283 Responses to this post

1. ARN Said:
   
   November 2nd, 2008 at 8:13 pm

   “They think it is a good thing ‚Äì something worth fighting for in the political arena – that unborn children should have no rights at all.”

   Maybe they don’t. Instead they may be facing up to the truth that a civilization only has the morality it can afford. It has only been barely affordable earlier with 2 earner families, a fraying social safety net and the “individual responsibility” shibboleth tossed around by those who do not want to acknowledge that we’re all in this together. Really it was impressive, I think that there wasn’t *more* abortion, where an employed mom would get pregnant and carry the baby to termeven if it was financially bad move. But a lot of women still did it.

   But now that fragile house of cards, a world were people still thought of such things as controversial, is about to collapse. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

2. sandra Said:
   
   November 3rd, 2008 at 12:08 am

   Well,well,
   Father Wauck clap clap…..
   I would agree with you on many of the above… but not all…………
   Firstly,Mr. Obama has never voted FOR “killing babies”.
   You write,(after this) “DELIBERATELY leaving newborn babies to die after they have survived abortions”).that, “Barak Obama was ready to allow that.” a few lines later you write the following;- “Now,it would be unfair to say that these politicians are baby-killers or even that they want unborn babies to be killed.” Well, if that’s not “speeking as a true political speech wrter”??
   Then again,I would realy like to know when Mr.Obama has said that he would vote FOR such a practice.
   As always,Religion would like to have the best of both worlds.. Freedom of choice, when it concerns their own interests,and then “rewriting the Constitution” when it does not..
   Apart from the fact that “the p+ll” is also concidered “abortion” and that an overwhelming procent of Catholics do take it.. I see a certain “irony” in all of this.. not to forget that acording to “survey” very few Catholics (not only in the USA) attend church at least once a week.
   There are a nummber of other things that IMO. would,acording to the teachings of the C.Church,make it allmost impossible for Catholics to vote for ANY of the candidates, a few examples;-
   Mr. + Mrs.McCain are living an “adulterous life”. Mr.McCain has also stated that he suports Abortion “in certain cases”… (debate Obama/McCain).. While he and his (new) wife were courting,at the same time HE was still married,did they obstain from s*x or were they *lucky* not having their affair result in a pregnancy??
   Mrs.Palin believes in “speaking in tounges” she also believes that many in her Church do so???/she believes that God chose Alaska for the “last stand and refuge” during the “LAST DAYS”.. She,belongs to a Religious Comunity that the Catholic Church (rightly) has condemmed for it’s beliefs… >>something is going on that is not being adequately explained in the popular press.

3. sandra Said:
   
   November 3rd, 2008 at 12:11 am

   My comment part two… It somehow did not all go through..

   I agree with you there…

   Ergo, we schould ask ourselves,who CAN we vote for?? The least of two evils? or none at all?
   A matter of concience,which should be left exactly there, to every ones own. But with ALL facts on the table.
   But as ARN so rightly states we’ve not seen nothing yet… In times of crisis it is not always the case that this, “brings out the best in us”..
   Lastly,I respect your *campaigning” for the RIGHT *choice* it is your, Constitutional Right to do so.

4. ARN Said:
   
   November 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 am

   “Ergo, we schould ask ourselves,who CAN we vote for?? The least of two evils?”

   That was my thinking when I still believed it made any difference. Now the outcome of the election seems so irrelevant, like the abortion issue will soon be. We are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. When people are scrambling and everything is uncertain, niceties like a pro-life ideology will seem like luxuries. “This sucker is going down”– George W Bush’s wisest words to date.

5. John Wauck Said:
   
   November 3rd, 2008 at 9:21 am

   Dear Sandra, read my post carefully. There is no contradiction. Obama voted seven times against a law that required medical care for newborn babies who survived abortions. He did not vote in favor of leaving them to die; his vote would, however, make it legal to allow them to be left to die. There is a difference, and I am trying to respect it.

   There can be no doubt that Obama, Biden and Pelosi want unborn children to be legally killable. This is indeed what they stand for. That is the whole point of Roe v. Wade, which they all support. And – among other things – the logic of Roe, which they accept, has nothing to do with the kind of morality they think we can afford.

6. ARN Said:
   
   November 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm

   “There can be no doubt that Obama, Biden and Pelosi want unborn children to be legally killable. This is indeed what they stand for. That is the whole point of Roe v. Wade, which they all support.”

   Well, so does Mccain if he were pushed to the wall and forced to choose between the overturn of R v W and another tax cut for the fat cats. Not that he has the power really to do the former, being a court issue, but he *could* help create an environment where carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term would be even more self-destructive, more “personally irresponsible” than it already is. Let’s not kid ourselves. For all his proabortion talk, an Obama administration may be one that is kinder and gentler for strapped pregnant women.

   But that was before this financial crisis, so all bets are off.

   “And – among other things – the logic of Roe, which they accept, has nothing to do with the kind of morality they think we can afford.”

   Sure it does, Pelosi et al have caved to the Republican demand to keep social spending down, which indirectly has discouraged the unexpectedly pregnant from giving birth to a child in this ever more inhospitable world. Through its actions, Congress has as much as announced that we as a country cannot afford to do without this contraceptive of last resort.

   .

7. Michelle M Said:
   
   November 3rd, 2008 at 12:48 pm

   Only last night after work, I read a very interesting article via the excellent Prowoman Prolife blog. It is the first-hand account of a woman who now profoundly regrets her decision to abort her infant son at 13 weeks gestation because if trisomy 13, which would have meant severe disability. What is truly horrifying in her story is the way the whole thing proceeded, grinding forward with the kind of institutional inevitability that you see in a Dickensian scene depicting the workhouse death of an indigent mother in childbirth– except in this case it’s the infant who dies. Here’s the link, if anyone’s interested:
   http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/nov/01/family-abortion-trisomy-13

8. Michelle M Said:
   
   November 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm

   And here is the blog post that linked to the Guardian article:
   http://www.prowomanprolife.org/?p=2301

9. ARN Said:
   
   November 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm

   “The logic of Roe…”

   I’m afraid we’re not going to get that genie back in the bottle. The best that can be done is to make it easier to have the child and dissuade the woman from exercising her right to terminate, and not enough has been done there. If it were, women may be less desperate to hold onto their rights over their own bodies in a precarious environment , and more amenable to honoring the status of the fetus as human. But we don’t live in that kind of world.

   “The logic of Roe” ultimately boils down to “Honey, you’re on your own. We’re unwilling/unable to support you so we’ll grant you this rather dubious right to put an end to the life growing inside you. Now don’t bother us anymore.”

10. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 3rd, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    ARN, I’m not sure why, but you seem to be fantasizing pretty vigorously about the logic of Roe and Nancy Pelosi’s motives for supporting abortion.

    Her motives are perfectly clear, and she makes no bones about it. And she certainly shows no signs of being intimidated by Republican hostility to social spending. She’s never said anything remotely like what you are claiming.

    And Roe had nothing whatsoever to do with anyone being unwilling/unable to pay for anything. It was based on some ridiculous musings by Justice Blackmun (a Nixon appointee, lest we forget!) about viability and personhood and a supposed “right to privacy” that was independent of any economic considerations.

    As for Roe being impossible to put back in the bottle, well, I guess it might be impossible if Barak Obama’s president and starts naming the kind of judges he’s promised to name, but rigt now it would only take one judge to make the difference, and the tide of legal opinion is actually increasingly critical of Roe as an opinion.

11. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 3rd, 2008 at 6:29 pm

    An excellent article by a professor at Princeton on Barak Obama’s infanticide votes and his recent attempts at obfuscation. By the way, Obama was the only state senator in Illinois to speak out against the bill to protect the lives of the newborn babies.

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.16_George_Robert_Obama%20and%20Infanticide_.xml

12. ARN Said:
    
    November 3rd, 2008 at 7:16 pm

    “..but you seem to be fantasizing pretty vigorously ”

    Me? Never. In fact, I’m knurd (“The opposite of being drunk, its as sober as you can ever be. It strips away all the illusion, all the comforting pink fog in which people normally spend their lives, and lets them see and think clearly for the first time ever. Then, after they’ve screamed a bit, they make sure they never get knurd again” – Terry Pratchett)

    “It was based on some ridiculous musings by Justice Blackmun about viability and personhood and a supposed ‚Äúright to privacy‚Äù that was independent of any economic considerations.”

    Do you really believe money had nothing to do with it? No, Americans in ’73 were restless with being supportive of one another and wanted to go their own atomistic individual way. One of the obstacle was the fact that women had a habit of inconveniently getting pregnant and needing support, emotional and *financial*. *Such* a bummer. The SP decision was just a rationalization, a way to slip the bonds holding us to our fellows. The Enlightenment taking a wrong turn.

    “..it would only take one judge to make the difference, and the tide of legal opinion is actually increasingly critical of Roe as an opinion.”

    Then what? The question would return to the states: The states where it’s already difficult to secure an abortion would likely forbid it; the coastal states would likely retain it. Actually I’m hoping it’s overturned. We can all sit back and watch the fun-the spectacle of the more hypocritical politicians forced to come to grips with the consequences of their anti-abortion stances since they can’t hide behind Roe v Wade anymore. Now they really will have a say! And have to make some provision for the women who previously may have felt there was no viable alternative to abortion.

    But even if McCain appoints an sympathetic judge to the SP we still couldn’t depend on getting that outcome. Perhaps a much stronger social safety net will do more for saving babies in the long run than a McCain presidency.

13. ARN Said:
    
    November 3rd, 2008 at 7:24 pm

    OOpps! SP=SC Supreme Court

14. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 3rd, 2008 at 8:24 pm

    ARN, I worked for years in the pro-life movement. There are tons of groups in the US – normal folk, not Republican or Democratic ideologues – who offer assistance to pregnant women. People are quite generous in this matter. There are entire dioceses – NY among them, last time I checked – that have said that no women needs to abort for financial reasons; money will be found.

    There is always a viable alternative to the deliberate killing of innocent human beings. To suggest otherwise is simply bizarre.

    And no, money had nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. Read the opinion. You are inventing motivations out of whole cloth. What’s more, the Americans you imagine were worried about money in 1973 didn’t vote for Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court decided it all by its lonesome. In fact, those supposedly-worried Americans were overwhelmingly against legal abortion – as is obvious from the fact that almost all states had popularly-supported laws against abortion. Seven out of nine men decided that those laws were unconstitutional.

    The move to legalize abortion came, in fact, at exactly the same time that the US was vastly expanding its social welfare system. And many of the people who pushed for social welfare programs were exactly the same people who pushed for legal abortion. Not all of them, of course. There were plenty of country-club Republicans, many of them belonging to Planned Parenthood, who were also happy to legalize abortion.

    I do not see this as a Democratic vs. Republican thing. Blackmun was a Nixon appointee. Byron White, who dissented in Roe, was a Kennedy appointee. The older Bushes – Barbara and George Sr.- were classic rich Planned Parenthood Republicans – the sort of people who still exist in Pennsylvania, where Gov. Casey, a Democrat, ran against pro-abortion Republicans twice. Casey was what many would call a bleeding-heart liberal – in favor of social programs, against the death penalty. And very pro-life. To suggest that Casey, whose father really did work in coal mines in Scranton, somehow lacked the moral insight – about, for instance, the morality that we can afford – of Nancy Pelosi (daughter of the mayor of Baltimore if memory serves) and Joe Biden (grandson of a filthy-rich oil executive), who tried to cheat his way through law school, plagiarized another man’s life story, and lied about his own education, is absolutely ludicrous.

15. Michelle M Said:
    
    November 3rd, 2008 at 9:10 pm

    ARN– are you arguing that an inadequate welfare state is partially responsible for abortion? Looking at the history of abortion rights in my own country I’ve had to re-think this. I mean, when abortion was legalized here in 1969, the economy was good, we already had a well established social safety net and national health care. I think the relationship is the other way around– the availability of abortion will contribute to the erosion of the welfare state. Take the disabled, for example, especially those whose conditions were diagnosed in utero and whose mothers chose not to abort them. Here, from the Prowoman Prolife link I posted above: “Why would a private decision‚Äìabortion‚Äìaffect anyone else? It does‚Äìit changes the community we live in, visually, because we see fewer different people. It changes our attitudes all told toward pregnancy, too, not just disability. (But that fundamental change has already occurred.)” (Andrea Mrozek)
    A strong social safety net may well save some babies, but it won’t be disposed to save those that will continue to cost money– “useless eaters”, as they were called by Nazi euthanasia policy.

    Re: the supposed “right to privacy” — it reminds me of the famous remark attributed to former Cdn. prime minister Pierre Trudeau (but which I recall reading was actually coined by a journalist reporting at the time) when abortion was legalized here– “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. From what I’ve read, from what was said in parliament at the time, it was pretty much about sex and not about economics (the same bill also legalized contraception and homosexual acts). An aside: just this weekend, my husband and I were remarking how Obama reminds us of Trudeau in his heyday– the relative youth, the elite education, the cult of personality (just wiki “Trudeaumania”), the support of the literati and the glitterati, and of course the matter of abortion.

    I’m also thinking back to our long-ago discussions on the blog about the relationship between charity and holy purity. I think this relationship is relevant in a discussion about the relationship between abortion and the welfare state.
    Sorry this comment is all over the place, the interruptions here don’t help.

    Last thing: a very recent Mercatornet article on the right to privacy:
    http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_rights_and_wrongs_of_privacy/
    Have a wonderful evening everyone– it’s a lovely warm fall day, here.
    Sandra– still praying.

16. ARN Said:
    
    November 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 pm

    “The move to legalize abortion came, in fact, at exactly the same time that the US was vastly expanding its social welfare system”

    I dunno about that. The Great Society programs took off mid to late ’60′s. AFDC grants, if memory serves, were at their highest then and gradually eroded starting in the 70′s. Despite as you say some people were pro-choice as well as pro-social programs(because they thought it merciful?), that decision may have marked the beginning of the end of the period were we cared for one another, a sign that the social contract was breaking down. After that, means testing became stricter and benefits stingier, unions were weakened (remember the busting up of the air traffic controller union?), there was a trend towards fewer W-2 employees and more 1099 employees…you can see where this is going. This is Ayn Rand’s world, we just live in it.

17. Michelle M Said:
    
    November 3rd, 2008 at 10:35 pm

    COpying and pasting b/c I forgot the asterisks! Sorry, Father.

    ARN– are you arguing that an inadequate welfare state is partially responsible for abortion? Looking at the history of abortion rights in my own country I’ve had to re-think this. I mean, when abortion was legalized here in 1969, the economy was good, we already had a well established social safety net and national health care. I think the relationship is the other way around– the availability of abortion will contribute to the erosion of the welfare state. Take the disabled, for example, especially those whose conditions were diagnosed in utero and whose mothers chose not to abort them. Here, from the Prowoman Prolife link I posted above: “Why would a private decision–abortion–affect anyone else? It does–it changes the community we live in, visually, because we see fewer different people. It changes our attitudes all told toward pregnancy, too, not just disability. (But that fundamental change has already occurred.)” (Andrea Mrozek)
    A strong social safety net may well save some babies, but it won’t be disposed to save those that will continue to cost money– “useless eaters”, as they were called by Nazi euthanasia policy.

    Re: the supposed “right to privacy” — it reminds me of the famous remark attributed to former Cdn. prime minister Pierre Trudeau (but which I recall reading was actually coined by a journalist reporting at the time) when abortion was legalized here– “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. From what I’ve read, from what was said in parliament at the time, it was pretty much about s*x and not about economics (the same bill also legalized contraception and homos*xual acts). An aside: just this weekend, my husband and I were remarking how Obama reminds us of Trudeau in his heyday– the relative youth, the elite education, the cult of personality (just wiki “Trudeaumania”), the support of the literati and the glitterati, and of course the matter of abortion.

    I’m also thinking back to our long-ago discussions on the blog about the relationship between charity and holy purity. I think this relationship is relevant in a discussion about the relationship between abortion and the welfare state.
    Sorry this comment is all over the place, the interruptions here don’t help.

    Last thing: a very recent Mercatornet article on the right to privacy:
    http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_rights_and_wrongs_of_privacy/
    Have a wonderful evening everyone– it’s a lovely warm fall day, here.
    Sandra– still praying.

18. Michelle M Said:
    
    November 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    Oh, well– my comment in response to ARN is awaiting moderation, tried copying and pasting with the asterisks, but it’s still not going up, not sure why this time.

19. ARN Said:
    
    November 3rd, 2008 at 11:11 pm

    Well Michelle, I’m interested in what you have to say FWIW. Hopefully the moderators here aren’t asleep at the switch. Just cool it with that naughty language, will ya? jk

    Anyway, you Canadians I think are blessed with politicians who are only moderately loathsome.

20. sandra Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 12:23 am

    Famous words!!!
    “if a doctor deemed it necessary to preserve the “health” of the mother” (John McCain)
    ***- a vague phrase which pro-lifers long ago realized could be used to justify practically any abortion.***

    McCain was not the first it seems to utter those words. View the following link.
    By James Hitchcock (a historian at St. Louis University and a founder of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars.)
    http://www.tboyle.net/University/Strange_Career.html
    The most interesting points;-
    ***When Congress passed a bill outlawing partial-birth abortions,The leftist National Catholic Reporter sharply criticized President Bill Clinton for vetoing the bill***
    ***It was therefore shocking to many people that one of the President’s strongest defenders was a Jesuit priest, Father Robert Drinan,who published articles in both the Reporter and the New York Times attacking the bill and praising the President for having vetoed it.***
    In both articles he accepted at face value the claim – refuted by knowledgeable people – that the brutal
    “dilation and extraction” method is sometimes medically necessary.
    He also demanded that Congress include an exception to allow the use of the partial-birth procedure,
    >>if a doctor deemed it necessary to preserve the “health” of the mother

21. sandra Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 2:33 am

    My prev.comment,Part two;- (again it only partially went through???)

    **Shortly after Roe v. Wade, Father Drinan(Society of Jesus) wrote a public defense of the decision,
    recognizing that it had flaws but finding it on the whole a beneficial judgment.
    He then proceeded, over the next several years, to compile an almost perfect pro-abortion voting record in Congress, often speaking passionately about a woman’s “constitutional right” to abort,even while stating that this right went completely contrary to his own conscience.**
    In 1970 abortion had not yet become a partisan issue; here were many prominent pro-life Democrats.
    However, as the party moved toward an implacably pro-abortion position, and the number of pro-life Democrats steadily dwindled, Drinan’s example was consistently cited as justification.
    How could any layman – especially one who was not a Catholic – be faulted for supporting abortion, if the most prominent Catholic priest in public life did the same?
    Drinan bore heavy responsibility for making the Democratic Party the party of abortion.
    And he himself has come a long way down the same road,so that in 1996 he can dismiss opposition to late-term abortions – which he once characterized as homicide – as a merely partisan Republican trick.
    Drinan also attacked the bill as a mere political weapon to be used against the President, and in his Reporter article twice urged that the bill be rejected because it is likely to help Republicans in this year’s presidential campaign. All in all, the column was as blatantly partisan an argument as it would be possible to find.Such open partisanship is unusual among American priests,but it was not surprising in view of the fact that Father Drinan himself for ten years (1971-81) served in Congress,as a Democrat.**

    Now it would seem that we should take a few moments to think exactly what it would mean if Roe v. Wade, were overturned,if this did hapen,and law was enforced,all doctors who performed,and women who had an abortion, would naturally be charged as murderers,as that,is in fact what they,according to law/the Catholic Church(and others),would be,in many States in the USA they could then face the death penalty! Is this what we would wish to achieve?O.T-Law = an eye for an eye,a life for a life? How many here would VOTE for that?
    The most disgusting,vile practice that you(Fa.Wauck),refer to regarding,leaving babies after surviving abortion,to die,should,of course be severly punished,according to Law.
    I have also read other reports about *the Bill* you mention and must say that they differ in regards to the *wording*/and conection with other isues on that Bill.. so as I do not have the original transcript I will reserve judgement.
    It is time IMO that all parties,stop “calling the Kettle black” and try in a civilized mode to try, with more copassion towards each other,to reach a solution. I do most definately not support abortion being used as “the easy way to birth control* WHO would? but in some desperate cases it can seem the only option.. As ARN states a “safty net” would serve all parties much better,in very few cases do women/girls CHOOSE to be in the situation where they HAVE to CHOOSE.. In fact,they mostly have gone through “hell”, weeks and pos. months,beiieving they have no “choice”.. Branding them as *murderers” will not help them seek the help they so desperately need.Forcing them to resort to the “Engel macher” in dirty back rooms,or going to a semmi-qualified,*doc* who will for a certain summ,*fix it* for them,with no follow-up medical care,resulting in the posibility of lasting bodily and mental injuries,even death.This we as Christians can not condone.
    I still hold to my conviction that “prevention” is better that any cure!!!
    There is something that bothers me all through this discussion… If,there are sooo many good Christian folk who voice so loudly that, “The woman should have the child,if it is not pos.for them to keep it,then they should give it up for adoption”,why then are there sooo many children still waiting for one of those “Christian” folks to adopt??? especially children with special-care-needs?? puzzeling is it not?

22. sandra Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 2:50 am

    Michelle,great article.. thank you…
    I too am “in two minds” about *knowing too much* before the child id born.. in some cases it can be contra-productive.tc.

23. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 10:37 am

    Fr. Drinan’s language about the woman’s constitutional right to abort is exactly the sort of language you will hear from Biden and Pelosi and Obama. That’s why this talk about economics is just bunk. That’s not why the laws against abortion were struck down and it is not why children are aborted. If you really want to claim that it’s better to be killed than to be adopted or grow up in foster care, go ahead, but that isn’t Catholic morality. It’s not even human decency. Almost all of our Catholic ancestors were far poorer than we are, they managed to get along with legal abortion. The same is true Christians in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

    If the threat of poverty justifies denying the right to life to certain classes of people, then why not just declare that human beings in foster care or adoptees don’t have a right to life and can be killed by their foster parents if they get onerous. Heck, they eat more than the unborn children, and – hey, you know – in this case, we just can’t afford to recognize their human dignity by imposing our morality on foster parents.

    By the way, this idea that we only have the morality we can afford was a favorite argument of my hypothetical friend, the pro-slavery politician who owned no slaves. He said that, while he wasn’t in favor of enslaving blacks himself, it was impossible to legally recognize the rights of Afro-American human beings, because the economy of the American South depended on slaves. He concluded that the some human beings would just have to do without human rights until the economy changed. Tough luck for them.

    Sandra, there’s no need to reserve judgment because of the language of the bills. Obama’s apologists don’t even bother claiming – not anymore, at least – that there is a meaningful difference between the state and federal versions (ie, the ones that passed 98-0) of this law. They are essentially verbatim copies. Besides prohibiting infanticide, these laws also called attention to the fact that some of the children being killed by abortionists were perfectly capable of living outside the womb. That reminder is a threat to Roe, and Obama’s opposition to the law was meant to suppress that truth. In short, if need be, Obama was quite ready to see a few infants’ lives sacrificed on the altar of Roe v. Wade. If that sounds sick, it’s because it is. No US senator was ready to go that far, but he was. When it comes to making sure that unborn children are legally killable, that’s just the price you have to pay.

24. ARN Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    “,,,abortion will contribute to the erosion of the welfare state.”

    Yes, it’s all of a piece.

    “A strong social safety net may well save some babies, but it won‚Äôt be disposed to save those that will continue to cost money‚Äì ‚Äúuseless eaters‚Äù, as they were called by Nazi euthanasia policy.”

    Take comfort in that these are a small minority of all abortions. The classic exemptions-rape, incest, fetal indications and life/(health?) of the mother will probably survive in states that would have strict language in any post-Roe legislation. It would be hard to pass muster with the electorate otherwise. Only a Human Life amendment would stop those and I can’t see that happening.

    “‚ÄúThe state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation‚Äù.From what I‚Äôve read, from what was said in parliament at the time, it was pretty much about s*x and not about economics (the same bill also legalized contraception and homos*xual acts)”

    He probably said it as an afterthought. Even he should know abortion is different in that it involves the rights of the fetus as opposed to the woman, not s*x.

    “the relationship between charity and holy purity. I think this relationship is relevant in a discussion about the relationship between abortion and the welfare state.”

    I can’t see the connection since abortion as you and many see it is about rights– the fetal trump the maternal. The conception and the awareness of pregnancy are at least a couple weeks apart in any case, so it’s not about s*x, or it shouldn’t be if the prolife movement is to retain its credibility. I’ve claimed here throughout that abortion is a sign of this culture’s lack of generosity, perhaps the first symptom of our casting off of our responsibility to others. This needs to be stopped with or without an abortion ban. Without it the quality of the social safety net and the support of mothers that is more than grudging is needed to save babies. With a ban but w/o a decent safety net, we’d see massive civil disobedience.

25. ARN Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    I have a comment up but cant figure out where the asterisks should go. More coffee.

26. ARN Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

    “Almost all of our Catholic ancestors were far poorer than we are, they managed to get along with legal abortion. The same is true Christians in Africa, Asia and Latin America”

    Let’s not forget that abortion is more common in S America than it is here. It’s just below the radar because it’s mostly illegal and carried out by midwives nobody pays attention to. My guess is it was frequently resorted to in the past, especially since methods other than withdrawal and douching were not easily gotten if available at all. My working class Belgian mother has lots of stories.

    “If the threat of poverty justifies denying the right to life to certain classes of people, then why not just declare that human beings in foster care or adoptees don‚Äôt have a right to life and can be killed by their foster parents if they get onerous.”

    Come now. It would take a moral idiot to advocate the destruction of unarguably living breathing human children. It’s just not the same. The fetus’ humanity is abstract compared to that of children, and its continued existence dependent on a woman.

27. ARN Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    “…doctors who performed,and women who had an abortion, would naturally be charged as murderers,…,in many States in the USA they could then face the death penalty!… How many here would VOTE for that?

