? Do animal mothers have the right to eject their offspring at any point (no, this is not a joke)?"

No, human is not synonymous with person. A dead human being is not longer a person, a human permanently in a vegetative state has no qualities of a person. Simply having a human body does not give you a unique right to life. I do respect humans, equally with non-humans, I just place more weight on the right to autonomy of an existing person than the non-existant rights of a potential person.
You clearly think you have the right to bestow value. Of course animal mothers do, all females do.
Believe it or not, we are thinking, autonomous beings that can make individual decisions and require no input from you.

"(2) is still not a clear definition of personhood (terms not focused; my response is on my understanding of (2)). A person in the zygotic stage reacts naturally to external stimuli. A 7 week old baby has tiny active nerves. Any human before or after viability is sentient. When an adult sleeps, they are not conscious. Are we a person one moment and not the next (vis sleep)? It takes some finite time to become conscious. It just takes a zygotic (embryonic and fetal) person a longer time to become conscious. See http://www.cbhd.org/resources/bioethics/beckwith_2001-11-19.htm (and other writings by Francis J. Beckwith) for more info."

Yes, it is. What are your specific problems with it? Why is it that you dont call a tree a person? I imagine it has something to do with the existence of a brain/self awareness/consciousness.

"Are (1) and (2) just a red-herring for (3)?"

No, they are equally valid reasons for my stance.

"At the end of the day, I have a question: If personhood is established for a non-viable human that is found to be inside a woman's body, does the woman still have a right to kill the non-viable human in your view?"

Yes, no one has the right to use anothers body without their permission, fetus or rapist.

"At the end of the day, this is my business since you and others insist on killing my neighbor, preborn female and male persons."

No, it really isnt. You risk absolutely nothing by taking your stance, you dont even have a concept of the barbaric nature of what you suggest. As a male your view is entirely negligible from the point of ignorance. I notice you didnt answer a lot of my questions and did not even address the autonomy point.

---

It was very enlightening, really.

Is it self-contradictory if she says:
(A) "(1) and (2) [are not] a red-herring for (3)" but "equally valid reasons for my stance".
(B)"If personhood is established for a non-viable human that is found to be inside a woman's body, [] the woman still [has] a right to kill the non-viable human []."

I didn't "address the autonomy point" because I wanted to first find out if personhood really mattered to her. Since in reality it didn't, autonomy is the absolute tyrant.

On George Tiller's Murder

2009-06-01T22:05:00.001-04:00

This video was in response to a popular (and foul) Youtube channel host. He mentions Mr. Tiller in the beginning of the video.

The War on Terror

2009-05-22T20:38:00.005-04:00

[President] Obama's speech at the National Archives on May 21, 2009, as provided by the White House [talking about the "war on terror"/Guantanamo Bay/torture/etc.]

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us -- Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens -- fell silent.

Weapons of mass destruction is to the war in Iraq/terror as denial of personhood/human life beginnings is to legalized abortion.

Water boarding, that's nothing. How about tearing humans limb to limb, sucking their brains out, salt poisoning, and burning them to death?

Newly Proposed Mailing Project

2009-05-14T21:12:00.005-04:00

Have you heard about the Red Letter Project? Purple Envelope Project? Lots of envelopes.

I have an idea that works on the Judicial Branch. Unfortunately, it's a little more expensive, but I'm doing it. Why not you?

This is the idea:
Send a specific book to Chief Justice Roberts (with an accompanying explanation letter, or course). It's Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History by Joseph Dellapenna. (BTW, I have no connection with the author, publisher, or any book seller. I used this book when I visited my senator to discuss FOCA (both my senators (MD) co-sponsored FOCA).)

Below, I'll list the dispelled myths and write a little about why it's so important for the Supreme Court to read this book.

The myths:

(1) that abortion was always a common practice in human history; (2) that voluntary early abortions were not crimes until the nineteenth century; (3) that the nineteenth-century abortion statutes were designed to protect the life of the mother rather the life of the child; and (4) that the statutes were enacted through a conspiracy of men to accomplish several nefarious purposes—to subordinate women, to eliminate competition from women health-care workers with male physicians, and to ensure adequate birth rates among white, Protestant women to prevent “race suicide.”

