Oh Planned Parenthood, How you’ve helped women! Let me count the ways …

#6. Taking donations earmarked specifically for “reducing the number of blacks in society”: http://liveaction.org/planned-parenthood-racism-project

This makes sense, though, since your founder, Margaret Sanger, was a well-known eugenicist who was lauded by the Ku Klux Klan and believed that the greatest mercy a poor mother could show her child was death. Here are a few additional sites that illustrate the great advances PP has made in implementing the racist agenda of its founder: http://www.maafa21.com/, http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/, http://www.klanparenthood.com/History_of_Abortion_Statistics/

#5. Taking donations and federal funds for providing services like mammograms, even though you don’t provide mammograms in your clinics: http://youtu.be/aq0kBkUZbvQ

#4. Aiding rapists by repeatedly violating mandatory reporting laws for statutory rape — you’ve actually been caught by undercover cameras 8 times for this! Great job! See all the exciting footage here: http://liveaction.org/monalisa

#3. Claiming to be a medical service while giving out unscientific and fabricated medical information to persuade women to have abortions, thus violating the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics, which states, “The physician’s obligation is to present the medical facts accurately to the patient.” Again, watch these pros in action: http://liveaction.org/rosaacuna

#2. Covering up sex trafficking and underage prostitution. One of your greatest triumphs! You’ve been caught on tape 7 times doing this! Way to go! http://liveaction.org/traffick

#1. And, finally, your “bread and butter”: the service you provide to 93% of the pregnant women who enter one of your clinics, abortion. You have excelled in this area so superiorly that you are considered the top abortion provider in the United States. Let’s take a look at the service you provide: http://www.abortioninstruments.com/

Incidentally, this service seems to conflict with your claims to help women avoid breast cancer, since numerous medical studies have shown a strong connection between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer: http://abortionbreastcancer.ca/theresearch.htm#4

Oh, and you push birth control pills, which, according to the World Health Organization (and other sources like the American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/GeneralInformationaboutCarcinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens) is a Class 1 Carcinogen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens

Here’s one woman in particular who would like to thank you for the “services” you rendered to her family.

My Message to Planned Parenthood

 

For all of these crucial services to women: Planned Parenthood, we thank you! 

What kind of world would we have without you …

Finally Found the Time to Post Something!

A Quick Review and Recommendation of David Berlinksi’s The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” – Albert Einstein

As David Berlinski’s book illustrates with meticulous detail, science is impartial, but scientists are a whole other matter.

Berlinski, a Ph.D. from Princeton University, is a mathematician and self-declared secular Jew. It is from within the folds of academia that he levels his attack against some of his more bemused colleagues: colleagues who believe they have escaped the narrow-minded and fanatical realm of religious thought by fleeing to the narrow-minded and fanatical realm of secular atheism. Upon looking closely at this realm, as Berlinski does in his unflinching analysis, one will see how zealous these academics really are — not in serving science but in proving that there is no God (probably one of the most unscientific claims a scientist could ever make).

As he states in the introduction, “if science stands opposed to religion, it is not because of anything contained in either the premises or the conclusions of the great scientific theories. They do not mention a word about God. They do not treat of any faith beyond the one that they themselves demand. They compel no ritual beyond the usual rituals of academic life […] Confident assertions by scientists that in the privacy of their chambers they have demonstrated that God does not exist have nothing to do with science, and even less to do with God’s existence” (xiv). Science itself says nothing about God; indeed, it cannot, as the existence or nonexistence of God cannot be empirically proven in a scientific manner. Scientists without an agenda respect this fact, and it is why theological matters are absent from their work.

Scientists with an agenda are not silent about this, and they foray clumsily into the realm of theological dispute armed with nothing but their own prejudices.

One of the most memorable aspects of Berlinski’s analysis is how adamantly scientific atheists will cling to any theory that dismisses the existence of a divine creator regardless of its lack of evidence or even common sense. These theories exist largely as a way to avoid the acknowledgement of a creator, which the Big Bang Theory (the most popular and scientifically sound theory of the beginning of the universe) necessitates. After all, ex nihilo nihil fit is a principle not easily dismissed by science.

Much of his analysis centers on the many theories regarding the creation of the universe. The scientific material can sometimes be dense and a little difficult for non-scientists (like me) to understand. However, I never felt overwhelmed by the ideas he surveyed, as his writing is concise and avoids unnecessary jargon.

In his survey, he shows how the Big Bang Theory stands as the greatest threat to scientific atheism because the need for a first causer is undeniable: again, nothing comes from nothing. These so-call “new atheists,” however, have made it their professional goal to show how something comes from nothing.

This goal is not limited to the field of theoretic physics, however, as biologists (of course) have their own favorite theory to deny the necessity of a creator.

Evolution is one of the most tenuous theories that exist, but it has had amazing PR. It’s a common belief largely because it is so easy to understand and, indeed, master. As Berlinski asserts, “Darwin’s theory of evolution is virtually the only part of [atheist theology] commonly understood. It may be grasped by anyone in an afternoon, and often is. A week suffices to make a man a specialist” (219). It is also promulgated as fact rather than as theory (again, a very unscientific trend) by virtually everyone in the popular media and general (as in, non-scientific) academia — most especially by people who are not trained to determine the scientific soundness of its tenets.

Apparently, sitcom writers have the greatest stake in this argument, as evolutionist vs. creationist debates seem to form the butt of a number of jokes whenever Christianity is presented or mentioned. There’s no stronger medium than popular culture to train “the masses” to dismiss a theory before they’ve even thought about it. But do social trends suggest that evolution is widely accepted? Berlinski suggests that it is not: “‘Two-thirds of Americans,’ the New York Times reported, ‘say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.’ But even among those quite persuaded of Darwin’s theory, ’18 percent said that evolution was ‘guided by a supreme being’” (219). I guess we can still retain hope.

And there is good reason to hope, as even a cursory review of the holes in evolutionary theory will make one wonder why it is so popularly believed amongst scientists. But, again, is it? Berlinski gives us our answer: “The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive. Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests. ‘Darwin?’ a Nobel laureate in biology once remarked to me over his bifocals. ‘That’s just the party line’” (192).

Berlinski analyzes the many flaws and holes in the theory over the course of several pages, citing about a dozen scientific sources.

What is remarkable about scientists who continue to tout evolution as fact rather than theory is how hostile they are to anyone who questions their fanaticism. And they are not merely bullying to those on the outside of the scientific community, but even against those who speak out against it within academia. Peer-reviewed journals have made it a clear rule to blackball any and all papers that challenge their supreme dogma. The advice of Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, says it all: “Avoid debates.” As Berlinski quips, “there is nothing surprising in any of this. I myself believe that the world would be suitably improved if those with whom I disagree were to lapse into silence” (220). This would explain why such a flawed theory has been allowed to continue for so long.

Aside from presenting a solid case against the scientific dogmas of the new atheists, Berlinski also addresses another major tenet: the effect of religion on society.

The idea that religion makes society worse is one that Dawkins, Hitchens, and the rest of their ilk love to harp on, often relying on their misreading and sometimes deliberate misrepresentation of the middle ages to make their case. However, as Berlinksi demonstrates, and as anyone with a modicum of common sense can see, society without God is much worse.