    Not many. There are some radicals here who advocate severe punishment for the dr. and mother, but the cooler heads in the prolife movement know that even it it does logically follow from their position, there’s no advantage to pressing for it. Indeed, they know few would be behind anything so draconian. And all they get for their efforts is the prochoicers accusing them of being inconsistent. Heh.

    “…why then are there sooo many children still waiting for one of those ‚ÄúChristian‚Äù folks to adopt??? especially children with special-care-needs?? puzzeling is it not?”

    I don’t know about how it is in Germany, but here there’s a shortage of adoptable kids. To be more specific, healthy white ones. Don’t know the situation with black children. As for “special needs”..well you have to be a very special person to take on that responsibility. Most adopters know they’re not and I can’t blame them.

28. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    Perhaps true, ARN, about the situation in some parts of Latin America (that’s a big area to speak generally about). I don’t know about Africa and Asia. Certainly, though, the Muslims do not seem interested in abortion, no matter how poor they are. My only point here is that we shouldn’t set up our rather bourgeois standards as some sort of absolute – and that no poverty can justify the deliberate talking of innocent human lives.

    It’s not just the cooler heads in the pro-life movement who aren’t draconian with women. Before Roe, most of the laws against abortion were for “medical malpractice.” As I hope I’ve made clear in the way I wrote this post, I think that the emphasis on the abortionist is reasonable. There are many factors – fear, pressure, desperation – that might mitigate the guilt of the woman. The abortionist (like the politician) is acting in cold blood.

    “Come now. It would take a moral idiot to advocate the destruction of unarguably living breathing human children.” I’m sure, ARN, you realize whom you’re talking about here. He didn’t actually advocate it, but he definitely stood in the way of efforts to stop it. My example, though, wasn’t about advocating it, just allowing it (“can be killed”), so it fits like a glove.

29. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 3:43 pm

    Hot off the press. Newsweek weighs in on the topic: Where was the abortion debate in 2008?

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/167211

30. ARN Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 4:25 pm

    “I‚Äôm sure, ARN, you realize whom you‚Äôre talking about here. He didn‚Äôt actually advocate it, but he definitely stood in the way of efforts to stop it. My example, though, wasn‚Äôt about advocating it, just allowing it (‚Äùcan be killed‚Äù), so it fits like a glove. ”

    Well Fr Wauck, FWIW I can’t work up much excitement either way for our presumptive next president. I don’t love him like some do (astonishing that whole hero worship thing) and I don’t hate him despite his being OK with a particularly ruthless type of abortion (leaving aborted infants to die).

    Maybe that makes me heartless, but consider how many times such a thing takes place. Probably not often. Consider as well that most of those cases could not live anyway being below the age of viability. Here’s a story from a relative who’s an OB/GYN to put this into perspective. The policy at his hospital is not to treat babies born at 23 weeks. They are simply wrapped in a blanket and put into the mother’s arms to die. The prospects for such infants are dismal and to attempt anything is thought a waste of resources.

    This is it for me today. I’m going to take a shower and then cast my vote for Obama in the hope that his administration will preside over a gentler world where the birth of an unexpected baby will not be the disaster it so often is for women at the end of their ropes. Maybe that hope won’t work out, but the thought of 4 more years of a Republican president is repellent. Then I’ll go out and enjoy this fine day with Soccer Kid and any of my sweeties who care to join me.

31. ARN Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

    Could you please release my comment with the 1:50 time stamp?

32. sandra Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

    >>> The price we will have to pay > Through our words, prayers and deeds we must show solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor. When instituting public policy we must always keep the “preferential option for the poor” at the forefront of our minds. The moral test of any society is “how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. We are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor.”[20]

33. Michelle M Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 6:23 pm

    “Maybe that makes me heartless, but consider how many times such a thing takes place. Probably not often”– ARN

    Here in Canada, we have no law restricting abortion– since 1988 when the Supreme Court struck the existing law down (it required the approval of a therapeutic abortion committee). And in Canada, late term abortions are surprisingly frequent– I found gv’t stats from 2004 that report 35 abortions after 25 weeks gestation, and also a total of 65, 165 abortions where the gestational age was not reported to Statscan– including all of the abortions that ocurred in QUebec. I found another stat, from the province of British Columbia’s coroner’s office that says that from 1995-1999, 16 infants survived abortion, all dying within 6 hrs. That is just one province, and remember, our population is much smaller than yours in the U.S.

    I already pointed out the eerie similarities between Obama and former Cdn pm Trudeau above (my comments were released), but i’m going to bring up Trudeau again because I’ve read that Obama intends, if elected, to eliminate by federal statute all state abortion regulations– which, again, is our situation here in Canada. We are in this situation because the SUpreme COurt used the 1982 CHarter of Rights and Freedoms (of which Trudeau was the architect) to strike down existing laws.

34. sandra Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 6:36 pm

    >> The policy at his hospital is not to treat babies born at 23 weeks. They are simply wrapped in a blanket and put into the mother’s arms to die. The prospects for such infants are dismal and to attempt anything is thought a waste of resources.

35. sandra Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    same thing hapened to my nice not so long ago (in the UK)It was a premature birth,her 2nd.the first was “still born”.
    She has till now not gotten over it..
    To take the baby away v. laying it in it’s mother’s arm so that she can watch it die,(gasping for breath)
    I can’t answer that one…. neither can my nice… so very sad,but also for the doctors / nurses who’s hands are tied, by Hospital policy and can do nothing… or lose their position.

36. sandra Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 6:46 pm

    Check your mail ARN.

    PS. My previous post on >The price we have to pay

37. sandra Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    Another try::
    TOO high a price for me!!!
    Ok,it’s not “the ecconomy(stupid)”… it’ more an issue of ‘voter potential
    (stupid)’!!
    The Republican war-cry-slogan, “Obama want’s to spread the wealth arround =
    Communism.(according to Joe the plumber/S.Palin/J.McCain) “We don’t want the
    USA to become a *socialist State* like Europe” (S.Palin rally)only proves
    that they have not the slightest inclination of the meaning of “social
    justice”
    Are they implying that the CSU = Christian-*Social* Union (of
    Bavaria,overwhelmingly Catholic),the CDU = (German) Christian *Democratic*
    Party,are COMUNISTS?? A more illogical statement I have yet to encounter..
    The tax policies that B.Obama is proposing are the same as those being
    practiced for decades in the USA. aka,
    Progressive Taxation….!!!!!
    From ‘Catholic social teaching’— “Rights and responsibilities”
    The Church supports private property and teaches that “every man has by
    nature the right to possess property as his own.”[15] The right to private
    property is not absolute, however, and is limited by the concept of the
    social mortgage.[16] It is theoretically moral and just for its members to
    destroy property used in an evil way by others, or for the state to
    **redistribute wealth** from those who have unjustly hoarded it.[17]
    Further;-
    >> Through our words, prayers and deeds we must show solidarity with, and
    >> compassion for, the poor. When instituting public policy we must always
    >> keep the “preferential option for the poor” at the forefront of our
    >> minds. The moral test of any society is “how it treats its most
    >> vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the
    >> conscience of the nation. We are called to look at public policy
    >> decisions in terms of how they affect the poor.”[20]

38. Michelle M Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    “I can‚Äôt see the connection since abortion as you and many see it is about rights‚Äì the fetal trump the maternal.”

    Actually, it’s beyond that– it is about love of neighbour. Love of the mother and her infant, both.

    Here’s Dr. Jerome Lejeune, the scientist who discovered the cause of Down Syndrome (trisomy of the 21st chromosome) who puts it well, in the context of a paper about in vitro fertilisation:
    ” When technology gives us control over the very young human being, over the embryo which can be formed in a quasi-alchemical phial, and even brought back from a frozen state, this natural morality teaches us that young as he might be, as fragile as he might be, the human embryo is member of our species and by that fact ought to be protected from all exploitation. He is not a stock of spare parts to be drawn on at need. He is not a commodity to be frozen and unfrozen at will. He is not consumer good for sale or exchange. He is quite precisely our neighbor, our likeness, the flesh of our flesh.”

    here is the source for that quote:
    http://publications.fondationlejeune.org/Cadrearticle.asp?filename=fjl401.xml

    I was following this conversation while writing something, and had to read up on Dr. Lejeune for my article. I wish I had thought of him back when we were talking about married saints– the cause for his canonization was opened in 2007.

39. sandra Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 6:54 pm

    SO!!! Yes,let’s spread it arround,in order to;help the helpless/the
    desperate/the hopeless and perhaps then and only then will abortion/partial
    birth abortion will NOT be a price we will pay..
    I still hold to my conviction that PREVENTION is better than any CURE.. If
    the C.Church stoped prohibiting the P+ll and other (coil)PREVENTIV methods
    of birth controll, that would be a “great step for humanity”..
    I can not agree that preventing an *egg* from being fertilized is tantamount
    to murder… Is not the “safe day’s” methode exactly that??? Before
    “re-visiting” the Roe v Wade verdict the C.Church should possibly re-visit
    it’s verdict on that,very contoversial,issue. (most Catholics do take the
    p*ll or at least do not condemmn it) then in return,the Roe v. Wade verdict
    may only apply in “very desperate curcumstances”. i.e. the health of the
    mother/Rape/incest.. Let us all pray for any person,who is going through the
    ‘hell’ of concience v. the reality of that person’s situation,that they make
    the right choice.
    To be continued……….
    Catholicism (Catholic Church) v. Death penalty.. (what is the stance of the Christian
    political party’s on that one?)I would realy like to hear them “get out of that one” (unscathed that is)
    Or is THAT also a “non-issue” ?

40. sandra Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    So sorry that my comment is coming in “episodes”… it was supposed to be more “co-herent”

41. sandra Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 7:14 pm

    Very quickly… Dinner is on the table
    please pray for our friend Dianne… a very important descission will be made in a few hours…
    (nothing to do with this post)…

42. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 8:15 pm

    A bit more useful information – from the same Princeton professor – for those who are interested in knowing the sad truth.

43. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 8:28 pm

    Lest there be any confusion, Sandra, the Church has never taught that preventing conception is tantamount to murder. Those are quite different things and always have been.

    We will be judged by how we treat the vulnerable? It is hard to think of a more vulnerable member of the human family than an unborn child that has been stripped of all human dignity and rights so that it can be killed with impunity.

44. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

    Off to bed here.

    Dear ARN, I feel that I know you well enough by now – even if over a distance – to trust your sincerity, your hopes and your intentions. This post was not intended to be a primer on how to vote – and certainly not a brief for one party or the other. As is obvious from everything I have said above, I do think that you are kidding yourself with arguments that are, perhaps, theoretically plausible but have very little to do with the actual facts of the case: that is, the positions that politicians actually defend and what has, in fact, occurred in the US in the last 40 years (how abortion became legal, who was responsible, and why people have abortions). If I may be slightly cynical: it helps to watch the money. The abortion industry doesn’t see these elections as six-of-one and half-a-dozen-of-the-other. They give their money to their friends.

    If I have sounded unduly harsh in this post, it is because I am convinced that we are dealing with a very harsh reality and in danger – actually way beyond “in danger” – of becoming inured to it. When the Church speaks of “abominable crime,” I think we need to take that in all its seriousness.

    As for Barak… I am going to bed now, without knowing the results. If he is the next president, we can hope that he is – as he seems to me – still a work in progress, and that he will surprise us in a good way. I willing be praying for him.

    Above all, this post was intended to make clear that “pro-choice” politicians are committed to denying human rights to a class of human beings who deserve – that is the key word here – rights and protection from their fellow human beings, from us and from the state. In other words, this is already an injustice, even before any abortion occurs; it is taking away from a human being something that is rightfully, inalienably theirs. The fact that this “theft” is perpetrated in order to make its victims legally killable only makes it worse. Whatever the politicians may say, they are not opposed to this theft, and they are not opposed to its consequence: some members of human family are fair game for killing. On the contrary, this is what the politicians fully intend and what they publicly defend. Abortion is not a victimless crime, and neither is robbing the unborn of their rights.

    It’s not a question of condemning Obama, Pelosi, or Biden – or, for that matter, pro-abortion Republicans like Arlen Specter. That would be pointless. We all have failings and sins, and we all are in need of conversion. That’s a given.

    It is a question,as I said above, of taking seriously the gravity of these “abominable crimes”.

45. sandra Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    Father Wauck I do most sincerely apologise if I am mistaken regarding the C.Church and the Pill..(which was my point,not the “preventing conception”)
    But I was/am sure to have read that the Pill was,and still is banned for just that reason by the Catholic Church.Actually my sister a Roman Catholic(as are all my siblings) had been told this by her priest.I was much too young,there was no such thing when I became pregnant with all 3 of my children,or at least not widely available here in germany untill around 1968. If this is not true please enlighten me (and others) as to why the Pill is forbidden to Catholic by the C.Church.Please believe that this is a real question.
    Surely not the “promiscuous life style” theory..? That would be demeaning to all Catholics,implying they were potential sox-indulgent,careless individuals,who had to be saved from their lurid selves..
    More,or less,vunerable? the degree of vunerablility was not,is not the issue, as the Article I quoted does not make that distinction.I am as you (all) know,a declared,fervent anti war,anti violence,anti death penalty (which includes abortion) supporter,so it is against all my principles to “admire” anyone who promotes those issues… There is though,a slight but important difference, being “by choice” against all of the above,and being condemming of those who do not share my views.
    To heap disgust,and condemmnation upon the poor wrenches who,by the time they ‘have’ to make a *choice* have battled with their conscience,blamed themseleves for their sorry situation,have tormented themselves with the same accusations,is in-humane.. Of course,so is abortion,but, do two wrongs make a right??? IMO most definately not.
    >> “….. has been stripped of all human dignity and rights so that it(they) can be killed with impunity” > Catholic social teaching

46. sandra Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 11:38 pm

    Part two::::::::::continued from above
    Why is the issue of taking a life by ‘death penalty’ so very different. should we not judge with one measure?
    The Catholic Church teaching defines we should,or am I also wrong in this asumption?
    According to >> Catholic social teaching

47. sandra Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 11:41 pm

    This is so anoying…sorry (part three)
    The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has identified seven key themes of Catholic Social Teaching which are:
    1). “Catholic teaching about the dignity of life calls us to oppose torture, unjust war, and the use of the death penalty; to prevent genocide and attacks against noncombatants;”
    Link to, http://www.osjspm.org/majordoc_us_bishops_statement_capital_punishment.aspx
    A very lengthy,but easily read document.
    My question (once again) what is the stance of both political parties on this issue.
    Should the Catholic Clergy not also “advise” the faithfull on this,with regards to giving a candidate his/her vote?
    Views/Opinions anyone?

48. sandra Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 11:57 pm

    orth being said, from your link Father Wauck.
    >> “But let me say again, I don’t love ya any the less for what you’ve said in the course of this conversation, but love ya all the more for your willingness–and your respect for your friends gathered around you–to enter the conversation in the first place.”

49. sandra Said:
    
    November 4th, 2008 at 11:58 pm

    Ooops correction Typo…. “Worth being said”

50. Michelle M Said:
    
    November 5th, 2008 at 12:57 am

    “Actually, it‚Äôs beyond that‚Äì it is about love of neighbour”–me above. Bad choice of words. Meant more like, it’s more fundamental than that, it’s about love of neighbour.

    We are talking about a basic human right, natural law, given in the ten commandments, summarized by our Lord as love God and love your neighbour.
    It’s not a battle of rights like your right to listen to loud music vs. my right not to be disturbed. The right to life trumps any other.
    WHich has already been said better by Father, but I wanted to clarify my orignal statement.

    Sandra– amen. Still praying for your family.

51. ARN Said:
    
    November 5th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

    “Love is but the song we sing,/And fear’s the way we die/You can make the mountains ring/Or make the angels cry/Know the dove is on the wing/And you need not know why/C’mon people now,/Smile on your brother/Ev’rybody get together/Try and love one another right now”–Youngbloods

    This on the radio this a.m. driving Soccer Kid to school. Our local NPR had a lineup of songs reflecting the “mood of the country” (I’m not kidding) this the first. I haven’t heard a non-ironic playing of this 40y.o. song in quite some time, even sang along with it over my daughter’s strong objections. There is jubilation in Harlem, Gen Xers are all joyful. It’s like Woodstock 2.0. All that’s missing is the rainbow. It’s very weird. Why am I bracing myself?

    Did you notice on TV that McCain looked kinda relieved giving his very gracious concession speech? Obama is facing a very difficult task, since the financial mess may be beyond the most skilled to rememdy. We should all pray for him.

52. ARN Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 3:09 am

    Sandra, The church condemns all forms of artificial birth control on grounds other than abortive, but lately, in line with advancing scientific knowledge has condemned certain forms of contraception as abortive (IUD) or potentially so (Pill).and so its objections are more serious than if the method were merely contraceptive.

    The IUD makes the uterine lining inhospitable to the implantation of the fertilized ova, the Pill possibly so. Barrier methods OTOH prevent the uniting of ovum and sperm and so are strictly contraceptive. Don’t know what to make of this honestly, since the current thinking is that a large minority of fertilized ova fail to implant anyway, something like 40%. No real way of knowing either, since there’s no way of knowing if a woman’s pregnant unless implantation takes place.

    Anyway, I myself was only aware of 8 pregnancies of which 2 resulted in miscarriage. To think I could have been pregnant actually 14-20 times! Whoa. Can’t imagine what this does to the whole Limbo business.

53. ARN Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 3:13 am

    Please release my comment timestamped 3:09. Dunno what I;m doing wrong.

54. sandra Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 8:58 am

    I agree with those lyrics ARN.
    Cmon,let’s try hope,not doom,let’s be optimistic,not pessimistic,let’s pray for the best in us all and stop looking for the worst in others.. What was that out cry? YES WE CAN!!!
    Well,from the very begining,the first Christians must have had that hope,the willingness to believe in mankind,let’s follow that example,let’s unite in love,compassion,only then,by example,can we achieve peace and well being for all God’s children.
    By respecting the principles of others does not mean we abandon our own,but by LIVING just those principles, gives our argumentation more credibility… IMO.THAT should be the Catholic choice…
    Have a great day all …

55. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 11:11 am

    Sandra, I’m not quite sure what you mean by “respecting the principles of others” when those principles involve denying human rights to members of the human family. Would you respect the “principles” of a Nazi who claimed that Jews don’t deserve to live? Would you respect the “principles” of a slave-owner who thinks that blacks aren’t really human beings and don’t have rights?

    And who exactly are the “others” we’re supposed to respect here? It would seem that the “others” in this case don’t include certain members of the human family, or are we loving and respecting others when we allow them to be chopped into small pieces and thrown in the garbage?

    Yes, we can… what?

    Strip other human beings of their rights so that they can killed legally? Yes we can! Leave newborn children to die? Yes, we can! Force other people to pay for what they believe is homicide? Yes, we can! Foist abortion on developing nations? Yes we can! Support forced abortions in China? Yes, we can! Yes, we can!

    This is just in from the Lifenews site: “Obama has offered the White House chief of staff position to pro-abortion Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, who has a 0 percent pro-life voting record. Emanuel has reportedly officially accepted the position. During the presidential election, pro-life organizations strongly opposed Obama because he supports unlimited abortions any time in pregnancy, backed taxpayer funding of abortion and opposes any limits. In Emanuel, Obama has chosen a clone of himself, according to voting records from the National Right to Life Committee. In July 2007, Emuanel voted against an attempt to stop taxpayer-funding of the Planned Parenthood abortion business that brings in over $1 billion annually by doing 25 percent of the abortions in the United States. As a Congressman, Emanuel has voted against upholding state parental involvement laws allowing parents to know when their daughter is considering an abortion. He voted for making Americans pay for abortions at U.S. military base hospitals, and voted for funding a United Nations agency involved in the forced-abortion one-child family planning policy in China.”

    Being a Christian, I am full of hope – including hope for Barak Obama – but the evidence we have does not offer any indication of good things to come.

56. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 11:44 am

    Below is an article about the US abortion rate based on recent statistics from the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute. For those who imagine that the rate of abortion is closely linked to social welfare spending, this should make for interesting reading. The overall trend, since 1980, is one of decline in the number of abortions – regardless of the variations in social-spending by the government. Under George Bush, between 2000 and 2005, the abortion rate fell by 9 percent. One will notice that among the reasons offered to explain the overall decline in abortions, social welfare spending is not even mentioned.

    Why Have Abortion Rates Fallen?
    By Nancy Gibbs Monday, Jan. 21, 2008

    “Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court legalized abortion in the U.S., abortion rates are at their lowest level in three decades ‚Äî which gives both sides in the culture wars something to celebrate and plenty to fight over, while the rest of us try to figure out what happened.

    “According to the Guttmacher Institute’s 2005 survey of abortion providers, the abortion rate fell 9% in five years, to 19.4 abortions for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44; the 1.2 million abortions performed in 2005 numbered 25% fewer than the high of 1.6 million in 1990. That would seem to be good news, whether you view abortion as an evil, or a necessary evil, or a routine medical procedure no more morally troubling than a tooth extraction.

    “The problem is that no one can prove what complex chemistry of cause and effect, culture and calculation, explains the falling rates ‚Äî and for people who have devoted their lives to this issue, there’s no glory in achieving one’s ends if the means are anathema. Pro-choice groups credit comprehensive sex education and access to contraception, strategies that social conservatives often resist. Pro-lifers credit campaigns to tighten laws controlling access to abortion and to warn women about abortion’s risks ‚Äî which the other side deplores.”

57. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    More fascinating data on abortion, all from pro-abortion sources. Some key facts:

    Almost half (47 percent) of the women who have abortions have already had one.

    The vast majority (67 percent) of the women who have abortions have never been married.

    Half of the women who have abortions are under 25 years old.

    Half of the women who have abortions say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

    Most of the women who have abortions know about and use contraception.

    Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States
    January 2008

    INCIDENCE OF ABORTION

    ‚Ä¢ Each year, about two out of every 100 women aged 15‚Äì44 have an abortion; 47% of them have had at least one previous abortion.[3] – 3. Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000‚Äì2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(5):226‚Äì235. …

    WHO HAS ABORTIONS?

    • Fifty percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 17%.[7] Р7. Distributions published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, adjusted for year-to-year changes in the reporting states and applied to the total number of abortions in Jones RK et al., Abortion in the United States: Incidence and access to services, 2005, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2008, (forthcoming).

    • Women who have never married obtain two-thirds of all abortions.[7]

    • About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.[7]

    • The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[8] Р8. Finer LB et al., Reasons U.S. women have abortions: quantitative and qualitative perspectives, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005, 37(3):110–118.

    CONTRACEPTIVE USE

    • Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. [9] Р9. Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, Contraceptive use among U.S. women having abortions in 2000–2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(6):294–303.

58. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    The relationship of these statistics to Michelle’s comments above should be perfectly obvious to all.

59. Michelle M Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    With all these stats available at the click of a mouse, I begin to hope that the sheer availability of such info (as well as videos of life in the womb, of the testimony of Gianna Jessen, a saline abortion survivor, among other things) on the net will have a positive effect on the abortion debate.

    You know, when ARN quoted those groovy lyrics above, I thought of Trudeau again (he was elected in 1968) and the damage he caused in Canada. Reading in the National Post yesterday, I discovered I’m not the only one who is reminded of Trudeau by Obama:

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/04/barbara-kay-forgetting-their-own-history-two-usually-savvy-canadian-pundits-drink-the-kool-aid-of-quot-post-racialism-s-quot-false-messiah.aspx

    Also, I was thinking about all the obama as messiah jokes, and remembering the same kinds of cracks being made about Trudeau– one comedy skit had him getting out of his canoe and walking on the water.

    Right now in our country it seems like we can never go back, b/c no leader is willing to take it on (Prime Minister Harper said he would not re-open it.)

    Last, FWIW, a small anecdote. A young woman (early 20s) who was a co-worker of mine (different job, different city)
    had an abortion rather quickly upon discovering she was pregnant in less than auspicious circumstances– doctor just told her she didn’t want that child, went ahead and booked the abortion, To be sure, she was willing enough to have him take charge at the time. When I arrived for my shift one day, she had just found out I was expecting my fifth (maybe it was my sixth) child. She came out to greet me with a hug, congratulating me, with tears in her eyes.

60. ARN Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    “The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent …”

    Well, if the women interviewed are being truthful, it does look like they have responsibilities that fall solely on them and they expect no help. Here’s where a Northern European style welfare state determined to boost the birth rates could help. I wonder what such a survey would reveal in say Norway. OTOH, they may be lying and just saying what the questioners wanted to hear, because of this statement:

    “Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant.”

    Hmmm….I don’t think so. To admit to not using some method is to admit you’re dumb and/or irresponsible. Another stat you cited supports this interpretation:

    “Almost half (47 percent) of the women who have abortions have already had one.”

    Some people never learn.

61. ARN Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

    I have a comment w 1;39 time stamp in moderation. Are you making the filter tighter? Can’t figure it out.

62. ARN Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    “When I arrived for my shift one day, she had just found out I was expecting my fifth (maybe it was my sixth) child. She came out to greet me with a hug, congratulating me, with tears in her eyes.”

    A sweet story, my fellow statistical outlier! I can understand her regret. You and I are fortunate to have spouses who are cool with major progeny and will indulge our mothering instincts. Yes, we can!!!

63. sandra Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

    Father Wauck!!!
    Do you realy think that my comment was in any way a call to, *respect abortionists*????
    I do hope not…
    My comment was FIRSTLY…. not about ABORTION.
    It was more a general wide based belief that understanding,respecting the views of *others* (*some one other that ones self*) is the key to DISCUSSION.Discussion can then lead to action..
    And yes I do believe, WE CAN!!
    Using PEACEFULL means to show that YES WE CAN,not ONLY in the issue of abortion (rights)but in all issues where human life is at stake… one, can not be achieved without the other…
    The C.Church proclaims that ALL human life is precious,both the life which is already born and the life in the womb. To deny even ONE human being that right,is contradictory to that teaching..
    The pinciples that we as Christians stand up for,should be RESPECTED.. But we must also be willing to respect the views of others albeit that we disagree. Only in this way can we convince them that we are truely interested,through debate,and most of all by example, that OUR way is the right way.. Statistics may be over whelming,but they will be used on both sides..
    Statistics have,IMO never ‘won over’ a person who feels ‘left out’, or feels desperate,disregarded by society,our mission should not be to “spread around” the blame,but to spread compassion for the desperate, those who society has rejected,for what ever reason..

