Right to Life | Blogger Priest

The Slippery Slope of Abortion

Posted on January 6, 2012 by Father Joe

Someone wrongly argued the following with me: “And the slope between abortion and infanticide is only slippery if you accept that fertilized egg or a partially-developed fetus is in fact a human being. As most abortion-rights supporters claim the opposite, I fail to see the threat.” The discussion dealt with how artificial contraception degraded into an acceptance of abortion and that now it was reaching the new low of outright infanticide.

Actually, most abortion-rights supporters in the vast crowd make no “explicit” claim at all about the unborn, avoiding the discussion about the beginning of human life and personhood— with the possible exception of bloggers and paid advocates. However, particularly given modern tools for viewing the child in the womb, some die-hard promoters of abortion are admitting “it” is human, but not a person with rights. Others are arguing that the rights of the mother would outweigh even the rights of another person, should that person be unborn and “parasitical.”

Many deal with their pro-abortion stand with an avoidance of the biological truth, the real reason why plastic imitation fetuses are forbidden on network TV news. Obviously, the implication is that they do not “recognize” a life having value there; but many people remain pro-abortion no matter whether the child is in the embryonic or late term stages. The slippery slope is not a theory. It has been realized.

Fetal development occurs much faster than people appreciate and is so often misunderstood. There are no partial human beings. There is a child who grows, just as he would grow outside the womb. Certainly the growth changes in the womb are unmatched by anything after birth; but even a newborn infant only vaguely resembles a mature man or woman. They cannot talk, see properly, or walk. Without constant maintenance, they would most certainly expire within a very short period.

The late Pope spoke about this at length when he talked about a culture of death versus one of life. Concern about the “slippery slope” pervades the encyclical EVANGELIUM VITAE. Indeed, one of the reasons Pope John Paul II objected to the death penalty was because he believed a comprehensive and generous response in the cause for life had to be made against the current climate of death. In other words, a society that murders its own innocent children does not have the moral standing to judge over the mortal lives of convicted felons. We become desensitized to the taking of human life.

I should say that the “slippery slope” applies even if one should think there is only life “in potency.” Embryonic human life has all the components necessary for the formation of “fully developed” human beings. The Church insists that once the soul is infused, the subject is a human person with an eternal destiny. But, even more, the slipping and sliding goes back further to the issue of contraception.

While we certainly do not see the person in the sperm and the woman simply as a receptacle, as did St. Thomas Aquinas, nevertheless, a contraceptive mentality is inherently anti-life. If contraception fails, people will now say, “Well, there is always abortion.” Next, maybe they will say, “Well, the doctor says he has a thirty percent chance of heart disease based upon DNA sampling. Why don’t we just get rid of this one and try again, with the doctor’s help?”

Obviously, even the most hardened pro-abortion advocate has trouble with infanticide, once they SEE and HOLD a child. This was the case in Roe versus Wade when Norma held her baby that previously she had tried to abort. That is why many curse GE for their new viewer that shows the child or fetus, with great clarity. It makes avoidance of the real question increasingly difficult. But what if women should give birth while unconscious? Then doctors or husbands or significant others or just prior standing instructions could order the termination of a new born. As in Partial Birth Abortion, once allowed, what does a few inches in the womb or out of the womb matter? The fact that there were as many as 4,000 Partial Birth Infanticides last year (full term babies) is ample evidence of where things have been sliding.

And what if the newborn is not attractive? I used to help out at a facility for the mentally retarded (or “challenged” as it is rendered today). Tommy had a cleft face. His parents wanted him destroyed but the doctor said no. He was quickly abandoned. He had pins holding his eyes from falling into the cavities where cheeks should have been. He had no nose and only a rudimentary mouth. Everyone presumed he was retarded. He moaned and growled. No one could make any sense of it. His best friend was a boy with Down’s Syndrome called Mike. One day Mike came forward and said that Tommy wanted water. What? It turned out that Tommy was speaking, but so unclearly that only Mike could decipher it. Later, despite the odds, it was suspected that Tommy was not even retarded. When I left, the doctors were taking parts of his body and trying to build him a face. I prepared both of these boys for their first communion. Over and over again, I stressed that the host was Jesus and that Jesus was God. The bishop said that was all they needed to know. They both had value, independent of public opinion, or arguments about the quality of life, or the ramblings of pro-abortion politicians.

I have noticed that sometimes young people fail to appreciate the trail of dominoes we have already knocked over. Maybe age and exposure are important to seeing more of the whole picture?