At a conference in 2007 titled “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival,” physicist Steven Weinberg declared in his address that, “religion […] is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil things. In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons? If memory serves, it was not the Vatican” (21).

Moreover, Berlinski argues, “The facts about the twentieth century are an inconvenience for scientific atheism, suitably informed thought may always find a way to deny them. The psychologist Steven Pinker has thus introduced into the discussion the remarkable claim that ‘something in modernity and its cultural institutions has made us nobler.’ The good news is unrelenting: ‘On the scale of decades, comprehensive data again paint a shockingly happy picture’” (21). Berlinksi does a wonderful job of showing just what that “shockingly happy picture” looks like when he includes two and a half pages of charts detailing the unspeakable number of human beings slaughtered by secular governments/societies in the twentieth century. After citing the millions of people killed (a figure that would have been almost double this tally had he included the number of human beings slaughtered worldwide by abortion**), he says with characteristic bluntness: “In considering Pinker’s assessment of the times in which we live, the only conclusion one can profitably draw is that such an excess of stupidity is not often found in nature” (25). You’ll be glad to know that Berlinski’s wit and humor always accompany his meticulous dismemberment of atheist claims (see below).

He concludes this section by saying that, “One might think that in the dark panorama of wickedness, the Holocaust would above all other events give the scientific community pause. Hitler’s Germany was a technologically sophisticated secular society, and Nazism itself, as party propagandists never tired of stressing, was ‘motivated by an ethic that prided itself on being scientific […] A sinister current of influence ran from Darwin’s theory of evolution to Hitler’s policy of extermination. A generation of German biologists had read Darwin and concluded that competition between species was reflected in human affairs by competition between races. These observations find no echo at all in the literature of scientific atheism” (27).

In the end, The Devil’s Delusion provides a compelling survey and analysis of the many flaws, prejudices, and assumptions of scientific atheism. It’s a fairly quick read, and one that is well worth the time.

Before I end, I wanted to readdress one of my favorite aspects of the book: Berlinski’s humor.

When I was debating my purchase of the book, I spent some time reading the preview pages on Amazon.com’s listing. Reading the following passage convinced me that this was a book I would enjoy:

“A little philosophy, as Francis Bacon observed, ‘inclineth man’s mind to atheism.’ A very little philosophy is all that is needed. In a recent BBC program entitled A Brief History of Unbelief the host, Jonathan Miller, and his guest, the philosopher Colin McGinn, engaged in a veritable orgy of competitive skepticism, so much so that in the end, the viewer was left wondering whether either man believed sincerely in the existence of the other” (3).

This passage is very characteristic of the type of witty and deprecating humor you will find in this book.

**He does, however, list abortion amongst the greatest horrors of the twentieth century later in the book (31): “The moral concerns that are prompted by biology? The list is already long: abortion, [human embryonic] stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, sexual deviancy. It will get longer, as scientists with no discernible sense of responsibility to human nature come extravagantly to interfere in human life.” 

Further Reading (similar titles that I’ve also read and highly recommend):

Hitchens, Peter (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens). The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith. Michigan: Zondervan, 2010.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God. Michigan: Zondervan, 2004.

Weikart, Richard. From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

Website of Interest:

The Discovery Institute

http://www.discovery.org/

The Devil’s a Fool

With Halloween right around the corner, our public domain is inundated with images of witches, devils, mass murderers, ghosts, ghouls, zombies, and all other sorts of macabre tormentors; these dominate the television, our stores, and just about any other public place we visit during the month of October, and they ensure that we think of and either fear or celebrate the occult.

Now, I am not one of those Catholics who decry Halloween as anathema. As someone who was born and spent much of my early childhood in Salem, MA — the so-called “Witch City” — the holiday is part of my life and still holds a special place in my heart. My family and I still celebrate it, though I’ve toned down the occult-ish aspects of the celebration since becoming Catholic, making it more a celebration of the fall and make believe than anything sinister or devilish.

When I was an atheist, my favorite way to spend Halloween was to pop a lot of corn, gather some candy and beer, and indulge in a horror movie marathon. I couldn’t get enough horror movies, so I’ve seen quite a few of them.

Even as an atheist, though, by far the scariest of these movies were those that dealt with the devil. Though I didn’t believe in God, I was somewhat afraid of the prospect of being possessed or tormented by devils or ghosts. (Isn’t it odd that it’s easier to believe in evil than it is to believe in something purely good like Jesus? Perhaps it has something to do with atheists being separated from God in their lifestyles, thus being closer to Satan than to God — it’s easier, then, to only recognize the bad and evil in the world than it is to recognize the good.)**

Though I’ve been scared by a variety of devil-themed films, The Exorcist was, and still is, the scariest movie I’ve ever seen. Though I didn’t believe in God, and I didn’t quite believe in the devil, the possibility of a demon possessing my body (which, as a staunch feminist, I felt I had such control over) was terrifying to me. It was almost enough to make me Catholic if only to prevent such a possibility from happening.

Indeed, there is a popular anecdote about the film that any amateur enthusiast will hear at some point: it reports that when it was released in 1973, audiences were so terrified by the events it portrayed that they “poured” from the theater to nearby churches looking for reconciliation with God. Indeed, the story goes that this movie created more believers than any biblical-themed movie ever has. This is “the legend,” anyway. Whether it is true or not is another matter.

But, I can see how it could be true. Fear is a powerful motivator. When confronted with utter darkness and evil, the natural response is to run in the other direction: seeking out what is the source of light and goodness. This fear, I believe, is what keeps many people in the faith. And this is not necessarily a bad thing because the danger of the alternative is real.

However, when we look at the great saints and Christian thinkers of the past, we notice a general lack of fear. Even when confronted with visions of hell itself, some of our most venerated saints remained unafraid (Faustina, Theresa of Avila, John Bosco, among others). Theirs seems to be a courage that comes only when one completely trusts in Christ for guidance and protection.

Indeed, if one remembers who ultimately wins in the end, the folly of the devil becomes pathetic. A number of writers have capitalized on this recognition. Most notably, for me, is the portrayal of Satan in John Milton’s Paradise Lost (1667).

Satan and his army of demons have just lost the war in heaven and are cast out. They wake up chained to a lake of fire.

[Satan] Lay floating many a rood, in bulk as huge

As whom the Fables name of monstrous size,
Titanian, or Earth-born, that warr’d on Jove,
Briareos or Typhon, whom the Den
By ancient Tarsus held, or that Sea-beast [ 200 ]
Leviathan, which God of all his works
Created hugest that swim th’ Ocean stream:
Him haply slumbring on the Norway foam
The Pilot of some small night-founder’d Skiff,
Deeming some Island, oft, as Sea-men tell, [ 205 ]
With fixed Anchor in his skaly rind
Moors by his side under the Lee, while Night
Invests the Sea, and wished Morn delayes:
So stretcht out huge in length the Arch-fiend lay
Chain’d on the burning Lake, nor ever thence [ 210 ]
Had ris’n or heav’d his head, but that the will
And high permission of all-ruling Heaven
Left him at large to his own dark designs,
That with reiterated crimes he might
Heap on himself damnation, while he sought [ 215 ]
Evil to others, and enrag’d might see
How all his malice serv’d but to bring forth
Infinite goodness, grace and mercy shewn
On Man by him seduc’t, but on himself
Treble confusion, wrath and vengeance pour’d. [ 220 ]

–Paradise Lost, Book One

I’ve highlighted the ending lines because they demonstrate the utter impotence of Satan. The opening lines emphasize his size, which is both enormous and horrifying. Clearly his physical appearance would inspire fear in the viewer. But, as Milton explains, Satan is, on his own, completely powerless. He would not have even been able to move his head if it were not for the will of God. Thus, nothing he does is by his own volition, and nothing he does can help him escape his final defeat. Moreover, every form of evil he causes is used by God in His own divine plans to bring about more good.