    Now,I do absolutely in the strongest way,object,to any reference,that my comment could,in the slightest way be *construed* to imply that I AGREE with ;——–
    “Nazism” “Slavery” “alowing babies to be chopped into small pieces and thrown in the garbage”
    Having said that…. I vigerously condemm,-
    THE DEATH PENALTY,THE WAR IN IRAQ and any other CRIME against HUMANITY, that (BTW),CHRISTIANS/CATHOLICS, not only in the USA. but also in other countries,were and still are willing to DEFEND!!!!This (my condemmnation) being in accord with Catholic Church teaching!!!
    I hope that this will be taken as I intended…
    One other thing,I am not,and was not a supporter of Mr. Obama,but most definately against Mr.McCain and most strongly against Mrs.Palin,she,has only ONE appeal to Catholics, but all else she stands for is absolutely contrary to Catholc Church teaching.IMO. The tactics used,by both,were aimed at “firering-up’ the most *base* instincts of their followers..Shame on them!!
    And lastly, I join you in prayers for the good in Mr.Obama to prevail…

64. Michelle M Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    “Also, I was thinking about all the obama as messiah jokes, and remembering the same kinds of cracks being made about Trudeau‚Äì one comedy skit had him getting out of his canoe and walking on the water.”–me, above

    I think those jokes cut to what it means for someone to decide they are an arbiter of life and death. Or to what it means whenever we sin, which is to “set up a rival good to God’s” (Julia Mottram in Brideshead Revisited)

    Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, `You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?”
    2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;
    3 but God said, `You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
    4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die.
    5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

65. Michelle M Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 2:38 pm

    ARN- “Yes we can!!!” Hehe. You’ve just inspired me to go catch up on my laundry.

66. ARN Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

    “I‚Äôm not quite sure what you mean by ‚Äúrespecting the principles of others‚Äù when those principles involve denying human rights to members of the human family.”

    Democracy is a bad form of government, but all the others are worse. (Someone said that.) And what you’re pointing out is an example of the down side. Like Sandra said we can argue and reason but when all is said and done, we must abide by the wishes of the majority and/or the courts. As you well know many of our fellow citizens are not convinced the fetus has the moral status of the already born. To be sure its status can seem ambiguous compared to that of slaves and Jews.

    So what do we do within the limitations of democracy? Aside from fomenting violent Revolution.

67. ARN Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    “…my laundry. ”

    Don’t forget the socks!

68. ARN Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    I can’t think of anything more than what is already being done except for instituting a welfare state, which is politically unlikely in this country. Alas, “A society only has the morality it can afford”. Not that I like it.

69. sandra Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    Well,ARN. Michelle I have lots of ironing to get done…
    But feel I must write just ONE more comment …………
    We are not only (by law), made to pay for abortions but also to pay for wars,both of which the C.Church condemms..
    Here in Germany,a few years back,a person (male female?) decided NOT to pay taxes that were used to support the war/abortion… She/he went to court over this,but as you can imagine lost the case…. facit;- she/he had not only,to pay the outstanding taxes, but also a very extensive fine + lawyer’s costs + court costs..
    This of course, disscouraged (as was ment to), anyone else from trying the same…DEMOCRACY! The majority over-rules the minority…c’est la vie.
    During WWII America,UK ,and Germany had *Bill-boards* up did they not? “Support the war effort”.
    Many Catholics /Christains in Germany believed (and still do) in the *fairy-tail* that ‘the Jews killed Christ’, that it was ok to “get rid of them”, they of course, if asked “does that mean extermiating them”, would have thought again,we hope. How much of their money went to support the Nazi murderous regime??
    Let’s not kid ourselves here,NO ONE did enough to stop that disgusting horrid “stain” on,crime against, humanity.. not even the C.Church!!!What’s more, it is hapening all over again,in Africa,while we AGAIN stand by and watch!! Congratulations Christian Democratic World!!!
    We send our young men and women to, “bestow upon”, or is it “force upon”, other nations OUR kind of democracy.. but fail to act it out at home.. How sad!!

70. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 8:10 pm

    Dear Sandra, I did not mean to suggest that you would support Nazis or slaveholders. The questions were rhetorical, intended to make it clear – since no one here would support such “principles” – that there have to be limits to what we respect. Your understandably strong reaction proves my point. I certainly don’t think that you respect abortionists or their work.

    But, if I may insist on what is obviously a painful point, not all National Socialists in Germany actually killed Jews, and not everyone who thought that blacks were less than legal persons actually owned slaves. Sadly, as ARN points out, with regard to unborn children, there are quite a few people – in both political parties in the US – who are in the same position as those Nazis and racists. They don’t think that the lives of unborn children are worth protecting. This should make us all at least a bit uncomfortable. It is not immediately obvious what the proper Christian response to such a situation should be.

    As for the relatively ambiguous status of the unborn child – or, let’s say (to be generous), embryonic human life, especially at the earliest stages – there may be something to that. From a legal point of view, I don’t think it is necessary that the unborn be declared “persons” as such. The pre-Roe laws did not turn on this point, and, as I said earlier, most of them treated abortion not as murder (ie, the killing of a human person), but rather as medical malpractice. The unborn can be legally protected for what they more obviously are: living individual human beings at a very early stage of development. Oddly enough, the dignity of unborn human lives was widely accepted, at least in the Christian world, for almost two millennia, when little was known about life in the womb, and that dignity has been called into question precisely during an era when science is making those lives and their humanity much clearer.

    ARN, I believe it was Winston Churchill who said “Demcracy is the worst form of government… except for all the others.” Or something like that.

    Getting back to this “morality we can afford” business… Would we argue against laws prohibiting stealing based on the fact that we have been unsuccessful in eradicating theft (some of which is certainly motivated by economic difficulties). Some laws are there simply because they are right. Laws against homicide haven’t gotten rid of murder. No one imagines that laws against abortion would make abortion disappear, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have those laws.

    This gets back to the central point of the post: the withholding of rights or legal protection (ie, the denial of human dignity) to certain members of the human family – “persons” or not, they are members of the family – is already a grave injustice, especially when this withholding is designed to make their killing legal. This is the injustice that our “pro-choice” politicians – even those who would never commit the “abominable crime” themselves – are all actively perpetrating. The laws are a recognition that protection is “due,” deserved… morally obligatory. Enforcement and punishment are separate issues.

71. ARN Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 9:43 pm

    “Enforcement and punishment are separate issues.”

    Not to people in this country, which assumes laws on the books will be enforced. Since the USA is not a banana republic (at least not yet) there is no patience with easy passage of a law that makes folks feel good but will be honored in the breach. Or worse, passed by the PTB with an eye toward having their palms greased by the scofflaw.

    I think this might be a big hurdle for the pro-life movement and a reason that most of them assure voters that the woman will be treated as a victim rather than prosecuted. Even if they succeed, the lessons of Prohibition are on many people’s minds. Better to permit abortion than risk subversion and coping with the “hard cases”, which will be trotted out-you can depend on it.

72. ARN Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

    Interesting, the pre-Roe medical malpractice concept. Don’t know if it would fly now with the issue polarizing so many. It would be like charging Al Capone with income tax evasion.

73. Michelle M Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 10:52 pm

    Here’s an article from Canada about a woman in jail because of abortion– because she was peacefully protesting outside of a clinic:

    http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=e80513cc-f872-4f2b-909b-255dd94c3bec&p=1

74. Michelle M Said:
    
    November 6th, 2008 at 10:59 pm

    And last, b/c of the WWII references, a movie trailer for a movie I am really looking forward to seeing– my husband and I saw the play on which it was based back when we were students. The movie is called “Good,” and it’s about someone who loses his soul by increments.

    http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=FRizY5yfZ1U

75. ARN Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 12:40 am

    “Getting back to this ‚Äúmorality we can afford‚Äù business‚Ķ Would we argue against laws prohibiting stealing based on the fact that we have been unsuccessful in eradicating theft (some of which is certainly motivated by economic difficulties). Some laws are there simply because they are right.”

    Fr Wauck, I’ve been thinking a bit about the morality our society can afford. It was only in the last hundred or so years, to give an example, that any attention was paid to safety in the factory or the mine–poor working people would be at risk to life and limb until unions insisted on a better arrangement. What was different before as opposed to after? There was more room in the eyes of the movers and shakers, as well as society at large, more resources available, so that appeals to common decency could be taken seriously. There were always those who took the moral high ground even if it did not make economic sense-recall the utopian industrial movements in this country, the Oneida group comes to mind-that went nowhere until there was a critical mass, a paradigm shift that changed our assumptions of what was right and wrong.

    Western civilization has had no shortage of appallingly brutal social arrangements of which wanton abortion is the latest to be remedied. If history tells us anything, it’s that changing people’s hearts and minds take time. This is why I’ve said that Congress’ actions has as much as announced that time has not yet come.

76. sandra Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 12:59 am

    Father Wauck,I am pleased to hear that..(your comment above) I have allways maintained my opposition to any kind of MURDER. and shall continue to do so…
    >> “Some laws are there simply because they are right. Laws against homicide haven‚Äôt gotten rid of murder. No one imagines that laws against abortion would make abortion disappear, but that doesn‚Äôt mean we shouldn‚Äôt have those laws.” “relatively ambiguous status of the unborn child” from a legal point of view

77. sandra Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 2:24 am

    Not gone completely through again….
    I continue from above.. from a legal point of view “when is a person a person”
    Science and Religion differ here (point of time) I have not the scientific knowledge to answer that,as I imagine,most here do not..
    The two-sided-sword,Democracy… We all expect from our elected leaders that they pass laws enabling us to live in safty,be able to feed our families,be free from the evil doings by our fellow men..
    Some laws we feel are just,others not so.. As our vote is cast in good faith,we tend to hope that all will be well,forgeting perhaps that *leaders* are also human,with the same faults as we have,the same question of conscience that we have.. Of course we must hold them responsible,voice our concerns,by protest,civil disobedience if need be,but in the end,we are bound to obey the laws we have,albeit they are not perfect.
    I too believe that, YES all life is sacred,including the child in the womb,but also,the child in Iraq,Africa Afganistan (and other countries where war is raging.)there also,babies are having their limbs torn from their bodies,not by surgons,but by bombs hurled at random, babies are also being,torn/cut from their mothers womb,albeit, not in hospital wards,under anesthetic, but by their fellow human beings,in an act of wanton hatred,with no respect for any life.. The democratically elected leaders of the *civilized* western world either paricpate or at best ‘close an eye’ to this,unless of course,it is in their own interest to intervene..
    How can we stand up and cry “infantcide” in our respective countries,but allow our own (elected)governments to act in this way.. We become totaly lacking in credence.
    I would wish for no woman to be in a situation where she is faced with a *choice* of such far reaching consequences regarding abortion…I feel deeply sorry for anyone in such circumstances..
    But untill we develop a “real/workable/efective” social conscience,with all that,that entails,I’m afraid this will remain wishfull thinking.
    I must empathise that I most definately oppose abortion being the *solution* for,Irresponsilbe / Careless/
    Thoughtless,life styles.. Prevention (in what ever way)be it through education or responsible family-planing is, at the stand of things in our society today,the only logical conclusion. The pill with all it’s *dangers* i.e. Thrombosis,cancer threat (not realy proven),the coil also with some(medical)reservations,seems still, except for abstenance only (also often unreliable and at times utopia),to be the more effective method to decrease the abortion rate,or at least not increase it further.
    With this I wish you all a peacefull evening and /or a good night.

    I

78. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 11:22 am

    ARN, the “legalization” of abortion wasn’t a legislative act. It was a judicial prohibition – by a 7-2 vote – of legislative action. It erased the popularly enacted laws of 50 states. It wasn’t a reflection of the morality that the nation was ready for – not economically, not psychologically, not politically, not religiously. It was a diktat, and it has caused political havoc for just that reason: it was a judicial end-run around the political process.

    The push for greater safety in the work-place didn’t wait for economics. Social reformers and unions pushed for it regardless of the economics. That is precisely – at the very least – what conscientious people should be doing about abortion.

79. ARN Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Those laws were passed supposedly to protect women from what was often a dangerous procedure, not so coincidentally pushed by the medical community wishing to counter rivals infringing on their turf. A bonus for the men passing it was that woman had one less way to hide evidence of fornication and adultery.

    That’s what *they* thought; women have always had ways to quietly flout this law using midwives and quacks. What’s notable at the time was there was little mention of the babies’ rights. Nobody was thinking about that. So in that *strict sense*, R v W didn’t represent a retrogression in morality, but a recognition of what as taking place anyway and a wish to make it safer. As you know, some states had already changed the law. And I agree, Roe v Wade short circuited that process on shaky legal grounds.

    But never mind. You might be pleased to know though that I’ve been consulting my crystal ball overnight to discern what may lie in a post-Roe future. I’m pretty good that way. Here’s what Madame ARN sees:

    1)Bible Belt states manage to enact the most restrictive policies that will pass muster with the voters and more importantly state supreme courts. All of these will have the rape, incest, fetal indications,life of mother exemptions in order to get by the courts. “Health” of mother will be a nasty battle, that being a loophole you could drive a truck through. I predict Utah with its heavy Mormon presence will be the strictest.

    2)Big coastal states and, the upper midwest and New England will retain the status quo with some tweaking. Perhaps for example they’ll restrict 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions to malformed fetal cases.

    Now will Peace and Love prevail in this shining city on a hill, the USA? Madame ARN doesn’t think so:

    1) Once the reality hits the Bible Belt states that their welfare caseload is going up and the stingy legislatures there have no interest in upping appropriations, Family Services departments will make use of longterm methods such as N*r pl*nt a condition of receiving welfare. A mini-Chinese population policy? Yes, we can! Forget about the rights of the poor.

    2) Women, even in states with no ban, will be shaken by the divisiveness of the battles in each of the states, will start being more conscientious with BC. Even more married women, their families “complete” will be st*rilized.

80. ARN Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

    Wanted to see if that went through before continuing and I had to drive Whiz Kid to work anyway. Whew…. Predicting the future can really wear you out! The following and much of the above pertain to the banning state

    3)The internet will be an important resource for women wishing to end their pregnancies, replacing the garpevine used by their grandmothers. There are many easily available over the counter substances that will bring on one’s period if used early enough. The internet will spread the word.

    4)High School curriculums now all have comprehensive s*x ed with a large abstinence component. The stakes are now so high that the old ideology, the old objections can’t stand in its way. Pregnancy rates do drop due to more abstinence, precautions and a switch to “outercourse”.

    5) A new ethic of caring for women with unplanned pregnancies gains ground. Even married ones are not dependent solely on their husbands’ income since European style “Kinder geld” distributions from the government will become popular. There will be a new understanding that women’s fertility is a precious natural resource for the nation, sacred even, and that it doesn’t belong only to her. She will be well treated and not stigmatized if she is unwed. This doesn’t always work, people being people–there will be broken lives, suicides and heartbreak.

    6)Enforcement might be spotty. Cops may refuse to go after abortionists, or perhaps only the ones that haven’t paid them off.

    7)Disturbed by all the wrassling, turmoil, and wrecked lives, an altruistic scientist, a new John Rock emerges to spearhead a search for a new foolproof method to prevent *all* unplanned pregnancies with no side effects. Seeing the demand, and the profits such a magic bullet would bring, Big Pharma gets behind it in a major way. The endeavor is huge, yea it’s a veritable Manhattan Project in its scope and single-minded dedication.

    Success at last and even better than anticipated: an “opt-in” procedure. IOW, infertility is the default status and changed only when a woman wants to a child. Adoption of the method spreads overnight. There is even some effort to make it mandatory such is the tragedy of an unplanned pregnancy. This movement runs aground on civil rights grounds but underscore the popular enthusiasm for the method. Teenage girl get it a a matter of course; most women do.

    9) This new attitude causes the abortion stats to rewrite the statute to agree with the stricter states but since incest and rape derived pregnancies no longer exists, this language is eliminated. Remaining are only the fetal indications and life/health of the mother exemptions. Health exemptions will be tightened. There will only be a relative handful of abortions performed now compared to the past and they are done with great regret.

81. ARN Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    To sum up, something had to change to make eliminating abortion a morality we can afford. Technology boosted as it so often does the change of minds. The paradigm shifts and abortion on demand is then considered despicable.

82. Michelle M Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 5:51 pm

    ARN- in your predictions, you’ve just written a prequel for “Children of Men” (the book, not the movie)

83. sandra Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    Oh ARN.. you naughty girl!!
    Are you chalenging St.Thomas Moore’s “UTOPIA” >> Abortion on demand is then concidered despicable > A new ethic of caring for women with unplanned pregnancies gains ground. Even married ones are not dependent solely on their husbands‚Äô income since European style ‚ÄúKinder geld‚Äù distributions from the government will become popular.(**especially this part**)
    There will be a new understanding that women’s fertility is a precious natural resource for the nation, sacred even, and that it doesn’t belong only to her. She will be well treated and not stigmatized if she is unwed.

84. sandra Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    AGAIN!!! OK part two!!! Continued from above;- not stigmatized ….

    *Dem F?ºhrer(State)kinder schenken” = “Children as a gift for the F?ºhrer” Now that was, “prescribed, fornication,condoned and paid for by the wellfare Staat”, of course just one minor hitch,the children became *property of the State*the more the merrier.We could even start giving out “medals”.. Wunderbar!!! ..
    A sort of vor-runner to ‘cloning’.. Only the most buxsom M?§dels,and the blondest Buben (guys) would be eligible,we don’t want any ‘un-desirables’ sliping through the net.Of course ,this would also have a positive effect on health care.. Healthy people living under strict supervision,will naturaly *produce* healthy kids..
    What prospects,what bliss,keep it all under *control* you betcha!
    Ooops! forgot one teeny weeny thing; We normalo’s won’t have a *look in*…But as Father Wauck so eloquently put it “that’s the price we will have to pay”… Ah,on second thoughts, “thanks but no thanks”..

    A quick question here,is there not “Kindergeld” in the USA? how about “maternity leave”?(not only for the mother) At least 6 months here,at 68% of Net income,with the garantee of geting your job back after..
    Civil Servants /Teachers/Gov.employees,get up to 3years=6.months full pay the rest 60%..
    Medical care is obligatory for an employer= 50% and 50% employee..according to income.. All children and (stay at home wives are included.Of course they can opt to go private,they get the same 50% from their enployer..Medicine is subsidized by the State.. we pay ‚Ǩ.5.- per percription,some with income support or cronical illness get it free (or refunded each quarter.)Ther is very little if not no waiting time for hospitalization /OP’s etc. In the UK it is even better. (apart from waiting time).. (’till now at least).
    *Wonderous times lie adead of us if your “crystal-bowl” is accurate
    My next comment will be on a more *optimistic theme*
    ’till later…

85. sandra Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 7:10 pm

    This is what I ment by “respecting *others*”
    >> “Let us resolve to overcome past prejudices and to correct the often distorted images of the other, which even today can create difficulties in our relations,” Benedict told the Muslim delegation. He called the gathering “a clear sign of our mutual esteem and our desire to listen respectfully to one another.”

86. sandra Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    Hey why does my link to the above not go through??
    Is it b/c it’s from the NYTimes???
    IT’S POSITVE!!!! (for achange )

87. sandra Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    Well it’s not going through???? don’t you trust me “filter mann”???
    Catholic and Muslime Leaders Meet at The Vatican… To be seen in the NYTimes…
    You’ll have to check it out for yourselves if you are interested..
    on second thoughts I’ll copy and paste it.. so there.

88. sandra Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

    VATICAN CITY — Catholic and Muslim leaders worked on Thursday to deflate suspicion between their two faiths, pledging at a high-level seminar here to work together to condemn terrorism, protect religious freedom and fight poverty.
    The meeting came a year after 138 Muslim leaders wrote a letter to Pope Benedict XVI after he offended many Muslims by quoting a Byzantine emperor who called some teachings of the Prophet Muhammad “evil and inhuman.” In turn, top Vatican officials have worried about freedom of worship in majority-Muslim countries, as well as immigration that is turning Europe, which they define as a Christian continent, increasingly Muslim.

    But on Thursday both sides said they hoped that the seminar would open a new and much-improved chapter in Catholic-Muslim relations, as the two groups said they might establish a committee that could ease tensions in any future crisis between the two religions.
    Addressing the pope on behalf of the Muslim delegation, Seyyed Hossein Nasr of Iran, a professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University in Washington, said that throughout history, “various political forces” of both Christians and Muslims had carried out violence.

    “Certainly we cannot claim that violence is the monopoly of only one religion,” he said.

    But on Thursday both sides said they hoped that the seminar would open a new and much-improved chapter in Catholic-Muslim relations, as the two groups said they might establish a committee that could ease tensions in any future crisis between the two religions.

    It called on Catholics and Muslims to renounce “oppression, aggressive violence and terrorism, especially that committed in the name of religion.”

    And it said religious minorities should be “entitled to their own places of worship, and their founding figures and symbols they consider sacred should not be subjected to any form of mockery or ridicule.”
    That was IMO the *jist* of the *message*

89. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 8:12 pm

    My word, lots of ideas floating around here. And one distopian novel, it seems (get to work, ARN).

    Not to rain on the parade or anything but… ARN, there are many laws in the US that are either selectively or laxly enforced or hardly involve punishment at all. Surely, we are all familiar with traffic and tax laws? Maybe after 13 years abroad, I am losing touch with my native land, but the popular clamor for stricter enforcement of these laws has yet to reach my ears. More seriously, especially in the realm of “morals” legislation, nominal enforcement is not uncommon. For exhibit A, consult the front page of today’s NYTimes: Eliot Spitzer… and prostitution generally. The same could be said of the old contraception laws, the sodomy laws, and even the abortion laws themselves. Most of the legal cases that challenged these laws had to be trumped up. Roe v. Wade, of course, was a case cooked up by lawyers based on false testimony – as we all know from all those front-page stories in the NYTimes about how the most controversial case of the century was a fraud (we do remember them, don’t we?).

    But none of this was my point when I said that enforcement and punishment are separate issues. I merely meant that saying something is illegal is one thing; setting the rules for enforcement and sanctions is another.

    Also, it’s been a while since I studied the matter, but I seem to recall that the stricter anti-abortion laws of the middle of the 1800s were at least partly motivated by discoveries about the biology of conception in the early part of that century. The fact that the laws weren’t all “homicide” laws (ie, some were medical malpractice laws) doesn’t mean that legislators were indifferent to the humanity of the fetus. In fact, again if my memory serves, there were places where abortion was considered manslaughter.

    As a rule, women did not go to jail for abortion. Nor did they die. The stories about “back-alley” abortions and coathangers are largely propaganda myths. Most illegal abortions were clandestinely performed by willing doctors, and the big difference in mortality was long before Roe. It was the arrival of penicillin around the time of WWII. In fact, because of the huge increase in the number of abortions after Roe (note to ARN: laws do change behavior), there was actually an increase after Roe of deaths due to abortion.

    War and the death penalty are not the same as abortion. There is such a thing, in Catholic teaching, as a “just war.” Manysaints were soldiers. There is also a just use of capital punishment. There are saints who ordered or approved of executions. Whether a given war or a given execution is just or unjust depends on circumstances and prudential judgments (very tricky area).

    Abortion is completely different. Nothing tricky about it. It is inherently evil – always and everywhere, by its very nature, an abominable crime. There are no saints who were abortionists. (The analogous situation in the areas of military practice or law enforcement would be a policy of directly and deliberately killing innocent civilians or executing the innocent.)

90. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

    NEWS FLASH: OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING MY WORK FOR ME!

    Specifically the folks at the Pew Research Forum and the reporters at the National Catholic Reporter (the Obama cheerleaders). Remember that exit polls are not always accurate.

    “According to exit polls, those who identified themselves as Catholics voted for Obama 52 to 45 percent, a seven-point improvement for the Democratic candidate from the elections in 2004.”

    That confirms that Catholics are still a bellwether vote. 52-45 is close to the overall national vote, and the 7-point difference is exactly the same as the difference (53-46) in the national popular vote.

    But there was a dig difference between those who go to Mass on Sunday and those who don’t.

    “Among those who attend once a week or more, McCain won 55 percent to 43 (Bush won 61 to 39). Among those who attend church a few times a month or less, Obama drastically turned the tables — he won 57 percent to 42, a four percent increase over Kerry. And of those who never attend services, Obama won 67 percent to 30, a 5 percent increase.”

    Uh, how to say this delicately….?

    Well, the less you go to church, the more likely you’ll vote for Obama. Didn’t the initial post kinda imply that?

91. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 9:28 pm

    Needless to say, many church-going Catholics did vote for Obama, but clearly lack of attendance correlates pretty strongly with … ummm, kool-aid consumption.

    Dear Sandra, I didn’t find your original comment in the moderation hopper. I don’t know what happened. My apologies.

    Small world department: yesterday morning, I was having coffee with the reporter who wrote that NYTimes article right before she had to run over to the Vatican Press Office to cover the story.

    By the way, ARN, when I said “get to work”, I meant on writing that distopian novel. Clearly, you have the knack. Be happy to serialize it here!

92. Michelle M Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    ARn– just thought of another dystopian novel your plot reminded me of. It’s a young person’s novel, a few of my kids have taken it as a novel study, my husband has also taught it. It’s called The Giver, by Lois Lowry. It’s a Newbery Award winner. Any of your kids run across it?