SLIPPING OR FALLING OFF THE SLOPE?

1930 – Anglicans became first Christian church to permit contraception (condoms).

CASTI CONNUBII is the Pope’s strong response.

1960 – Introduction of the Pill.
The so-called sexual revolution.

HUMANAE VITAE is the Pope’s strong response.

1972 – Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion.
Series of cases and incidents have expanded so-called abortion rights, partial birth infanticide, and euthanasia.

EVANGELIUM VITAE is the pope’s strong response.

The movement against life is not smooth, particularly since pro-life people are fighting such trends. The slipping happens in fits, stops-and-goes.

I have already gone on too long, but I would like to finish with an extended citation from Msgr. Elio Sgreccia of the PONTIFICAL ACADEMY FOR LIFE at the Vatican:

“It is also said that the argument of the slippery slope is a weak one: in my opinion, however, it shows that its perverse efficiency functions unavoidably because it implies the absence of absolute values that are to be upheld and is accompanied by an obvious moral relativism. It functions in the context of euthanasia as in various other fields of public ethics, regardless of whether it is a question of abortion (in this case, one begins with the case of anencephaly and ends up with the case of the child conceived before a holiday), or a matter of procreation (here, the first step is the request for the legalization of the homologous insemination, that ends up with the matter of the authorization of therapeutic cloning). / Once on the slippery slope, not only the logical slant comes into play but also economic interests, and then the slipperiness becomes fatal and inexorable.”

Filed under: Catholic, Contraception, Family, Marriage, Morality, Pro-Life, Right to Life, Sexuality | 1 Comment »

Business & Trade, Internet Search Engines, China & the Yearning to Be Free

Posted on November 28, 2011 by Father Joe

Can or should politicians interfere with Internet search engines, business and trade because of human rights concerns? I recall that several years ago Chris Smith, the New Jersey Republican congressman, came under some heat for wanting an examination and disclosure of Google’s international operations. He was the head of the House subcommittee on Human Rights. Back in February of 2005, he called hearings to investigate the operating procedures of US internet companies in China. It was thought that there could be a serious backlash against companies which capitulated to the demands of the Communist Chinese government. Of course, he was confronting big money and power. Given the indebtedness of the US to the Chinese and the change in administrations, such efforts were an uphill battle. Human rights abuses have continued and sometimes we have not been the friends of freedom. However, Chinese hacking of Google and further US government scrutiny factored in Google’s growing conscience about the matter. Google has certainly had a strained history in China. Everything came to a head in 2010. Along with other US tech companies, Google acknowledged that they had been hacked (email accounts) and that they were no longer willing to censor searches from China. They threatened to pull out. Also, in January of that year, it was reported that the US Congress was going to investigate allegations that the Chinese government used Google’s service to spy on human rights activists. On March 30, 2010, all Google search sites and services were banned in Mainland China. Today, China has their own brand of Google and YouTube.

Chris’ position was vindicated and his fears from five years earlier were fully realized. Chris is a man of conviction who believes in justice and the right to life. He has even been critical of fellow Republicans who made too many compromises. I have not spoken to him in years but he reminds me of Jimmy Stewart’s MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON. Given the current field of candidates, it is too bad that he is not running for President. We all should be concerned about the sanctity of life and human rights. His message was and is a good one: the internet business community should not collaborate with governments that seek to silence and to oppress their people.

Back in 2002, China blocked access to Google from Chinese computers and attempted to create its own search engine, with limited results. In return for access, Google created software to exclude content not approved by the Chinese government. They copied Google and now the Chinese have their own big “censoring” search engine where Big Brother can spy on all. The message was no doubt also sent to Microsoft (MSN) that they were not exempt from such an investigation either. They also censored their search engine for the Chinese and even took down Chinese blogs deemed political by the government. I read of one case where the information provided about the identity of the blogger was used by the Chinese government to prosecute the man responsible. This means that collaboration with the Communists by Internet companies in the US could have led to the imprisonment or even the torture and execution of men and women in China. I would say that was pretty important and given that Chinese slave labor provides many of our goods today; it is doubtful that the business community left to itself would do anything about it.

Congressman Chris Smith made this statement a number of years ago. Are they not still true today, even if the names of some of the players have changed?

CHINESE TRADE: “Through the efforts of the Clinton Administration, we have abandoned the American ideals of freedom and democracy for the sake of marginally cheaper consumer goods from China. We have squandered our patrimony of liberty for the profit of corporations who want access to China’s inexpensive labor market. It is time to do an about face, to condition expanded trade relations upon respect for internationally recognized, fundamental human rights. If we can promote sanctions for video games and rock-and-roll, why can’t we do it to preserve human rights?”

