Moloch is back blogging and has some commentary on NARAL’s Pro-Choice America campaign.
Monthly Archives
January 2005
I have been thinking more about Sen. Hillary’s seemingly conciliatory tones towards pro-lifers and the move by other Democrats in the same vein. I think that their efforts totally misunderstands why pro-lifers are against abortion. They obviously understand that the whole-hearted support of abortion is not playing very well on the majority of the public and they need to get with the "values thing." Their emphasis has been on plans on how to reduce the number of abortions through both education and contraceptives. They think that simply reducing the number of abortions is a perfectly good compromise. This proves their misunderstanding.
Say for instance a plan was put forward to legalize murder. At the same time the plan would be to increase education on why people should abstain from murdering or the government providing less lethal weapons to criminals so that they might only stun you in the commission of a robbery. They would rightly argue that you can never legalize murder since it was always wrong and it would be ridiculous to believe that legalized murder would cause murder rates to go down by relying only on education and less lethal weapons. Yet this is the very approach in which they think they can appease pro-life voters.
If some lawmakers proposed to eliminate all penalties for racial discrimination and proposed instead to increase funding of classroom efforts at reducing racism again they would rightly see this as wrong. Would they accept any proposal that only worked towards reducing racism to some supposedly acceptable level? Instinctively they would understand that whatever behavior you legalize you end up with more of.
Murder, racism, and abortion are always wrong and the civil law should match up to this reality. Before Roe v. Wade the abortion rate (even with the most wildly inflated figures) was nowhere near the abortion rate now. Sure the abortion rate has started to level off with some decline but a life is a life and the fight against abortion must go on whether there are 4,000, 400, or 4 abortions in the US a day. As a side note I also wonder if the abortion rate has flattened out because there has been such a reduction in the population that there just simply are less people available of child bearing age to have abortions.
Now of course as pro-lifers we can work with measures to seek to reduce abortion and that this isn’t an all or nothing proposition. Yet we know our goal is to ultimately both to illegalize abortion and to help to change the society so that women will not want to seek abortions. This can be done in ways such as parental consent laws, informed consent laws, abstinence education (without the pollution of sexual moral relativism), and working to consistently promote the value of all life at all stages of life. Some Democrats talk a good game right now but I don’t see the majority of them supporting any kind of restriction even if it is just a matter of telling the women the medical complications of abortion. I guess we will find out when the bills on fetal pain and banning adults from helping pregnant minors cross state lines to circumvent abortion laws come to a vote.
Miami, Jan. 26 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) – On Tuesday, a group of Florida same-sex marriage proponents announced they would abandon their challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"). Eight lawsuits were filed last year in Florida seeking to establish same-sex marriage.
Three of those lawsuits challenged the constitutionality of DOMA. One of the cases was Wilson v. Ake , filed by a lesbian couple seeking to have Florida recognize the same-sex "marriage" performed in Massachusetts, where the courts have declared the practice to be legal. Last week, federal District Court Judge James Moody upheld the constitutionality of DOMA in that case, stating, "Adopting plaintiffs’ rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith And Credit clause would create a license for a single state to create national policy."
Mathew Staver of the public-interest law firm Liberty Counsel said, "Today’s abandonment of the challenges to DOMA is a victory for traditional marriage. While the legal strategy has shifted, the goal of establishing same-sex marriage remains the same. Apparently, the legal strategy will now focus on establishing same-sex marriage state by state." [Source]
Well that is good news for now. Of course this group or another one will continue to judge shop in another state until they can find a more sympathetic judge. In this day and age they were just unlucky to have gotten some judges who actually follow the constitution.
Sometimes it is difficult to come to come up with a charitable explanation for something, either that or my charitable imagination is cynically tainted.
Previously Cardinal Theodore McCarrick mischaracterized a letter given him by Cardinal Ratzinger in relation to giving Communion to public pro-abortion supporters. Jamie Blosser previously looked at the comparison between what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote and what Cardinal McCarrick reported.
TM: "Having said this, Cardinal Ratzinger speaks about WHAT constitutes ‘manifest grave sin’ and ‘obstinate persistence’ in public life, stating that consistently campaigning for and voting for permissive laws on abortion and euthanasia could meet these criteria."
JR: "Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, etc . . ."
Now we have another similar situation along the same topic. In this case it was regards to the homosexual rights group called Rainbow Sash who do not hold to the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts and were basically daring Bishops to not give them Communion as a publicity ploy.
ROME (CNS) — Archbishop Harry J. Flynn of Minneapolis-St. Paul spoke to Vatican officials about gay rights proponents wearing rainbow sashes to Mass and receiving Communion.
Unlike some other bishops across the country, Archbishop Flynn has allowed Communion to be given to members of the group known as Rainbow Sash. That has prompted criticism by some Catholics in his archdiocese, and at one Mass a group of lay people tried to block the aisles to prevent sash-wearers from receiving Communion.
Archbishop Flynn said he discussed the issue in a private meeting in early December with Cardinal Francis Arinze, head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.
He said Cardinal Arinze agreed that it was a complex problem requiring clear teaching and pastoral sensitivity. The archbishop said he was not asked to change his policy.
"I got the clear understanding that this is recognized as a very complex pastoral issue which must constantly be looked at in all its ramifications," Archbishop Flynn said in an interview in mid-December [Source]
This sounded rather doubtful when this was reported on Dec 14, 2004. Catholic columnist Barbara Kralis must have had the same suspicions since she wrote Cardinal Arinze about this story. This is what she received in reply.
"Dear Ms. Kralis, His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Arinze, asks me to thank you for your communication regarding a news release from the "Catholic News Service" dated December 14, 2004. It concerns the Cardinal’s private discussion with the Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis, His Excellency Archbishop Harry J. Flynn.
"Cardinal Arinze wants you to know that the report was not exact and does not show his stand. He has written Archbishop Flynn about it.
"Rainbow Sash wearers, the Cardinal says, are showing their opposition to Church teaching on a major issue of natural law and so disqualify themselves from being given Holy Communion.
"I wish you a happy New Year. Sincerely."
Barbara wrote me about this story and included a jpg of a photocopy this document which I have placed here.
So what we have here is two cases where a Bishop who was already predisposed to offering communion to public dissenters talks to the Vatican and in both cases mischaracterized the communication to make it appear that those Vatican officials agreed with them in substance. So what is it about this issue that makes some Bishops run in terror of being a shepherd that they are willing to go so far as to distort the information they were given? Both cases involve situations where Catholics are publicly and very openly dissenting against Church teaching and are involved in objectively grave sin. Why is it that possible fear of being seen as political or getting press attention can override their concern for people making sacrilegious Communions or to use the Communion rail to rail against Church teaching?
I have yet to hear a good prudential argument to justify Communion for public sinners that takes in account the good of that persons soul. Usually we only get obfuscation where they move the argument away from public sinners to individual sinners whose sins are not known and then try to make to make the case that we would have to deny Communion to the majority of Catholics. The argument can easily be made that Catholic who dissent from Church teaching should withhold themselves from Communion until such time as they have repented of their opposition. Until their Amen can fully mean Amen to all the Church teaching, but this has nothing to do with are responsibility towards public sinners receiving Communion.
NEW YORK — An appeals court Tuesday revived part of a class-action lawsuit blaming McDonald’s for making people fat, reinstating claims pertaining to deceptive advertising. A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court judge erred when he dismissed parts of the lawsuit brought on behalf of two New York children. [Source]
I wonder if this would be classed as an "ate crime?"
As for the Academy Awards Passion snub in a meaningful category, I really don’t care. I can’t remember the last time I watched the Academy Awards or went to a film because it won best picture. Though the Passion did receive 2 to 3 more awards then I expected.
- Cinematography
- Original score
- Makeup
Like many conservative pundits though I was overjoyed to hear that Michael Moore’s "Fahrenheit 9/11" received exactly zero nominations. To be fair though his film should have been nominated for best "Make up."
Nominated for a Documentary Short Subject was "Sister Rose’s Passion"
Sister Rose’s Passion, with Run time of 38 minutes 49 second, describes the largely thankless, often resisted lifelong crusade by a Catholic nun — Sister Rose Thering – to challenge the doctrine that blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus. She played a key role in Vatican II, which officially changed the church’s position on their relationship with the Jewish people. This documentary follows Sister Rose, today, at age 84, as she continues to fight against religious intolerance.
Director Oren Jacoby next movie sounds absolutely dreadful and I am sure will fulfill the maxim "garbage in, garbage out."
Jacoby said his current project is based on the book "Constantine’s Sword" by James Carroll, "the moving story of one Christian’s odyssey of discovery – of his own and his Church’s complicity in history’s most lethal hatred. A saga crossing 20 centuries and the length of one man’s life."
Update: Barbara Nicolosi paraphrases this years Oscar picks:
So, this year, the top Oscar nominations have gone to…
…a movie that makes a hero out of a man who murders his adopted daughter.
…a movie that makes a hero out of an abortionist.
…a movie that makes a hero out of a discredited researcher who was obsessed with sex and encouraged many others to experiment with various perversions.
…a movie that lionizes a billionaire narcissist who died insane from syphilis.
…a movie that suggests it is funny when an engaged man sets off for a week of debauchery before his marriage with his drunkard best friend.