    Here’s the Amazon link, check out the summary in the Publisher’s Weekly review.
    http://www.amazon.com/Giver-Lois-Lowry/dp/0440237688/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226093596&sr=8-3

93. John Wauck Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    About laws and behavior.

    Consider the effect on one’s frame of mind of knowing that one’s elected representatives – in some sense reflecting the views of the majority of one’s neighbors – consider a given action to be a criminal offense. The everyone-else- (including, probably, people I like and respect)-is-doing-it argument, which carries a lot of weight, is gone. In fact, everyone else is not doing it, at least not openly, and the few that are doing it may wind up being fined or in jail. Maybe it’s not such a good idea after all. Are all those people wrong?

    It seems obvious to me that the reverse phenomenon has occurred with the Roe v. Wade decision. 35 years of legal abortion, of knowing people (some of whom we like and respect) who have had them (and, hey, the sky hasn’t fallen), has taken its toll on the clarity with which we ought to be judging the action and – forgive my insistence – the actions of policy makers who fight for it in the political arena. I suppose that the fact that, after 35 years, it is still a hot issue, is an indication of just how bad abortion is. It resists being accepted. It’s stuck in America’s craw.

94. sandra Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 10:50 pm

    Statistic.statistics……….Topsey turvey world…

    And as we are STILL on the subject:———-

    From the NYTimes. Nov.5th.
    This American Moment — The Surprises-If you look closely at who voted for Obama, you’ll see a lot of people who weren’t supposed to.

    This was a transformative election, but not because there was some big lurch to the left or an unequivocal rejection of the right. The culture is confused, as always. Gay marriage lost in liberal California, in Florida and Arizona. But abortion restrictions were voted down in conservative South Dakota. And 73 percent of voters in Colorado disagreed with a longheld Republican contention that human life begins at conception.

    Witness Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, three prime states where working-class whites were supposed to be saving their true racial feelings for the privacy of the voting booth. Obama won Michigan by 16 points, Pennsylvania by 11 and Ohio by four. In each case, the vote was well above the election eve average of all polls. Hillary Clinton voters came home. Ditto Reagan Democrats. Did I mention that Obama won the Catholic vote — and Scranton, the iconic blue-collar town?

    Obama won the New South of Virginia, Florida and perhaps North Carolina. He flipped three states in the New West, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.
    **He won the fastest-growing ethnic group, Latinos, by better than a 2-1 margin.** As for the young, nobody since modern polling of age groups began has racked up a better percentage of the 18- to 29-year-old vote. Obama won 66 percent of the kids.

95. sandra Said:
    
    November 7th, 2008 at 11:23 pm

    My links are not going through AGAIN wish I knew what’s wrong..
    Anyway,I have found a good article fron 2007 on Health care-Taxes-Vacation,_ USA v. *socialist* Europe.
    (in this case Italy)
    By TIMOTHY EGAN
    Published: July 5, 2007
    GUEST COLUMNIST; A National Gut-Check: Who Lives Better?

    One of the memorable scenes in ”Sicko,” Michael Moore’s latest cinematic provocation, comes from France, where he shows doctors in their little white cars making house calls — for free.

    But it’s not just France. When we lived in Italy some time ago, a doctor came to our farmhouse rental on Easter Sunday morning to diagnose a stomach ailment. He charged nothing.

    Let’s stipulate that Moore is a one-sided pamphleteer, with a bit of Mark Twain and Pat Robertson in his schtick. But like all propagandists, his job is not to find some objective truth, but to anger, challenge, ask hard questions.

    With Independence Day just passed, a good nationalist shouldn’t be afraid to answer those questions. So, who lives better, us or them?

    In Italy, this was a regular parlor game when friends came to visit. Inevitably, after a few days of taking in our new world — a village public school for the kids, neighbors who opened the doors of their ancient homes to us, a lengthy siesta every afternoon — our houseguests would side with the Italians. I would counter for the U.S.A., to keep the argument alive.

    The Italians won on health, family and food. The United States was better on race and opportunity.

    With health care, the anecdotal often carried the argument. One day, a tenant farmer named Sergio, our neighbor, woke with a terrible eye infection. He was full of pain, unable to see. Sergio got world-class care in Florence. After three days of attentive fussing in the hospital, he came home entirely well and without a bill.

    Had he showed up at any American hospital — poor, no insurance — well, good luck. Especially in a place like Texas, where 30 percent of adults lack health insurance and what can pass for medical care is a get-in-line form of triage.

    But even with insurance, Americans are stuck with what may be the worst of all systems: one that lets a handful of corporations make life-and-death decisions, with incentive to dump and deny.

    Little wonder that the United States ranks 37th in effectiveness of health care. Italy ranks 2nd. This is a country that can’t form a government to last longer than the soccer season, and yet, they make our medical system look barbaric.

    If our system doesn’t kill you — see the infant mortality and life expectancy rates, bringing up the rear — it can put you in the poorhouse. Medical catastrophes are the leading cause of bankruptcy, and most of those are people who have some insurance, clinging to the frayed edge of the middle class.

    Ah, but what about taxes? Europeans pay more than we do, to fund that free health care. Take that, Euro-trash, while lying on the beach. And yet, our tax system is approaching Gilded Age disparity. Listen to Warren Buffett, the third richest man in the world. Last year, he was taxed at 17 percent of his taxable income, he said last month. His receptionist paid nearly twice that, at 30 percent.

    O.K., so what about leisure? Americans spend nearly a third of their disposable income on good times, baby. But we can’t relax. Sorry — no time. Lunch averages 31 minutes. And the U.S. ranks dead last among 21 of the world’s richest countries when it comes to guaranteed days off, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

    Most Americans don’t even use their allotted days of leisure. The Italians take 42 vacation days a year — No. 1 in the world. The average American takes 13.

    A quarter of Americans receive no vacation at all. And it’s not like we don’t need it: one in three are chronically overworked. We even work 100 hours a year more than the Japanese.

    President Bush has it figured out, with his month off at the ranch. But for a profile in clueless, Bush set the mark when he lauded as truly American some citizen who told him she had to work three jobs. Ain’t that something?

    Where America shines is with our multiracial society and the easy access to opportunity. It was jarring to listen to otherwise thoughtful Tuscans denigrate Ethiopian immigrants or even their Sicilian countrymen.

    By contrast, nothing made me prouder than telling Italians that I came from a place with an African-American mayor and a Chinese-American governor. Or that I grew up in a big Irish-American family with little money.

    A patriot should not be afraid to have this debate, vigorously — after a nap.

    Is this true???
    (excluding the multi-culti part I mean,whch does seem true,at least in light of the Election results))

    If so,no wonder Obama won!!

96. ARN Said:
    
    November 8th, 2008 at 1:56 am

    Michelle–Ididn’t read the book or see the movie but heard the story. So..are you suggesting that that dashing and magnanimous reincarnation of John Rock outsmarted himself and unwittingly rendered infertile the whole human race? Ah, the tragedy of hubris! Durn it, we rushed it through the trials despite the DEA’s hesitation.

97. ARN Said:
    
    November 8th, 2008 at 2:03 am

    “Only the most buxsom M?§dels,and the blondest Buben (guys) would be eligible,”

    I like it! Umm…Are you saying something’s wrong with it?

    About kindergeld and maternity leave. We don’t have it and the leave is unpaid. All those other benefits you mention don’t happen here either–Another reason a German type soal welfare set up would be needed to support a turnaway from abortion.

98. ARN Said:
    
    November 8th, 2008 at 2:18 am

    “It is inherently evil – always and everywhere, by its very nature, an abominable crime.”

    Then why are you likening its enforcement to the sloppy way traffic and morals violation are handled? To me it seems hypocritical to pass a law just to carry it out haphazardly, knowing full well it’ll be widely flouted. Or worse, only enforced selectively. If the matter is so serious, then it should be handled seriously.

99. ARN Said:
    
    November 8th, 2008 at 2:22 am

    “one distopian novel,”

    That was the best case scenario. If the demand is there, I might be able to persuade Madame ARN to flesh out a nightmare scenario. But I think Margaret Atwood already did that in “Handmaid’s Tale”.

100. ARN Said:
     
     November 8th, 2008 at 2:27 am

     “..many church-going Catholics did vote for Obama, but clearly lack of attendance correlates pretty strongly with ‚Ķ ummm, kool-aid consumption.”

     If you keep denigrating Obama and those who voted for him, I’m going to have to insist on calling George W Bush the dumbest ******* president ever.

101. ARN Said:
     
     November 8th, 2008 at 2:33 am

     USA v. *socialist* Europe.
     (in this case Italy)
     By TIMOTHY EGAN
     Published: July 5, 2007
     GUEST COLUMNIST; A National Gut-Check: Who Lives Better?

     I read that piece when it came out and thought it was suberb. My mother tells me that as bad as the Depression was in Europe, the US was worse off. Unlike the USA, “Belgium takes care of its people”.

102. ARN Said:
     
     November 8th, 2008 at 2:56 am

     “About laws and behavior…”

     “In fact, everyone else is not doing it, at least not openly, and the few that are doing it may wind up being fined or in jail.”

     Back to square one. You can’t expect most women to carry a pregnancy to term when they are between a rock and a hard place and without giving them a lot of assistance to do so. That would be the minimal requirement if the gov’t is serious about it. Not to do so would appear to many to be cavalier and presumptuous. When the Federal Government does this to states, it’s called an “unfunded mandate”.

103. sandra Said:
     
     November 8th, 2008 at 1:41 pm

     ARN,
     our German system (including other W.European countries)is by no way perfect,and prob. never will be,it’s just,as I must asume by your answer,a lot better than many others..
     While thinking about all these *statistics* floating around (not just here),I wondered if,any were known (or pols conducted),as to how many Catholics have had an abortion,of course we all know that few would speak out openly about this. (there are I expect, Hospital / doctors records/health insurance document. Here we have to state our religion when aplying for, *offical* documents,i.e. Social security,Passport/ID card,Tax card (tax declaration.) Sort of “big brother knows all”,but then,some to avoid paying this *tax*,tell w *fibs*.
     We pay 8-9% Kirchensteuer = Church tax which is automatically deducted from our pre-tax wage,then forwarded on to the apropriate *Church*.Of course if a person has (or states he has) no Religious dominination he does not have to pay the tax.
     This of course,is not “kept secret* from the Church they belong to (if they did at any time belong to one) THEN!! the Church in question become VERY active,house calls/letters/phone calls et all.
     Yep!! It’s a matter of “ecconomy”.. on both sides.
     So,if ya think ya can get out of paying taxes that will contribute to WAR /ABORTIONS hard luck.. Vater Staat = Big brother has thought of that… and ya just can’t win!!
     BTW. the State get their *due* anyway. i.e.;-
     >> In Germany, on the basis of tax regulations passed by the communities and within the limits set by state laws, communities may either require the taxation authorities of the state to collect the fees from the members on the basis of income tax assessment (then, the authorities withhold a collection fee).
     If, however, religious communities choose to collect church tax themselves, they may demand that the tax authorities reveal taxation data of their members to calculate the contributions and prepayments owed.
     Nice thought?? Not only does *big Brother* know all,but your Church does then too!!WOW!!

104. sandra Said:
     
     November 8th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

     One more to think about;-
     (in Germany)
     About 70% of church revenues come from church tax. This is about €8.5 billion (in 2002).

     Article 137 of the Weimar Constitution of 1919 and article 140 of the Grundgesetz of 1949 are the legal basis for this practice.
     (of course ALL Churches are included in this figure)

105. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 8th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

     OK, OK, voting for Obama doesn’t mean one is hooked on the kool-aid (I first heard that expression, though, from a proud Obama supporter). That was, inadvertently, over the line. Just couldn’t resist the joke. I am sorry I wrote that.

     ARN, you can call Bush whatever you like. I haven’t the slightest problem with that. I think I’ve been pretty studious here about avoiding comparisons with Bush or McCain. That’s not the point of the post, I swear.

     “You can‚Äôt expect most women to carry a pregnancy to term when they are between a rock and a hard place and without giving them a lot of assistance to do so. That would be the minimal requirement if the gov‚Äôt is serious about it.”

     Actually, you can, and you should, and for all of Christian history we have. It is a little hard for me to believe that I have to say this but here’s the news: killing other innocent human beings is never acceptable. The government doesn’t even enter into this. This would be true on a desert island without anything to eat at all.

     I’ve already said why the ecomomic motive for abortion is dubious, especially when there are charities set up specifically for “problem pregnancies” and adoption is an option.

     Families have been taking care of children (including through adoption) in extremely difficult situations – and much greater poverty than anything we see in the US – for the whole of human history. As I have already said, we don’t suspend the laws against infanticide in cases of economic need. Why should we suspend the laws against pre-natal infanticide? We expect parents not to kill their other children. Period.

     But that’s only the weakest way of looking at it. In fact, parents have a positive duty to protect the lives of their children, even when that is very difficult. And there’s more: the government has a duty to protect human lives, including those in the womb.

     The “unfunded mandate” analogy doesn’t work. The government does not force anyone to bring a new human being into existence. Once you do, however, certain basic responsibilities – like, for instance, “do not kill” – come into play. And this is before any legislation is written. The legislation against child abuse and abandonment (not to mention infanticide) comes as a simply consequence of the natural law. And the responsibilities don’t apply only to the women, neither in natural law nor civil law.

     ARN, you seem to be misinterpreting my point about enforcement and sanctions. I’m not advocating sloppy enforcement (the point about traffic and tax laws was simply to suggest what seems obvious to me: the American public is not always insistent about strictness, even in the case of things that many strongly disapprove of, like prostitution and sodomy). My only point is that, when one writes a law, one can adopt the enforcement procedures that seem appropriate given the crime, the resources that are available, etc. Nothing more. For example, if we wanted to get more serious about protecting innocent human life – I mean already-born lives here – we could dedicate a lot more resources to enforcement (a cop on every block, eg), but we don’t. Perhaps we should, but that’s the sort of thing that gets settled in a legislative debate, taking into account many other factors.

106. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 8th, 2008 at 6:31 pm

     In reparation, ARN.

     Barak Obama, the Catholic choice? Apparently Barak – like Sarah Palin – has Catholic roots. I just read an article in the International Herald Tribune saying that Barak’s Kenyan grandfather was a Catholic. Barak’s father must be the only born-Muslim ancestor he has. Apparently the grandfather converted to Islam.

     So… all Barak has to do now is keep exploring his Kenyan roots. He never bought into his dad’s Islamic faith (such as it was) anyway. Why not go all the way back – go Catholic?

107. sandra Said:
     
     November 8th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

     >> Apparently Barak – like Sarah Palin – has Catholic roots…
     Well why not go all the way back

108. sandra Said:
     
     November 8th, 2008 at 8:36 pm

     Better than Sarah Palin’s choice any day!!!
     Who knows Father wauck,perhaps he has.. “deep down”.
     After all he did ‘say’ in one of the debates(last one I think),that he ofcourse did NOT support leting babies die in the way already described here(no need to repeat the horrid conditions), adding “who would”?..
     In politics many things are left in “the grey-zone” Mr.McCain did not commit himself whole-heartedly, absolutely against abortion,if I recall rightly..
     All politicions play to the (voting) audience.
     It was no diffrent during WWII. The Vatican was quite *mute*,fearing (as they now say) retribution against Catholics..That also should give us ‘food for thought’,or not?
     Many Catholics risked their lives standing up to Hitler’s regime,even voluntary going with their fellow country-men/women to certain death.. among those men and women were Nuns and Priests,while the Hierachy was ‘playing diplomatic ball game’ with a Facist regime in Rome.
     The Vatican also after rangling out a ‘quid pro quo’ from Hitler desoved the:-
     Deutsche Zentrumspartei (or merely Zentrum Partei)which was a Catholic political party in Germany during the Kaiserreich and the Weimar Republic.
     The party dissolved itself on 5 July 1933 as a condition of the conclusion of a Concordat/Reichskonkordat between the Holy See and Germany.The Vatican agreed that clegy stay out of politics. Previously the Centre Party,had opposed the NSDAP,but on advice from the Vatican prompted it’s folowers to give their vote to Hitlers party.As we were to see they were repaid well.(dissolved)..
     Cardinal Secretary of State Pacelli (later PiusXII) signed on behalf of Pope PiusXI the Reichskonkordat on July 20, 1933 in Rome,enabling Hitler to asume a more positive image among Catholics in Germany/USA and rest Europe,incl.Italy. Facit; Hitler the Catholic choice?
     If we are honest there is no,completely truthfull/Christian/trustworthy politician…. or is there???
     That is why Religion should stick to what it does best…….preaching God’s word/WILL,and praying that good will prevail over lust for power.(which does not mean,not having and voicing it’s opinion on matters concerning Faith).

109. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 12:48 am

     Article by Rabbi David Dalin about Pius XII, first published in the Weekly Standard:
     http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0020.html

110. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 12:51 am

     Article by Kenneth Woodward of Newsweek Magazine about Pius XII:
     http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0002.html

111. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 3:32 am

     And– just saw this when visiting the Salt and Light television website:

     http://www.saltandlighttv.org/prog_special_hand_of_peace.html

     Upcoming production about Pius XII and the Holocaust.

112. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 11:42 am

     “It was no different during WWII. ”

     Sandra, what you are saying is false and misleading. Please, for your own sake, stop writing such things.

     The events, which you describe, involving the 1933 concordant and the Zentrum Party are at the very beginning of Hitler’s rule. You know as well as all of us that WWII did not begin in 1933. Nor did Hitler begin killing Jews in 1933. At that time, the full implications of Hitler’s rule were not yet known. In any case, the 50 protests to the Nazi regime that the Vatican wrote – none received a response – in the 36 months after the 1933 concordat did not contribute to a favorable image of Hitler among Catholics. All of this, I repeat, is long before the war.

     You also know as we all do that the Vatican condemned the Nazi racial policies in a special encyclical written in German – Mit Brennender Sorge (With Burning Concern) – well before the war, in the spring of 1937. It was an extremely harsh denunciation of Hitler. It was secretly printed in twelve different presses and distributed to all bishops, parishes and convents. The day it was read in the churches, the Gestapo was waiting outside many churches to arrest anyone who had a printed copy. The Nazis accused Pius XII of being a spokesman for the Jews.

     During the war, Catholics all over Europe were instructed by Pius XII to take action and provide refuge for Jews.

     As recently diplomatic studies have shown, during the war, the Vatican actively assisting the Allies as much as was possible. And the Vatican had every reason to fear the retribution that Hitler would inflict on helpless Catholics, because that retribution really occurred (in Holland, for instance). Arrest, prison and death were very real possibilities.

     In short, to say “it was no different during WWII” is simply untrue.

     Besides, even if it were true that the Vatican or German bishops didn’t do enough against Hitler or the killing of Jews, are you seriously suggesting that we should imitate their example today in the case of abortion? If they turned a blind eye to the Nazi threat, shouldn’t we be doing the opposite?

     Anyone interested in Obama’s position on abortion should read this article. I already posted it, but it seems that it may have escaped notice.

     http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama’s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml 

113. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 11:59 am

     A recent book entitled “Priestblock 25487″, by a priest from Luxembourg named Jean Bernard recounts his time in Dachau. Almost 3,000 Christian pastors opposed to Hitler‚Äôs regime were sent to the Dachau prison camp; most of these were Catholic priests; at least 1,000 of them died.

     And here’s a little piece of the picture of what really went on in World War II, taken from the ZENIT site:

     “Tibor Baranski, executive secretary of the Jewish Protection Movement of the Holy See in Hungary during World War II, has been honored by Yad Vashem (Israel’s Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority) as a Righteous Gentile for his rescue work. Officially he saved 3,000 Jews. Unofficially he saved at least that many more.

     “Baranski worked closely with Angelo Rotta, papal nuncio in Hungary during the war (who was also recognized by Yad Vashem as a Righteous Gentile). Baranski makes clear, however, that these lifesaving activities were not the lone actions of himself or Nuncio Rotta. “I was really acting in accordance with the orders of Pope Pius XII.” Charges that Pius was not involved are “simple lies; nothing else,” and claims that Pius should have done more for the Jews are, according to Baranski, “slanderous.”

     “Baranski personally saw at least two letters from Pius XII instructing Rotta to do his very best to protect Jews but to refrain from making statements that might provoke the Nazis. He adds: “These two letters were not written by the authorities at the Vatican, but they were handwritten ones by Pope Pius himself.” He goes on to note that “all other nuncios of the Nazi-occupied countries received similar letters.” Italian Jews, for instance, were sheltered in monasteries, seminaries and other Church buildings on the “direct instruction of the Vatican.”

114. sandra Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

     Today Nov.9th. We may bemember the *Reichskristallnacht*
     The Catholic poet, Reinhold Schneider, says of the Germany-wide pogrom of November 1938 in his postwar memoirs, “Enshrouded Day”: “On the day the synagogues were stormed the churches ought to have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the synagogues. It is pivotal that this did not occur”. As this verdict of a contemporary indicates, the Christian churches and parishes failed morally, both individually and collectively. It was only individual Christians – and individual non-Christians, as well – who dared to protest against injustice, tried to do something for the disenfranchised and oppressed Jews

     Konrad Adenauer,
     As a devout Roman Catholic, he joined the Centre Party in 1906 and was elected to Cologne’s city council in the same year. In 1909, he became Vice-Mayor of Cologne. From 1917 to 1933, he served as Mayor of Cologne.
     When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the Centre Party lost the elections in Cologne and Adenauer fled to the abbey of Maria Laach, threatened by the new government after he refused to shake hands with a local Nazi leader. His stay at this abbey, which lasted for a year, was cited by its abbot after the war, when accused by Heinrich B??ll and others of collaboration with the Nazis.
     On 23.02.1946 Konrad Adenauer sent the Bonn pastor, Dr. Bernhard Custodis, a memorandum which is unfortunately not widely known. In it he comes to a clear and severe judgement against the behaviour of the churches. He ends his long account thus:
     >> “If the bishops had all together on the same day taken a public position from the chancel, I believe they could have averted a great deal. That did not happen and for that there is no excuse. If this had resulted in the bishops landing in prison and in concentration camps, that would have done no harm [to their cause], quite the contrary. All that did not happen, and therefore it is best to hold one’s peace.” > -that if only there had at least been read out in the Catholic church services and in those of the Bekennende Kirche,the names of persecuted clergy, as representatives of hundreds of thousands of others, clergy who had been displaced, driven out, arrested and forbidden to preach or give religious instruction.”

115. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

     According to the December 23, 1940 issue of Time magazine on page 38, Albert Einstein said:

     “Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks…

     “Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.”

116. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

     Referring to Pope Pius XII’s 1941 Christmas message, The New York Times editorial on December 25, 1941 (Late Day edition, p. 24), said:

     “The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas… he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all… the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism… he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace.”

117. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

     Sandra, thank you for the Konrad Adenauer quotation. His opinion about what might have happened if all the bishops had spoken out on the same day – I’m not sure how this would have differed from the reading in every church in Germany on March 21, 1937 (Palm Sunday) of the encyclical Mitt Brennender Sorge, but leave that aside – is quite interesting.

     I assume you are suggesting that all the bishops of the US should now do something similar. Perhaps Benedict XVI could write a special encyclical in English to be read in every cathedral, church, convent and monastery in the US. But Adenauer seems to have something even stronger in mind. I wonder what that could be?

     Perhaps it could be something like the poet Schneider seems to have in mind: standing should-to-shoulder with the synagogues. I presume he’s talking about offering physical protection of Jewish property and lives. Maybe Catholic parishes could organize something like that in order to protect innocent human lives threatened in the United States.

     Unfortunately, Adenauer is not very specific about the “great deal” that could have been averted by his suggested tactic. One of things that he clearly did not think would be averted was getting the outspoken bishops thrown in jails and concentration camps. This seems to confirm the fears of the Vatican. How effective this would have been in opposing Hitler’s policies seems, to say the very least, debatable. One can’t help but notice that it wasn’t the tactic that Adenauer himself followed when he boldly took refuge in the abbey of Maria Laach, allowing himself to be able to fight, somewhat more safely, another day.

118. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

     If I am not mistaken, in the elections that led to Hitler’s assumption of power, he never received a majority in the Catholic Lander. Rather edifying.

119. sandra Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

     Father Wauck
     I have read *With Burning Concern*,both in German and in English.
     I do not dispute that letters from Pius XII, instructing Rotta to do his very best to protect Jews but to refrain from making statements that might provoke the Nazis,were writen by the Pope.
     I have already written that the C.Church was wary of retribution. (expaining his restrain in taking openly a more vigorous stand)
     I have,as you may well asume read quite a lot of literature from BOTH sides.
     The argument that the Vatican was *unaware*of Hitlers intentions in 1933 is,I am afraid not really waterproof.
     As early as 1923 his anti-semitism was absolutely apparent to all.
     The political / ethnical aims/ambitions of the NSDAP were WELL known..long before 1933. not only in Germany but in all of Europe.
     They shouted their Anti-semitism literally from the roof tops… The Vatican was not deaf!!