CHINA & GOOGLE: While Google eventually made the morally right decision, it only came after the hacking of their site. “It is astounding that Google, whose corporate philosophy is ‘don’t be evil,’ would enable evil by cooperating with China’s censorship policies just to make a buck. China’s policy of cutting off the free flow of information is prohibitive for the growth of democracy and the rule of law. Many Chinese have suffered imprisonment and torture in the service of truth – and now Google is collaborating with their persecutors.”

GW’s old man, the first George Bush, would agree with arguments that it is better to allow unrestricted business cooperation with China. Although, it seems that we have become as dependent upon their goods as they are with our money. Many of the social changes about which we hoped have failed to materialize. As for myself, I would also argue for political and economic relations with them; but always with strings attached. Our treatment of Taiwan after the Nixon/Ford Administrations has always bothered me. As for Hong Kong, the British made a treaty with a China that no longer existed; should they not have been given their sovereignty? But those are my pet notions. While our country is no paragon of virtue, nations and the world community do have an obligation to insure that businesses and organizations do not trample upon basic human rights. Collaboration with evil makes one an accomplice, for which God will judge each and every one of us. Utilitarian arguments are outrightly rejected by the Catholic Church.

I recall the arguments about opening Western businesses to China when the first President Bush gave most favored status to China; and certainly no one wants to isolate China from the rest of the world. However, economics is the only wedge short of military intervention that we have with the Communists. Do we sacrifice human rights at the altar of consumerism and materialism, either of the Socialist or Capitalist variety?

This growing middle-class in China is still less than one percent of the population. Most of the wealth generated goes to a few hundred families among the upper Communist hierarchy. Middle-class in China translates to making between $3,000 to $12,000 a year. That would rate as the poverty level in the U.S. Many of these will themselves have a servant or maid that is paid $50 a month. Peasants represent 70% of the population of 1.3 billion, earning about $100 a year!

Guess what? Finding computers in schools and coffee-houses, the majority of the bloggers and those questioning Chinese politics are from the poor! Religious persecution is still a predominate cause for internet censorship and prosecution. This includes the Chinese who reject the Patriotic Catholic Church and accept the authority of the Pope. The internet is giving people in China a voice to speak out about oppression. Big business left to its own devices does not care about this; even many in government do not. People who embrace the basic human values in government and business must work together, not only against oppression in lands like China, but also against the passivity and blindness of so many in the West.

I generally believe that government should not interfere with business; however, I qualify this with the exception of human rights. A few years ago when human fetal material was added to a popular shampoo as “animal protein”– individuals, organizations and government got involved. We have fair labor laws that try to preserve safety and dignity to workers. Products produced by companies must face safety requirements. Again and again, when it comes to human rights, governments and other organizations must get involved.

China might be on the other side of the globe. But they are people too with basic human rights and dignity. We should not enable, either through inactivity or secondary collaboration, those who would silence the voice of the poor, those yearning to be free.

A television news report announced that because of contracts with companies like Matel, 90% of all toys sold in the US are manufactured in China. Few Chinese children will ever play with such toys. Catalogues from Autom Catholic Religious Goods advertise inexpensive articles, almost all from China. However, all of it is reserved to foreign export and domestic circulation would be regarded a crime. Heck, even my DVD Player has “Made in China” on the back. Dollar Stores came into existence because of this trade. Other nations could step in, but there is no underestimating its vast scope. I wrote a few years ago that while it would cost us, the US could flex its business muscle for the sake of human rights. But each year the interdependence becomes more pervasive. The day may have come when such action would be too costly. As one critic remarked, “It is too late, the Chinese already own us.”

To illustrate how things have so rapidly changed, it was only in the 1980′s that the last television set wholly manufactured in the US was produced (ZENITH). Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and now also China produces them for us. When it came to clothing, many of us always looked for the “Union Label” and took pride in wearing shirts, pants, and dresses manufactured in the US. But the cost disparity became too much for the poor and the average working man. This started happening in the 1960′s. I recall my first concession to the trend when my mother bought me a new coat for school. It was the mid-1960′s and the coat’s label read, “This coat is manufactured by the free people of the Republic of SOUTH VIETNAM.” Evidently it was an effort to support our allies economically while in conflict with the Communist North. I wore that coat with pride, even though I was only in the fourth grade, because (in my mind) it symbolized freedom and justice.