Essentially, Satan is a fool.

He is a fool because he believes he has escaped the sovereignty of God and is winning the war against him because he damns the weak and the proud. He is a fool because everything he does only brings more damnation upon himself.

As such, the believer in Christ should have no cause to really fear the devil. He should not inspire fear but contempt.

Consider what Saint Therese says:

“It is very often that these damned spirits come to torment me; but they inspire very little fear in me, because I know them well and they cannot even stir without God’s permission […] This should be well known by all: every time we show our contempt for the demons, they lose their strength and the soul acquires more predominance upon them […] To see themselves despised by weaker beings is, in fact, a severe humiliation for these arrogant beings. Well, as we said before, humbly supported by God, we have the right and the obligation of showing our contempt: if God is with us, who will be against us? They can bark, but they cannot bite, unless in the cases that — by imprudence, or pride — we place ourselves in their power.”

We must have caution here, though. We must not have contempt for the devil because we believe we are immune to his persuasions by any merit or power of our own. Alone, we are slaves to the devil: slaves to our own corrupt nature. It is only with God that we have any power over him.

As Luis Solimeo asserts in his book Angels and Demons, “By our nature, we have no power whatsoever over them; on the contrary, by their superior nature, they are far more powerful than us. Therefore, the foundation of this healthy contempt for the infernal enemies must not be based on a rash disregard of danger. Rather, it must be supported by the most perfect humility and true confidence in the Creator and in the Most Holy Virgin. If these cares are taken, it is befitting to do what the great Saint Therese indicates with such propriety.”

If we trust in God, if we recognize his guidance over our lives and the entire world, then we should not fear the devil. We should be wary of him, as we are wary of temptation and sin itself, but we should not allow him to have any sway over our emotions or our lives.

The greatest weapon against the devil, of course, is Christ: the closer we are to Christ, the farther we are from the devil. We get close to Christ through prayer, through personal discipline, through reconciliation (Confession), and — most importantly — through the Eucharist.

If we live lives of serious and sincere devotion to Christ, we can live the words of Blessed John Paul II: “Be not afraid.”

… but The Exorcist still scares me. 

For further consideration:

My favorite prayer against the devil; indeed, I can literally feel the power of this prayer when I recite it:

 

St. Michael the Archangel,

defend us in battle.

Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.

May God rebuke him, we humbly pray,

and do thou,

O Prince of the heavenly hosts,

by the power of God,

thrust into hell Satan,

and all the evil spirits,

who prowl about the world

seeking the ruin of souls. Amen..

 

Can you picture the archangel’s foot on the devil’s head, sword drawn above him, when you read this? I can.

 

**This makes me think of the sixteenth-century play by Christopher Marlowe Doctor Faustus. Faustus is a scholar and an atheist. He rejects a belief in God because he cannot comprehend such an existence intellectually. Yet, he willingly sells his soul to the devil in return for gaining supreme earthly knowledge. One would think that a scholar as smart as Faustus would recognize that if the devil exists, then God must exist as well; but he doesn’t. Indeed, even when speaking to Mephistopheles, an emissary from hell, he refuses to acknowledge that hell even exists.

“Faustus: First will I question with thee about Hell.

Tell me, where is the place that men call Hell?

Mephistopheles: Under the Heavens.

Faustus: Ay, but whereabout?

Mephistopheles: Within the bowels of these elements,

Where we are tortured and remain for ever:

Hell hath no limits, nor is circumscrib’d

In one self place; for where we are is Hell,

And where Hell is, there must we ever be:

And, to conclude, when all the world dissolves,

And every creature shall be purified,

All places shall be Hell that are not heaven.

Faustus: Come, I think, Hell’s a fable.

Mephistopheles: Ay, think so still, till experience change thy mind.

Faustus: Why, think’st thou, then, that Faustus should be damned?

Mephistopheles: Ay, of necessity, for here’s the scroll wherein thou has given thy soul to Lucifer.

Faustus: Ay, and body too: but what of that?

Think’s thou that Faustus is so fond to imagine

That, after this life, there is any pain?

Tush, these are trifles and mere old wives’ tales.”

The utter ridiculousness of Faustus in this scene has always astounded me. Here is a man so blinded by his own arrogance that he cannot even recognize reality when it is staring at — and talking to! — him directly. He is so mired in a secularist view of the world that he cannot accept the notion of hell or eternal damnation even when speaking with someone who is suffering both.

He recognizes the devil and the power he has, but he refuses to recognize anything about the devil that relates to his own soul. Indeed, it seems the tragedy of Faustus is the tragedy of the modern atheist. He may be fearful of evil, but his own blindness prevents him from doing anything to save his soul from it.

A Reading List for Secular Deprogramming

I spent most of my life as an atheist, got most of my education — both secondary and post-secondary — at secular schools, and spent much of my free time watching whatever was popular in the media. I’m guessing this describes most people’s background as well, even those who were not atheists.

Such a background will, inevitably, lead someone to have some profound misunderstandings about the Catholic Church: about its history, its beliefs, and the reality of its current state. Chief amongst these misunderstandings are the following:

-the Middle Ages were a dark time of ignorance and superstition because the Church refused to educate people and shackled them with ridiculous rules that led to suffering and a loss of personal freedom

(because Hollywood and biased — or ignorant — educators told me so)

-the Crusades were evil because they were perpetuated by brutal religious zealots who slaughtered millions of innocent Muslims

(because Hollywood and biased — or ignorant — educators told me so)

-the Church is against abortion because it hates women    and/or

the Church is against female priests because it hates women    and/or

the Church is against contraception because it hates women

(because angry feminists tell me so)

-the Church encourages idolatry because Catholics worship statues, the Virgin Mary, the saints, and believe in “magic charms” like rosary beads

(because I don’t understand the nuances of these beliefs and practices)

-most priests in the Church today are pedophiles or there are many pedophile priests in the Church today

(because the New York Times tells me so, and this publication is the paragon of journalistic excellence and impartiality) 

… and most priests are pedophiles because they are forced to remain celibate by an evil Church that view sex as dirty and bad

(because my baser impulses and a degraded society that views sex as a “need” — paramount to the need for food, air, and water — tell me so)

When I became Catholic, many of these misconceptions, myths, and outright lies remained with me. I just accepted that they were things I would need to apologize for and accept as an inevitable aspect of a Church as old and as big as the Catholic Church.* But as I continued reading and studying Church history, theology, and current events, the lies of my secularist upbringing slowly began to deteriorate.

I’m still studying, but I thought that I would be doing everyone a service if I provided a list of books that will help you overcome the secular brainwashing you’ve probably received at the hands of public education, the media, and people who just don’t know any better.