     Leters to the Rota, *the harboring of Jews from the Nazi’s*,yes I know that hapened,this while being highly recomendable and has saved so many from certain death,did not deter Hitler,it was a ‘drop on a hot stone’,as far as HE was concernd..
     His concern were the Catholics at HOME,they were the ones who needed to be kept in check,to toe the Party- line.
     Without TOO much interference(in the Catholic community/pulpits(Kanzel),from ROME.
     Letters,one dated 18.03.1938 (after the papal encyclica), are also ‘documented’
     from the Austrian bishops;-
     (when Hitler invaded Austria, instead of protesting against the annexation of their country which violated international law),They “joyously recognised”
     >> “that the National Socialist movement has performed and continues to perform outstanding accomplishments in the area of German ethnic and economic development, as well as in the social politics of the German nation and people, especially for the poorest classes. We are also convinced that through the actions of the National Socialist movement the danger of destructive, godless Bolshevism will be averted. The Bishops will accompany this action in the future with their best wishes and blessings and will also admonish the faithful in this respect. … ”
     It would have been bad enough if this text from all the Austrian bishops had been made as a formal position paper to the aggressor without any further greetings. However, Cardinal Innitzer furnished this declaration with an obsequious accompanying letter to Gauleiter, Fritz B?ºrkel, in which he said:
     >> “You can see from this that we bishops, of our own free will and without compulsion, have fulfilled our national duty. I know that this declaration will be followed by a successful collaboration. With the most respectful regards and Heil Hitler! Th. Cardinal Innitzer EB. “

120. sandra Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

     Continued fro above
     NOW,that can not,by any streetch of the imagination as being anything else than agreement, or?
     Were those Bishops called to the Vatican for repremand?
     That is just one of many documents indicating that,the “silence” of Rome was being abused/the faithfull ‘led astray’, by insinuating that “Vaterland mags ruhig sein” the Church aproves!
     That all churches,more or less,adopted the same course of action does not make it right.
     In light of the fact,that thousand of Catholics and Protestants alike,were willing to sacrifice their lives to save others,the Churches should have seen that as indication,that with more backing from their leaders, many many more would have stood up against that disgusting regime of terror.
     In summing up this comment I wish you to know; I condemm the actions of no one,(except the NSDAP and their henchmen)they answer not to ME,but to their conscience and to God.
     Here I refer once more to Konrad Aderauer’s statement above which ends “but they dinn’t so they must hold their peace”

121. sandra Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 4:02 pm

     Father Wauck “Standing shoulder to shoulder” is no ment literally (at least it would not make sense)
     Rather it is ment to suggest ALL Christians (clergy and laymen alike)in all Churches in All L?§nder VOICE their oppositon loudly..
     In so doing demonstrate solidarity with their fellow (Jewish) country men.
     Their human rights be respected,as citizens of Germany,also just as promissed to the Vatican in the Reichskonkordat,the “right to a place of worship” the “right to worship according to their faith” the “right to their (faith)schools” In other words,just the God given “Right to live”!!
     Konrad Adenauer was by no way the most worthy German to be mentioned here..
     A few who are
     Hans von Dohnanyi:
     (born 1 January 1902 in Vienna; died 8 or 9 April 1945 in Sachsenhausen concentration camp) was a German jurist, rescuer of Jews, and resistance fighter against the Nazi Germany r?©gime.He married the sister of his friend.(beneath)
     Dietrich Bonhoeffer(February 4, 1906 – April 9, 1945)
     German Lutheran pastor, theologian, participant in the German Resistance movement against Nazism, and a founding member of the Confessing Church. He was involved in plots planned by members of the Abwehr (the German Military Intelligence Office) to assassinate Adolf Hitler. He was arrested in March 1943, imprisoned, and eventually executed by hanging.
     Karl Barth:
     also founding member of the Confessing Church(Pope Pius XII described him as the most important theologian since Thomas Aquinas.) Roman Catholic theologians, notably in Europe, have praised his thinking Once, upon hearing that Pius XII had paid tribute to his work, Barth smiled and said, “This proves the infallibility of the Pope.” More seriously, he insists that the best critical work on his works‚Äîover 500 titles so far ‚Äîhas been done by such Catholic thinkers as French Jesuit Henri Bouillard and Father Hans Urs von Balthasar of Basel.
     So man:many more,known and unknown who were the true followers of Christ’s teaching.. One can not stand by in silence,whe an OUTCRY is called for..
     >> in the elections that led to Hitler’s assumption of power, he never received a majority in the Catholic Lander.

122. sandra Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

     Continuation: Hitler’s Majortity:

     I’ll look it up.. I don’t know the Statistics,but do know Hitler desperately NEEDED the vote of the *Catholic Centre Party* to be able to form a Government..He got them: On signing the Concordat the Vatiacn promised to dissolve the Centre Party they were shortly after disolved… Germany became a ONE PARTY dictatorship!!!

123. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

     I highly recommend that anyone interested in Pius XII visit the Catholic Education Resource Centre website, and search “Pius XII”. It is the website where I found the two articles I linked to above, there are many more.

     http://www.catholiceducation.org/

124. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

     Sandra, the story of German Catholicism in the 1930s is, as you probably know better than I, complex in the extreme. Catholics knew that Hitler was a bad man (that’s why the Zentrum Party didn’t support his rise), but Hitler made false promises right and left, as many politicians do, and many people – including the many Jews who remained in Germany right up the war – remained doubtful about how seriously he was to be taken.

     The main point here, though, is this: in the face of millions of deliberate killings of innocent human beings (not political rhetoric, but already-committed killings), should Catholics – the hierarchy and the laity – be less or more outspoken than they were in 1930s Germany? Many Catholic politicians in the US – some are Democrats, some are Repubicans – are not only “mute,” but are actively fighting to make sure that these killings are legal. Joseph Biden, our vice-president to be, is one of them. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, is another. They do not criticize the practice of abortion or those who profit from it. They protect it. This is one big business that they have no problem with.

     I don’t want to get into a detailed historical discussion of the Zentrum Party, but a few things should be clear. In the 1933 elections, the Zentrum party received only 11 percent of the vote. Hitler and his allies had 52 percent. The demise of the Zentrum Party was really a foregone conclusion.

     When the Reichstag was faced with the Enabling Act which would expand Hitler’s powers (this is prior to the concordat), the chairman of the Zentrum Party, Kaas, argued in favor of supporting the Act. The tenor of his argument, however, gives a clear picture of the situation. The Church and the Zentrum Party were clearly with their backs to the wall, trying to stave off “the worst.” The key words are these: “Were a two-thirds majority not obtained, the government’s plans would be carried through by other means.” And, knowing now what Hitler was capable of, who could doubt the truth of that? This is the concise Wikipedia version of the story:

     “Chairman Kaas advocated supporting the bill in parliament in return for government guarantees. These mainly included respecting the Church’s liberty, its involvement in the fields of culture, schools and education, the concordats signed by German states, and the continued existence of the Centre Party itself. Via Papen, Hitler responded positively and personally addressed the issues in his Reichstag speech, but he repeatedly put off signing a written letter of agreement.

     “Kaas was aware of the doubtful nature of such guarantees, but when the Centre Party assembled on 23 March to decide on their vote, Kaas advised his fellow party members to support the bill, given the “precarious state of the party”. He described his reasons as follows: “On the one hand we must preserve our soul, but on the other hand a rejection of the Enabling Act would result in unpleasant consequences for faction and party. What is left is only to guard us against the worst. Were a two-thirds majority not obtained, the government’s plans would be carried through by other means. The President has acquiesced in the Enabling Act. From the DNVP no attempt of relieving the situation is to be expected.”

     Not a profile in courage, I suppose. But clearly there wasn’t the slightest interest in helping Hitler. The same is true of the concordat, which was signed by the Vatican in the same dubious spirit. History, of course, proved all their suspicions true, beyond anyone’s imagining.

125. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 6:28 pm

     About standing shoulder to shoulder… If denouncing the evils of National Socialism’s racial policies is what we’re interested in, well, the encyclical Mitt Brennender Sorge was read in every Catholic church in Germany on Palm Sunday in 1937. I’d call that speaking with a pretty unified voice – straight from the Pope and repeated in every German pulpit. No one else was doing such things. See the Einstein quotation above and the passage from the NYTimes in 1941. This also took particular courage because, by that time, the Church in Germany had been facing aggressive persecution for several years. This was not simply the action of a few stray individuals. This was the Church itself.

     A comparison with the stance of the state Lutheran Church – or of foreign political leaders – at the time would be very instructive. There was a good reason why the Confessing Church had to be founded.

126. sandra Said:
     
     November 9th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

     “Wehret dem Anf?§ngen” = (roughly) protest the beginings.. Prevention.. ‘not leting it get that far’
     Reading between the lines esp. for *diplomats* it was clear what the Hitler regime’s intentions were,in the *Concordat between Hitler and the Holy See..

     Esp. in the,*Secret Supplement*
     An indication that the Hitlers intention to wage war,was allready if not known,was more than a possibility.
     If not why was this kept secret from the Catholic faithfull??

     *Secret Supplement*
     >> In case of a change in the present German armed forces in the sense of
     the introduction of universal conscription, the induction of priests and
     other members of the regular clergy and the orders into military service
     will, with the understanding of the Holy See, be arranged within the
     framework of approximately the following guiding ideas:

     a) Students of philosophy and theology at Church institutions who are
     preparing themselves for the priesthood are to be freed from military
     service and the preparatory drills for it, except in the case of a general
     mobilisation.

     b) In the case of a general mobilization clerics who are employed in the
     diocese administration or the military chaplaincy are freed from reporting
     for duty. This applies to ordinaries, members of the ordinariate, provosts
     of seminaries and Church residences for seminarians, professors at the
     seminaries, parish priests, curates, rectors, coadjucators and the clerics
     who provide a church with worship services on a continuing basis.

     c) The remaining clerics, insofar as they are considered suitable, are to
     join the armed forces of the state in order to devote themselves to pastoral
     care for the troops under the Church jurisdiction of the military bishops,
     if they are not inducted into the medical unit.

     d) The remaining clergy in sacris or members of orders, who are not yet
     priests are to be assigned to the medical unit. The same shall apply when
     possible to the candidates for the priesthood mentioned in a) who have not
     yet taken their final vows.

     Again why was this kept secret from the Catholic faithfull??

     One question remains what would PiusXII’s very first predecesor(St.Paul) have done??
     So many questions remain unanswered,documents dissapeared,or are not available..
     I am against abortion on demand,but also blind obedience to Governments..
     Here as in all things we must(in lack of definate spiritual guidence)consult our Bible then decide according to our consciences.
     We (I) have persued this subject (here) long enough so will stop ‘pestering’ you furher on the matter.
     In the hope that we have learnt from past failures I wish you (all)a peacefull Sunday evening.(good night).

127. ARN Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 3:17 am

     Fr w –the link doesn’t work. I think this may be it:

     http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml

128. ARN Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 3:19 am

     And yet…

129. Helen Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 4:15 am

     I forced myself not to even come here until I could do so without being uncharitable. I am still not sure I can be charitable here now. This is just one more of many things, that causes me to ask why?
     Father, you should have written the voter’s guides here. I had to scan this tonight briefly. I avoided all posts that would cause me to loose my cool. A very odd thing happened recently. Yesterday? Today? Not sure, but as he was flipping around, I asked him to stop when I saw Fr. Andrew Greely on the news. He has written books, and writes for a well known paper here in Chicago.,has a following of sorts and is very liberal and controversial. Anyway. As it happens he was an Obama supporter big time. Seems he got tripped up in his clothes and fell, and is in critical condition now. He is being treated at a hospital “in Park Ridge” Well, we all know which one that is. So, I just want to know why he is getting medical help at all. Heck he is as old as dirt. He has been though the saline of tears of penitants, salty baptisms, ect. That stuff burns the skin something awful I hear. Now he needs help. Why not let him sit on the table and die?
     Anyone?
     Because its not human to even think such a thing.
     I may not like his views, but I will try to send him a mass card tomorrow. Did I say I really don’t like his views? You don’t even want to know.
     But, he if anyone does- needs more love in his life.
     Maybe he can go visit the maternity ward while he is there.

130. Helen Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 4:31 am

     http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1210

     For Michelle, if she has not already posted it, and for anyone else with a properly formed conscience

131. Helen Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 4:32 am

     http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1210

     For Michelle, if she has not already posted it, and for anyone else with a conscience

132. Helen Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 4:36 am

     Now every “christian” out there is wondering HOW they can stop FOCA. Indeed. How?
     How can these “christians” stop it now? They knew he would sign it. He told everyone he would. But, now they want to stop FOCA. Lemme see… How seriously is Obama going to take this? I can just see him now looking to his advisor. Obama to Advisor: What’s the deal here? Advisor: I see no downside for the go ahead. Obama: You know, that’s what I thought too. I mean, they voted for me anyway even though I told them I would right?
     Advisor: Yes sir. Obama: (does that funny hand tap thing) yes indeed I did and they STILL voted for me! LOL
     Those christians, and their bibles and guns! LOL

133. Helen Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 5:03 am

     Arn,

     Your and yet…
     Funny enough- Jesse Jackson used the same argument in REVERSE back when he was new on the scene. He hated abortion back then, because he felt the issue was exactly the same as slavery. He has since changed his pro-life stand, (and other moral stands) and declines to equate slavery with the child in the womb who did not chose to be there working for massa (or should I say mommy who sees the baby as a parasite?)
     Pointing out that evans and “catholics” voted the way they have is interesting.
     Mormons are looking pretty good now to me. As nutty as that cult is. *slaping myself* okay.. I am awake now.
     Oh yeah, CINO catholics. I am not sure what more catholics can do to burst my convert bubble.
     To say I am surprised, would be …? Dissapointed…? Sure that the church is in great danger?
     I give up. It’s so much easier to be an athiest. After all, I just got my darling’s report card. Know what?
     She got a bad mark in RELIGION. Oh yes. PRAYERS. Gimme a break!
     She knows all the prayers inside and out. She knew the biggies in Pre-School for crying out loud! She can tell you the corpral and spiritual works of mercy! She can tell you the difference between a mortal and venial sin! Need I go on? The saints- She makes it a project to learn as many as she can! And she gets a poor mark for prayers!!!! I am astonished. She has told the basic ones to EACH PRIEST in our parish in pre-school!
     She prays form the heart, she knows several Psalms! How on earth is this happening????!!!!
     I won’t stand for this. They did an “election” at the school, and the kids could be out of uniform. They DID NOT TELL the parents they were doing an “election” yet- I saw the writing on the walls LITERALLY! They had pro-Obama stuff all OVER The school! EEEK.
     Anyway, she voted for “the nice lady and the old guy” LOL
     But, the boys were running around in recess, screaming “OBAMA” (yeah, I help at lunch, and saw it firsthand)
     Not to mention all the STAFF wearing his name on their T SHIRTS, and signs in their YARDS.

134. Helen Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 5:06 am

     I don’t feel proud to call myself a catholic anymore.

135. Helen Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 5:08 am

     Sandra,

     You don’t see a link between Nazi Germany and this horror now?
     If you don’t you might not have then, if you had been old enough too see it.

136. Helen Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 5:27 am

     Did I mention her teacher is just coming off of a divorce?

137. Helen Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 5:29 am

     You all do know that Bill Ayers and Farrakan and Obama live in the same polling place?

138. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 8:27 am

     Thanks, ARN, for correcting the link.

     Dear Sandra, the provisions for the Catholic clergy in time of war is nothing exceptional. That’s not a declaration of war or even a statement of intent. It seems rather pointless to argue about this, when the history is perfectly well known. For heaven’s sake, Neville Chamberlain was talking about “peace in our time” right before the war.

     And, by the way, where are you getting all this information? It’s helpful to mention sources. I was unfamiliar with Card. Innitzer’s story, so I looked it up, and – lo and behold – it seems that your sources left off a lot of the story.

     You asked, perhaps rhetorically, perhaps not, “Were those Bishops called to the Vatican for repremand?”

     Turns out, the answer is yes. I’ve talk to other historians, but here’s the Wikipedia version:

     “Cardinal Theodor Innitzer declared as early as 12 March: “The Viennese Catholics should thank the Lord for the bloodless way this great political change has occurred, and they should pray for a great future for Austria. Needless to say, everyone should obey the orders of the new institutions.” The other Austrian bishops followed suit some days later. Vatican Radio, however, immediately broadcast a vehement denunciation of the German action, and Cardinal Pacelli, the Vatican Secretary of State, ordered Innitzer to report to Rome. Before meeting with the pope, Innitzer met with Pacelli, who had been outraged by Innitzer’s statement. He made it clear that Innitzer needed to retract; he was made to sign a new statement, issued on behalf of all the Austrian bishops, which provided: ‚ÄúThe solemn declaration of the Austrian bishops … was clearly not intended to be an approval of something that was not and is not compatible with God’s law‚Äù. The Vatican newspaper also reported that the bishops’ earlier statement had been issued without the approval from Rome.”

     Couldn’t be clearer.

     Further research reveals that Innitzer subsequently followed the Vatican’s policy and the Nazi’s immediately began persecuting the Church in Austria as they had done in Germany. In fact, they sacked the episcopal palace of Card. Innitzer.

     Once again, though, even if the Catholic hierarchy in Germany and Austria were as craven as the propaganda would like us to believe, wouldn’t that be all the more reason not to imitate the acquiescence that they are accused of…??

139. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 8:42 am

     More generally, a concordat is not a wedding certificate. It’s a treaty between the Church and a government, often necessary because the two do not see eye to eye (the hostility of the German state toward the Catholic Church – from the time of Luther up to Bismarck and Hitler – is well known). The question, for example, of what happens to Catholic seminarians and priests in time of war is the typical sort of thing that needs to be addressed in such treaties. A concordat is simply an effort to find a modus vivendi. To pretend that it is something more than that is simply goofy. The context of the 1933 concordat was clearly an effort – hoping against hope (Pacelli didn’t think Hitler would honor his word) – to get some protection for the Catholic Church in Germany.

140. sandra Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

     Helen… The link between “then” and “now” is ..
     overwhelming………… of course I see it…it’s what I was indicating.
     The individual life is sacrificed for the well being of many…….
     The “writing on the wall” was there for all to see,the “rattling of swords” was heard all over Europe.
     EVERY ONE knew what it all ment,Catholics/Protestants/Atheists,and even the blind and hard of hearing,got
     “the message”..
     The old “head in the sand” attitude,helped Hitler too,untill it was too late.
     At the moment RAI (Italian TV. Network)is broadcasting a series tonight, “siamo noi” (This is us. – Das sind wir.).As early (even earlier) as 1934,the *Duce* was working with the NDSAP,HIS views were well known,to ALL.
     Diplomats from all over Europe,USA,were able to witness first hand,the going’s on in Italy/Germany..
     Catholics were not exempt from this..Or were they?

     In concentration camps new born babies were taken from their mothers(8-10days after birth,the mothers were sent back to *forced labor* so were unable (prevented) to feed or care for them.)those babies were then left, in a special “hut”,mostly wthout food or care,there they died and their tiny bodies were “thrown onto the garbage” or burnt,older children were taken from their mothers,sent to their death in gas-chambers,or just as bad *chosen* for experimental ‘treatment’..

     On 18 January 1940, after over 15,000 Polish civilians had been killed, Pius XII said in a radio broadcast, “The horror and inexcusable *excesses* (would less have been excusable?) committed on a helpless and a homeless people have been established by the unimpeachable testimony of eye-witnesses.”
     (Which makes the following,a ‘little’ mind boggling or not? )
     On September 18, 1942, Pius received a letter from Monsignor Montini (future Pope Paul VI), saying, “the massacres of the Jews reach frightening proportions and forms.” Later that month, Myron Taylor, U.S. representative to the Vatican, warned Pius that the Vatican’s “moral prestige” was being injured by silence on European atrocities ‚Äî a warning which was echoed simultaneously by representatives from Great Britain, Brazil, Uruguay, Belgium, and Poland ‚Äî the Cardinal Secretary of State replied that the **rumors about genocide could not be verified**.(In January 1942 there were according to Pius XII’s radio broadcast **eye witnesses**). In December 1942, when Tittman asked Cardinal Secretary of State Maglione if Pius would issue a proclamation similar to the Allied declaration “German Policy of Extermination of the Jewish Race,” Maglione replied that the Vatican was “unable to denounce publicly paticular atrocities”
     Were the things I mention above among the *paticular atrocities*?
     In May 1942, Kazimierz Pap?©e, Polish ambassador to the Vatican, complained that Pius had failed to condemn the recent wave of atrocities in Poland; when Cardinal Secretary of State Maglione replied that the Vatican **could not document individual atrocities**, Pap?©e declared, “when something becomes notorious, proof is not required.”
     The Whole thing is more than puzling to us now,is it then no wonder the Catholic Communities in Germany (and rest Europe)were easy to manipulate,into believing (or wanting to believe) that those atrocities were exaggerated,by the Jewish people,who were assitsted in this by their allies (UK.USA.and Comunist Russia)??
     The Vatican could or would not verify them..

     In late 1942, Pius XII advised German and Hungarian bishops that speaking out against the massacres in the eastern front would be politically advantageous.[160] On April 7, 1943, Msgr. Tardini, one of Pius’s closest advisors, told Pius that it would be politically advantageous after the war to take steps to help Slovakian Jews.
     POLITICALLY advantageous!! What about Christian/Catholic MORALS??
     On April 30, 1943, Pius wrote to Bishop Von Preysing of Berlin to say: “We give to the pastors who are working on the local level the duty of determining if and to what degree the danger of reprisals and of various forms of oppression occasioned by episcopal declarations…ad maiora mala vitanda (to avoid worse)…seem to advise caution. Here lies one of the reasons, why We impose self-restraint on Ourselves in our speeches; the experience, that we made in 1942 with papal addresses, which We authorized to be forwarded to the Believers, justifies our opinion, as far as We see…..”
     (Please not the date of both these statements)!!
     Once again leaving any decision,to the consciences of the German Catholics!! Politically motivated move??
     I do and can not put blame on the Vatican for the atrocities commited during that period,the question though still remains(and prob. will), ‘what if? I am far from being alone in asking this.(incl.Christians and Non Christians alike)
     Catholics have had to make similar decissions at all times,these times are no different IMO.

141. sandra Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

     Sorry my last comment has a typo,- Should read “please note”

     Father Wauck,as much as I respect the reference,——– (“For heaven‚Äôs sake”,.. and) thank goodness,
     Neville Chamberlain was NOT head of the Catholic Church.. nor were any other Politicians of that time.

     So,to the ‘(not)wedding certificate’
     ‘provisions for the Catholic clergy in time of war is nothing exceptional’.
     And to h+ll with the rest of us? Not puting words into your mouth here,just thinking out loud.
     Another point,-
     As the content of the ‘Treaty of Versailles’clearly states;-
     > “German armed forces will number no more than 100,000 troops, and **conscription will be abolished**.” > Pope Benedict XVI hinted Thursday that he is ‚Äúseriously considering‚Äù freezing the beatification process of Pius XII until the historical archives can be opened.
     “The pontiff made this point during the audience at the Vatican with the Jewish delegation”.> Bishop Pagano said that only six researchers are working to classify and document thousands of boxes of files from the papacy of Pius XII, from 1939 to 1958.
     At that rate, he said, it will be at least another six or seven years before all the relevant files, from Pius XII, the Vatican Secretary of State, and other Vatican government offices,as well as diplomatic offices around the world, are declassified, described, numbered, and put in proper order for scholars to study

142. sandra Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

     Part of my comment is missing Please delete or just ignore here is the complete one (I hope).
     Sorry my last comment has a typo,- Should read “please note”

     >>> Father Wauck,as much as I respect the reference,——– (“For heaven‚Äôs sake”,.. and) thank goodness,
     Neville Chamberlain was NOT head of the Catholic Church.. nor were any other Politicians of that time.

     So,to the ‘(not)wedding certificate’
     ‘provisions for the Catholic clergy in time of war is nothing exceptional’.
     And to h+ll with the rest of us? Not puting words into your mouth here,just thinking out loud.
     Another point,-
     As the content of the ‘Treaty of Versailles’clearly states;-
     > “German armed forces will number no more than 100,000 troops, and **conscription will be abolished**.” > Pope Benedict XVI hinted Thursday that he is ‚Äúseriously considering‚Äù freezing the beatification process of Pius XII until the historical archives can be opened.
     “The pontiff made this point during the audience at the Vatican with the Jewish delegation”.> Bishop Pagano said that only six researchers are working to classify and document thousands of boxes of files from the papacy of Pius XII, from 1939 to 1958.
     At that rate, he said, it will be at least another six or seven years before all the relevant files, from Pius XII, the Vatican Secretary of State, and other Vatican government offices,as well as diplomatic offices around the world, are declassified, described, numbered, and put in proper order for scholars to study

143. sandra Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 5:24 pm

     As the content of the ‘Treaty of Versailles’clearly states;-
     > “German armed forces will number no more than 100,000 troops, and **conscription will be abolished**.” > Pope Benedict XVI hinted Thursday that he is ‚Äúseriously considering‚Äù freezing the beatification process of Pius XII until the historical archives can be opened.
     “The pontiff made this point during the audience at the Vatican with the Jewish delegation”.> Bishop Pagano said that only six researchers are working to classify and document thousands of boxes of files from the papacy of Pius XII, from 1939 to 1958.
     At that rate, he said, it will be at least another six or seven years before all the relevant files, from Pius XII, the Vatican Secretary of State, and other Vatican government offices,as well as diplomatic offices around the world, are declassified, described, numbered, and put in proper order for scholars to study

144. sandra Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

     I’m afraid part of my post is missing(not going through)
     Last try.. continuing from;..The Versailles treaty, This also was of course not a wedding certificate,signed by all parties just the same.

     Why then,would there be ‘provisions’ for conscription included in(supplement to)that concordat??
     “in the case of a general *mobilisation*” mentioned not once but three times..
     Were the ‘diplomatic’ bells not ringing?? Or was no one listening?

     As for the statements/retractions,and later actions of Card. Innitzer.(you seen not to deny his letter?)
     One could say “the dammage had already been done”.It also shows how ‘unclear’ the position of the Vatican, was understood among the Bischops/Cardinals. Ergo,among the Catholic lay persons.
     Or are we led to believe Bishops,Cardinals were in the habit of expressing views in complete contradiction to the Vatican/Pope?
     The rest is not quite in context but I’ll leave it at that!!

145. sandra Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 5:35 pm

     The source for the reported statment by Pope Benedikt is in following link.
     http://www.ejpress.org/article/31591
     I now have to get dinner ready..
     By the way,
     Helen I’m pleased to hear from you again… I’m still looking forward to the Pics of your daughter. tc.

146. sandra Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 5:46 pm

     ADL Calls for “Free And Open Access” to WWII Vatican Archives; Calls Catholic-Jewish Agreement “A Step Forward”
     New York, NY, October 20, 1999…The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today welcomed as a step forward the Catholic-Jewish agreement to review Church documents from World War II, but questioned whether issues can be resolved without free and open access to unpublished materials.