…a movie that glamorizes four alley cats dressed as beautiful people who fornicate and commit adultery with each other, and indulge in various sexual perversions until the movie ends.
…a movie that makes a hero out of a paraplegic in despair who wants to kill himself.
Canon Lawyer Pete Vere has an excellent article on the evolution of the Church’s understanding of marriage from both a canon law and theological perspective.
This also reminds me how more states are offering a Covenant Marriage as an option. When a couple opts for the "covenant" marriage, they agree to waive their right to the no-fault divorce. In the event that the marriage does fall apart, only adultery, abuse, abandonment or a lengthy separation will allow a divorce to take place. Strangely they refer to a marriage which can end in a no-fault divorce as a "traditional" marriage.
I would love to be a state employee that issues marriage licenses in these states. I don’t think I would last very long before being fired though. Especially since when a couple asks for a licence for a "traditional" marriage I would have to reply "do you want fries with that?"
In response to an ad taken out in the Washington Times by the American Life League that showed photos of the 72 Catholic representatives and senators who support abortion.
Schwarz, a surgeon, said recently that he favors keeping abortion legal. "I don’t believe that women’s reproductive choices should be made by middle-aged men," he added.
But I guess it was fine for a bunch of middle-aged men in the form of the Supreme Court in 1973 to decide that abortion was in the Constitution. This is what passes for a reasoned argument in support of abortion?
In an article in the NYT where Sen. Clinton is attempting to by more sympathetic to pro-lifers.
Mrs. Clinton, in a speech to about 1,000 abortion rights supporters at the state Capitol, firmly restated her support for the Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, Roe v. Wade. But then she quickly shifted gears, offering warm words to opponents of abortion – particularly members of religious groups – asserting that there was "common ground" to be found after three decades of emotional and political warfare over abortion.
Mrs. Clinton is widely seen as a possible candidate for the party’s presidential nomination in 2008, and her remarks signaled that she could be recalibrating her strong identification with the abortion-rights movement as the Democratic Party engages in its own re-examination of its handling of the issue in the wake of Senator John Kerry’s loss in the 2004 presidential race.
Ms. Clinton has been a visible and very public defender of abortion rights, appearing at a huge rally in Washington last spring and denouncing what she called Republican efforts to demonize the abortion rights movement.
While she acknowledged in her address today that Americans have "deeply held differences" over abortion rights, Mrs. Clinton told the annual conference of the Family Planning Advocates of New York State, "I for one respect those who believe with all their heart and conscience that there are no circumstances under which abortion should be available."
You know where this heading. Just another restatement of the "Safe, Legal, and Rare" argument made by her husband.
Mrs. Clinton also called today for the Bush administration, religious groups, supporters and opponents of abortion rights and others to look beyond the abortion rights divide and form a broad alliance on other issues that she suggested as less incendiary: sex-education programs for teenagers that included abstinence education, emergency contraception for women who have recently had unprotected intercourse, and family planning.
If she considers the argument for more sex-education, emergency contraception, family planning as less incendiary then she is greatly mistaken. Sure she threw a bone for abstinence education, but when you create a stew containing abstinence education side by side with sexual moral relativism it is much less effective. It gets taught as "if it works for you fine" , but here are some other safe choices you know.
At one point, for instance, she drew gasps from some in the audience by mentioning that 7 percent of American women who do not use contraception account for 53 percent of all unintended pregnancies.
You could mention the 4,000 abortions a day to this same crowd and it probably wouldn’t have elicited a response. Yet tell them that 7 percent of American women don’t use contraception they gasp in surprise.
Several women in the audience reacted positively to Mrs. Clinton, whose remarks were interrupted by applause several times and ended with a standing ovation. But they also said her language and themes seemed politically calculated to deal with the abortion "freak-out" among Democrats, as one audience member put it, and reach out to independent and conservative voters in hopes of broadening her base of support for a possible 2008 presidential run.
We can expect much more of these phony conciliatory tones from presidential candidates as we approach 2008. We are totally for abortion in every circumstance and will fight to prevent any encroachment on abortion, buy hey if your pro-life we respect your deeply held opinion so vote for us!
Update: Diogenes of CWN makes an excellent point about the statistic.
Well, boys and girls, which fact is more astonishing? That 4% of American women have unintended pregnancies in the old-fashioned, pre-Copernican way of having an unintended pregnancy? Or that 47% of the unintended pregnancies occur in women who use 21st century contraceptive devices but conceive all the same?
Additionally I heard Laura Ingraham make an excellent point about what other "right" is considered as Hillary says a "tragic choice?"
The U.S. Bishop’s conference has started a new pro-life campaign called the "Second Look Project" where they will be running ads in the Washington area and throughout the US.
Here is one poster which I think is pretty effective. [PDF format]
Here is the second one. [PDF format]