The list is not at all comprehensive, but it is a good start.

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MIDDLE AGES

-Diane Moczar’s Seven Lies about Catholic History: Infamous Myths about the Church’s Past and How to Answer Them

(she covers almost all the major themes here, plus a few more: Galileo, the Inquisition, the “need” for the Reformation, the Church’s cruelty to Native Americans, and the so-called “Nazi Pope” — that last one really should have its own category, but I haven’t done much reading on it yet)

-Regine Pernoud’s Those Terrible Middle Ages: Debunking the Myths

-Eamon Duffy’s The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580

-Christopher Dawson’s The Dividing of Christendom 

-Thomas E. Woods’ How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization 

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CRUSADES

-Rodney Stark’s God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades

-Diane Moczar’s Islam at the Gates: How Christendom Defeated the Ottoman Turks

THE TRUTH ABOUT WOMEN AND THE CHURCH

-Alice von Hildebrand’s The Privilege of Being a Woman

-Peter Kreeft and Alice Von Hildebrand’s Women and the Priesthood 

(two of my favorite writers)

-Erika Bachiochi’s Women, Sex, and the Church: A Case for Catholic Teaching

-John Paul II’s Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body

(or Christopher’s West’s commentary and guide on the book, since it is rather long)

THE TRUTH ABOUT CATHOLIC WORSHIP

-Michael Coren’s Why Catholics are Right

-Scott Hahn’s Reasons to Believe: How to Understand, Defend, and Explain the Catholic Faith

-Dwight Longenecker’s More Christianity: Finding the Fullness of the Faith

-Mark P. Shea’s By What Authority? an Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE SO-CALLED “PEDOPHILIA CRISIS” IN THE CHURCH

-David F. Pierre, Jr.’s Double Standard: Abuse Scandals and the Attack on the Catholic Church

-(Article) Tim Drake’s “A Brief History of Abuse — And the Response to It.” National Catholic Register, April 25-May 8, 2010 issue

-Michael Rose’s Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church

-George Weigel’s The Courage to be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church

These texts should help you arm yourself against the onslaught of secularist thinking — a form of thinking that has even infected many people within the Church. But, as always, the most important thing one can do to gain wisdom is to pray and have faith. These two things will, more than any book, lead you to the understanding you need to fully love and defend our Mother Church!

*This is still something that must be kept in mind when confronted with the individual evils or misdeeds of Church representatives and members (as not everyone practices the faith the way it is intended to be practiced — if they did, the world would be a much better place). 

Thankfully, It is Not “My will be done” …

I admit it … I am guilty of the sin of pride.

Like so many women of this generation, I have — to my great astonishment — fallen into the popular mentality of the day when it comes to reproduction.

As Americans living in the 21st century, and in a relatively wealthy country, we are often tempted to think we have control over our lives and, especially, our bodies. We regard ourselves as autonomous beings, whose lives and bodies do not need God for survival or assistance. It’s a form of arrogance fostered by a society that lives in comfort: a society with technological innovations of every kind at its fingertips, which make life easier and more manageable.

Pregnancy, however, is a reminder to women (and to men) that our bodies are not completely in our control. The baby in the belly grows, and so does our body, whether we want it to or not. And that baby is coming out, by whatever means necessary, whether we want it to or not! This feeling of being out of control of our bodies is terrifying to so many people. Indeed, it is this fear that causes some women to do the unthinkable (but we all know how I feel about that!).

But before the baby is even created, most women in society have found a way to reclaim their illusions of control. Most find it by using artificial forms of birth control; another portion of society, to which I am a part, use a natural means of control.

Despite their radical differences, Natural Family Planning (NFP) and artificial contraceptives can both foster an identical assumption: that we have control over when our bodies accept new life.*

For the NFP user, knowledge is our greatest asset. We observe, study, and learn about our personal reproductive cycles. We use this knowledge to determine when we want to be open to life and when we want to limit our openness. If pregnancy is not desired, NFP couples practice self-control and abstain during fertile periods. It’s really a beautiful gift, as it fosters chastity and dialogue in marriage. In our household, my husband charts my “biomarkers” for me at the end of every day, so he actually knows my cycle better than I do! (Contrast this to the elementary-school reaction most men have when the word “menstrual” is used!)

In short, I am a BIG fan!

However, I must admit that I am guilty of abusing this wonderful gift from God by indulging in a certain way of thinking about reproduction.

I know that NFP should not be abused and that pregnancy should only be avoided only when the users have a really good reason to abstain. As someone with Cystic Fibrosis, I  usually have a very good reason to avoid pregnancy for the first 9-12 months after a previous pregnancy (or, if I’m following my doctors’ — yes, I have more than one — advice to the letter: to abstain from pregnancy for the next twenty years or whenever I hit menopause).

In short, wanting to lose more weight or wanting to run a half-marathon probably do not count as good reasons for delaying pregnancy! I accepted this distinction when, in March, my husband and I were planning a trip to a resort in April. It was a free vacation for us (paid for by his company); it was meant to be a sort of “second honeymoon” (since the children would be left with my sister); and it was going to take place during my fertile time of the month. In March, I was still running 25-30 miles a week and was planning to compete in a half marathon in the fall. I wanted to get down to my wedding weight and wear cute (non-maternity) outfits in the summer. As such, I was not completely thrilled by the prospect of getting pregnant in the spring.

Despite the fact that it went against my (rather narcissistic) plans, my husband and I accepted that this was — perhaps — God’s way of forcing us to get pregnant before my planned date (which was, incidentally, sometime in November). So, on our trip, we were very open to life.

When we returned, I assumed I was pregnant for the next two or so weeks. Science, after all, confirmed by assumptions.

I was shocked when I discovered I was not.

Because I had mentally prepared myself for pregnancy (and had stopped dieting and running), the question now was, “do we want to remain open to life?” We decided that while we would not actively “try” for a baby, we would no longer abstain during the fertile weeks of my cycle.

April, May, and early June: each month I assumed I was pregnant. After all, the chart does not lie! But all three months ended the same way. No baby.

In May, conditions changed even more. I was offered a college teaching position at a nearby school, which I enthusiastically accepted.

Prior to accepting this position, we had decided to start “trying” for baby #3. But after the acceptance, the new question was “do we still want to try?”

I agonized over this question, charting the due dates and trying to judge them based on the school schedule. If I had gotten pregnant in May, the due date would have been February — right in the middle of the spring semester. “How would that work?” I asked myself. If I get pregnant in late June, the due date would be in March — still no good when it comes to the college schedule.

I kept asking Nick and giving him the options.

One night, I was sitting with an online due date calculator (courtesy of Babycenter.com) on my laptop screen in front of me and my NFP chart on the seat cushion next to me. With a look of consternation, I laid out my propositions to my husband. “If we wait until August to conceive, at least the due date will be in May and the semester will be over. September may actually be better because then she/he would be due in June, so it would be close to Amelia’s birthday. Though, this may be a problem when they get older … Perhaps we should wait on actively ‘trying’ until October …”

On and on I went, until my husband finally said, “You know … it’s really not up to us.”

My knee-jerk reaction was a quick nod of agreement, more as a form of dismissal than a genuine approval. “Oh, yes … yes, of course. But we up our chances whenever we follow the days and the techniques, so we do have control over this.”