     Noting that the 11 volumes of war-era Vatican material were preselected by the Vatican, Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, urged the Vatican to move as quickly as possible to grant access to the documents. “The questions about Pope Pius XII, most recently reinforced by John Cornwall‚Äôs book,****** **** , will not go away without a complete examination. If the establishment of this Catholic-Jewish committee leads to that examination, then it will have been an important step forward.”
     http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/3490_96.asp
     That was 10yrs ago………… Do we expect another 10yrs.to pass?

147. Helen Said:
     
     November 10th, 2008 at 11:04 pm

     It seems Obama has suddenly taken up watching football games on Sunday instead of attending his new church now that he has won the election.

148. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 11th, 2008 at 9:38 am

     Well, Helen, at least the Cardinal archbishop of Chicago is not sticking his head in the sand. This is what he had to say at the bishops meeting this week in Baltimore:

     “The common good can never be adequately incarnated in any society when those waiting to be born can be legally killed at choice,” Cardinal George explained.

     Sandra, unless given a reason to think otherwise, I will assume that your new barrage of material is as accurate and complete as your information about Card. Innitzer. You presented a grossly misleading picture of that incident and, by implication, of the Vatican’s attitude toward it. I am assuming that this is because you are relying on tendentious sources – like the ADL, which is a propaganda outfit. Please reconsider your sources.

149. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 11th, 2008 at 1:32 pm

     SOme nice news: Prof. Robert George (author of the article Father linked to about Obama and abortion) has been appointed to the U.N.’s World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology:
     http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2008/11/10/robert-george-appointed-to-un-commission/

     Yes we can!

150. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 11th, 2008 at 3:03 pm

     Well, that makes two Georges doing excellent work: a cardinal in Chicago and a professor in Princeton. Long live Lebanon (at least, I’m pretty sure that’s where the name comes from in both of these cases – not from Wales or some other place given to using first names as last names!).

151. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 11th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

     By the way, speaking of our new president, there’s a website now dedicated to resisting his efforts on behalf of the abortion industry.

     It’s here: http://www.fightfoca.com/

     On the website, there’s a video of Mr. Obama saying that the first thing he’d do as president is sign the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act.” The first thing he’d do…. hmmm.

     Clearly, this is a man with priorities.

152. ARN Said:
     
     November 11th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

     “Clearly, this is a man with priorities”

     Note he was addressing a pro-choice group when he said that. He’s a politician and that’s what politicians are notorious for, making promises that they often don’t fulfill. The FOCA will never become law at least the way it’s currently written. Removing the conscience clause? You don’t have to be a pro-choice to be against that.

153. ARN Said:
     
     November 11th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

     Opps.. should read “you don’t have to be pro-life”

154. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 11th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

     “Removing the conscience clause?”

     Not surprising. This is what’s gone on recently in Canada:
     http://www.prowomanprolife.org/?cat=1451

155. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 11th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

     And Australia:

     http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/forcing_compliance/

156. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 11th, 2008 at 5:47 pm

     COmmentary on conscience shenanigans by Margaret Somerville, director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University:

     http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/respect_for_conscience_must_be_a_social_value/

157. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 11th, 2008 at 8:16 pm

     Ironically, the conscience clause really is “pro-choice,” isn’t it?

     True enough, ARN, about politicians and promises. Obama does seem serious, though, about overturning the executive orders restricting abortion. And he did stick his neck out on that Illinois legislation on leaving newborns to die. Remember he was the only one to speak against the legislation, and the US Senate vote on that was 98-0, and Obama was a party-line voter most of the time.

     The fact that Obama was speaking to an “industry” crowd is, in some ways, heartening. He would never have talked that way in front of a general audience, which I like to think means that the general public isn’t so crazy about such talk.

158. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 11th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

     By thw way, Helen, I am sorry to hear about Fr. Greely. I will be praying for him. He certainly has been no fan of Opus Dei, and has done a fair bit of harm generally, but when he sticks to what he knows about – sociology – he does good work.

     At a hospital in Park Ridge, no less. The home town of Hillary Rodham Clinton…. among others (I refer, fo course, to Harrison Ford and Karen Black). Actually, not surprising: I went to grade school there with one of his nieces.

159. Helen Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 3:37 am

     I have an accurate site for those who want to take another look at this issue. I just have to get my act together first, and I will be back.

     Father, I kinda guessed he was not a fan of Opus Dei. I will be working overtime on this intention!

160. sandra Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 4:06 am

     Father Wauck,I do not get my ?¨nformation’ from the ADL rather from among others;- (where there has been a link to ADL)
     .
     http://www.ekd.de/aktuell …….(Evangelishe Kirche in Deutchland)

     Darmstadt/Frankfurt/Kassel,

     gez: Stephan Krebs Pressesprecher EKHW. Claus Dieter Suss ?ñffentlichkeitsreferent DWKW

     Otto Graf Lambsdorff,Prominent Catholic Politicion.. (Hamburger Abend Blatt)

     Kardinal Lehmann (Welt Online http://www.welt.de) about “German Churches and slave labour during Nazi era” Aired on TV Magazine ‚ÄûMonitor‚Äú =(over decades)very serious/trust-worthy objective TV.Programm which has uncovered many a ‘scandal’ political and non-political.
     i.e. “German Churches and slave labour during Nazi era”
     Both Cardinal Lehman and Graf Lamsdorf commented on this..

     Lambsdorff criticised [his church]:
     The Catholic Church has always offered the excuse that it must first do research into where it had employed forced labour. In the beginning it [even] said there hadn’t been any.”

     8 April 2008 Bishop Lehmann (a year later Cardinal),announced that the Church had completed its official investigation of itself.

     The 703-page report claims that records only survive for 5904 of the mostly East Europeans who were forced to work as gardeners, hospital orderlies and grave diggers in Church institutions. At the news conference Bishop Lehmann repeated his assertion that there was no proof that any of them had to do “hard labour”.

     You can find an interesting piece on the ‘hard laboour’ by looking up this link…
     http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermannstra%C3%9Fe_(Berlin)#Kirchh.C3.B6fe_und_Zwangsarbeiter

161. sandra Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 4:11 am

     Father Wauck,I do not get my ?¨nformation’ from the ADL rather from among others;- (where there has been a link to ADL)
     .
     ekd.de/aktuell …….(Evangelishe Kirche in Deutchland)

     Darmstadt/Frankfurt/Kassel,

     gez: Stephan Krebs Pressesprecher EKHW. Claus Dieter Suss ?ñffentlichkeitsreferent DWKW

     Otto Graf Lambsdorff,Prominent Catholic Politicion.. (Hamburger Abend Blatt)

     Kardinal Lehmann (Welt Online http://www.welt.de) about “German Churches and slave labour during Nazi era” Aired on TV Magazine ‚ÄûMonitor‚Äú =(over decades)very serious/trust-worthy objective TV.Programm which has uncovered many a ‘scandal’ political and non-political.
     i.e. “German Churches and slave labour during Nazi era”
     Both Cardinal Lehman and Graf Lamsdorf commented on this..

     Lambsdorff criticised [his church]:
     The Catholic Church has always offered the excuse that it must first do research into where it had employed forced labour. In the beginning it [even] said there hadn’t been any.”

     8 April 2008 Bishop Lehmann (a year later Cardinal),announced that the Church had completed its official investigation of itself.

     The 703-page report claims that records only survive for 5904 of the mostly East Europeans who were forced to work as gardeners, hospital orderlies and grave diggers in Church institutions. At the news conference Bishop Lehmann repeated his assertion that there was no proof that any of them had to do “hard labour”.

     You can find an interesting piece on the ‘hard laboour’ by looking up a link. in wikipedia

162. sandra Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 4:16 am

     As the link won’t go through here an excerpt.
     With a rough translation of the relevant passages markt with ***

     Zwangsarbeiter der Kirche (forced(slave)labour in the Church)
     I’m afraid it is not in English… but you get the ‘message’

     Erst in den letzten Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts trat zu Tage, dass die Kirchen in Deutschland w?§hrend des Zweiten Weltkriegs in **erheblichem Ausma?ü** (great nummber) Zwangsarbeiter (forced laboures) angefordert (requested) und (**deutschlandweit** (throughout Germany) besch?§ftigt (used) hatten. Im Sommer 2000 r?§umte der Berlin-Brandenburgische(Evangelist= Protestant) Bischof Wolfgang Huber ein, dass auch in Berlin auf dem Kirchhof der Jerusalems- und Neuen Kirche an der Hermannstra?üe 84‚Äì90 in den letzten drei Kriegsjahren ein **Barackenlager** f?ºr rund 100 Zwangsarbeiter bestand, die **?ºberwiegend zur Grabpflege und zur Bestattung von Bombenopfern** =(mostly for Grave digging and the burrial of Bomb victims)**zum Einsatz kamen. Mit aktiver Unterst?ºtzung der obersten Kirchenleitung bekam das Lager eine so genannte ‚ÄûR?ºstungsnummer‚Äú und war damit als ‚Äûkriegswichtig‚Äú anerkannt.
     ***Die Kirchen sollen zudem die Ermordung von Kindern der Arbeiter stillschweigend in Kauf genommen haben***
     ***…..=…..Both Chirches ‘took into account that the children (given birth to by their *workers*) were systematically *murdered*’ (Left to die with near-to, no care/food )
     THAT!!! I DO CALL *STICKING their HEADS in THE SAND*…….
     NO WAIT,on second thoughts,I call it assistance to murder!!! BTW.it was well know that forced abortions also took place on a very wide scale.
     *Beteiligt an diesem dunklen Kapitel der deutschen Kirchengeschichte waren 39 evangelische und drei katholische Gemeinden*.
     *39 Evangelical and 3 Catholic parishes.took part in this dark capital of Germany’s Church-history*

     According to Cardinal Lehmann ;-Catholic records only survive for 5904 of the mostly East Europeans who were forced to work as gardeners, hospital orderlies and grave diggers in Church institutions… which he said did not confirm the comment in “Monitor” that,this went on, (Fl?§chen dedeckend) =throughout the whole of Germany, which was greatly EXAGGERATED!! Nun Ja!! = Ah well!!
     Living in Germany I read a lot of articles in german newspapers,watch a lot of programmes on TV. concerning this suject,and I can assure you we do not take it lightly..

163. sandra Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 4:20 am

     BTW I also read the web site from Zenit i.e.
     http://www.zenit.org/article-24125?l=english‘ regarding PopePiusXII (and other issues)
     Further;- Catholics for Choice’.. Especially their views on Contraception.
     “Prevention not prohibition,is the way forward.” “Humanae Vitae”
     *”Each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”* (*of which I do not agree*)
     I hope you believe me when I state that I do NOT tend only to read negative reporting of the Catholic Church, but as a responsible person,I prefere to hear both sides..Which I think is nescessary to forming ones own conclusions..That is something that I will continue to do.

     I know that each ‘side’ has a diferent point to put forward,and in doing so there will allways be conflicting reporting,which of these prove to be accurate,will be clear,when ALL facts (documents) are made public.
     The ones in the report I mention above have been proven and accepted as being fact.by both Churches!!
     If the Vatican is so sure (and has proof) that Pope PiusXII is worthy of Sainthood,then there is no reason to “freeze” nor to pospone.. Others have in the recent past,been given that honor sooner..

     I appologise for this long comment,but I felt the need to rectify the assumtion,I would rely on ‘ant-Catholic’ sources in building my oppinions..

     The atrocities commited during WWII,which still cast a very dark shadow upon the German people,were,and continue to be,utterly indefensible, further more an issue I have the strongest feelings on….I believe we all agree on this!!!

     My concern is BTW. more with the problem of abortions,and how we as Catholics work to reduce them ,by education,prevention of unwanted pregnancies,giving the best possible help to those who are in dire dificulties,not just for a short time after giving birth,but giving them the chance of a long-term future WITH their child!!

164. sandra Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 4:39 am

     Sorry typo should read “subgect” not suject,,

165. sandra Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 4:40 am

     an again
     SUBJECT!!!

166. sandra Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 4:45 am

     BTW I also read the web site from Zenit i.e.
     http://www.zenit.org/article-24125?l=english‘ regarding PopePiusXII (and other issues)
     Plus the divers Italian News papers and web sites

167. Helen Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 4:55 am

     http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/FOCA/index.shtml

     I hope this site is helpful for anyone who now wants to try to convince Obama to stop what he promised us all he would do. I am not sure what good it will do to tell him, I backed you but please don’t actually do what you said you would. To say one ignored it, because it was merely another political promise, is odd. No offense to anyone who does, and please don’t take this as a personal attack. I am just bewildered by that reasoning. If you believed some of what he promised, why not this? Why decide for him what he will and will not do? Beside that, how will it be stopped now? The train is barreling down the track. And, it’s not the Polar Express this time. I don’t see how it can be stopped now. Makes for a bleak Christmas this year.
     When planned parenthood and naral are behind BHO, who is going to stop this runaway train? We are talking big money here. When you think of how many murders are commited a day in the US alone….
     Grab your bible, read Jeremiah 1:5 and cry.

168. Helen Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 5:03 am

     Sandra, I realize you are concerned about something.. But it sure seems to me like the subject matter is simply being changed to avoid the painful reality of the topic at hand, IMHO. I am not being rude, and you have every right to let it rip. But you made a very early on comment on the blog about “re-writing the constitution”
     Please see how easily this will be done with the stroke of a pen if you care to really look at the legal opinion (you have to follow the links to it) and see for yourself how the country will never be the same again after FOCA is signed.

169. Helen Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 5:08 am

     Sandra, what on earth is your concern with the Zenit link? Sorry, if I am missing the point here. I guess my focus is much more related to the effects of the outcome of the election today.

170. Joe Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 5:35 am

     Curious of your thoughts regarding Governor Casey’s son, Pennsylvania Senator Robert Casey’s full throttle endorsement of President-elect Obama?

     The issue you present is complicated in my view by the fact that under the Republican administration, access to Medical care has become increasingly restricted. Absent the opportunity for comprehensive health care, individuals won’t even have the ability to make the moral decisions regarding respect for life – for any demographic.

     By his own admission and voting record, Obama doesn’t have respect for the unborn – and indicates the whole issue “is above his pay-grade,” anyway.

     However, if Obama delivers on his campaign promise to expand access to Health Insurance (i.e. the Federal Program) – and all citizens should keep him honest on his promise – he will give more people the opportunity and tools to make right and moral decisions with regard to honoring and respecting life.

     If this campaign promise is realized, it will be the direct onus and personal responsibility for every individual to secure adequate healthcare and prioritize their spending to maintain coverage for their families (and not waste money on other expenditures)- which is a first step for individual responsibility and respect for life. Hope all is well.

171. Helen Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 6:11 am

     Under FOCA, even the states will have no control to see to it that the abortion mills are safe, or even clean to operate. There goes the argument pro-lifers had to keep abortion legal to begin with. They threatend us with the coathanger and dirty back alley. Now the dirty place will have no oversight. And who will be paying for it? Take a guess. I say we can’t afford Obama’s death campain.
     The fact that Father worked for a man who now supports Obama, after all the years that have gone by since Father worked for the man makes what kind of point exactly?

172. sandra Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 8:01 am

     Helen I am not at all concerned about the Zenit link.. at all
     I mearly used it to answer Father Wauck’s comment that,I should “re-think” my sources b/c they were a…. propaganda unit.
     If we take the term propaganda wordly,’pushing promoting an agenda or theory’ then it is fair to say it’s used on all sides.. Propaganda was used effectivly early in the Catholic Church
     Congregatio de Propaganda Fide = “Congregation for the Spreading of the Faith” pro- forth + pag-pangere to fasten.
     The Nazi’s used it to appeal more to emotion (fear predjudice)rather than intellect. Propaganda can also
     be used to control public opinion. So any kind of ‘large scale presuasion’ equals in the sense of the word propaganda.
     We today could call it ‘Public Relations’. It was originally not a negative.. it became so in the 19th century
     Of course there is a, ‘counter-pole’.. censorship.
     Which of the two are more harmfull?? At least propaganda leaves the door slightly open for objectivity,where as censorship closes it tightly
     I try to take great care to look at all sides of an issue.

173. Helen Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 1:11 pm

     Funny thing, Sheen really tried to have the name changed for that congregation. He thought the name was not the best to describe the congregation. But, they denied his request. Wish he was here today. His blackboard would be so full, he would need a few of them going at once.
     And Joe, you realize that when FOCA is signed, we will be seeing all catholic hospitals close. They won’t have any “choice”. Let’s see how that effects the country.

174. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

     Re: health coverage and Obama

     ” he will give more people the opportunity and tools to make right and moral decisions with regard to honoring and respecting life” Joe, above

     Here in Canada, we have cradle to grave health care provided by the state. In our own house alone, for our children, we have had emergency pediatric heart surgery, a 100-day stay in a neonatal intensive care unit including laser eye surgery to treat retinopathy of prematurity, a cochlear implant with follow-up auditory verbal therapy and regular checks by a specialized audiologist, an appendectomy… those are just the major things, they don’t include all the little illnesses along the way, immunizations, flu shots. Hasn’t cost us a cent. None of my deliveries (10 of them) cost us a cent. True, we pay taxes, but those who are indigent don’t pay taxes and still receive the same level of care.

     Yet between 1988 (when abortion law was struck down) and 2005 there were 1,811,707 abortions– bear in mind that reporting is incomplete.

175. Joe Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

     Helen – Please be careful about how you paraphrase another person words.

     I was careful about what I said regarding Senator Casey’s endorsement of Obama – you were not; and as a result what you indicate as “fact” in your response is indeed an error.

     I will let Fr.Wauck set the record straight as to who endorsed whom and for whom he worked – he can handle the question.

     Secondly and simply put – I really don’t care what it costs to help Americans gain access to healthcare – and neither should you, because caring, yes healing the sick is central to the Gospel message.

     If Obama succeeds in widening access to healthcare by allowing citizens to buy into the Health program offered to Federal employees, he will have accomplished quite a lot= particularly in giving people the option to choose life at all stages.

     Wasn’t it the Christopher’s who said that “it’s better to light a candle, than curse the darkness” It’s important to choose life – yes and there’s a joy to life, don’t miss it.

176. ARN Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

     Think how much worse it would be if Canada didn’t have that system.

177. Helen Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

     Joe, I have to admit, after typing up my post I had reservations about my wording regarding your comment about Father’s former employer. I shouldn’t have seen it as any negative implication. I did take it that way for some odd reason though. Sorry about that.
     Healing can mean a lot of things to a christian Joe. Are you most concerned with temporal needs or eternal healing needs? Please, by all means tell me which is central to the gospel message if you don’t mind.
     Canada has made a deal with the devil. The serpent was the craftiest of all creatures and also assured that you won’t die under his healthcare plan. He provides everyone with or without the means to pay for it also.
     There is a small catch to it though.

178. Helen Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

     Satan doesn’t want you to care what it costs. That’s why it appears to be free. I don’t know when we put pricetags on human life but I am guessing the cost to us is unaffordable. Eternity is a long time.

179. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

     “Think how much worse it would be if Canada didn‚Äôt have that system. ” ARN above

     It’s estimated that 80-90 percent of pregnancies that positive test result for Down Syndrome are aborted. I don’t know how much worse you can get than that.

180. Helen Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

     Sex selection abortions, no brown eyed baby for me abortions (I have the right to choose green!) no need for my parents to know because I am 16 and ready to make a permanent decision that is irreversable like this one. I wonder if we were talking about boys getting sterilized…. then I realize that its about the money stupid!
     Not as much profit in that, but it could be the next wave and its got marketing appeal written all over it. Cheaper than child support, and you can always change your mind later..surely you will not die

181. Helen Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

     SOx selection abortions, no brown eyed baby for me abortions (I have the right to choose green!) no need for my parents to know because I am 16 and ready to make a permanent decision that is irreversable like this one. I wonder if we were talking about boys getting sterilized…. then I realize that its about the money stupid!
     Not as much profit in that, but it could be the next wave and its got marketing appeal written all over it. Cheaper than child support, and you can always change your mind later..surely you will not die
     How many parents will come home to find their daughter bleeding to death after the abortion they did not tell them they decided to have that day?
     When God calls to us as he did to Cain and asks: America, where are your babies? Their blood is crying out to me from the ground! We may say we are not our brother’s keeper too… How will we respond? But, But… we got the minimum wage raised, and we opened up healthcare that, well nevermind about that part of the healthcare package come to think about it…. We tried to create change though….
     I don’t think this will fly.
     Who buries their head in the sand while burying their babies in the american soil? Apparently most americans did on election day.

182. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 12th, 2008 at 8:27 pm

     Quickly.

     I worked for Governor Robert P. Casey, not for his son, Bobby, who is currently the junior US Senator from Pennsylvania. It’s the younger Casey who is in favor of Barak Obama.

     Michelle’s point about Canada’s healthcare system and the abortion rate seems quite powerful to me – especially since there was probably a time, in the not too distant past, when there was less health care and much less abortion.

     As Joe says, this is no argument against caring for the sick, which is a good thing in itself. It is, however, a very strong argument against making any assumptions about the effect of health care on the abortion rate. I would imagine that, for instance, in the US, access to health care and the abortion rate have grown simultaneously. I would direct everybody back to the statistics above about the motives for abortion. Access to healthcare is not even mentioned.

     Yes, Sandra, you are right about “propaganda.” I don’t mean to claim that what the ADL says is necessarily false, just that it is not a disinterested historical source; it is pushing a very particular agenda. The “bias” in such cases usually appears not through falsehoods, but rather through things that are left out.

183. sandra Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 1:14 am

     Father Wauck I am pleased to hear we agree on propaganda…

     Health care issue Is a factor,but only one of many facing families,and unmarried women concerning the prospect of un-wanted/un-planned pregnancies,so many other things also play a role in their decissions.
     What ever they may be however,one of the ways to help such a situation arrising is access to preventiv education/birth control,although this is not the silver bullit,neither is abstenance only/rhythm method,the last two (the only method allowed by theC.Church)more un-effective than the previous.
     German abortion law;-
     The link to german abortion laws will not go through ???
     Wiki has it, just type in Abortion laws in Germany then scroll down to botom =
     German Federal Constitutional Court abortion decision

     interesting is,that “a significant number of abortions in fact occur in Germany, but the incidence per capita is about one-fifth that of the United States. Among the reasons for this lower rate may be the better social system in Germany, as well as the lower rate of teen pregnancies”.

184. sandra Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 1:19 am

     Please excuse my typo.. above shoul read ” to help **against** such a situation arrising”

185. Helen Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 2:48 am

     Sandra, have you ever wondered why Germany’s population rate (not including immigrants, but German born) has gone down? Have you ever wondered why that is? Only Japan I think, can beat you there. Have you pondered the possible reasons for such a thing happening?

186. Helen Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 2:53 am

     Here is the deal folks. Healthcare is a great and wonderful thing, all should have it there is NO argument there.
     However, There are negotiable social issues and there are NON negotiable social issues.

     There was a man, who repaired the damaged infastructure of a country. He even corrected the poor economy, he established universal public education and was darn close to ending poverty, not to mention was close to finding another alternative fuel source. Closer than we are now with the technology we have now that was not available then. He never saw that one through though. Because all “good things” must come to an end eventually.
     We see this in all civilizations that sacrifice they way they do.
     Can anyone (Sandra?) tell me who this man was?

187. Helen Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 2:57 am

     Sandra, you have to understand something as a pacifist. Tell me how many lives are lost each year to abortion in the US (and we can’t be sure that even the most solid numbers are reporting all cases) and how many have been lost to war in any given year? Or can you tell me how many have been lost in the last 30 years here?
     And, how you can in good conscience not be aware of where the “war” really is happening?

188. Helen Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 3:02 am

     With all these wonderful social benifits, Germany still is not able to meet the replacement rate. Why is that?
     Can the people there really claim they can’t afford a child? With adequate health care, luxurious lenghts of vacation paid, (which one could work through I assume?) and with so many other frills, what makes it so very hard to afford a child there? Is there possibly a situation that we have overlooked?

189. Helen Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 3:11 am

     By the way, has anyone wondered if Muslims are having problems having children? I see no problems here. I see families like I did as a kid that were catholic. There were catholics all over the place where I grew up. One family down the block with ten kids. Well, the large families I see today are not catholics. They are muslims. And, they are not worried about the same things that americans are. They trust God will provide. And, he has for them. Maybe we could learn from their trust.

190. Helen Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 3:15 am

     When I say americans, I don’t mean muslims are not americans. I also refer to my mother, who has lived here a bit longer than I (and leagally so) as a Fin. I wish I could also call her a christian, but that changes from day to day. Last week she was nearly a catholic. Today she is an athiest. Who knows what she will be tomorrow.
     I apologize for the way that post sounded, I worded it poorly.

191. sandra Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 12:13 pm

     Helen… Hi! realy glad you are back,with lots of questions,
     I cannt’t answer them all,and if I do it will only be my view of things.. ok?
     I’ll start with this point (not queery)
     “the large families I see today are not catholics. They are muslims. And, they are not worried about the same things that americans are. *They trust God will provide*.
     In many Muslim countries we find the following.

     1). Most Muslim woman have no say in the matter of family planing..and most other things out side the home.
     2). Abortion,unless in cases of danger to the health of the mother,(who according to Islam ,’is the giver of
     life.The un-born is classed as *presumtiv life*’)is a crime,and could be punishable by death.(this has
     happend and not just once)
     3). Women can not visit a Gynacologist without being accompanird by her husband or another *trusty* person.
     4). The male community ‘dictates’ the laws concerning all things deemed ‘ethical’
     facit here, do we want that.. have we ‘fought’for those *rights for women*?
     >> *They trust God will provide*.