Why dispelling the myths are so important, in my understanding:
In Roe v. Wade (1973), it was found that “the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of the States today are of relatively recent vintage.” This was the initial premise that set the stage for the Roe conclusion (not that abortion was a right, but that one has a right to privacy to make such a personal decision, including with abortion; the preceding link is an interview with Mary Ann Glendon which explains the lack of the "abortion right" in Roe).

By bringing serious doubt to this premise which started the ball rolling for all the federal court cases, the court will be able to, or even must, revisit the original precedent in Roe under the principle of stare decisis.

From the book:

“It is time that the Court took seriously its own premise that the constitutional status of a claimed right to abort is to be tested against history and traditions of this nation. The accumulated wisdom relating to abortion teaches us that the prohibition of abortion was always viewed as the protection of emerging, yet real, human life —a concern only made more certain by the continual growth of medical knowledge of gestation during the last two centuries.” (p. 1084)

If Chief Justice Roberts received even a few dozen of these books, imagine how his curiosity would compel him to open and even consider reviewing an abortion case with this book in mind.

I wonder if it's possible. I pray that it is.

(tips: buy it used, send by USPS media mail)

Margaret Sanger Knew When Human Life Begins

2009-05-06T14:20:00.007-04:00

Margaret Sanger, the founder of what would eventually be called Planned Parenthood (PP), knew the answer to the question of "When does life begin?" (or "When does human life begin?") as early as 1916.

In her autobiography, Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, she wrote,

...abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life.... (emphasis added)

So, why does PP now insist that a human person from conception (zygote) to birth is just a clump of cells?

Well, it's just a clump of cells. If you get it early enough it doesn't even look like a baby.

This quote from Margaret Sanger is telling and prophetic.

No one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable [perhaps to save the life of the mother only?] but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception [Did she think that the point of conception was the moment that a human person's life begins?]. [Contraception] is the only cure for abortions. (emphasis added)

Once one believes that contraception is a cure from pregnancy, their contraceptive mentality will force them to have an abortion (now as the contraception of last resort). They will no longer be free, but a slave to PP (and other things/persons).

Instead of curing the need for abortions, Margaret Sanger's contraception crusade made the demand for abortion skyrocket (and perhaps the reason why abortion is now legal). This is why the American Birth Control League (now PP) is the largest and most profitable (contraceptive) abortion provider ever.

(Some cure, huh?)

"From might to may to must: zero to sixty in a cultural instant."
-Sally Thomas

(Now, abortion is seen as a good.)

The women wearing "I Had An Abortion" t-shirts at the 2004 Democratic National Convention obviously share Mr. Sanger's desire to see the abortion rights argument move to a newly aggressive level.

When Does the Human Soul Develop?

2009-05-01T23:45:00.001-04:00

An attempt to answer about the human soul's development. Any suggestions for improvement?

[Pres.] Obama's First 100 Days Parody

2009-05-01T12:01:00.001-04:00

See 4:20 for the original text.

Mary Ann Glendon Refuses ND Laetare Medal Award

2009-04-27T18:01:00.000-04:00

Mary Ann Glendon agrees that Notre Dame has gone too far in inviting and bestowing a honorary Law doctorate on [President] Aborti... Obama. She will not accept the award.

I guess I should've kept my first request after all to refuse the award from L'Autre Dame (second request). (Peut-être, L'Autre Dame est Margaret Sanger.)

Same-Sex Marriage and the State Youtube Video

2009-04-27T18:00:00.000-04:00

I'm definitely no Susan Boyle, but do I make sense below? Are the points valid?