In his usual subdued manner, he looked at me seriously and said with emphasis, “No, we don’t.”

And that’s when it hit me — really hit me. We don’t have control over this. God chooses when and whether a new life is created.

No matter how much we know about the manner by which and the science of how new life is created, ultimately we have no control over it.

Scientifically, according to the rules of reproductive biology, we should have been pregnant months ago. But the creation of new life is not just about science. It is not just a matter of cells and genetics. It is a divine process. Each conception marks a moment when God himself reaches down and blesses a human being with the gift of carrying and delivering a new human being.

After almost four years of using NFP, I finally understood.

No, we don’t control this … and we shouldn’t want to.

*NOTE: of course, there are major ethical and theological differences between the two! Don’t mistake my little ramble as a critique of NFP; it’s a critique of a certain mindset I find myself falling into.

Forked Tongues

Someone once said that “Euphemism is a euphemism for lying” … I thought of this quote as I read the following at the Raving Theist blog. Now, this is old news, but it’s new to me. You should read the Theist’s post on it before you read mine:

Planned Parenthood Offers Free Abortions to Miners’ Widows

I’m not sure what I’m more disgusted by here: Michels’ assault on morality, ethics, and science, or her abuse of the English language to whitewash her abhorrent mentality.

Let’s take a look at some of her rhetorical “gems.”

She begins by asserting that Planned Parenthood’s decision to encourage — I mean, offer opportunities for these widows to get abortions, may seem “insensitive.” But she assures her listeners that the corporation’s main goal is “to bring closure to economically unfeasible pregnancies.” She speaks as though the pregnancy is the thing for which these widows need to find closure. Yeah, the pregnancy is the tragedy here.

Of course, she trots out the ridiculous and clumsy euphemism favored by most proponents of abortion when she refers to these “economically” unwanted children as, “the products of conception.” (Why have I never seen that phrase on an invitation to a baby shower?)

But, oops, she messes up at one point and actually calls the unborn baby a “child.” However, she redeems herself in the eyes of her fellow ghouls by couching her accidentally humanizing language in an incredibly selfish display of warped values and inverted morals: “the financial pressures […] should not be compounded by the burden of another child.” There you go, Michels, get right back to the bottomline, which is (of course) money. There’s no way these children could possibly bring happiness or healing to these women; all they bring are more burdens, more tragedy.

Absolutely the coldest moment in her sterilized rhetoric occurs when she says, “We understand the confusion of women who might imagine a resemblance to a departed spouse in an ultrasound of a second trimester fetus [italics mine].” Yes, because women who see their spouse in the human form of their unborn children must be “confus[ed]” and only “imagin[ing]” such a connection.

Someone needs to tell Michels, and everyone else like her, to keep her forked tongue behind her teeth … Her words are the worst kind of poison.

Ugh! After reading that, I need a shower.

To He or Not to He … ay there’s the rub!

Have you ever had one of those moments when someone says or writes something that so perfectly expresses what you’ve always thought but have never fully articulated? Well, I have these moments at least a dozen times a day (seriously). And I had one of those moments a few seconds ago while reading — of all things — a footnote in Peter Kreeft’s Socratic Logic.

You may find it humorous that I was most impressed by a short footnote after reading pages of his brilliant exposition on human understanding. This is not to say that the body of his text is not interesting — far from it. However, it may be because the footnote has to do with grammar — or, more precisely, the politics of grammar — that I liked it enough to feel inspired to jump on my blog and share it with the blogosphere.

The sentence to which the footnote is attached is, “A baby often goes around pointing to everything he sees, asking ‘What’s that?’ The baby is a philosopher.” The footnote is placed next to “he,” and this is what it says:

The use of the traditional inclusive generic pronoun “he” is a decision of language, not of gender justice. [I can’t express how much I love that pithy statement!] There are only six alternatives. (1) We could use the grammatically misleading and numerically incorrect “they.” But when we say “one baby was healthier than the others because they didn’t drink that milk,” we do not know whether the antecedent of “they” is “one” or “others,” so we don’t know whether to give or take away the milk. Such language codes could be dangerous to baby’s health. [I love Kreeft’s frequent, unexpected moments of humor.] (2) Another alternative is the politically intrusive “in-your-face” generic “she,” which I would probably use if I were an angry, politically intrusive, in-your-face woman [or a college Freshman at an all-woman’s college minoring in Womyn’s Studies … but I digress], but I am not any of those things. (3) Changing “he” to “he or she” refutes itself in such comically clumsy and ugly revisions as the following: “What does it profit a man or woman if he or she gains the whole world but loses his or her own soul? Or what shall a man or woman give in exchange for his or her soul?” The answer is: “he or she will give up his or her linguistic sanity. [I swear, I almost died laughing reading that last sentence!] (4) We could also be both intrusive and clumsy by saying “she or he.” (5) Or we could use the neuter “it,” which is both dehumanizing and inaccurate. (6) Or we could combine all the linguistic garbage together and use “she or he or it,” which, abbreviated, would sound like “sh … it.” [Ha!]

He ends his footnote with the following disclaimer:

I believe in the equal intelligence and value of women, but not in the intelligence or value of “political correctness” [AMEN to that!], linguistic ugliness [PREACH it brother!], grammatical inaccuracy [THAT’s what I’m talking about!], conceptual confusion, or dehumanizing pronouns [Can I get an AMEN?].

… That’s all I’m saying.

“The Devil’s Gonna Make a Fool of You”: Religious Allegory in The X-Files

It was bound to come up eventually. I am, after all, a major geek. And as a major geek, I am — quite naturally — a huge X-Files fan. As such, it’s compulsory that I write a post about this super awesome show.

One of my favorite X-Files episodes is from season seven. It’s titled “Signs and Wonders.”

What makes it one of my favorites? Well, in typical “me” fashion, I decided to list out some of my top reasons.

CAUTION: spoilers ahead!

#6. One character’s name is Reverend Enoch O’Connor. Now, because the episode is set in the South, and because it deals with religious hypocrisy and the mysteries of faith and grace, there is a very good chance that the character is an homage to the Southern Gothic, and devoutly Catholic, writer Flannery O’Connor (one of my favorites). Also, “Enoch Emery” is a character in her first novel Wise Blood.

#5. We get two representations of Christian clergy: Reverend O’Connor and Reverend Mackey. Related to the above, the character named after O’Connor is not what he seems. Initially, the viewer assumes he is a dangerous zealot, possibly even a murderer. By the end, though, his true faith is shown. Flannery O’Connor also loved to play with the discrepancies between appearances and reality. Often, her heroes are portrayed in a rather “gruesomely” realistic way: neither totally good nor totally bad. Usually, the “bad” character turns out to be “good.” The same duality is explored in this episode with the presentation of Reverend Mackey, whose tolerance and “progressive thinking” make him seem like he’s the “good” guy. The opposite turns out to be true.