192. sandra Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

     continuing from above :-They trust God will provide.
     Their faith in God is commendable,but reality is a little diferent!
     Indoniesia just one of many Muslim countries where, God does not seem to provide (high infant mortality through social injustice)UAE. i.e.Saudi Arabia.. on the other had very rich,but give women NO rights not even to have a driving licence,nor to vote (on any issue which of course would incl.birth control).

     However, there are several schools of thought on this as well as other issues concerning Islamic morality. In Iran, a Shia Islamic country, contraceptive methods are not only taught to married couples, but also encouraged to youngsters through posters and advertisements. (preventiv education ?)
     By the way,your wording did not suggest you implied that Muslims were not / could not be Americans.Those of us who know you would not even think such a thing.

193. sandra Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

     just a quick ‘reflection”
     I revisited this yesterday after reading the many comments on Obama..
     Important though the whole debate pro / contra Obama is,it still made me laugh,while also reflecting the
     ‘overly positive’ expectations his Presidencey invokes in the USA and Europe.
     http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4392846.ece
     I hope that this link goes through (all others do not)

194. ARN Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 1:40 pm

     ==And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”==

     heh

195. ARN Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

     “With all these wonderful social benifits, Germany still is not able to meet the replacement rate. Why is that?”

     Maybe I should leave this to Sandra, but let me take a stab. Aside from pessimism about the future, there may be a feeling that one must be fully prepared to give the child the best possible welcome and that it’s wrong to do anything less. That it may not be OK to inflict your lack of resources on your kids. It’s easier to honor that value with the better BC we have now.

196. ARN Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

     And if an individual family falls short of the 2.1 replacement rate or whatever it is in Germany, so be it. Decisions are made to suit the individual family, not to fulfill some national goal.

197. ARN Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

     It might seem that Germans as a group are awfully picky, overly cautious and insufficiently trusting but having 2 war fought on you land in the last century does that to people. Who ar we to say they’re wrong? They have to do what they see fit.

198. sandra Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

     continuing answer to your questions Helen.
     2).Germany still is not able to meet the replacement rate. Why is that?
     What do you ean by that?
     Italy,Spain,Poland have a lower ‘replacement rate’.. why is that?

     Fertility rate(in % per 1000) sourced from the The CIA World Factbook. (births/woman)
     Germany: 1.41. Itay: 1.30 Spain: 1.30 Poland: 1.27 Japan: 1.22.
     TFR.(total fertility rate) : the expected number of children born per woman in her child-bearing years, based on 2005 -2010
     Germany: 1.38 Italy: 1.36 Poland: 1.23 UK: 1.82 Malta: (strongly Cathololic country,abortion prohibited under all circumstances even ) 1.37 UK: 1.82 (strongly Protestant country)
     World: 2.55 (the ‘under-developed / developing countries make up the highest % of births,but have the highest infant/child mortality)
     UAE: (wholey Muslim country,where womens rights are largely disregarded)) 2.31
     Vatican City: (which bans any abortion procedure entirely) there is no entry.

199. sandra Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

     Next Question:-

     >> … a man, who repaired the damaged infastructure of a country. He even corrected the poor economy, he established universal public education and was darn close to ending poverty, not to mention was close to finding another alternative fuel source. Who was that man?
     ‘that one’ also banned abortion (on threat of death penalty)..
     except of course,for “the undesirable ‘Untermenschen’” they received *special medical care*(forced abobortion)
     He also invoked:
     The anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany was the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history.
     That man also invoked:-
     The anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany was the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history. Anti-tobacco movements grew in many nations from the beginning of the 20th century, but these had little success except in Germany where the campaign was supported by the government..
     Still makes him a MONSTER…

200. sandra Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

     sorry for duplicate sentence… (I copy my coments as they tend not to go through)

201. sandra Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

     Last one:
     “how you can in good conscience not be aware of where the ‚Äúwar‚Äù really is happening?”
     In good concience:I am aware……
     How can one,exclude the other… (anti war,anti death-penalty,anti abortion)
     ALL life is precious!! regardless of statistics (nummbers)
     When we realise and acept this completely,then,we make our case more widely honored!
     There should be no if’s and but’s.
     AS I stated in my first ‘answer’, this is MY view.

202. sandra Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 3:22 pm

     ARN.you state we (Germans) are a bit ‘picky’
     well that may be true,but not more than the average european,who has to struggle with many aspects of bringing a child /children into this world.Eccomics play a large role in their decisions,but not solely,the prospects of war,envioramental state of our world only among others.The uncertain future,being able to cope with all this,impacts their decsion making.(at least for those who can,or feel they have to choose).
     Now regarding the impact of WWII on German society’s decision making..
     The ‘intervention’(to put it lightly) of government on all personal levels,incl. morals,Faith,race,has been proven to be CATASTROPHAL… Never again.. can we prevent it? YES WE CAN!! Are our fears un-waranted? perhaps…
     but,better safe than sorry they think..
     On matters of concience,the overwhelming opinon is;- Leave that to the individual,keep government OUT.
     In light of the (not so distant)past, incl. the communist aided DDR= GDR government can one blame them you ask
     Well,frankly NO!

203. sandra Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

     Helen I am sorry I could not answer the last part of your question,as I do not know what you mean by :
     “better BC we have now”. what is BC.You know I’m not good on english abreviations
     Give a gal a break, I don’t even get all the german ones
     We have hundreds,some adopted from english others from the GDR episode,(they were world champions in that)
     tc ( that one I have sassed out) every one have a nice day…

204. ARN Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pm

     BC= birth c*ntrol

     “DDR= GDR ”

     ?

205. sandra Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 4:25 pm

     Deutche Demokratische Republik /German Democratic Republic = Democratic Republic of Germany
     (former,East Germany)
     If you want to know about that very effectively oppresive regime and it’s policies

     The link won’t go through… (??) so go to wiki, type in DDR. or GDR. you can find info.
     Thanks for the expaination BC. The blog seems to live up to it’s name D.V.CODE!!!

206. DC Michelle Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 5:35 pm

     In line with the earlier conversation on Roe, I thought I’d pass along a website with the latest developments on the pro-life front. My sister just wrote up something on the state-by-state legislation. It’s a good information source; they keep the spectrum wide: the legislative and legal, cultural, and scientific and medical fronts.

     http://www.culture-of-life.org/

     If you’re interested in the legal/legislative front in particular (Americans United for Life): http://www.aul.org

207. sandra Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 6:29 pm

     Oh Michelle (DC) great to hear from you,you’ve been away far toooo long..
     I am having dinner now so will look at your link later.. (I just had a wee peek)
     BTW I don’t know if I mentioned,if not,just in case,and for the record:
     The German abortion law does NOT agree with Roe v. Wade,nor ‘partial birth abortion’,it is forbidden except in very,very few cases of serious fears for the life of the mother,and NO other option is available in time.
     Chat soon.. I tried to get you on-line,but failed.. give me your new addy again please.

208. DC Michelle Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

     Sandra, we’ll have to see how developments in EU abortion efforts affect the GDR’s laws… hopefully none! (and sure thing, I’ll email you!)

209. sandra Said:
     
     November 13th, 2008 at 8:21 pm

     Michelle!! not the GDR that ‘is no more’ = GDR (Communist State)
     West Germany was the BRD Bundes Republic of Germany and now includes east German States..
     Hope that is more clearly put.
     I do hate abreviation!!! (they can be soooo confusing).

210. Helen Said:
     
     November 14th, 2008 at 7:50 am

     “And if an individual family falls short of the 2.1 replacement rate or whatever it is in Germany, so be it. Decisions are made to suit the individual family, not to fulfill some national goal. ”

     I am not sure what Germany’s “goal” is. Interesting point.

211. Helen Said:
     
     November 14th, 2008 at 7:59 am

     Dear Sandra, you said:

     “Last one:
     “how you can in good conscience not be aware of where the “war” really is happening?”
     In good concience:I am aware……
     How can one,exclude the other… (anti war,anti death-penalty,anti abortion)
     ALL life is precious!! regardless of statistics (nummbers)
     When we realise and acept this completely,then,we make our case more widely honored!
     There should be no if’s and but’s.
     AS I stated in my first ‚Äòanswer‚Äô, this is MY view.”

     All life is God given and precious.
     “regardless of the numbers”?

     I strongly oppose your idea that in terms of life, numbers do not matter.
     I do agree, that in terms of members of any religion numbers do not matter.

     a mass genocide, is only remembered because of numbers.

212. sandra Said:
     
     November 14th, 2008 at 9:09 am

     Germany’s Goal,
     I do not know what is is,but my guess would be;
     To keep out of people’s conciences,leaving such things to the leaders of the Faiths to assist,advise their followers,as to the teachings of their Church (of choice) on the subject. All the while,not immposing (by law)
     matters of Faith upon persons who would `choose´ not to follow that advice,+ persons who do not hold religious beliefs.
     On reliance in the belief,that devout Christians will follow the ‘laws’ of their Faith in matters of (religious)concience.Including evading concription to military duty (which has to be proven).
     This is deemed ‘Democracy’ which all(elected)politicians/law-makers are bound,by oath to uphold.
     While declairing that ‘partial abortion,and abortion without strong indications of health dangers’
     (incl.mentalhealth),be illegal(in some cases punishable with jail sentences),making provisions for rape and incest.There are other restrictions on abortion(on demand),which if you like I will mail you.
     The link to the site explaining this will not go through.. (I have tried several times).
     Facit in all this is: Follow your concience in line with your religious convictions.
     To impose(in this matter) the convictions of a minority upon in direct oposition to the majority is in the view of the German Gov. not politically ethical..
     Do all agree with this? of course not,but they can ‘choose’ on religious grounds,NOT to abort.
     Or not?

213. sandra Said:
     
     November 14th, 2008 at 9:12 am

     Helem in this > “mass murder is remmemberd b/c of nummbers”

214. sandra Said:
     
     November 14th, 2008 at 9:20 am

     I agree whole heartedly!!!

215. sandra Said:
     
     November 14th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

     The Chilean Abortion laws are disgusting!! Funny the link will not (again) go through the ‘trip-wire’..
     go to wiki type in “Abortion Laws in Chile” first it says “no page with that title” but scroll down and there is a web site “Abortion in Chile” click you will be sickend belive!!

     PS. Sorry HELEN I typed your name wrongly… (forgive me)

216. ARN Said:
     
     November 14th, 2008 at 5:05 pm

     “All types of abortion in Chile, including those done for a therapeutic purpose or even to save the life of the pregnant woman are illegal. ”

     “The illegality of therapeutic abortion extends to cases of tubal or ectopic pregnancy. Although embryos implanted in the fallopian tube cannot survive, the law requires waiting until the final stage of pregnancy before termination, risking the womans’s health”–from wikipedia entry for “abortion in chile”

     Yes, horrifying…read the whole entry. It’s hard to resist the conclusion that women’s lives are cheap there.

217. sandra Said:
     
     November 14th, 2008 at 5:12 pm

     Don’t forget that if the woman has enough money she can go ‘private’ and will not be reported to the
     police… (imprisionment is always the punishment,even for the ‘will’ to abort)
     Now tell me the ‘ecconomy’ is not an issue there..
     >> Women’s lives are cheap

218. sandra Said:
     
     November 14th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

     If you have the ready cash!!!

219. Helen Said:
     
     November 14th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

     Well, in Chile, it seems they have not grasped that in those cases specifically abortion would be an unintended consequence so, they are clearly wrong there.
     But as we already know the catholic church agrees with me on that also. (I don’t agree with them see, they just happen to agree with me is my take LOL)

220. Helen Said:
     
     November 14th, 2008 at 10:24 pm

     Sandra, if you want to do anything that is unlawful it tends to be costly. Womens lives are only as cheap as they make them. So, I would agree there are many women out there that have cheapened themselves.

221. Helen Said:
     
     November 14th, 2008 at 10:27 pm

     Don’t worry about the spelling Sandra, I actually thought you typed Haram at first. Guess I need to face the reality glasses may be needed soon. Soon enough, I won’t notice any spelling errors.

222. Helen Said:
     
     November 14th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

     “imprisionment is always the punishment,even for the ‚Äòwill‚Äô to abort”

     Yep, just like the “conspiracy to sell cocaine” would be. You don’t have to have actually sold it, but if you intended to, you did commit a crime. I am sure you agree.

223. ARN Said:
     
     November 14th, 2008 at 11:33 pm

     “..many women out there that have cheapened themselves.”

     I dunno. Chilean policy comes way too close to passive-aggressive stoning of adulteresses.

224. Helen Said:
     
     November 14th, 2008 at 11:46 pm

     Arn, I am not in favor of the practice Chile has taken up and said so. Those cases mentioned are unique. The woman needs treatment. As an unindtended consequence, there is an abortion. I have no idea what the basis for their making the woman wait to get the needed treatment so long. I think it’s safe to say that this is not a practice I would support, and I don’t think anyone who follows church teaching on the matter would either.

225. Helen Said:
     
     November 14th, 2008 at 11:50 pm

     I forgot to add, that in no way would I consider a woman in Chile in that particular situation as having cheapened herself. I don’t think you believe I do either.
     As to comparing the policy to stoning of adulteresses, I am not sure about that either. Adulteresses have commited a moral crime(I have no idea what their civil lawas are), and in the cases we are discussing in Chile there is no crime being committed. So, to me that’s an apple and orange comparison.

226. sandra Said:
     
     November 15th, 2008 at 1:47 am

     I just re-read the Chilean law on aborrtion. just to be sure…
     ARN,it is not only “… close to passive-aggressive stoning of womem”.
     It is even closer to murder…(assisted legalised murder,by doctors and nurses)
     Women are in grave danger of dieing.. either sufering death from botched illegal abortions.
     >> When a woman entered a public hospital, rather than primarily focusing on injuries and treatment related to abortion complications, public hospital staff interrogated her. At times it was mandatory to gain a confession from her before administering the proper medical treatment

227. sandra Said:
     
     November 15th, 2008 at 2:38 am

     continued:: “……medical treatment,in doing so endangers her life”

     Or from an ectopic pregnancy (complication of pregnancy in which the fertilized ovum is implanted in any tissue other than the uterine wall. 98% occur in the Fallopian tubes,(so-called tubal pregnancies)

     >> “If left untreated, about half of ectopic pregnancies will resolve without treatment. These are the tubal abortions. The advent of methotrexate treatment for ectopic pregnancy has reduced the need for surgery; however, surgical intervention is still required in cases where the Fallopian tube has ruptured or is in danger of doing so. > If administered early in the pregnancy, methotrexate can disrupt the growth of the developing embryo causing the cessation of pregnancy.

228. sandra Said:
     
     November 15th, 2008 at 2:47 am

     *** should read;-***
     This can be avoided ;-
     >> When administered early in the pregnancy, methotrexate can disrupt the growth of the developing embryo causing the cessation of pregnancy.

229. sandra Said:
     
     November 15th, 2008 at 2:49 am

     My opinion:-
     Denying basic treatment to avoid the very obvious danger to a persons life, IS a crime in this (Chilean)case.

     According to the most recent census (2002) 70 percent of the population over age 14 identify as Roman Catholic
     Church and state are officially separate. The 1999 law on religion prohibits religious discrimination; however, the Catholic Church enjoys a privileged status and occasionally receives preferential treatment.

     So,I expect that the C.Church would (at least try to) intervene for example with the same intesity as it does against c+ntraceptives/Abortion.. Does it do this?
     Father Wauck will have to answer that one for me as I have not heard anything on this..

230. sandra Said:
     
     November 15th, 2008 at 2:57 am

     Nice piece about Chile in todays (Nov.14th.) NYTimes

     Nearly 2,000 Carrying H.I.V. in Chile Were Not Notified
     By PASCALE BONNEFOY and ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO
     Chile’s health minister said that the country’s public health system and private-sector services failed to notify people that they were infected with H.I.V.
     Of course, ‘protectives’ would be helpfull there!!

231. ARN Said:
     
     November 15th, 2008 at 3:08 am

     “At times it was mandatory to gain a confession from her before administering the proper medical treatment ”

     Thanks’ Sandra. I should have quoted more of the article. This is what I was referring to, letting nature take its course i.e. some bad bad girl dying of septicemia, while the hostile authority figures in the hospital fuss with police matters. Sounds like somebody’s being punished. It’s not as blatant as actively burying a woman up to her waist in the ground and throwing rocks at her, but close enough without actually hastening her demise.

     Anyway here’s a tidbit from”The Simpsons”, the Kennedyesque Kang addressing the voters, that you may find topical:

     Kang: Abortions for all.
     [crowd boos]
     Very well, no abortions for anyone.
     [crowd boos]
     Hmm… Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
     [crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]

232. Helen Said:
     
     November 15th, 2008 at 4:12 am

     Again, Chile has no catholic basis to do this. With or without verifying statistics (which, is a very messy business when head counting catholics accurately) I would say even if the number were 100 percent catholics, catholics need to remember what the church says about this. I don’t want to pretend to know what the political enviornment there is. I live in the USA, and am more comfortable focusing on that now.
     I have no idea why chile would be representative of,,, well anything.

233. Helen Said:
     
     November 15th, 2008 at 4:33 am

     http://www.zenit.org/article-24241?l=english

     Opus Dei in Zenit. I only just checked my email now to see it.

234. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

     Benedict XVI on caring for both the born and the unborn:

     http://ncrcafe.org/node/2284

235. Helen Said:
     
     November 15th, 2008 at 7:36 pm

     Francis George of Chicago, president of the conference, the bishops signaled that opposition to abortion – especially the prospects for passage of the Freedom of Choice Act, or FOCA – will be a top concern with the incoming Obama administration.

     At the same time, the bishops signaled willingness to work with the Obama White House on issues such as “economic justice and opportunity for all; immigration and the situation of the undocumented; better education and adequate health care for all, especially for women and children; [and] religious freedom and peace at home and abroad.”

     Cardinal George is fantastic!

236. Helen Said:
     
     November 15th, 2008 at 7:38 pm

     Even though the whole undocumented thing is not something I feel right standing behind.

237. sandra Said:
     
     November 15th, 2008 at 10:54 pm

     HI1 just got back from work (ca’ 30 mins ago.Open day at school……….what a day!!))
     Not had time today to read the links but will do later… first glas of wine,and a good Cohiba (Coromas Especiales) I have today. more than earnd them….I took some pics so will send them on tomorrow. But I must just say I had a GREAT surprise in MY e-mail too(thanks)
     so ’till later……….

238. Helen Said:
     
     November 16th, 2008 at 4:06 am

     “grandparents day” is coming up for the kid. She will be one of 2 kids without one there.
     I will still go to the Mass anyway, just because they can’t kick me out.
     She is going to feel really bummed so if anyone wants to pray for her this friday, please do.
     I am also going to make a pitch for anyone who wants to volunteer a Josemaria Escriva book for the library, which will of course go in your name. I noticed our library has no book on him. Please consider it, if you can spare one. I hope the kids there will read it. I am a library mom once a week there. I can insure to suggest it.

239. Helen Said:
     
     November 16th, 2008 at 4:14 am

     I asked because I don’t know what would be appropriate for up to 8th grade.. I wish there was a book about him geared to younger ones. Hint,,, Hint Father…

240. Helen Said:
     
     November 16th, 2008 at 4:33 am

     Okay, my link on Holy Father won’t go through.

241. Helen Said:
     
     November 16th, 2008 at 4:34 am

     VATICAN CITY ‚Äì Pope Benedict XVI is encouraging Catholics who get involved in politics to stay true to their church’s teaching.

     Benedict says it is necessary that a new generation of Catholics in politics be “coherent” with the faith they profess.

     He also recommends that they act with moral rigor and work passionately for the common good.

     The pope urged Vatican officials in a speech Saturday to be vigilant about the evangelical education of Catholics who get so involved in society.

     Benedict recently said religion and politics should be “open to each other.”

     The Vatican is particularly attentive to political action about abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research.

     (this is an AP release) Would not go through..

242. Helen Said:
     
     November 16th, 2008 at 4:36 am

     Note the top 3 things…I agree!!! um, I mean they just happen to agree with me. LOL

243. Helen Said:
     
     November 16th, 2008 at 4:47 am

     This is soooo off topic, but what Christmas music do you all like now? The radio is already playing the songs now.
     When I was a protestant, I really liked “Mary did you know?”
     Anyone? I wish Jerry would give some suggestions.

244. Helen Said:
     
     November 18th, 2008 at 6:45 am

     Well, the bottom line for me in this election process is this- the Church has screwed up big time and will be reaping the sorrows as a result.
     I hate to be the bummer here, but what does the church exactly expect to happen when they put on a program called the RCIA, that is the most sorry excuse of a faith formation program? It can’t just be my area that is like this. Then the person is left out to “teach their children”? Hopefully not just with RCIA. But, wait a minute.. Never once do they stress this importance in RCIA. Why?
     Because lazy pastors in parishes can get away with not having an adult formation class.

245. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

     First Things this morning on Catholic health care in the US:
     http://www.firstthings.com/

246. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

     Here in Canada, the first hospitals were founded by nuns, in Quebec– this is so important in the history of our nation that there is a display commemorating it at the national Museum of Civilization.

     http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/canp1/ca11eng.shtml

247. Helen Said:
     
     November 19th, 2008 at 5:06 am

     “With full control, the diocese was able to design an insurance plan consistent with Catholic principles.”

     Why can’t they just take everyone on? Why just those employed? My thought is they should throw it in as an option for all catholics in good standing. Stop the coffee and dougnut committies and get the ball rolling.

248. ARN Said:
     
     November 21st, 2008 at 6:55 pm

     Watching the Detroit big 3 with their hats in hand on TVat a Congressional hearing and hearing of the looming troubles at Citigroup, I’m going back to the frame of mind I had initially. All the talk we had here of the morality or lack of same re: abortion and what can be done to reduce it was an academic exercise. This is all very very scary.

     What I’m afraid of is that the coming recession/depression will cause the birthrate to plummet. Financially insecure 20 and 30 somethings will flatly *refuse* to breed. Read some of the financial blogs and you’ll see what’s being said.

249. sandra Said:
     
     November 21st, 2008 at 8:53 pm

     Who can aford it,ARN..? (it will remain an academic exercise)
     It’s not just the momentary economical impact,it’s the terrible insecurity.No job,no home,no future!!
     At times like these the question of increasing the family just does not arise..
     The whole family feels the ‘pinch’ Mom and dad have other things on their minds,Trying to make ends meet, feeding,caring schooling the kids they already have,leaves not much time,nor inclination, for ‘romantic encounters’ anyway… As you say,the young unmarried will think more than twice before starting a family.
     The thoughtless will carry on as usual,abortions may (in some cases)increase ,it is a vicious circle.
     I have read that in very hard times people live for the moment,just as it was in past centuries,during times of famin,pest,war,some were even more ‘care-free’..
     When a person feels there is no future they tend to live that way..
     I hope we are both wrong………………..
     Thing is,people have already been living as if there were no tomorrow,over-drawing on the bank account,the credit cards (so easily accessed), buying as if the shops would shut tomorrow,purchesing houses that they very well knew they could not aford. Now it’s ‘pay-day’
     Sorry thing is that those who have caused this disaster,have accumulated so much capital over the last 10years that they have no worries,they still fly around in private jets,hang around in 4star hotels,then trott along ‘hat-in-hand’ to the pay master general,asking for the same people,whom they have already
     ‘milked’, to hand over some more of the same… (taxpayers hard earnd cash)
     What a bunch of good for nothings……….
     They should be made to hand over their bank accounts/saving acounts, and have every penny over 250,000.- dollars confiscated to help pay for their companies failings..
     That is what I would make them do if I had the say for all.
     The seven fat years are of the past,now it’s the seven lean years,let’s hope lessons have been learnt.
     But I doubt it!!

250. ARN Said:
     
     November 21st, 2008 at 9:49 pm

     “..seven fat years are of the past,now it‚Äôs the seven lean years”

     Fat years they were. Mr ARN and I, astounded at the pre-approved credit card offers in the mail, the phone solicitations to refinance our house and all the splurging others were doing, just told each other this couldn’t last and stuck to our (admittedly neurotic) frugal ways. House paid off, 10 y o Ford station wagon, 1 card paid off each month. We Hate being in debt and wondered how people could stand it. But the prudent as well as the big spenders will suffer and the US will drag friends and enemies down with it.

     “then trott along ‚Äòhat-in-hand‚Äô to the pay master general,asking for the same people,whom they have already
     ‘milked’, to hand over some more of the same… (taxpayers hard earnd cash)
     What a bunch of good for nothings‚Ķ‚Ķ‚Ķ.”

     Yup, but they have a gun to our collective head, being “too big to fail”, something will be done for them, the SOB’s. If not Detroit and environs will be like a neutron bomb hit it.

     “not much time,nor inclination, for ‚Äòromantic encounters‚Äô ”

     There’s *always* time for a little loving. Anyway, once you can’t afford cable, there’s not much else in the way of entertainment. “The best things in life are free.”

251. sandra Said:
     
     November 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm

     You said it!! they sure are free…… at least for the 9months…

     But as the saying goes… “Hope is the last to die”

     Now’s the chance to test the Christian commandment, “love thy neighbour as thy self”
     Just some suggestions;-
     Help each other,not only with money but with small things like,when you go shoping,ask around if anyone needs things,take turns in driving to the stores,Make a rotary for emergency doc visits,keep watch on the elderly,
     making sure they (b/c of lack of funds)don’t go without essencials.. Take turns with driving kids to school.help out(taking turns) minding the kids of those who have to work and can’t aford child care.
     Search through your kids toys,clothing, to see how much is ‘too much’,then wrap them up in Christmas paper, take them to the local school,kinder garten,hospital, and give them (anonimously) to those in need.

     We will,as we do every yaar,put up a giant Christmas tree in our school,where (with the help of their parents)any child can place packages,on and around it..
     Each package is labeled with details of content ie. size,type of clothing(male or female)age group for toys, Christmas ‘goodies’et.
     The tree (to avoid embarassment on both sides)is placed,so that those who deposit or collect items have relativ privacy..
     This year it will be more in demand than ever..
     Of course the same can be done in Churches,community centres and other groups.