Someone made this comment on youtube:

A state also has a vested interest in a marriage later in life...when you have no children...and single the state becomes responsible for your health and welfare. If must go into a nursing home the state must pay for it. If you die the state must pay for your funeral. The list goes on and on. It is very beneficial for gay marriage in cost of state responsibilities later in life. Marriage would make it the couples responsibility to take care of each other.

MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR ALL!

My response:

I think you missed my main point (maybe I wasn't clear). Marriage that is recognized by the state, as opposed to private marriage, is for the children who will become citizens since they should have a right to be raised by their own parents (etc) so that they can become the best future citizens that they can.

As far as a nursing home, anyone can take out a long-term care policy. No state needed there. As far as paying for the funeral, I just called a funeral home, anyone can sign a contract to pay for the funeral. No state there.

THE three big cultural issues, abortion, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia have two sides: me (us) and them. Why not set up society for our children's benefit instead of ours? (my life v. child's life; my benefits v. children's best situation; my decision v. the love my children/society have for the dying)

Am I missing something? Are they missing something? Am I not clear?

African Americans For Preborn Justice

2009-04-23T21:55:00.003-04:00

He wrote the Letter from a Dublin Jail. (The next Dr. King)

The new Harriet Beecher Stowe in song!

Bumper Stickers for Life Message

2009-04-23T16:46:00.002-04:00

This is the back of my car. On the right, Libertarians for Life. On the left, Democrats for Life. In the center, Feminists for Life.

The idea is this: to be opposed to abortion as a choice (OTAAAC), or pro-life, should cover the spectrum of political ideologies from right to left. It also doesn't matter if you're a Catholic (typically Democrat) or Atheist (typically Libertarian). Further, "peace in the womb" is that which brings us all together as the survivors of the culture of death from abortion (mostly for those born after 1973 and Roe and Doe).

You can order the bumper stickers from the embedded links above.

---

About the youtube posts below. What do you think?

Miss USA California Responds To Gay Marriage Question From Perez Hilton Youtube Response

2009-04-22T15:32:00.001-04:00

Miss USA California failed by Perez Hilton.

Abortion, when does a human life begin? Youtube Response

2009-04-22T15:26:00.003-04:00

On Youtube about abortion and the beginning of life
(first video has Every Sperm is Sacred Monty Python sketch from The Meaning of Life)

Huckabee Says Abortion=Slavery

2009-04-17T20:39:00.005-04:00

I responded to this video with the second video below:

My Response (my first personal youtube video):

I know I'm not the best speaker (even close), but I would like to practice and try to get better. (I know I'll get slammed for the um's and choppiness, but I have pretty tough skin. I just don't want to do what the first video does: cut every few seconds.)

We Haven't Seen No Taxes Yet

2009-04-15T20:43:00.004-04:00

With the Tax Day Tea Parties going on, I wonder if any of the protesting posters asked if the Obama Cabinet payed their 2008 taxes.

(Warning: I'm admittedly ranting more than usually below.)

They owe Chiinna money too!

If I went, this might have been my sign:

Stimulus Debt to Chiinna: [sp]
Sovereignty On Sale &
Human Rights to be Shelved
wze3.blogspot.com to be censored

With this overwhelming debt, we have yet to feel the full fury of high taxes (such as Canada etc.) and hyperinflation (from printing money we are borrowing from Chiinna). It's coming.

I'm all about helping the poor, but we've been helping too many really rich folks.

I wonder what Secretary Clinton thinks about the protesting. (She's probably giving it as much attention as Chiinna's giving to her words on human rights expectations.)

A Letter from a Dublin Jail

2009-04-08T21:08:00.005-04:00

In April 1963, Dr. King wrote his "A Letter from a Birmingham Jail" that addressed his "Fellow Clergymen" regarding "Negro" civil rights.

On March 26th, 2009, another black Pastor Walter Hoye wrote his letter from a Dublin, CA jail that addressed his fellow "men of the cloth" regarding "womb lynching", or abortion.

I just came back from vacation in New Orleans, LA where a teen-aged Afr. Am. girl's shirt read "We are taking over." Does she not realize that her race in America is dying out and that her President is helping the cause? However, unlike what many people may think, it is not from gun violence. It is due to "pre-natal" murder.