#4. The major theme of the episode centers on Revelation 3:16: “But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth” (Douay-Rheims trans.). This verse is illustrated with the portrayal of the two preachers. O’Connor is “hot,” but his passion is quite alarming, and (for many people, including the viewer) it is repellent. Mackey is not “hot” nor is he “cold”; instead, he operates at that middle level where most people feel most comfortable. In his own words, “our church is founded on acceptance and tolerance of all people, all beliefs.” His theology is attractive and the basis of his church seems good because they are nonjudgmental and widely accepting of all faiths. However, as the episode illustrates, this ecumenical spirit is a symptom of Mackey’s demonic intentions. His church is more attractive to most people because it demands less from them. Indeed, it is easy to be accepting and tolerant of all beliefs when you don’t fully and passionately believe in yours.

#3. Not only is the passage from Revelation acted out by both preachers, it is discussed by both. Reverend O’Connor is intense and fearsome in his reading. With furor and fist-pounding, he exhorts his followers to be passionate in their love and fear of the Lord. He exultantly proclaims: “God says, if you’re lukewarm He will vomit you out of His mouth!” He and his congregation answer this proclamation with many “Praise God!”s and “Amen!”s. In contrast to the fire and brimstone of O’Connor’s service, Mackey’s service, full of many “well-to-do” looking people and far less emotion, is a conversation that sounds more like a college English seminar discussion than a church service. His Bible edition is also more “modern”: “So, because you are lukewarm I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” He follows this with calm reassurances: “Now, that could sound pretty harsh, couldn’t it? I mean, depending on how one reads it. But if we put this verse in a historical context, I think we see that John was specifically addressing the problems of the Church at Laodicea.” By tempering the message and historicizing it, the seemingly-good reverend is able to make the passage about a particular group of people. It is not about us; it is not a universal call to holiness. It’s only about this particular group of people who lived in a particular period of time. By limiting the scope of the message, Mackey thus releases his congregants from any obligation to heed its warning. He gives them a much easier “version” of the Bible and, by extension, a much easier form of Christianity to follow.

#2. The above ideas lead to another fantastic part in the episode: Mulder’s final “revelation” (pun intended). After reflecting on the evil Mackey has committed, Mulder says, “People think the devil has horns and a tail. They’re not used to looking for some kindly man who tells you what you want to hear.” Mulder, and the viewers, have learned a fascinating lesson about the devil: He doesn’t want us to think about or even accept the fact that sin exists, that hell exists, and that we will one day be judged. This is why, if the devil was a preacher, he would be a “peace, love, and tolerance” preacher like Mackey. He would be the first to condemn those who condemn sin (I want to reiterate to make sure you are reading me correctly: I said “condemn sin,” not people). After all, the devil doesn’t want people to think about sin, just as a drug dealer doesn’t want his clients to think about addiction.

#1. My final reason for loving this episode requires — as so many of my discussions do — a personal anecdote. In the third year of my Ph.D. studies, I was a staunch atheist. I truly considered all believers in God as intellectually inferior to myself (yes, I know — I was awful). I remember watching this episode and being really struck by it. I was especially struck by Reverend O’Connor’s insightful comment to Mulder. After being slightly mocked by the largely atheist FBI agent, O’Connor says, “You think because you’re educated you’re better than most? You ain’t. [He points to his heart.] Unless you’re smart down here, the Devil’s going to make a fool of you and you ain’t even going to know it.” I never forgot this line. In fact, it hit me like a brick!

Even as an atheist, even as someone who was antagonistic to the idea of God or even the idea that an intelligent person could believe in God, I was affected by the wisdom of this statement.

If you’re not smart about sin, the devil will, indeed, make a fool out of you.

Final Note:

I think it’s telling that we are never given the exact denominations of the churches in this episode. They’re clearly not Roman Catholic, but they are definitely Christian. I think this adds to its allegorical significance. Instead of concentrating on a single denomination, and thus limiting the scope of its meaning, the episode is making a more universal statement about good and evil, faith and disbelief. In the words of Reverend O’Connor, the episode makes us question “what side [we’re] really on.”

Catholic and Pro-Choice … Seriously?

Really … you seriously think you can support abortion and still be Catholic?

As someone who tries very hard to love my enemies and to not judge the sins and foolishness of others, I often find it nearly impossible to hide my impatience with people who claim to be Catholic while supporting abortion.

I’m sorry, and may God forgive me, but I really question both the integrity and the intelligence of such a person.

The first thing I want to ask them is whether they own a copy of the Catechism. If they say “yes,” then I want to ask them if they’ve ever read it. Because if they had, they would have seen that the official teaching of our Church does not mince words when it comes to abortion.

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception — Luckily for us moderns, science has explained when this moment occurs, so there is no longer any debate about this (see my previous post on the scientific explanation of when human life begins: The God Cop Out). — From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person — among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. – The Catechism of the Catholic Church 2270

And

“Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion [emphasis mine]. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable [emphasis mine]. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” – The Catechism of the Catholic Church 2271

There are several more equally emphatic passages about this issue.

But just in case those incredibly bullheaded Catholics out there are somehow unimpressed by the official teaching of the Church, the wise authors of the Catechism included many footnoted references to the church fathers and the Bible. Thus, these wayward Church members would do well to look up the pertinent passages in such texts as the Didache and the writings of Tertullian, not to mention passages from Jeremiah, Job, and the Psalms (and these are just the passages alluded to in the Catechism).

Now, as someone who was pro-choice while considering conversion to the Catholic Church, I know what the common objections are to this clearly articulated teaching of the Church.

#1 is the issue of the mother’s health

#2 is the issue of rape and incest

#3 is the issue of poverty

Before dealing with each issue individually, let me first just provide the Church’s official answer to them, in case you’ve forgotten: Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. There is no clause after this that lists exceptions. This is because there is no exception that makes the taking of an innocent human life anything other than a grave moral evil.

Science and the Church both recognize the humanity of the unborn child.

Using genetics and simple biology, science explains how the unborn human being is not part of the mother’s body. This is obvious to even a science dunce like myself: separate DNA, (often a) separate blood type, (often a) separate gender = TA DA! a separate human being. Duh! (Pardon the somewhat obnoxious tone here, but I’m rapidly losing patience with people who cling to slogans like “My body, my choice,” which flout even a rudimentary understanding of animal biology.)

Using Biblical understanding and, dare I say, common sense, the Church also asserts the unique humanity of the unborn person.

With common sense and impeccable logic, the Catechism lays out its argument against abortion by beginning with a solid premise.

The murder of a human being is gravely contrary to the dignity of the person and the holiness of the Creator (2320).

In other words, if you want to know what God has to say on this matter, perhaps you should consult the list of ten commandments (note that they are not called “suggestions”) he provides for all people in Exodus 20:2-17 (and again in Deuteronomy 5:6-21). #5 is pretty straightforward (and wouldn’t ya know: the section in the Catechism where abortion is specifically discussed is under an article that is titled “The Fifth Commandment”; also, when Christ mentions the commandments in Matthew 19:18, you should note that he begins with the fifth commandment).

Logic:

Q: Is it a human being?

A: Yes.

= Then you can’t kill him or her.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[At this point, for the most thickheaded of the bullheaded Catholic abortion supporters, it may help if I say that obviously the Church makes exceptions for cases of self-defense and war — because I know that this is the first place you will go in your facile attempts to justify your position. But until I hear of a case where a fetus declared war or sought to maliciously attack its mother, I’m going to take the above argument at face value and accept it as a universal truth. You know, kind of the way that God wants us to — hence His inclusion of it in His ten commandments.]

