Pro-Life a Liberal Notion?

I already started putting up my old articles from The Pitt News when I was an opinions writer. Here's another one that I thought was one of my better ones.


Pro-Life a Liberal Notion?

When I think liberal in reference to the abortion issue, I usually think pro-choice; on Saturday, February 26, however, my notions changed. I had the pleasure of listening to Mallory Crawford, founder of Earth Mother Enterprises, speak at this year’s Pro-Life Saturday presented by Students for Life. She spoke about her pro-life stance as a liberal, hippie and Suffragette, sharing basic concepts enunciated in current liberal vocabulary (obviously, conservatives also use some liberal terminology).

“Social justice” is a phrase used in liberal circles to obviously highlight the individual’s need for justice in society. This notion of social justice reaches all people regardless of race, creed, or position in life. According to the Declaration of Independence, all people have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Wouldn’t justice for all include the right of life for the unborn child?

The next word in standard liberal vocabulary is “inclusion”. With a liberal viewpoint, the more inclusive something is, the more valuable that entity. By definition, exclusion would not allow certain individuals to participate in something if they didn’t measure up to certain standards. Recently, the standard measure of life is the value of its productivity. If a particular life is a burden or inconvenient, it is deemed to have less innate worth. This is some of the reasoning behind abortion, euthanasia and suicide. In the case of abortion, the unborn human is excluded on the basis that they would not only be unable to produce enough but actually hinder a mother from certain tasks or a valued role if they were present. However, aborting the child would exclude him or her from participating in the most basic entitlement: life. As Mother Theresa said, “It is a poverty that a child must die so that [the mother] can live as [she wishes].”

I love the next word. It is “progressive”. By definition, one with a liberal perspective loves things that are new. New technology and medicine enlighten us to things that we could never even imagine in the past. These new technologies, social programs and medicines make the possibility of bringing a life into the world more possible and successful. When we know better, we think better. A picture of an unborn baby on an ultrasound makes it clearer that the moving fetus within the mother is alive. As said by Harrison Hickman, pollster for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, “Probably nothing has been as damaging to [the pro-choice] cause as the advances in technology which have allowed pictures of the developing fetus, because people now talk about the fetus in much different terms than they did 15 years ago. They talk about it as a human being, which is not something that I have an easy answer on how to cure.” As Mallory Crawford put it, the “lack of imagination for a person [thinking of] having an abortion” can be supplemented by the real image of a sonogram.

Certainly pregnancy can pose practical concerns. However, new social programs have made bringing a baby boy or girl into the world more feasible than ever. Project Women in Need (Project WIN at 1-888-LIFE-AID) is a PA state “government-aided pregnancy care service that is a model for a congressional bill that would enact a similar [program] on a federal level”. There are about 100 Project WIN and 100 private pro-life crisis pregnancy centers like Birthright in PA alone. They all provide free pregnancy testing and offer real, practical measures to allow the mother to bring her baby into the world. This, by the way, is many more than the current number of pro-choice directed sites like Planned Parenthood. There are indeed progressive options for pregnant women who have an unexpected “life detour” in their own lives.

The ideals of social justice, inclusion and progressiveness are indeed embraced in liberalism just as they were for the old hippies and Suffragettes, two groups by which Mallory Crawford identified herself. Hippies valued life, while abortion was contrary to love and life. On the other hand, the Suffragettes, or the original feminists tackled many women’s issues in the earlier part of this century as well. Women like Susan B. Anthony talked about motherhood as a woman’s right while, at the same time, not attacking their unborn children. They were trying and succeeding to gain equal rights for themselves as women, mothers, sisters and daughters: created equal by their creator and in their mother.

A Dissent from the Humanae Vitae Dissent

Today is the fortieth anniversary of Humanae Vitae, the controversial – to say the least - encyclical of Pope Paul VI “On The Regulation Of Birth”, or on contraception. An introspective article of Cardinal James Francis Stafford was written today in which he personally describes the time in July/August 1968 when the encyclical was released and the – mostly dissenting - aftermath (my current parish, St. Joseph's Passionist Monastery Parish in Baltimore, is mentioned in the article).

I was thinking about all the Truth that was restated (from the constant teaching in all the Christian Churches until 1931 at Lambeth, England) in the encyclical when my mind turned toward Lambeth (the site of the Church of England’s conference) of this year (going on now) and the Church of England. An almost inevitable split in the Church of England will take place soon between conservative and liberal bishops over the consecration of an unrepentant, practicing gay bishop and other controversial topics. Many conservative bishops of the Church of England are either turning towards Rome or looking into forming separate diocese but with the same traditions (little “t”) of the Church of England.

The Church of England has fallen into this state of disrepair from its founding. Why does the Church of England exist? It’s because a powerful man wanted a pretty girl and his father said no. (and another girl, however many times)

When will Christians learn that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Church? No matter what the political landscape or currents of the day, the Church will remain firm in the Truth revealed by Christ and the Holy Spirit entrusted to the Church and the Pope.

Whether dissent exists from Humanae Vitae, or whether there is separation of the Church of England from the Holy See over unchaste behavior, the Truth about sex, marriage, and the human body remains intact in the Church Christ founded upon Peter.

I wonder if the Church of England will totally rejoin with Rome someday?

Further, a major way that religious vocations can make a comeback is for Catholics to have more children by adhering to Catholic teachings relayed in Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, and the Theology of the Body.

Will you join me in trying to be faithful to the sexuality teachings of the Church?

Atheist Link

I was asked here:

If you are a Catholic, why are you linking to Richard Dawkins? -SM

I frequently visit the links on my page. I do not agree with much of the liberal and Atheist content on those pages. However, I strive to stay informed about topics with which I don't agree. Further, since I will probably hear the content of these pages in my conversations online and in real life, I would like to have the opportunity to think and pray about them. If I did not do this, I would probably get caught off guard. I know I am to let the Holy Spirit speak through me, but it doesn't hurt to stay informed.

Specifically regarding the Dawkins website, after I finish The God Delusion, I would like to sign up as a commenter on the site and comment. Would you join me in signing up and commenting? The Church Militant needs to confront the Militant Atheists head on. We'll get spit on, but so was Christ.

Thank you for commenting! God bless.

On Marriage, Divorce and Concubines

I just came across a few articles I wrote for The Pitt News (opinions section) around 2000 during my undergrad days. I'll be posting them for the next couple 'o days.

Here it is:

Recently, I overheard two people talking on the bus about marriage. One said, "Yeah, I think I really love this guy. I think I'm going to end up marrying him. Hey, and if it doesn't work out, divorce is pretty accepted now, so it's no big deal."

Why would someone say such a terrible thing about the institution of marriage? I did some searching trying to answer this question.

I came upon a review by Kari Gold of a book by Maggie Gallagher titled "The Abolition of Marriage." Gallagher suggested that "the legal, social and economic supports that sustained marriage over the centuries have been dispatched with astonishing speed, and marriage has been reconceived as a purely private act, not a social institution. ... Thanks to no-fault divorce and the attitudes, norms and policies that support it, getting married now more closely resembles taking a concubine than taking a wife."

The institution that was created long ago for rearing children within the loving, mutual self-giving context of the parents' relationship is now severely diminished. Instead, marriage's primary mission is more the pursuit of self-satisfaction for each individual member of the couple.

I see something very detrimental in this trend.

Once something valued for its ability to please becomes less pleasing or unpleasing, even for a short time, it is then easy to exchange it for something more satisfying. This could suggest one possible motivation for divorce and adultery.

As far as I know, even on "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" (50 concubines for one millionaire!), the vow "for better or worse, in sickness and in health, till death do us part" is still said. It seems that it is said now purely for pleasure as just another romantic gesture. Really, how romantic are the words if they're not meaningful? It's just like perjuring oneself for personal gain in court.

As Gallagher wrote, "[We've come to] nurture a moral code that effectively turns abandonment into a virtue and self-interest into the highest virtue. ... Lacking any common good to appeal to in dealing with one another, we are driven instead to use selfishness as the currency of all exchange."

This selfishness could result in the sorrow of divorce for the couple. It could also result in distress for a divorced person's next spouse after another divorce. More importantly, the children could become deeply troubled by the mere fact that their parents are no longer together and could see it as their fault.

But one might ask, is it not better for parents to get divorced if they are always quarrelling? Not according to Laurie Lee in "Models of Marriage and the Law." She says, "[This trivial love] makes a paper house of marriage, flimsily built for instant collapse, haunted by rootless children whose sense of incipient desertion already dooms them to an emotional wasteland."

From this downward trend, society - of which families are the foundation - will continue to take a nose dive into despair. Those trained in this failing institution will continue to look for what their parents did, seeking pleasure at the expense of others' happiness. In response to their experience, they will more likely have multiple partners and/or equally unstable relationships. In turn, their lives will seem empty due to the depravity of any stability or true unconditional love, making them continue the cycle.

What is a possible cure? From observation, and some experience, I have realized that if commitment is a problem, don't get married. If the only way to get closer to someone is marriage and you genuinely desire to grow old with that person, marriage might be the way to go. Don't take marriage lightly.

Marriage commitment is becoming another dissolvable, shallow union without the total self-giving vow of the individuals within the couple. Further, just as in concubinal relationships, sex, which should be a beautifully symbolic expression of total immersion in one's marriage partner's life, is becoming a cheap thrill or means of control in and out of marriage.

In this continuing downward trend, children who eventually grow up in society will become more unstable because of this selfish training at home. Keeping this in mind, the Americans for Divorce Reform stated, "The best marriages are those where both husband and wife realize [from the start] that good marriages take work and effort; they just don't happen."

[Gutter Ball Master's] guides to true agape are Jesus, the Bible, his parents and his girlfriend.

Celebrating Humanae Vitae

Is your Church doing anything to celebrate the 40th anniversary (July 25, 1968) of Humanae Vitae? What are you doing? I would like to propose something to do at my Church.

It reaffirms the constant Christian teaching/Tradition (until 1930 with the Church of England, but constant in the Catholic Church) that using contraception is a mortal sin. Read this at First Things to learn some more about the Papal encyclical, Protestant reaffirmation of the Tradition, and the "The Vindication of Humanae Vitae".

Zeal For Your House Consumes Me

It's been reported (I don't remember where) that the US has become more divided since people have moved to areas where most other people agree with their moral/religious/political positions. I see this in Baltimore, MD where I live. We have two of the most liberal US senators, mostly liberal US rep's., a very liberal State Senate, and a liberal Governor (former Balto city mayor).

More moral/religious/political conservatives need to populate the liberal areas. I need some help. Will somebody help me?

I pray that God will give me the strength in perseverance to do and say what is right for the glory of His Kingdom.

Zeal for Your House consumes me! Saint Thomas More pray for me.

"The Eucharistic person"

Below are two contrasted articles from the same day (7-10-08) on LifeSiteNews.com.

[1] From verbatim transcripts of the "Conference on Population Problems," just one of the countless number of such meetings the book exposes, Connelly found that what drove them were the questions of how many people the world could hold along with "whether 'industrial development should be withheld' from poor, agrarian countries like India." By decreasing mortality and encouraging "breeding," development would increase inferior populations and further degrade "the genetic quality of the human race." They decided radical measures to reduce birthrates were justified in order to save "Western Civilization" from being dragged down by the growing humanitarian demands of Third World countries. [New Book Exposes Eugenics Mandate in Reproductive Rights Agenda / Part I: Power, Money, and Science Unite to Exterminate the World's Poor] http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071007.html

[2] [Cardinal Christian Wiyghan Tumi, Archbishop of Douala, Cameroon] continued, referring to North American society, "And since the families here have two or three children that already is (considered) much. In our Third World we have families with 12, 13, 14, 15 children and these are young men and women growing up. So, I have the impression that the West is panicking because their population is becoming old." And the reason for that panic, explained the Cardinal, is that "they are afraid that other countries might invade the West and reduce their standard of living." [an interview with LifeSiteNews at the Eucharistic Congress in Quebec City on June 21 said the West is afraid of population growth in Third World nations.] http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071010.html

The secular West is dying out and Christian Africa is growing.

Cardinal Tumi continued on Lifesitenews.com.

With the spiritual dimension, he indicated, true seekers of justice can have a substantial positive affect. He stated, "The Eucharistic person is a dangerous person, burning with the fire of the spirit and whose only purpose is to extend that fire and to become fire for others. This person is a person of daring, a person of confrontation, a person of radicalism, gospel radicalism, and of the absolute."

Tumi stated, "The person of the Eucharist who loves, disturbs everybody, shakes everybody and might even give them a bad conscience or the feeling of a bad conscience. Our vocation as witnesses to the gospel is to give others a bad conscience so that the other person knows how to distinguish bad from good, evil from good and when a person does evil their conscience accuses them."

May all Christians be a person of the Eucharist and destroy "the Eugenics Mandate in Reproductive Rights Agenda"!

May God's Will be done as it is in Heaven.

What's the Future of the American Dream?

I posted the following on Bill Moyer's Journal blog here. I know it's a little idealistic, but what the hey. Keep in mind the thought is mostly for the masses who do not blog as often as us. Also, I tried not to add that there are many obstacles that stand in the way of the view below. What do you think of the idea?

In order to achieve the American Dream, Americans must have the attitude of the immigrant. The American dream of most second, third, etc. generations of Americans is to do as little work as possible to gain the most benefits. Most immigrants know they must work and pray hard for a better life.

Old Americans must get off their bottoms and work for a better tomorrow. Most Americans talk about doing or wanting work, but work we must do; most work is honorable and imparts dignity.

What is the work that we must do? First, American’s must get beyond their fear of looking stupid due to ignorance. Read, talk to people, and read some more. Without knowledge of the problems, Americans can’t solve them. Second, Americans must work hard at what ever they do to gain a good reputation and see the inequities in the living wage. Third, Americans must talk and gain a relationship with their political representatives, especially if they’re corporate junkies.

If enough Americans start on the path above, the people will regain *their* respect of the government and begin to sway the politicians. Without the politicians seeing the caring and interest of the American people, they will flock to the lobbyists who really care about themselves.

The New Evangelization Contrasted

“I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world–that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit…” Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, during an interview with Mike Wallace.

“Given my background, the Catholic idea that we are always to treat the sexual act with awe and respect, so much so that we should simply abstain if we are opposed to its life-giving potential, was a revolutionary message. Being able to consider honestly when life begins, to open my heart and mind to the wonder and dignity of even the tiniest of my fellow human beings, was not fully possible for me until I understood the nature of the act that creates these little lives in the first place.” Jennifer Fulwiler, she converted to Catholicism from atheism in 2007

While reading the First Things blog, I was struck by the contrast between the two above quotes. May Catholics, Protestants, other religious, and Atheists be converted by the new Evangelization to a culture of Life. John Paul the Great pray for us.

The abortion debate will go nowhere until we all revisit the consequences of using the contraception poison that M. Sanger pushed in her eugenic agenda.

This black genocide continues with Obama.