From the Pastor Hoye:

Brothers, in Black America alone every seventy-two (72) seconds a black baby is murdered in the womb of his or her mother. This holocaust is genocidal to the point that today a black child has less than a fifty-percent (50%) chance of being born. According to the 2006 U.S. Census, Black Americans are below the replacement level. In other words, death in Black America outpaces life. Abortion alone accounts for three (3) times more deaths in our community than
HIV/AIDS, Violent Crimes, Accidents, Cancer, and Heart Disease combined. There is no question pre-natal murder, abortion, is the number one issue in not only Black America, but in all of America today. (emphasis added)

It took a little over a year from Dr. King's letter above to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I pray that it will be a short year until a Civil Rights Act of 2010 is signed into law by [President] Obama that will be a beginning to an end of discrimination against the pre-born (especially the genetically black pre-born).
---------

From Dr. King's “A Letter from a Birmingham Jail”:

I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.
...
There was a time when the church was very powerful—in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Open to Judgment

2009-04-02T17:17:00.007-04:00

I've been thinking about a blog post that a family member wrote. It's below.

You probably think you know the answers to these, but I'm a better judge of that than you, and you can't convince me otherwise

Two things people would answer "Yes" to, when they should say "No":

1 - Are you a good judge of people?

I used to think I was a good judge of people until a close friend and idol of mine went to jail for conspiracy to commit triple murders and then another friend was discovered, by me, to have stolen a half million dollars from the company we worked for at the time.

2 - Are you open-minded?

I think people are open-minded about things they don't yet have an opinion on, but not so much on things they've already made up their mind about. When is the last time YOU had your mind changed by someone?

I tried to think about the last time that I changed my mind about something important other than at work. (I change my mind all the time at work; it's part of the job.)

Anyway, I thought of the big things (non-exhaustive): religion, life, death, love, family, and politics.

I grew up in a liberal Pennsylvania mixed marriage home. I always wondered about other religions since my Dad never received (Catholic) communion at Church.

In the many “talks”, my parents (Mom) told me not to have sex until marriage and that I should use protection if necessary.

The intellectual things that I remembered as a child mainly came from high school. I never had a girlfriend. Actually, I usually sat in the back and watched the other high schoolers make fools of themselves over romantic matters (or other dumb stuff).

For a long time, I remembered just soaking up people’s words (I didn’t/don’t talk much). I thought high school was mostly a farce. (My family thought I was gay. Why does not having a girlfriend equal gay?)

In high school, I rooted for Gov. Dukakis because I thought VP HW Bush, Sr. didn’t care enough about poor people.

As a freshman in college, I joined a non-denominational Christian fellowship (and eventually an a cappella Christian group) because I wanted to understand what they believed. (My first girlfriend was a Southern Baptist from the former group.)

As a junior or senior, I participated in a homosexual bible study series (sponsored by the Rainbow Alliance) to understand what they believed.

When I studied abroad in Mexico, I went a couple of times (actually most Sundays) to a Mormon ecclesial community (church).

I strike up conversations on line (and in person) to try to understand people with different views.

I don’t know when I changed my mind last (except on this blog).

I think I’m open to thoughts, but please, oh please, make a convincing argument and provide some resources (which I will actually read in full, assuming its not over 200 pages).

What is a liberal? One who listens to all and tries to whole-heartedly acquiesce to the Truth. (It’s not the same as giving into the “dictatorship of relativism” since there is a Truth insofar as we truly exist.)

As far as judging people, you have to hold the seat of a judge. In other words, you must have all the relevant facts (evidence), hidden and unhidden, in order to make a proper and just judgment. What’s the criteria, unreasonable doubt?

In practice, I keep this thought in mind, "We reap (and gather in) what we sow."

Notice however, that I didn't say that admonishing is to be avoided. We have a duty to speak the truth to guide against evil.

Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do. And over all these put on love, that is, the bond of perfection. And let the peace of Christ control your hearts, the peace into which you were also called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, as in all wisdom you teach and admonish one another, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. Colossians 3:12-16

Obama Perjured Himself

2009-04-02T10:10:00.006-04:00

"[The rescinding of conscience rules for health care workers] is a declaration of war on all who oppose the killing of the unborn." -lifesitenews.com

The main reason that I was against Obama for president was that I believed that he would not uphold the Constitution of the United States. This proposed rule change proves to me, more than any other action (even if it's just proposed), that he perjured himself when he took the oath of office (twice).

(Is Obama really an American citizen? I wasn't even sure about McCain.)
(By the way, I would vote for and have voted for this African American for President. I don't agree with everything he says, but he has been the best presidential candidate for a long time.)

How did Obama perjure himself? He's now blatantly and obviously dismissing the Constitution of the United States (First Amendment; see the USCCB's own superb analysis: they do not say that Obama perjured himself, I do.).

Doctors and Nurses still take the Hippocratic oath (some recite, "I will not give a woman a pessary to produce abortion."). Some have the audacity to believe that they are to do no harm to anyone in anyway (including referral), even to the individual preborn.

How can the (supposed) President of the United States force a doctor or nurse to go against their conscience or oath? It's like forcing a President of the United States to divulge secrets to enemies foreign and domestic (yes, I know it's in the VP oath).

May this country remember that powers are from the American people and not from a few.

May God bless this sinful America. (By the way, that includes all Americans.)

UPDATE (4/1/2009 12:09P):
I just sent the following email from here. (The middle part [] is a form letter.)
---

[Header will be placed here]
Dear [System will insert the recipient's name here]:

I am [Gutterball Master] of Baltimore, Maryland.

I have many friends and family members who believe in the Hippocratic oath: they are to do no harm to their patients, including their preborn and handicap patients.[Please retain the conscience regulation, and enforce current laws protecting the right of health care providers to serve patients without violating their moral and religious convictions. The right of conscience protected by existing federal laws is inviolable. Weakening protection for this right will harm the ethical integrity of our healing professions, drive caring people out of these professions, and reduce patients' access to much-needed basic health care.]Help my friends and family keep their Constitutionally prescribed and Congressional mandated conscious protections that enable them to care for their patients. If the Church clause and others rules are rescinded, they may be unduly persecuted for doing what is right for all their patients.

Sincerely,
[gbm3]
[The system will insert address here.]

A Changed Request

2009-04-01T17:55:00.005-04:00

I changed my mind about the last post. No, this is not an April's Fool joke. After reading about and listening to Professor Glendon (below), I think it a better idea if she accepts the award from Notre Dame. She deserves any award she is given by anyone or institution with any morals (even Notre Dame at this juncture). See some of her talks on Youtube below.

Also, the letter I sent bounced back. Evidently, the email address I used is no longer active.

I am going to send the following letter to her Harvard email (glendon aatt law dott harvard dott edu).
---------

Professor Glendon:

Hello. I am [Gutterball Master] of Baltimore, Maryland.

Congratulations on your upcoming reception of the Laetare Award from the University of Notre Dame. Your service to the Church in the United States and exceptionally thoughtful and thoroughly researched books and articles makes you an excellent choice for this award.

With this honor, you have the privilege to address the student body of Notre Dame, who will be the future leaders of the world, with an inspirational word.

As a fellow Catholic who tries wholeheartedly to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, may I implore you to address the fact that the most pro-abortion American President will be speaking at the same podium as yourself? As you have written, power and great opportunities invite profound responsibility. Please breach the wall of status quo (see Dr. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail) and address the President’s policies and his interpretation of the law (that is contrary to Catholic teaching) that sledgehammer away at the roots of our great republic. (I am sure that you know his policies intimately.) This would send a clear message that the University is dismissing its Catholic mission by inviting and awarding an honorary law doctorate to President Obama for his current policies and his former Illinois and United States Senate voting records and bill co-sponsorships.