From its premise, the Church reiterates its official teaching:

Because it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being (2274).

-Let’s stop for a moment because I need to reflect on the profound wisdom and generosity of the Catholic Church. The Church is so concerned about the welfare of human beings — of all human beings, no matter how marginalized — that it recognizes the dignity of the human person in even the tiniest embryo, just conceived and smaller than the head of pin. The Church recognizes that a threat to even the tiniest form of humanity is a threat to all of humanity. For this reason, it makes no compromises when it comes to which human beings are afforded the basic right to life. And yet it is for this uncompromising protection of all human life that the Church and its faithful members are criticized and maligned. The absurd irony of it all … is staggering!

Ok, let’s get back to my rant!

Where was I? Right, I was going to address the three most popular exceptions argued by Catholic pro-choicers (they’re common amongst non-Catholic pro-choicers as well, but this post is focusing on those poor lost souls who think they can legitimately be Catholic and pro-choice).

Confessions of an ex — er, “changed” Feminist

As I mentioned above, I was pro-choice when I began the process of converting to Catholicism back in 2006. I was pretty adamant about my belief in a woman’s supposed “right” to “do what she wants with her own body” (yup, I used that line many, many times). In fact, I almost didn’t become Catholic precisely because I didn’t want to change my opinions on this matter. I regarded all pro-lifers as mini-George Bushes: ignorant, bigoted, probably misogynistic, and definitely socially backwards (I should note that I no longer think of Bush as being any of those things, despite the fact that I still don’t really like him — but that’s another post for another day).

I cringed every time “pro-life,” “conception,” “sanctity of life,” or any of those other terms that conferred respect to the unborn human were used at Mass, during our catechism classes, or in conversations with other faithful Catholics.

But my undeniable, and still unfathomable, desire to be part of the Church (I’m guessing this is a post for another time too) compelled me to continue along the path upon which I had been placed. I figured I could be both because, after all, I was an intelligent person who probably knew more than these uneducated pro-life Bible-thumpers ever knew about life and ethics.

Perhaps I would even convert them to taking a more balanced, less extreme view of this subject (have you ever looked at a former version of yourself and felt the incredible need to smack yourself?! Needless to say, I’m having that kind of moment right now).

I saw the Church’s position on abortion as extreme because there were cases when “the procedure” (oh yeah, we pro-choicers love our euphemisms) — unpleasant as it was (and yes, we always like to throw in this little clause) — was necessary to avoid a greater evil.

For example, a fourteen-year-old girl from a horrible, dysfunctional family drops out of high school and gets into drugs: she’s living on the streets and is impregnated by her boyfriend who is just using her and has no real regard for her. He proves this by dumping her right away, leaving her homeless, poor, uneducated, and pregnant.

In my mind, I couldn’t see how God would ever want a baby to brought into such a tragic situation. The baby’s life would be ruined as would the girl’s.

Abortion seemed like the answer.

Now, this is the point when the secularist will shout out an emphatic “That’s right!” — I’ll deal with you in another post.

For now, I’d like to address the Catholic who echoes the secularist’s assertion. First of all — take a look at yourself: you’re agreeing with the secularist! What are you doing? Christ clearly said that we are to be in the world but not of the world (hence, why would you align your beliefs with anything that is “secular”?).

Ok, that’s a rather flippant comment (some secularists have important things to say), but I wanted to make an exaggerated point: God’s ways are not our ways. We do not see things clearly in this world (1 Corinthians 13:12). Where we see only pain, suffering, and heartache, God sees something else.

If you are Catholic, you believe in God. If you believe in God, then you believe He is the creator of all life (Colossians 1:16). If He is the creator of all life, then the life He creates within the womb of the homeless, deserted, fourteen-year old girl has a plan that only He can see.

No life is created in vain: “You knit me in my mother’s womb […] nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret” (Psalm 139:13,15).

God does not make garbage. As such, we are not given the right to dispose of His human creations as though they were garbage, which is precisely (literally) what happens in an abortion.

Is the Church implying that the plight of the young girl is trivial? Am I implying that I don’t care about her? Of course not. Indeed, in keeping to the wisdom of the Church, I am showing far more care over her than anyone who offers her abortion as a solution to her problems is. I am looking beyond her earthly, temporary troubles and thinking about her immortal soul.

Suffering, poverty, pain: read the Bible, study the lives of saints, the Church does not see these things as the greatest evils on earth. Indeed, it is out of these hardships that the greatest triumphs are enacted (ahem, the crucifixion is one MAJOR example of this).

The greatest evils are moral evils. And, as I’ve established above, abortion — the willful taking of an innocent human life — is a grave moral evil. It threatens something far more important than the life of the mother: it threatens her soul.

The threat is not limited to the mother’s soul, but also to the soul of the doctor who performs the abortion, the nurses who assist, the person who drove her there, and the society that sits approvingly or blindly and silently by as this goes on.

This is not something that should be taken lightly. After all, look at what happens to nations in the Bible that engage in infant slaughter (2 Kings 17:17-18) and to unrepentant murderers of human life (Revelation 22:15). These stakes are much higher than a difficult life.

And who says that a child born into such a situation would be doomed?

My conception was not so perfect — it wasn’t nearly as bad as the hypothetical one I just outlined, but it was still pretty rocky.

My “Quality of Life” at Conception:

My father was a high school dropout and a pothead (sorry daddy, if you ever read this).

My mother was a high school dropout, who had been sexually abused by her father for most of her life as well as emotionally and physically abused by her alcoholic mother.

They were not married when my mother got pregnant with me; they had no education and no job, and they had nowhere to live.

And, to make matters worse, if prenatal testing had been as popular in the late 1970s as it is now, they would have learned that I have an incurable genetic disorder about which most doctors don’t understand, so they paint the prognosis in the worst light possible (i.e., they tell the mother that their child will probably not live past two years old; I discuss this in one of my earlier posts, “Ignorance is Not Bliss“). It’s also an expensive disorder to treat.

My life-preserving medication, without insurance, costs over $2000 for a month’s supply. Obviously, it goes without saying, my parents did not have health insurance.

On paper, my life did not look worth living. At the very least, it looked like my mother, a victim already, was going to have an awfully difficult time trying to take care of herself and a sick baby.

Can you imagine what would have happened if my mother — young, naive, victimized, poor, and scared — had gotten her pregnancy results from a Planned Parenthood clinic? Do you think there would be any possible way that I would be sitting here now? (This is not to discredit my mother, who is a strong woman. But at the point in her life when I was conceived, this was not the case.)

I can just imagine the sort of “talking points” that would be used to convince my mother of the logic and practicality of “terminating her pregnancy” and taking care of herself.

By the grace of God, I am able to count myself amongst the other survivors of this abortion epidemic.

And despite the dismal prospects with which I was brought into the world, I think I turned out ok. Even though life was difficult, there was never a point when I looked around and said, “geez! It sucks that I don’t have a college fund or even food in the house or working electricity. I wish my mom had killed me in the womb so that I could have avoided these problems.”

And I had friends who were experiencing far worse things in their homes. And wouldn’t ya know: they never said that either.

We do not know what God has planned for the life growing within the womb. Even if that life does end up being unbearable, and we were somehow magically able to know this ahead of time, God has never given us the license to take innocent human life.

As for the “life of the mother” argument. Let’s put aside the fact that it is medically arguable whether this scenario is ever even warranted (ectopic pregnancies are one of those rare occasions when a procedure — not an abortion — is done to save the mother’s life and allow the embryo to die naturally), and consider the following.

There is nothing in the Bible, the works of the church fathers, or in the Catechism condoning or recommending the murder of innocent human life in order to save your own life. And yet this is precisely what our society and many Catholics are encouraging with that weak clause: “except to save the mother’s life.”

If you’ve found yourself using that clause, perhaps you should ask yourself: Do you really think God condones the murder of an innocent child — the mother’s own innocent child, no less — because of her need for self-preservation?

Do you think God condones sin because a person is afraid to die? because she is afraid to sacrifice herself for her child?

Are we supposed to save our own lives at any cost?

There are literally hundreds of references I could point to from the Bible, the church fathers, and the Catechism to answer the above rhetorical questions.

But to save time, let’s just look at what Jesus said about the preservation of our own lives at any cost:

For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? (Matthew 16:26)

Indeed, it seems to have been a major point with him, since he apparently stressed it to his disciples on many occasions:

For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it; for he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, and cast away himself? (Luke 9:24-25)

Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it. (Matthew 10:39)

Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. (Luke 17:33)

The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. (John 12:25)

In the end, I think what the passages reiterate is the question that has been at the heart of this post: What is the point of saving your life, when you must sacrifice your soul in the process?

And the other “exceptions”…

As for rape and incest: do I really need to reiterate how this is a human being and that, despite what people seem to think, this human being is innocent of the crimes his or her father committed? Do I really need to express why I think it is socially criminal to think that it is legitimate or acceptable to punish the child with death?

When it comes to this issue, I find it to be deeply ironic that the same people who would vehemently oppose the death penalty for the rapist, accept and even encourage it for the unborn child.

Where there is life, there is hope. Regardless of the manner by which the child was created, the fact remains that he or she is a human being in the eyes of God (and medical science).

Another wonderful thing about God’s plan is that even for those mothers who are unable or unwilling to raise their children, He has provided adoption as the best alternative. There are literally millions of people on wait-lists that are one-ten years long, hoping for the chance to take in one of these so-called “unwanted” children.

Clearly, God has not given us the luxury of saying that there are no other options besides abortion.

The bottomline: God is pro-life. The Church is unquestionably pro-life.

So on what basis does the pro-choice Catholic think he can justify his position?

Or Maybe I’m wrong …

Archbishop Fulton Sheen famously said that you “cannot be Catholic and pro-choice.” In theory, I agree; in practice, I say that you can be whatever you want.

For this reason, I’ve decided that I want to be a swimmer. But I’m not actually going to practice swimming. I’m also not going to learn anything about swimming or work to remedy any of my misconceptions about swimming. I’m just going to call myself a swimmer and continue to run. Because running is easier. Maybe I’ll swim one day, but I won’t believe anything any swimmer or swimming coach says to me about swimming. What do they know, anyway? I’ve been calling myself a swimmer since I was a kid. I know what it means to be swimmer, so I won’t believe anything the experts about swimming have to say. Well, maybe I’ll believe some of it … if I find it acceptable to my preconceived notions and assumptions. I won’t actually challenge, inconvenience, or humble myself to actually become a swimmer.

But I am a swimmer.

Oh, and how dare you imply in any way that I am not a swimmer!

**I kid because I care. I nag because I care. I even slightly insult because I care. This issue is too important and too much is at stake for me to remain politely silent or to handle in a lukewarm manner.

I feel deeply blessed that I was truly unaware that there were Catholics who really thought they could be both Catholic and pro-choice. Had I known this, I wonder if I would have been open to change? It would have been easier to just add the label “Catholic” to my liberal, feminist “morals.” It was much, much harder to challenge myself to study and learn the reasons behind the Church’s position — to voluntarily open my mind and my heart to arguments I had maligned for so long.

It was even harder to admit that my opinion had changed.

And it was nearly impossible to publicly acknowledge my change of heart and mind (especially since I had been such a vocal pro-choice feminist for so many years) and begin to speak out against what I had recently recognized as one of the greatest horrors of our age — indeed, it is arguably the greatest horror of any age.

But, with God, all things are possible. And though the grace was, in the words of Flannery O’Connor, “painful,” I accepted it and allowed it to change me.

This is my challenge to all of you who consider yourselves Catholic and pro-choice.

————–

Further Reading:

-To affirm the humanity of those involved, the following site includes personal testaments from human beings conceived in rape and women who bore children from rape:

http://www.rebeccakiessling.com

-One of the most important Catholics of the last century, Mother Teresa, who witnessed unspeakable horror in India, still labeled abortion as “the greatest destroyer of love and peace.”

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0039.html

-Pope John Paul II, arguably the most important Catholic of the last century, wrote extensively on this issue, including a crucial encyclical: Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life).

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

Because they “Care about Women” So much …

Strip away the rhetoric of “women’s rights” and “reproductive freedom,” and what do you have? You have an industry that makes millions of dollars by exploiting women. It is an industry that provides no real alternatives for women who find themselves in scary, vulnerable positions. It peddles abortion. That’s all.

This exploitation is often subtle. Sometimes it’s not.

Live Action’s newest expose shows how the manager of a NJ Planned Parenthood helps a self-proclaimed pimp of underage girls, some of whom he strongly implies are here illegally from other countries (thus, “sex slaves”), get around the laws to obtain abortions for them. She even provides advice for how he can “keep making money” while they’re recovering.

(By the way: the unedited, full version is available at Live Action.)

After the Gosnell case, so many pro-choicers tried to make it seem like his clinic was an aberration. I’m pretty sure they will try to say the same thing about this case.

But the fact remains that this is not the first time Planned Parenthood has been caught breaking the law and exploiting women (or, more accurately stated, “exploiting girls,” since much of the footage gathered by groups like Live Action reveals Planned Parenthood not reporting instances of statutory rape and other forms of sexual abuse).

Moreover, people who have worked on the inside of the industry have come out to expose the types of crimes that go on there. The following is a quote from Abby Johnson, who is responding to Live Action’s latest expose:

“As a former Planned Parenthood director, it is not surprising to me that this organization would protect individuals involved in sex trafficking.  It actually seems like a natural fit.  Planned Parenthood is involved in the violent killing of children and have no regard for life.  People who traffic these young women for sex have no regard for their lives and are often involved in violent crimes. As someone who has witnessed this connection first hand as a clinic worker, I am so thankful Planned Parenthood’s connection to this industry is being exposed.”

Anyone who is interested in actually learning the truth about abortion and its multi-million, government-funded industry, should really do the research.

A Few Places to Start:

-Watch the preview for (and learn more about) a film that exposes abortion as an industry based on making money.

http://www.bloodmoneyfilm.com/

-Read the confessions of an ex-abortionist and previous founder of NARAL, Dr. Bernard Nathanson:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0005.html

-Dr. Nathanson also wrote a book detailing how he and his organization, NARAL, used lies and clever marketing to make abortion socially acceptable in the US.

-Read Abby Johnson’s account of her time at Planned Parenthood and the events that lead her to quit the business and become a pro-life activist.