     Apart from all this,a simple ‘invite for coffee’,to our neighbour,builds bridges,and can help to open hearts..
     Charity is the most important of the three things asked of any Christian.. (Faith,Hope,Charity) for without charity the other two are without substance..
     In reference,read Paul’s letter to the Ephasians..3:14. ‘St.Paul’s petition’. and 4:14.——
     Here St.Paul speaks often of charity as a gift/Grace from God.

     We put our tree up on the first Sunday in Advent.We’ve got quite a few parcels already..
     Have a nice day all.. (and chin up) It is snowing here (since yesterday) so I’ll take a nice long walk after lunch…

252. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm

     Catholic Charities US named top provider of social services:
     http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Catholic-Charities-USA-Named-Top/story.aspx?guid={A8B50540-7BE4-412A-BBBD-E7FADD5560B1}

253. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 22nd, 2008 at 2:08 pm

     Wait– the link doesn’t work– here’s where I got the link, it’s in the sidebar on the right of the page:
     http://www.catholiceducation.org/

254. sandra Said:
     
     November 22nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm

     Read the article Michelle,very good to know that there are people who care.

     My humble contribution,had more to do with,personal,neighbourhood,crossing the aisle of religious belief,
     ‘every day chartity’.. the ‘un-oficial’-one on one, real love thy ‘neighbour’ sort of ‘charity’..
     Which some find easier to do, being able to witness the immediate results first hand,which allways motivates the best in all of us.
     Not every one is so extrovated and feel the urge to join ‘clubs’.
     If every street could engage a few families,to work together in helping their neighbour,the world would be a happier place for ALL.And best of all it is for FREE!
     We have all witnessed what happens when relying on ‘institutes’ (Gov.) for support,the banks call in the loans,the credit card companies revoke the cards.. the health insurance doesn’t pay up..
     Do we like Cain ask, “am I my brother’s keper?”… Well,the answer as Christians should be,a most deafening, YES! (as best we can). Did not Christ Himself say,”You will be recognized by your works”?
     Every organization has ‘costs’ which of course are paid for through the donations,this is only right,those organizations provide a great service in providing much needed help,it is our duty to support such services..
     I personally still feel that ‘charity begins at ‘home’,in other words in our direct ‘neighbourhood’.

255. sandra Said:
     
     November 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm

     http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/1122.html

     Nice article about Thanksgiving where the term “with malice toward none and charity to all” is given.

256. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 pm

     Great Simpsons scene, ARN. It’s funny to me how the Simpsons are misunderstood in Europe. The show is popular, but you talk to people and it’s clear that they aren’t understanding it.

     ARN may be right about the birth-rate during the current economic woes, but frankly I doubt it. The birthrate is already pretty low, and I’d wager that lower income couples have at least as many kids as the economically comfortable.

     On a happier note: this afternoon 30 young men were ordained deacons for the prelature of Opus Dei in the basilica of Sant’Eugenio here in Rome by the Prelate of Opus Dei, bishop Javier Echevarria, who will be traveling to Pamplona (Spain) , where the Basque terrorist group ETA recently exploded a car bomb on the campus of the University of Navarre. Miraculously no one was killed.

257. John Wauck Said:
     
     November 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm

     Back to the topic of the post: the Catholic reaction to president-elect Obama.

     We now know, more or less, how Catholics, practicing and otherwise, voted. The reactions of the US bishops have also been appearing. Helen has noted Cardinal George’s words. This week, one of the American cardinals in Rome, Cardinal Stafford, received a good deal of media attention because of comments he made during a lecture (November 13) at the JP II Institute for Studies on Marriag and the Family in Washington, DC.

     As John Allen has reported, during the lecture, Cardinal Stafford addressed the post-election political situation and said, among other things, these striking words:

     “Our exploration this weekend takes place in the context of Nov. 4, 2008. On that date, a cultural earthquake hit America. Senator Barak Obama was elected President of the United States. He appears to be a relaxed, smiling man. His rhetorical skills, as I mentioned, are very highly developed. He has a way of teasing crowds, and, from all reports, even individuals one-to-one. Under all of that grace and charm, there is a tautness of will, a clenched jaw…. His clenched jaw was seen at his talk before the Planned Parenthood supporters July 17, 2007. There he asserted, and I‚Äôm quoting somewhat out of context but not out of his meaning: ‚ÄòWe are not only going to win this election, but also we are going to transform this nation. ‚Ķ The first thing I‚Äôd do as president is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. ‚Ķ I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught constitutional law. ‚Ķ I don‚Äôt want my daughters punished by a pregnancy. ‚Ķ On this issue, I will not yield.‚Äô Note the way the president-elect wished to describe the killing of his unborn grandchild. His daughters must not be ‚Äòpunished‚Äô – ‚Äòpunished‚Äô – by pregnancy. His rhetoric is post-modernist, and marks an agenda and vision that are aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic. Catholics weep over these words. We weep over the violence concealed behind the rhetoric of our young president-to-be. What should we do with our hot, angry tears of betrayal? First, our tears are agonistic. We must acknowledge that. For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden.”

     John Allen also makes the following correction of the record:

     “As a footnote, Stafford made a small factual error. Obama did not say he wouldn‚Äôt want his daughters ‘punished by a pregnancy’ during his speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007. That comment instead came during a town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, in March 2008, when Obama, speaking off the cuff in response to a question, said: ‘Look, I‚Äôve got two daughters ‚Äî 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don‚Äôt want them punished with a baby.’”

     It’s a small point, but it seems worth noting that Obama’s actual words are – in terms of his apparent attitude toward unborn children – worse than the ones cited by Cardinal Stafford. In Obama’s view, expressed in Johnstown PA, it is the “baby” itself – not the pregnancy – that constitutes the punishment.

     John Allen provided a good deal of very useful context for the cardinal’s comments, pointing out, for instance, that Cardinal Stafford is by no means a right-wing Republican engaging in partisan politics. In fact, in Rome he is well known for his sharply critical attitude toward the Bush administration and the Iraq War. Allen (himself no right-winger; his newspaper, the National Catholic Reporter, was openly rooting for Obama in the election) concludes his analysis with this comment, which seems to give support to Cardinal Stafford’s provocative-sounding remarks:

     “Most immediately, the Stafford episode points to an indisputable political truth: If the new Congress and the Obama White House move forward with the Freedom of Choice Act, then the prospects for collaboration between church and state will become infinitely more complicated. A cultural war would likely erupt, with both sides engaged in ‘sapping operations against the enemy city.’

     “That, surely, is an apocalyptic scenario all would do well to avoid.”

258. Helen Said:
     
     November 23rd, 2008 at 7:39 am

     Father John,
     I am praying for your cannonization each day.

259. Helen Said:
     
     November 23rd, 2008 at 8:05 am

     “There‚Äôs *always* time for a little loving. Anyway, once you can‚Äôt afford cable, there‚Äôs not much else in the way of entertainment. ‚ÄúThe best things in life are free.‚Äù

     Arn, you are right that love is easier when there are not as many obstacles that can cloud it up. Although, it can be done in spite of that.

     Love is many things to many people, and until we can see what true love really is we will continue to nervously come up with all kinds of reasons why we can’t, or should not, or will not.

     Thankfully there is a grace available for this.

260. sandra Said:
     
     November 23rd, 2008 at 11:30 am

     What ‘ONE’ can do……………..

     Christmas Story: Eleven-Year-Old Homeless Advocate Passes Away
     by Brent Budowsky | November 22, 2008 – 3:46pm

     “In this hard cold season of our deflations and discontents, one of the saddest but brightest stories is about Brenden Foster, an 11-year-old boy who suffered from terminal leukemia and whose story has been told in touching segments on CNN. Brenden was recently told he had only days to live, and his last wish was to do something special for the homeless.

     This wonderful and special and extraordinary boy inspired his friends and neighbors to start local food drives to help the homeless. And as his story spread, others around the country were similarly inspired by his acts of kindness and generosity of spirit. There are hungry and homeless and hurting men and women who will be eating a little more, and living a slightly better life tonight, because this boy who acted in the image of God inspired the best in so many others.

     This will be a long, hard, cold winter. There is economic trouble in the land, and hardship, and hurting for so many people, at a time of such economic distress. One can only imagine what it is like to be an 11-year-old boy, told that he has only a few days left to live.

     What an extraordinary act of hope, faith and goodness that his dream for his final days was not about himself, but about others. What an extraordinary gift he gave to those who love, to inspire them to their own acts of goodness and generosity. What an extraordinary truth about the better angels of our nature that this wonderful boy used his final hours to inspire such goodness and help those who are hurting so much.”

     That is also ‘LOVE’ ‘FAITH’ and ‘CHARITY’
     It needs no further expaination.

261. sandra Said:
     
     November 23rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm

     ENCYCLICAL LETTER
     DEUS CARITAS EST
     OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF BENEDICT XVI
     TO THE BISHOPS PRIESTS AND DEACONS MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS
     AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL ON CHRISTIAN LOVE…

     18. “Love of neighbour is thus shown to be possible in the way proclaimed by the Bible, by Jesus. It consists in the very fact that, in God and with God, I love even the person whom I do not like or even know. This can only take place on the basis of an intimate encounter with God, an encounter which has become a communion of will, even affecting my feelings. Then I learn to look on this other person not simply with my eyes and my feelings, but from the perspective of Jesus Christ.
     **His friend is my friend. Going beyond exterior appearances, I perceive in others an interior desire for a sign of love, of concern. This I can offer them +**not only through the organizations intended for such purposes**, accepting it perhaps as a political necessity. Seeing with the eyes of Christ, I can give to others much more than their outward necessities; I can give them the look of love which they crave**.”

     This one of my favourite from the Encyclica
     31 b)
     “We contribute to a better world only by personally doing good now, with full commitment and wherever we have the opportunity, independently of partisan strategies and programmes. The Christian’s programme ‚Äîthe programme of the Good Samaritan, the programme of Jesus‚Äîis ‚Äúa heart which sees‚Äù. This heart sees where love is needed and acts accordingly.”

     “Love is a many splendid thing” (any one remember that song?) yes indeed.. It works wonders….

262. sandra Said:
     
     November 23rd, 2008 at 10:43 pm

     Love between married couples is not a mere ideological love,it has a physical side to it also…(as much as the C.Church in the past has tried to ignore this fact)..
     But as the act of physical love, in most cases,is interwoven with,happiness,warmth,the feeling of security.
     When these things are unsure,the ‘desire’ lessens… that is fact,with or without ‘cable’…

263. ARN Said:
     
     November 24th, 2008 at 6:28 pm

     Helen, I was thinking more in terms of “eros” rather than “philos” or the other form (can’t remember), not that they’re mutually exclusive. When the cable’s shut off-no TV or internet- and maybe even the electric…well, the titans of commerce and the almighty credit card sponsors (Capital One, the SOBs, come to mind) can’t take “everything” away.

264. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 24th, 2008 at 8:53 pm

     For my American friends, I came across this today: a website with a petition against the Freedom of CHoice Act

     http://www.fightfoca.com/

265. Helen Said:
     
     November 24th, 2008 at 9:44 pm

     I see what you mean Arn. Michelle, Father already posted the link but, its always good to give it as much exposure as possible anyway! Father Greeley is not taking any visitors outside of his imm. Fam and a few key others. I really tried to visit the man too. I promise I would have been really nice too. I’d wait until he was fully recovered before launching into any controversial things.
     Does anyone want a copy of Catholic Home Schooling by Mary Kay Clark (Tan) ? It’s old, but if you want it, I’ll send it to you. I don’t have the heart to pitch it in the garbage and they don’t want it in the parish library? So, I hope someone wants it. Mom sent it to me, even knowing I would never home school. She thought I would like it. Otherwise its going in the recycle.

266. ARN Said:
     
     November 24th, 2008 at 10:37 pm

     “In Obama‚Äôs view, expressed in Johnstown PA, it is the ‚Äúbaby‚Äù itself – not the pregnancy – that constitutes the punishment.”

     Well, in his defence, it was not so long ago the baby *was* precisely THE punishment for messing around with boys pre-marriage. I can recall those good old days when expecting a baby under such circumstances meant either a shotgun marriage or unbearable shame and stigma, the lesson driven home to us by the family across the street who kicked out their college age pregnant daughter. There was no warm and fuzzies for the thought of the “blessed event”, in fact the best interests of the child was the last thing on anyone’s mind. It was all about the disgrace of that bad girl, that *slut*. Although we may be more enlightened now, there’s still enough of that feeling around.

267. Helen Said:
     
     November 25th, 2008 at 2:01 am

     Arn, I knew of a few girls who had that situation. Maybe it is a sign I am getting up there in years, but I kid you not, they were sent up “north” to visit family. They came back, and continued on in school even though they missed a lot. They went to summer school, and however they did it they did catch up with everyone.
     But even back then, no one went to school pregnant. That happened later I noticed, where it was almost a normal thing. As far as parents who kick their children out of the house, for any reason God have mercy on them.

268. Helen Said:
     
     November 25th, 2008 at 2:03 am

     This is a hard topic for me, beacuse of my sister and what happened to us both as a consequence. I think I will have to privately mail you that one. I think you will hate me when you hear about that one.

269. Helen Said:
     
     November 25th, 2008 at 2:35 am

     I just realized how that sounded, and- no I did not engage or participate in an evil act. I tried to stop her.
     The results, however were very sad.

270. Helen Said:
     
     November 25th, 2008 at 3:33 am

     http://www.zenit.org/article-24324?l=english

     Okay., for my fellow bible readers here… thoughts? I have some pro and contra on this one.
     How does it tie in to the topic? Well, I think it certainly does. I’ts all about interpretation.

271. sandra Said:
     
     November 25th, 2008 at 10:16 am

     Hello!!
     I have the day off (reward for being a ‘good girl’),and on the subject of good girl’s….
     Who recognizes this one.
     “Only ‘bad’ girls get pregnant”.. and this one “if you don’t watch out you’ll ‘fall’ pregnant,and then you will have ‘ruined’ your life” ..?
     As ARN says that rhetoric is still ‘alve and kicking’ in xx-thousands of housholds today…
     So,hypocrite who jumps on the same utterd by others!!. Who knows, Mr. Obama may have been brought up in the same mind-set…

     Helen I just read the link you gave… interesting!!
     Unlike Augustinus,St. Francis and others mentioned,I normally look for ‘key words’ in the Scripture,when I have a queerie,it has in most cases worked for me.
     The Bible,one of (if not the) greatest ‘Books of Knowledge’.. When we pray for help we get help,only we do not allways immediately recognise it as such,ie. when we ask for help with family issues, we are often given the ‘oppertunity’ to work at the problem,situations arrise which call for us to engage more in on-going, every day issues,which we may have neglected… This can be THE answer to a prayer… the solution to problems are not handed to us on a platter,we must work at solving them,we just get a ‘kick in the backside’,so to speak.It is then of course,a matter of “interpretation” in how we view this “help” or indeed
     if we acknowledge it at all..
     Much has been “Lost in translation” (or interpretation)!!! ei. The “Onan” vers has been ‘missused’ by opponants to family planing for centuries,the same applies to St. Paul’s vers on ‘the celebate state’.. he himself writes,- “on this I have no command from God,but it is my wish that every one be as I”…. “there are some who can not fathom this,it is better then,for them to ‘marry’”.. The Bible also states that “A Bishop should be the husband of one wife….” How do we interpritate those verses??
     In the early(first)Christian communities Bishops and priests were married,(or had common law wives).. only Centuries later did the Church Fathers denounce this.. They were called upon to “leave their wives,and in future to abstain from taking a wife (concubine)”

     “intrpretation” how do we handle this?? it’s “Optional”!!
     ‘Catherine of Alexandria’ today Nov.25th.is her ‘Feast day’
     “Because of the fabulous character of her hagiography (the account of her martyrdom) and because of uncertainty about who she was, the Roman Catholic Church in 1969 removed her feast day from the Roman Catholic calendar of saints to be commemorated universally, wherever the Roman Rite is celebrated. But she continued to be recognized as a saint of the Catholic Church, with a feast on 25 November. In 2002, her feast was restored to the Roman Catholic calendar of saints as an optional memorial, which may be celebrated throughout the Latin Church”.

     http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03445a.htm

272. Michelle M Said:
     
     November 25th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

     ” I can recall those good old days when expecting a baby under such circumstances meant either a shotgun marriage or unbearable shame and stigma, the lesson driven home to us by the family across the street who kicked out their college age pregnant daughter.” ARN, above

     THere will always be unkind and cruel people, no matter what the legislation– either people who kick their kids out of the house for getting pregnant, or people who kick their kids out of the house for *not* getting an abortion. It’s our fallen human nature, and no legislation will change the fact that there are nasty, miserable individuals who need a change of heart. However, whatever legislation there is should always respect the dignity of the human person– why should we settle for any less? And it is a fact that tighter abortion laws= fewer abortions.

     The experience in days gone by of unmarried, pregnant young women was, I am convinced, determined more by their own family dynamics. In my own very large and Catholic extended family, there have been numerous out-of-wedlock pregnancies through the generations to this day that simply resulted in the family hanging together and the child being welcomed.

273. ARN Said:
     
     November 25th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

     “It‚Äôs our fallen human nature, and no legislation will change the fact that there are nasty, miserable individuals who need a change of heart”

     Well, back then (’50′s-60′s) this nasty and miserable attitude, devoid of a speck of compassion I might add, was *society-wide* and accepted as THE social control method of choice to keep girls from fooling around. The prospect of such unspeakable humiliation kept many a girl in line. Oh yes, the opportunity to humiliate must have been fun for her moral “betters” as well. Illegal abortion, “staying with relatives (but everyone knew)”,social death or the shotgun route were the only choices. Nobody. thought. of . the. baby.

     And so those pushing for a change to loosen up abortion laws were not thinking of the baby either, just a “compassionate” way out for someone whose life may have otherwise been ruined. An end run around one of the crueler methods of social control of the time.

     There were a couple out of wedlock pregnancies in my own extended family which were not as well handled as the ones in yours probably. Thank God things are easier now.

     “And it is a fact that tighter abortion laws= fewer abortions.”

     Most likely the women who are ambivalent about getting one. Those will be deterred by those extra hoops to jump through-waiting period ,notification of parents- which after all are perfectly reasonable things to impose considering how serous it is. The others who are sure? Well, stay out of the way or you’ll be run over. Nothing will stop them.

274. ARN Said:
     
     November 25th, 2008 at 10:31 pm

     “The experience in days gone by of unmarried, pregnant young women was, I am convinced, determined more by their own family dynamics.”

     I’m sure you’re right. It fits the dysfunctional wing of the ARN family to a T–even as a kid wondering what on earth was wrong with these people. Closest I could figure was the dislocation they surely felt leaving the beloved ancestral homeland of Brooklyn NY and settling in the overly bright and roomy suburbs of DC, well out of the… ahem..”stabilizing ” orbit of the rest of the family.

     For example, the only one of the kids that didn’t get pregnant or make someone else pregnant, ran for his life out of the Pentagon where he worked on 9/11, and has rarely been sober since. Yeah…family dynamics.

275. sandra Said:
     
     November 26th, 2008 at 9:19 am

     “No man is an Island”……
     That also goes for families.
     Families live among other families,they are usually bound by the same ‘laws’,the “what will Mrs.Xyz say,think” “I hope the Neighbours don’t find out” is universal,this covers,unwed mums,loosing a job,being ditched by girl/boyfriend and other minor catsatrophies..When the neighbours did ‘find out’ pitty was saved for the parents ie. “oh what a tragedy,the poor parents” “well that’s gratitude for you, after all they have done for her,this is their reward”….. As ARN says,the baby WAS a ‘scandal’, “her just rewards”,”I always knew she would bring *shame* on herself”.. “Well *this* has ruined all her chances in life”
     And believe me I know,because I heard it all…….. being one of the *fallen ones* !!!
     I WAS sent away,(albeit in my best interest)to my grandmother in Edinburgh,where by the way,she had told every one I was married,and she even made me a year older…. just for appearences (her’s).
     My (future) husband followed me there,that of course was NOT planed, (BTW. I did not want to marry,but had not much *choice* in the matter)so we had to have a very *quiet* wedding,10 days before the birth of my son.. It did not turn out well,we did NOT “live happily ever after”.. 3 children and 12 years of utter hell later, we were divorced.. ANOTHER disgrace for the family,and fodder for snide remarks by the neighbours..
     I am an ardent supporter of “prevention”,and an opponent of abortion.. If we want less abortions some one in the C.Church hierachy will have to re-think the c*ntraception ban… it aint working…
     It is NOT for the leaders of the State to police the ‘faithfull’, it is the responsibility of the clergy who after all, are the *sheperds* of their flock, to guide and give assistance.. after which Catholics will choose…
     BTW. they HAVE.. Obama will be president,not least with their help..(choice at the ballot).
     It is ridiculous to imagine,that those who chose him did not know his views on “Roe v.Wade” or on abortion *laws*.. Facit;- “The Catholic Choice” has been made ,for better or for worse.

276. Helen Said:
     
     November 26th, 2008 at 8:32 pm

     The church has never said we are free from consequences to our actions. Everyone here is making it sound as if sleeping with a guy before marriage is a rite of passage or something.

277. Helen Said:
     
     November 26th, 2008 at 8:34 pm

     And, no I don’t think the church “should re-think the c*ontraception ban”. I think it ought to get adults more formed in their faith, so that they are better equipped to teach their children things from the day they are born, and to follow the church THEMSELVES so that they are credible teachers.

278. sandra Said:
     
     November 27th, 2008 at 12:25 am

     Helen,what you say,is something we all would prefere. Alas this is not a perfect world,with perfect people,it is as imperfect as it always was,,as much as we would wish for it to be otherwise..
     It is not a question of a “rite of passage” but the “human factor” Soxuality,it is as old as the hills,we have to acept that as fact…
     I was not ‘championing’ Free sox for all.. but simply stating the obvious..
     The Catholic Church has for 2000 years proclaimed pre marritial sox as sinfull,but it still happens,or do we deny this fact? of course not. Children have been concived out of wedlock despite the efforts of adults who were/are perfectly “formed in their Faith”.. No parent can hold up their hands to,without a doubt, proclaim that such could not happen in their family… If this was so clear cut…well,that would be just ‘perfect’.
     Apart from that,not all un-planed pregnancies are a result of pre-marrital sox,which also can cause much hardship for a family allready struggling to make ends meet with the size of the family they have..
     What do you suggest here… abstinence? or the very unreliable rhythm method? fine for those who have a partner who is ‘reliable’ and willing to accept the ‘restraint’,but as we all know,this is all too often not the case.
     IMO it is in such circumstances,irresponsible to trust providence,and hope for the best..
     There is today, no plausible reason for banning ‘responsible’ c*ontraception,so why put such a strain on people, who want to live in an otherwise happy, fullfilled married union? It is beyond me,and what’s more interesting,statistics(as they seem to be the centre of this post)prove that most Catholics ‘disregard’ Church teaching on the issue of c*ntraception,by which, in the eyes of the C.Church,degrading most “bedrooms” to places of ‘sinfull soxual indulgence’..
     What a ridiculous thought!!

279. Helen Said:
     
     November 27th, 2008 at 4:53 am

     “The Catholic Church has for 2000 years proclaimed pre marritial sox as sinfull,but it still happens,or do we deny this fact? of course not”

     Of course it is sinful Sandra. Even people without any religious backround seem to agree it’s “verboten” until you are minimally able to accept the consequences. Let alone those whith moral and religious upbringing who still decide that they somehow, will be consequence free of their actions.

     Yes, there are instances such as rape where there is no choosing to sin of course.
     Just like there are instances of planning to have a healthy baby, and you end up with one like my sister in law has. The lowest functioning down syndrome child born on the planet.

     What is your point?
     She did not plan that outcome.

     Sin is when you actually have 3 things you ignore. (mortal) and we all can conclude that we know where babies come from by now no?

     So what is going on here with all this talk?

     I am promoting adults to actually know and PRACTICE their faith, (which you seem to think matters not) when I think it would not 100 percent solve the problem (due to free will and our fallen state) but, I don’t think we can shrug it off as “not working” since we can see hardly ANYONE is practicing their faith and properly educating their children.!

     However, this is where I have a beef with the Church, unlike you. My beef is how their program sucks.
     They make little or no effort to insure and equip parents after the big day. Pre-cana is good to get them there (I hope?) but afterwards… Or if one is not catholic, or both are not formed…..

     !!!!!

     No one cares about that fiasco. No one in the church.

280. sandra Said:
     
     November 27th, 2008 at 8:23 am

     >> what is going on here with all this talk? > hardly ANYONE is practicing their faith and properly educating their children.!

281. sandra Said:
     
     November 27th, 2008 at 8:26 am

     Sorry Helen I will have to answer later my comment did not go through…
     I must rush off to work now
     have a nice day

282. Helen Said:
     
     November 27th, 2008 at 8:55 am

     Sandra, I pray you have a blessed day offering your work up to God.
     I am not sure what kind of answer to my post you have in mind, but I am all ears.

283. sandra Said:
     
     November 28th, 2008 at 8:00 am

     Happy Thanksgiving.. to all US citizens…
     Prayers for all who are in distress

Other Recent Posts

dvc blog is back online!

Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on January 26th.

Don’t Skip This Ad: A Brand New Book!

Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on November 28th.

The Catholic Choice

Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on November 2nd.

Just When You Thought It Was Safe

Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on September 24th.

Juno/Juneau

Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on September 2nd.

Read It and Weep… with Laughter

Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on August 23rd.

The New Yorker: “Catholicism has everything else beat”

Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on August 14th.

Don’t Give Up on Europe

Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on July 11th.

B. in the U.S. A.: The Sheep Confirm the Shepherd’s Hope

Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on April 27th.

Catholicism’s Cultural Glass: Half Empty or Half Full?

Filed under The Da Vinci Code. Created on April 13th.