Christ is my hope and life, but I pray that the Most Holy Trinity may grant you wisdom in how to address this acute scandal at Notre Dame.

In this time of Lent, I pray that you continue to have many prayers answered and that we may one day meet when our Lord calls us at the last trumpet.

May God bless you and yours,
[gbm3]
Baltimore, MD
---

May God have mercy on us all.

Open Letter to Professor Glendon

2009-03-25T20:46:00.003-04:00

I wrote the following letter to Professor Glendon today at glendon aatt glendonbooks dooot com. She is to receive the Laetare Award from the University of Notre Dame this year along with President Obama. President Obama is to receive an honorary law doctorate. The University of Notre Dame is (was) one of the premier American Catholic Universities.
---------

Professor Glendon:

Hello. I am [Gutterball Master] of Baltimore, Maryland.

Congratulations on your upcoming reception of the Laetare Award from the University of Notre Dame. Your service to the Church in the United States and exceptionally thoughtful and thoroughly researched books and articles makes you an excellent choice for this award.

With this honor, you have the privilege to address the student body of Notre Dame, who will be the future leaders of the world, with an inspirational word.

As a fellow Catholic who tries wholeheartedly to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, may I implore you to address the fact that the most pro-abortion American President will be speaking at the same podium as yourself? As you have written, power and great opportunities invite profound responsibility. Please breach the wall of status quo and address the President’s policies that sledgehammer away at the roots of our great republic. (I am sure that you know the policies them intimately.)

Further, if I may be so bold, may I suggest that you decline the acceptance of your award? This would send a clear message that the University is dismissing its Catholic mission by inviting and awarding President Obama for his current policies and former Illinois and United States Senate voting records and bill co-sponsorships.

Christ is my hope and life, but I pray that the Most Holy Trinity may grant you wisdom in how to address this acute scandal at Notre Dame.

In this time of Lent, I pray that you continue to have many prayers answered and that we may one day meet when our Lord calls us at the last trumpet.

May God bless you and yours,
[Gutterball Master]
Baltimore, MD

"Hands" of God Thought

2009-03-23T16:52:00.005-04:00

The question was asked in Faith Sharing this week at Church: How do you reconcile your image of God of the Old-Testament with the image of God of the New-Testament?

I immediately thought, "There is no difference; It's the same God."

After some others talked about their ideas, I came up with one I never thought of before.

I talked about how the universe is expanding due to the change of entropy. (I asked, "Into what is the universe expanding?" Someone said the universe was infinite; I don't know about that.)

Anyway, I imagined God as holding the universe in His personified hands while it expands. God is able to care for the universe like the song says, "He's got the whole world (universe) in His hands." At the same time (out of time but in time since God "is". Note to Dawkiners: No, God is not created, He just is), He is able to guide, punish, or even crush part of the universe with His fingers. This is one way how I "reconcile" the two views.

What do you think? (Really)

Powerful Ignorance Buys Power

2009-03-21T20:30:00.002-04:00

I've been reading the thoughts of three currently powerful politicians about when they think human life begins.

From Secretary of State Clinton:
"I believe that the potential for life begins at conception," said Mrs Clinton.
"But for me, it is not only about the potential life, but the other lives involved."

From President Obama:
Mr Obama said he did not know whether life begins with conception.
"This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on... I don't presume to know the answer to that question," he said.
"What I know... is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates."

From former President Clinton:
In a recent interview with CNN’s Sanjay Gupta, former President Bill Clinton repeatedly referred to human embryos as “unfertilized,” adding that, if they were fertilized, they would “become human beings.” (emphasis added)

Why are they so ignorant?

Remember Dr. Evil's pinky finger:
Perhaps for evil power?
(Duh note: in America, power=money)

(May I suggest that they read up on real science (as opposed to political science that is changed by money) at the (usually Atheist) Libertarians for Life science page.)

As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It's an actual human being — with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Some Marriage Advice

2009-03-19T19:44:00.002-04:00

I've been married over just seven years, but I think I have some marriage advice from observing my marriage and others.