By the way, there was a television expose some years ago about Walmart where reporters followed shirts and pants from China sweatshops to the US. They found that they were sold at Walmart carrying the designation, “Made in the U.S.A.” When challenged about this, the executives at Walmart said that there was nothing deceptive for while the clothes were of Chinese origin, the attached label was indeed, made in the Unites States. Not deceptive? The label? And these are the people who are supposed to stand up for human rights and justice?

The dilemma about the internet is just one important wrinkle in this situation: how far do you collaborate with thugs to make a buck? Where arguments might be made that trade helps the poor and middle class of China; for an American or Western company to assist in the restriction of information and free speech of Chinese dissidents is something else. And to hand over information that leads to the arrest, imprisonment, and maybe torture of such people is the worst case scenario.

I am not utterly opposed to trade with China. But I did have problems with Google installing censorship software at the behest of the Chinese government that blocked religious sites like the Vatican and Free the Fathers and blogs where men and women yearning to be free speak out.

The Chinese tried to create their own search engine back in 2002 and made a mess of things. But today it is up and running. We helped them in this. We will have to answer for it.

For the record, I should stress that I am not an isolationist. It may be that we must bargain with the devil every day. We can hope that our relationships with the Red Chinese and Moslem extremists will make a difference; but we should never let down our guard and directly cooperate in human oppression. Communism is not dead, and instances of free enterprise can disappear tomorrow if the dragon awakens. Some of our so-called allies in the war against terror are themselves corrupt and oppress minorities, women and others. Is the pacified Westernized Islam that we see here at home the true faith of Mohammed; or is the genuine face really the Hamas and the extremism that we see in the Middle East and now parts of Africa and Asia?

Trade with China will not in itself prevent a new Cold War. Indeed, their military buildup is largely financed with our own money. Oil money in the Middle East can also translate into a fearful New World. I am not sure what we can do about much of this. Such questions will not be resolved by bloggers, but at least we have the freedom to speak, which some do not have. And Western and American companies should not help to silence voices. I only wish people in all walks of life would more effectively engage these issues and politicians would devise a clear plan about where our policies are taking us. We tend to be so short-sighted, instead of looking to the horizon.

Back when Google was much in the news, I wrote: “I guess it all depends upon how seriously Google cooperates with the Red Chinese government. While I am all for the censorship of pornography sites, the protection of children, and the prosecution of those who criminally exploit others; the Communists would use political and religious censorship to oppress their own people. Should Google cooperate in human oppression? What if the censorship software identifies dissidents who could suffer arrest or murder? People still disappear in China. Hackers might find their way around censorship software, but most poor Chinese blog operators and general users only have elementary computer skills. The issue is bigger than Google. If the poor Chinese can get past the national portal to the internet, they deserve protection within the international community. The Web can be a great tool for democracy; or we can ruin it like we did so much else of the media.”

Filed under: Censored, Morality, Politics, Right to Life, Social Justice | 2 Comments »

Our Pro-Life Commitment

Posted on August 28, 2010 by Father Joe

The Cemetery of the Innocents

Here is a picture of me and the Knights of Columbus who set up 721 crosses that represent the children lost to abortion in one hour of one work day. This MEMORIAL OF THE INNOCENTS was set up at Holy Family Church in Mitchellville in 2009 and every year since then. We often have it up until the annual March for Life in Washington, DC. We received a lot of support although there were a few complaints. One lady argued against putting such a thing up at Christmas time. I explained that Advent and Christmas was the perfect time. During Advent we recall the Christ-child in the womb and on Christmas he is born. We are reminded that every child is a reflection of the Christ-child. Another person argued that it was insensitive as she was a pro-choice Catholic. I told her that she was deceived. There is no such thing as a pro-abortion Christian; abortion attacks the central mystery of the Incarnation. Abortion is murder and as such it is a repudiation of Christ’s Gospel of Life.

One of my favorite memories is working with the American Life League back in 2005 and the CRUSADERS FOR LIFE. Here is a reposting of the news around that event at my old parish, Holy Spirit Church:

A.L.L. Crusaders Come to Washington 2005

A dozen young people from colleges across the country walked from Augusta, Maine to Washington, DC in “Defense of the Catholic Church” and to spread the message that you cannot be Catholic and pro-abortion. Nevertheless, while many have applauded young people for taking up the “right to life” cause, this group of remarkable crusaders was purportedly banned from speaking in churches by several dioceses like Philadelphia and Baltimore.

Myself, Dr. Grier & a Crusader

The American Life League ran a series of stinging ads challenging the American bishops to enforce canon law and to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege when pro-abortion politicians and others (who have made such “public” stands) take it upon themselves to receive Holy Communion. The young people have shown no spite or anger, only sadness that some of the nation’s shepherds have chosen to remain on the sidelines. One priest remarked that the ads in protest were so severe that the American Life League owed the leaders of the Church an apology. However, others thought that these good men should at least have shown the same respect and hospitality to the young marchers for life as they have in the past to the high profile anti-life politicians. While they were able to find lodging in the city, they attended 9:00 AM Mass at Holy Spirit Church on Friday, July 30 and were invited to say a few words afterwards. I contacted the archdiocese’s Pro-Life Office several weeks earlier about the matter to insure a level of approbation and to insure proper discretion. (Although the ads pained him, to his credit, Cardinal McCarrick did not formally forbid the young people to speak in his churches. Throughout, nothing the young people said violated the archdiocese’s rules against participation in partisan politics– they did not name politicians by name, did not tell people for whom they should vote, and spoke with respect in regard to the Church’s shepherds.) Following the celebration, a reception was held in the Parish House were the young people had a hearty breakfast and got to meet parishioners. Also in attendance was SK Reginald Grier, a parishioner, a fourth degree Knight of Columbus and volunteer member of the archdiocesan Office for Black Catholics. John Stakem, a Knight of Columbus from St. Pius X Council, and past parishioner was present, too. John Stakem and Joseph Markauskas were long-time pro-life volunteers and were involved with the local pregnancy center. Joe and Betty Markauskas had even offered to give the young people housing while in town. We were very pleased that the director for the Forestville Pregnancy Center was present, Chyllene McLaughlin, along with her assistant. We wanted to communicate to these young people that they were not alone. Holy Spirit Parish, the Knights of Columbus, and the Pregnancy Center in the larger pro-life community, was very much behind them.

ALL Crusaders at Holy Spirit Parish

May God bless them for their sacrifices and may their witness bear fruit.

DISCUSSION

FRANK: News releases indicate that the Church after Vatican II had converted the Kennedys and other Catholic politicians into believing that the liberal backing of the culture of death is acceptable.

FATHER JOE: What news releases were these? Cite them; I would like to read further. As far as I recall, John Kennedy was chastised by churchmen for his liberal response about how little his faith would inform his work as president. As for the other Kennedys and the issue of abortion, I fail to see how Vatican II can be blamed for their pro-abortion stances. I have read and studied all the Vatican II documents and post-conciliar documents. Nothing comes to mind that would condone such thinking against the Gospel of Life. Are we throwing mud again? Give me specifics, please.

FRANK: Having attended the seminaries after Vatican II where the divinity of Christ was challenged, as well as the papacy, and all that was to be infallible before the “Catholic reformation” of 1962-1965; what is your take on recent developments and the continued blasphemies to this day condoned by the Church where the USCCB still can’t come to a consensus to deny our Lord to baby-killing Catholic politicians?

FATHER JOE:

Certainly there was a heightened stress upon the humanity of Christ in many theological schools after Vatican II. However, I do not recall ever being taught that Jesus was not a divine Person.

Fr. Patrick Granfield taught my class on the papacy at Catholic University and his lectures defended the Holy Father’s authority with a great deal of explanation.

Those things that were changed were not deemed infallible but rather mutable accidentals. This thinking was even shared by Pope Pius XII prior to Vatican II on matters like the prehistoric generation of human beings and the liturgy.

A revision of the liturgy was in the working stages going back to the 1930′s and 40′s. The reformed liturgy we have now has lasted a few decades and will probably remain for many more, although with the old liturgy alongside and with continuing adaptations by the Holy See. We have had to suffer the experimental phase, but Pope Benedict XVI said that such has come to an end.

As for the passivity of churchmen in reference to Holy Communion and the standing of pro-abortion politicians, such is also not attributable to Vatican II. The Church has gone through periods in the past where it was the lackey for parliaments, kings and queens. The Popes made clear statements from the 1600′s onward that slavery was detestable and should be abandoned. However, Catholics owned slaves in the colonies and later in the United States of America. The Jesuit landowners of Maryland had slaves. Bishops were often mute on the subject, except for admonishing their baptism in the faith. Dissent is not something new but something very old.

PADRE XYZ:

Father Joe, Your welcome to the pro-life young people did not go unnoticed. I know it cost you personally. I think you can be rude and you definitely lack tact, but it did take some nerve to stand virtually alone and make the challenge against silence or business as usual. You honestly shared your heart to the bishops and your brother priests.

You asked…

Would you give communion to Nazis who promoted the murder of Jews?

Would you give communion to White Supremacists who incited the lynching of Blacks?

Why should we prize the life in the womb any less or their murders as somehow less grievous?

Silence befell all the big guns. You lost a lot of friends that day. If you had career hopes in the church, they were suddenly shattered. Hushed and whispered voices were the only response, “How do we shut this priest up?”

You became an embarrassment. I could not do what you did. You angered a lot of people. You took a promise of obedience and you were reprimanded for your slight as an act of betrayal. Some of us witnessed it, although you were left unnamed.

You changed after that, became quiet, even sullen. It was as if something died in you. You gained weight.

I know you were disappointed in me. But to be frank, I was afraid. Who are we to question the shepherds over us? What happens if we tell the majority of Catholic politicians they are no longer welcome at the altar?

Take care of yourself.

FATHER JOE: I was going to erase this comment. I still might. If you are who I think you are, email me. Peace!

(I am not really brave. I speak my mind and I love the Church. When all is said and done, I do as I am told. I am the Church’s man. Some would contend that I am too conservative or right wing. But how can we be too committed to the Gospel of Life? Every day I work to control my temper. As long as I can remember, I have been very passionate about our faith and its values. Am I ambitious? Like most priests, it is nice to know that one is appreciated and that one’s talents are acknowledged. However, by comparison to most priests that I know, my rating would be very low. It is not false humility but the truth when I say that I count myself as the least of my brothers. As for the bishops, it must be a frightful responsibility they carry. Who would want it? They are criticized from every side. It is easy for us to judge, but we do not walk in their shoes. Pray for priests and pray, especially for our bishops. They are Christ’s apostles in the world today.)

DR: I nominated you for a pro-life blog award (FATHER JOE Blog).

JOHN: Fr. Joe, abortion is murder. These babies can’t speak for themselves. Other bishops have stood up and said priests should not give communion to pro-choice politicians as they have the power to stop the murder (Bishop Burke-former bishop of St. Louis archdiocese and Bishop Finn of Kansas City diocese, for instance.) I’m glad priests like you and Fr. Frank Pavone speak out on this issue. It’s a serious matter and it should be treated as such. Thanks for all you do.

LENBER:

“President Bush has had a very cozy relationship with the Vatican, and set a presidential record by meeting with the Pope six times.”

Very cozy indeed, sometimes for the good, and at other times for utterly and criminally contra-productive [things], such as siding with Bush in Criminal Wars (for the Vatican just Abortion is a Crime) or siding with Israel on their Criminal Occupation of Palestine.

All Thanks to Vatican II Double Crossers.

FATHER JOE: I am not sure I would coin the Bush Doctrine or International efforts in such negative terms. However, as for the Pope, you seem to be terribly deceived. The Vatican opposed the invasion of Iraq. Tarek Aziz (the former president) was a Catholic. He made a retreat in Rome and saw the Pope (John Paul II) the week prior to the invasion. The state of Israel is also not entirely happy that the Vatican, again and again, sides with Palestinians (who are largely Islamic but include an ancient Christian community). Formal recognition and diplomatic ties were held up because of Vatican concerns for the Palestinian people. The late Arafat, at the end of his life, remarked that he saw the Vatican as his ally in the conflict for Palestinian rights. Zionism was condemned by both the UN and by the Church. Arafat used to attend the Christmas Mass in Bethlehem with his wife (who is a Christian). The Catholic Church is no one’s stooge, not for Bush and not for Israel. The Holy Father (both JPII and BXVI) has spoken to President Bush, (he meets a lot of people) and they share much in regard to the unborn, however on matters like the Middle East and capital punishment, there is a great divide.

MICHAEL:

Tomorrow marks the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Think of the millions of lives that were snuffed out in this “free” country.

May God have mercy on us!

GENUS LILIUM:

I am completely against abortions. I have children and I have learned that some vaccinations are grown off of human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue, not to mention all the other chemicals, heavy metals, and animal products. That seems like it might be a problem to me. Now that I know this, would it be wrong for me to continue to vaccinate my children? Is it just a money scheme? I really don’t want that stuff in my kids.

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Church, Conscience, Discipleship, Eucharist, Morality, Politics, Priests, Pro-Life, Right to Life, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice, Youth | Leave a comment »