If you think the option of divorce is open when you marry, you will eventually divorce. If you do not think the divorce option is open, you will try your hardest to keep from divorcing.

Some might say religion helps since it teaches that divorce is immoral. I would say Christianity helps since you strive to lay down your life for the other as Christ and the Church laid and lays down their lives for each other.

---------

In the same vain as above, I also have some advice about sexual morality as it comes to abortion. When you engage in sexual relations with another, if you think abortion is an option, it will happen.

Before you engage in sexual relations, know that the outcome might be a baby, even if birth control is used. If you don't want a baby, don't engage in sexual relations with another. Period.

Just a thought.

St. Patrick in the USA

2009-03-17T19:45:00.007-04:00

Happy Saint Patrick's Day to everyone!
---------

Our new Pres. says there's cause for alarm
The scientists are all up in arms.
With a percentage of three
Of the Irish is he.
May his blarney be only a charm!

Cut all the money (public and private) for the unethical, immoral, and nonsensical (there are moral etc. alternatives) embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).

(They're people!)
(I know the Soylent Green analogy doesn't exactly work, but I love how he does this: it's over the top, but the facts about ESC and abortion (etc.) are also just so over the top.)

Oh! that we could have Saint Patrick drive out the snakes of this country.

Personhood in Maryland

2009-03-11T16:53:00.003-04:00

Here's the person who introduced the Maryland Personhood Amendment.

Please pray for my state, and if you are a citizen of Maryland, please call or write or come out this Friday to speak to the Delegate Council.

Information on how to do your part is here (from my blog) and here (the main mdpersonhood website).

It's All About Priorities

2009-03-10T20:32:00.007-04:00

A couple of weeks ago, I talked to someone at Church about Amnesty International (AI). He said that he supported them in their fight for justice around the world.

During our conversation, I remembered that AI was now a pro-abortion lobby group according to lifesitenews.com (1 2 3).

So, this last Sunday, I gave a printout of the above articles (and a couple more) to him. He said that he didn't believe it (as in, "I don't believe these papers"). I said that I knew he wrote letters for AI, but I assumed he did not contribute money to them. I was wrong, he did support them monetarily. I responded, "By giving money to them, they can use your money for their pro-abortion lobby."

As you can imagine, he tried to explain his reasons for contributing to them. When you get down to it, his main point was that he does not use a "litmus test" for determining to which charities he contributes: he looks at the organization as a whole. His bottom line: if AI supports abortion, they do so many other good things that they deserve his (monetary) support.

When he was done expressing his views, I said that I look at the numbers: it comes down to priority. The total abortions carried out worldwide in one year (42 million; 210 million in five years) was more than the total number of people that were exterminated by A. Hitler in all his German concentration camps (about 21 million in 5 years; there are about 2 times more abortions in one year worldwide that were killed in WWII concentration camps over five years).

What I didn't tell him was that if an organization pushes abortion, that entity would be disqualified by me. The same goes for political candidates.

Until we (those OTAAAC) start putting our priorities in stopping abortion (monetarily and politically) instead of the economy, war, poverty, etc., we won't see this most brutal institution come crashing down.

I'm not saying that the other causes are not important, I'm suggesting that if an organization is for abortion, they should not get monetary or political support by those OTAAAC.

Period.

Hearing for Maryland Personhood Amendment

2009-03-10T20:14:00.005-04:00

This Friday, 13 March 2009, there will be a hearing regarding the Maryland Personhood Amendment, House Bill 925 at 1 p.m. If you cannot make it to the hearing, may I suggest that you call your representative and a delegate closest to your district on the "HEALTH & GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE" to voice your support for the amendment (to be a ballot initiative).

If you do not know who your Maryland Delegates are, see this website.

(One of my Delegates co-sponsored this bill. (Thank you God!) Another of my Delegates (she was a nurse; perhaps "Do no harm?") is on the HEALTH & GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE).