Archbishop Chaput puts Nancy Pelosi in her place

Based on what the Archbishop wrote (Hugh Hewitt read the letter on the radio), Nancy Pelosi is going to have to see a proctologist, because the Reverend ripped her a new one - and how!!!

Hurray for him!!!

When can we expect the Archbishop to issue his views on voting for pro-war candidates. When can we expect his letter on voting for candidates who oster economic inequality and the death penalty. When can we expect the letter warning pro-life voters about how to view the candidates they support who support torture and racist poliicies?

Neither the Democrats or the Republicans intend to do anything about abortion. Reagan? He did absolutely nothing. Bush One? Nothing. Clinton? Forget about it! Bush Two? Lots of talk, a few judicial appointments which have done nothing. McCain? You're joking! Obama? Don't hold your breath.

The politicians like the abortion as a wedge issue.........why would they want to solve it?

Good Lord, Daniel. The Conference of Catholic Bishops has spoken at length concerning most of your laundry list. And I dare you, kindly point out a serious candidate of any major party for any national office who supports racist policies. Criticism of affirmative action does not count, nor does criticism of illegal immigration. Who is there who affirms the superiority of one race of humans over another, which is, after all, what racism is, hyperventilating rhetoric of the Daniels of the world to the contrary? I'll be waiting.
Meanwhile, thank God for a bishop who acts like a bishop. Abortion is homicide, Daniel. It may sometimes be necessary to kill the baby in order to save the life of the mother, but such a sad occasion is always tragic and always only acceptable as the very last resort. The Church, East and West, has always taught that. It's non-negotiable. One wonders why self-described Catholics care to remain in a Church with which they are in profound disagreement on such a critical issue.

So who is supposed to represent the constituents who are pro-choice?

Well, go ahead - let a Catholic bishop excommunicate me.

Although a Catholic Archbishop Chaput is a role model for Eastern Orthodox Bishops who too often are afraid to not teach the essentials of the faith for fear of being as non-conformist or politically unacceptable. The Greek Orthodox are especially good at producing Orthodoxy-Lite these days.

Why, why, why is it supposed that the only way to be pro-life is to be a gung ho supporter of the criminalization of abortion? Of course, it makes the Church's job easier if the State threatens women with dire penalties for sin, but it seems to me, for all the good the Church actually does do, there's still a lot more supporting women that could be done. I'm not talking about "hand-wringing politicians." I'm talking about the Church.

I don't know of any politician who has been excommunicated by the Church for supporting abortion.

How long before it happens?

Then it will be up to the non-Catholics and especially Jews (who are overwhelmingly pro-choice) to take up the slack.

Scott R., perhaps excommunication would be a bit extreme, so don't hold your breath. However, having communion withheld would certainly be appropriate, as would a refresher course on the teachings of the Church (and ALL of Christendom, actually), and how it is IMPOSSIBLE for a REAL Catholic to be pro-choice.

I think it's funny how prohoice detractors always can be counted on to insist that the Church should stop talkinab about abortion and start supporting impoverished mothers and children when there is no greater institutional body that does more to support the poor. That and the insistence of these folks that they are actually making a fantastic burn when they accuse the Church of not caring about the death penalty or racism, when the Church is at the forefront of both those issues.

How about you show some interest in what our bishops are preaching when the topic isn't abortion? You might actually learn something.

Rufus, I appreciate your armchair psychoanalysis and concern about my faith. But you needn't spend time on worrying about me when you should be spending time focusing on your own relationship to God and your church.

I'm wondering when the good bishop will get around to denying communion to the approximately 50% of Catholics who are pro-choice and/or vote for pro-choice politicians. Could it be that he won't because that 50% might just vote with their feet and find another place to worship?

I also wonder if this type of thing will eventually lead to a backlash against Catholic politicians. Before John Kennedy, no Catholic had been elected president partly because of the fear that the Pope would dictate policy. Kennedy alleviated those fears by declaring that he would be the president of all the people and not the Catholic president. When bishops such as Chaput and Burke start telling people who and what to vote for, might it be fuel for the old anti-Catholic bias to return?

Well "m," if we don't know when life begins, why oppose the death penalty? For all we know, people who are depraved enough to commit heinous crimes aren't really "alive" in any meaningful existential sense, just collections of animated carbon whose DNA is less well-programmed to avoid uncivil behavior than the rest of us. We're probably just putting them out of their misery in a way that fits with natural selection rather nicely. (Note to the humor impaired: of course I don't believe this. But then, I think it's possible to say that life begins at conception and ought to be protected from that point on, too.)

Mark V, I'm assuming you're not Catholic, right? The reason Catholics are discussing the subject of telling so-called "pro-choice" Catholic politicians not to receive Communion is because of Catholic law, specifically Canon 915, part of which says that ministers of Holy Communion should not give Communion to those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin. Supporting abortion, voting for it, voting to fund it, and so on constitute grave sin; this sin is manifest--or public--when it is committed publicly (e.g. when the votes are recorded and easily made known), and the aspect of obstinacy or persistence would come about when, having been instructed that Church teaching does not allow a Catholic in good standing to participate in those acts which support, promote, encourage and increase abortions, the politician chooses to continue by his votes to support, promote, encourage and increase abortions anyway.

Now, Daniel would say that our bishops should give the same warnings and take the same actions in regard to politicians voting for or against other things, especially those who vote against his favorite social programs. But abortion is intrinsically evil. It is always and everywhere a grave sin, an offense against both God and humanity, in that it targets innocent human life for destruction. There is never a morally justifying reason for it, and no prudential considerations can change the fact that it is gravely morally wrong. There is absolutely no excuse for a Catholic politician to vote in favor of abortion--certainly not under the "choice" euphemism which is merely another way of saying that some people ought to be free to choose gravely evil acts, which couldn't be more morally incoherent.

So it doesn't matter if anti-Catholic bias were to return; abortion must be opposed just like every other form of the killing of the innocent. And people who want to vote in favor of abortion ought to realize that they, too, have the "right to choose:" they can either choose to be Catholic, or they can choose to support abortion. But they must choose; they can't do both.

Dear m

You don't read much pro-life philosophy do you? There are very sound answers to each and every one of the questions you put, but I'm not sure that these blog posts would be the best place to start. Suffice it to say that every embryology text book states that a new unique human life begins at some point before birth. That's how we can have frozen embryos that are only a few days into the process of division, and how scientists can perform genetic tests on those embryos.

The question that is debated is not "when does life begin" but rather, when are we obligated to respect the human rights of the unborn? That is not a scientific question. That is a moral question for which there are sound arguments - debate them if you wish, but at least get the questions straight.

Also, you are completely wrong about the numbers of lost embryos, but regardless, even if there were some lost that tells us nothing about intentionally killing fetuses. Lots of things happen unintentionally for which we are not morally responsible. Everyone dies eventually - does that mean murder should be permitted?

Some people choose to own slaves - should we really just simply say that's fine because it is your choice? Or are some things such terrible injustices that we should not respect the choice to engage in such actions?

Frankly the rest of your questions are too tedious to answer - there are several websites out there on which you can find cogent explanations about the difference between abortion and the death penalty, the salem witch trials (remind me of how Catholics were involved in that?), etc. etc. etc.

To be honest, from the tone of your comment, I don't believe you are really interested in learning what the Catholic Church teaches. Fine - so don't become a Catholic. That doesn't mean that Catholic bishops can't define and defend what their religion teaches.

Charles - I think you are mixing apples and oranges.

1. A Catholic politician mis-states the Church's teaching on a moral question. A Bishop has the duty to correct that mis-statement so that Catholics won't be mis-lead into a sin. This is an internal Church question, affecting only those who choose to belong to that Church.

2. A moral question regarding the common good is addressed in the public using public reasons to support or oppose a particular practice (racial discrimination, the death penalty, poverty, abortion, you name it). Should only Catholics be forbidden from trying to get their moral views "enacted and enforced"? Or does everyone have the same right to speak out and seek to persuade people of the correctness of their position? This is an "external question" and as such, I would think that everyone should have the same right to speak and persuade. If you disagree, fine, try to persuade people to agree with you.

What bogus revisionist History this Archbishop is peddling.
The church didn't involve itself with the lives of women, and couldn't have cared less if they or their infant died in childbirth. Until the mid 1900's childbirth was almost all done by midwives privately in a home, and a severly deformed child was quietly euthanised and no one knew about it. Only after male doctors got involved in childbirth was their ever witnesses of what became of malformed infants.

Surely Nancy Pelosi is entitled to interpret her Religion in whatever manner she wants? I find the idea that one should defer your conscience to a figure of authority incredibly unappealing.

Anyway, in Britain, Abortion is known as a "conscience vote" which means that the individual Member of Parliament can choose how to vote without any coercion from their party. It's considered extremely bad form for a party to place any stress or pressure on an MP to vote one way. (David Cameron (the leader of the conservative party) caused a minor kerfuffle when he told the extremely social conservative Daily Mail that he would be voting for a reduction in time limits. This was considered bad form as an aspiring member of the conservative party might choose to vote against their conscience, instead voting with Cameron to ingratiate themselves in the party.)

Why this is important in Britain is that politics is semi-divided on religious grounds, CofE and Protestant's tend to vote Conservative and Catholics tend to vote for the ex-socialist Labour party. This can mean that some of the most anti-abortion MPs are also some of the most Left wing. As such abortion is not such a divisive issue in Britain as pro-lifers and pro-choicers are not divided on party lines. One of the highest quality of debates I've seen in the house of commons was the one on abortion limits.

Sally. The outcome may not be your favoured one but I think the process is important. One of the reasons why we have a high quality of debate is that if a member were to use words like killing and slaughter they would be ejected from the house.

I think we do have the most liberal laws in europe however I seem to remember hearing that other countries laws have a similar outcome and allow a similar range of freedoms to ours but have a less liberal headline restriction. I think their system is not comparable to ours but I might be wrong.

English Voice,

Lots of us find the notion that a single person's evanescent whims should carry more authority than the consciences of millions of people over thousands of years to be extremely unappealing.

In terms of what someone once called "the great democracy of tradition," what someone like Nancy Pelosi is trying to do is to effect a coup d'etat that sets up a dictatorship of one on moral matters -- Pelosi herself.

Justice Scalia comes to mind as one that might be deserving of a reprimand from his Bishop, for his actions from the bench have upheld de facto torture under our current administration.

When did Scalia do this? AFAIK, the Administration's (arguably strained) interpretations of the War Crimes Act, etc., by Yoo et al have not been tested in any court, let alone SCOTUS.

If I'm incorrect in this regard, could you please point me to the case(s) in question?

Or are you talking about his public statements WRT the constitutionality of torture?

On an unrelated note, Scalia & Chaput have clashed before; see the following:

firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2022

firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2067

Scalia's notion that, if he believed the death penalty to be immoral, then he ought to resign - and that, by extension, a judge ought not to base decisions upon his moral views but rather upon the Constitution, etc. - apparently made Chaput rather cranky.

It was also interesting to see Chaput adopting the rhetoric of "living constitutionalism" WRT capital punishment; I wonder if he finds emanations & penumbras constitutionally problematic....

"Quack, quack"

ROFL.

So when are we going to start excommunicating or at the very least chastizing politicians who are pro death penalty. pro-war, etc. and in essence everything to create government sponsored death once birth has taken place?

Thanks for the acknowledgement, Rod.

It's worth noting that even a Protestant denomination like the Methodist church in which I was raised takes a range of official stances on various questions -- including abortion -- which Methodists officially oppose in most cases. So there is still a sense that someone who dissents from their church's position is ... well ... dissenting -- as opposed to the Pelosian-Emotivist view that no departure from one's church's stated views, however extreme, can dilute the "ardency" of one's commitment to the church. I think even Unitarian-Universalists would agree that believing in the Trinity and holding that salvation need not be universal would make one a less than entirely "ardent" U-U. But I could be wrong.....

"So when are we going to start excommunicating or at the very least chastizing politicians who are pro death penalty. pro-war, etc. and in essence everything to create government sponsored death once birth has taken place?

Posted by: hootie1fan | August 26, 2008 9:35 AM"

You won't--because the death penalty has never been placed on the same level (intrinsically evil or murder) as abortion.

I'll put myself on record as being against an aggressive policy of denying communion to politicians, but they should be called out. And Pelosi deserved it, as she certainly used the Church and some sympathetic professor-priests from Georgetown to hold a fairly publicized Mass to celebrate her family and put her own Catholicism on display. Politicians typically aren't just the victims here. Pelosi for one has used the Church to cloak herself in religion.

any of you patriarchal types like to answer this question:

when does "life" begin? please do not say "conception" - that is not really a technical term and there is no one moment of "conception".

several sperm attach to an ovum; some of these manage to enter the cell. one of those manages to deliver its haploid genetic code to the haploid ovum. each of these cells is "alive" in the biological sense. after a little while, the hapoloid genomes recombine. at this point the zygote has a diploid genome based on that of the two gametes.

the zygote is no more or less "alive" then either of its progenitor gametes. so what is the point here? is the beginning of "life" boiled down to gene recombination?

kind of sucks the mystery out of what being a "person" is, doesn't it? even though we all came from a zygote, as we all came from gametes, i don't think a zygote is a "person" like a baby or even a fetus at a late stage of development.

what is bothersome, and quite stupid, is this insistence that "we know when 'LIFE' begins and the matter is closed!" dullards like erin manning might be satisfied with this explanation, but for those of us who aren't afraid to think, the answer, meant to give a definitive scientific explanation to the problem, is lacking.

when does "life" begin, christian fascists? when genes recombine? is it that simple? is morality so easily boiled down to molecular biology? are you people this simple-minded?

or is it that you're all just terrified of the fictional hell and will do whatever your pederast spiritual "leaders" will say? what pathetic people you are, all of you.

Some of the pro abort attacks on the Archbishop are a bit bizarre. But I guess conscience takes vengeance on us in different ways.

Daniel, the Archbishop didn't just decide it was a good day to be in the papers. Pelosi went on Meet the Press and said that as a Catholic she had looked closely at the issue of abortion, that historically different Catholics have had different ideas about when life begins, that we don't know when life begins and that, regardless of when life begins, it shouldn't have an impact on a woman's right to kill her offspring. No doubt she would make a similar argument for a wealthy landowner intending to burn down a barn on his property who doesn't know if there are any hobos taking refuge inside, has heard different opinions on whether there are hobos inside, but ultimately determines that whether or not hobos are inside his barn should not impact whether or not he burns it down. It's awesome that conscience has come to mean "what I want."

But putting aside the strange logic and the not so strange guilt exhibited by pro aborts and other advocates of torture and getting back to the Archbishop, when a Catholic goes on national television and publicly misrepresents Catholic teaching on so important an issue, Bishops have the obligation to come forward and set the record straight.

I know what you're getting at, Connie, but I think only because Nancy Pelosi spoke about the issue on TV and is currently on his "turf" for the convention.

Daniel, the Archbishop didn't just decide it was a good day to be in the papers.

You do realize he has a new book out? And that he's been on a media tour promoting his book? And that his only relationship to Nancy Pelosi from a pastoral perspective is that she's at the DNC convention?

Chaput is a political showboater. Good on him. He's no different, in that way, from Archbishop Mahony, who I generally admire.

I'm not interested in changing the Church's view on abortion; I agree with it from a theological perspective. I'm glad the Church focuses on life issues, even it is too often inconsistent in how it expresses those views. My differences with the Church when it comes to abortion comes down to the policy perspective for a nation that is not Catholic and has religious freedom. I can find abortion abhorent--as a Catholic--but still be concerned about the state policing the doctor's offices of those who want an abortion.

I don't really need Chaput's advice on how to vote. His view of voting behavior and political behavior, which is very post-modern in some ways and a product of Pope JPII's advocacy, is not rooted in the history of the Church. I'll listen to what he has to say about voting, and then go into the private, secular voting booth and act as a citizen concerned about public policy. I won't be influenced by his attempts to politicize the Eucharist.

"when does "life" begin, christian fascists? when genes recombine?

Yes.

is it that simple?

Yes."

glad that's cleared up. ensoulment occurs at gene recombination. so, for the vast majority of fertilized ova that never implant on the uterine wall - everysingle one of those is a person who died? are these "people" to be mourned with the same sense of loss as, i don't know, an actual person? do you really believe this?

then how come the pope hasn't figured this one out yet?

"If by simple you really mean, "Don't you guys want to engage in complicated rationalizations in order to torture and kill people you don't like?" then, yes, I am that simple-minded."

a trult laughable rationale. reason is dead.

When Catholic politicians make a point of using the Church to sell themselves as candidates while simultaneously denying teachings of the faith, then bishops have the obligation to stand up and say firmly and with charity in the manner that Abp Chaput has, that these politicians are mistaken so that the faithful are not misled, including the politicians themselves. Since Pelosi (and Biden) are in the news due to the events in Denver, it follows that Abp Chaput would be the one to issue these corrections.

That said, I agree that the headline on this blog post is unfortunate.

eric w,

i appreciate the attempt at explaining your point, but simply declaring all gestating "nascent human life" to be intrinsically wrong isn't enough. you need to tell me why it's wrong.

what is troublesome to me isn't that this declaration of "life!" from gene recombination undermines any rationale for legality of abortion; the calculation for whether or not the state itself may coerce pregnancy is the issue in the abortion debate.

rather, the fear stems from the fact that the right-wing christian fanatics, and now the bush administration itself, keeps defining down what constitutes "abortion" to include ANY stage of gestation starting at "conception", which best i can understand is at the point of gene recombination (though the christian fanatics themselves don't understand this point at all).

so we essentially redefine "pregnancy" to include those events that occur prior to pregnancy, which has until now been defined as commencing when a fertilized ovum attaches to the uterine wall. as i mentioned in an above comment, the majority of fertilized ova *never implant*. i'm sorry, but i am not going to define "personhood" as beginning with mere fertilization given that human biology treats zygotes with so little regard prior to implantation.

and yet this is what you're doing, mindlessly. you want to redefine abortion to get rid of birth control. ultimately this is your (or your side's) goal - elimination of reproductive freedoms of any kind for women. that's why this "life begins at conception!" rhetoric is troubling. you want to take all of our rights away, except those that have to do with procuring kalishnakov rifles.

There's been a lot of discussion about when life begins; under the law, your life officially begins when you're born and take your first breath.

Every legal document you own--your driver's license, for instance--lists your date of birth as the official recognition of your personhood.

No value judgment here, just a reminder about where the law stands on the beginning of life issue.

"Do you suppose that the ATHIESTS and the pro-abortion people would step in to take the place of the Catholic church in serving the least of us? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this. The lack of ATHIEST schools and abortion rights orphanages kind of proves this lack of charity in our detractors" (emphasis added)

dude, what the hell is your problem? why isn't it enough that you get to believe what you want? what's your problem with people that don't share your faith, other than that they don't share it? and please don't respond by saying "hitchens or dawkins or harris" because i can throw a lot of names of good "christians" who're far, far less intelligent and, frankly, excreble than those three. and don't give me some crap about the relative immorality of "athiests" unless you want to back it up with a lot of reliable data (that, not coincidentally, doesn't exist). yeesh.

man, tribalism really is one of the basic instincts of this species, isn't it?

My apologies to all of you who responded to the person using the name "laughable," but I unpublished all of his or her comments. People who cannot make their point without calling their opponents "dullards," "Christian fascists," and the like are unwelcome here.

Joe Lieberman - pro-choice
Tom Ridge - pro-choice
Rudy Guilianni - pro-choice
30% of elected Republicans - pro-choice

The Democrats are not alone, that is why pro-life laws are not passed. The Church needs to wake up and teach its people that all is not right in the "Right".

Posted by: Paul, seeking wisdom | August 26, 2008 1:36 AM
------------------------
The numbers would be higher if you included the politicans who only pay lip service to the abortion issue in order to gain political points when in reality they couldn't care less about preventing abortios much less banning them.

Fot the little people of course.

My differences with the Church when it comes to abortion comes down to the policy perspective for a nation that is not Catholic and has religious freedom. I can find abortion abhorent--as a Catholic--but still be concerned about the state policing the doctor's offices of those who want an abortion.

Got it. So we can safely assume that if you'd lived in the segregationist South, you'd likewise be reluctant to oppose Jim Crow. We wouldn't want the state policing privately owned lunch counters, after all. And we certainly wouldn't want the Catholic Church, in an overwhelmingly non-Catholic society, making brazen political power grabs such as excommunicating Leander Peres and other segregationists. After all, those fine public servants were merely following their individual consciences and the views of the majority of the public.

Right?

Jim Crow and policing doctors offices are actually a better policy parallel. They both involve laws and behaviors restricting individual freedom and autonomy. Telling a black person he can't drink from a water fountain has certain parallels with telling a woman she can't have a medical procedure involving her own body. They are both about control and the power of the state.

Simon, I think the equation of a woman's uterus to a "privately owned lunch counter" is probably another one of those failed analogies. About the slave thing, get back to me when you have a "slave" living inside your body, sharing your oxygen and nutrients, and with the potential to kill you, either now, by upsetting your metabolism, or when it's time for him to leave via one of your orifices, through which his entire body must be squeezed. You want him extracted. I say he has squatter's rights, and you asked for this state of affairs because you had sex, you slutty boy. We'll talk about emancipating him then.

Oh, but actually he's still a potential slave, not yet conscious, and lacking most of the organs and abilities he'd need to survive without your unwilling assistance. But I say you have an obligation to grow him to full size inside you, even if, at this present moment, he's the size of a pinhead and could be removed without feeling any pain--without, in fact, feeling anything at all. Sorry, but he's still way more important than you are. Offer it up.

If the slave analogy has any validity at all, it applies to women, not fetuses. We're the ones who are being told that we should be legally obligated to subordinate ourselves to others, even at the cost of our own lives.

quote: "Telling a black person he can't drink from a water fountain has certain parallels with telling a woman she can't have a medical procedure involving her own body."

Daniel, can you tell us what this mysterious "medical procedure" is and what it does to the body of the baby involved? Just wondering if you'd care to elaborate on the details of what actually happens in this "procedure" and explain to us why women should have the "right" to have that done to another person's body, namely the body of their baby.

rr

quote: "Telling a black person he can't drink from a water fountain has certain parallels with telling a woman she can't have a medical procedure involving her own body.

The problem is, it doesn't just involve her own body. All of the nasty bits (the saline burning, the dismemberment, etc.) are, in fact, happening to SOMEONE ELSE'S body; who is denied any sort of consent and whose only crime is coming into existence at an inconvenient time for the mother.

That is just a little bit different than going in for liposuction or something.

quote: "Daniel informed us that in a society with religious freedom, abortion laws should not reflect Catholic moral teaching, presumably because those moral teachings aren't universally shared. If that is so, how could one make a moral argument against segregation, which has a far greater historic role in American life and law than legal abortion does?"

Indeed. If one follows this kind of logic, the broader question is how does one make any kind of law or government policy based on moral arguments? After all, there are moral disagreements on a whole host of issues. There are a number of people (libertarians, some conservatives) who equate over taxation to theft and don't think the government should fund any kind of social services. So since moral values that call upon government services to help the poor aren't universally shared, we should completely drop things such as Medicare, right? Something tells me Daniel is only willing to apply his logic very selectively here.
Certainly the whole line about "abortion laws not reflecting Catholic moral teaching" is misleading as many pro-lifers (such as myself) are non-Catholic, and some or even non-Christian or non-theist. Of course, people that fall into the pro-choice camp are from all kinds of different religious backgrounds as well. But any way you slice it, the idea the pro-life position amounts to legislating a specific Catholic or a religious position simply doesn't hold water.

rr

I can hear the Jews now: "Their blood be upon us and upon our children."

[/sarcasm]

(FYI, I'm Jewish)

I believe you once said that you converted to Xianity, so, if that's the case, no, you aren't.

And using that line from Matthew, which has been a justification to murder Jews for 1,500 years, is not funny.

Scott,

Please tell me, what point are you making by spelling Christian with an "x"?

Please tell me, what point are you making by spelling Christian with an "x"?

Because Jews - especially religious ones - are not supposed to right the name of someone else's god. So generally, we do not write the name of the predominant religion in this country - because the name your god is in the name of the religion. There is no disrespect intended.

You used to do the same until Constantine.

Please tell me, what point are you making by spelling Christian with an "x"?

"X" here is really the Greek letter "chi", the first letter in Greek of "Christos" ("Xristos"), Christ. "X" is a very old abbreviation for "Christ". I have seen it used in medieval Latin manuscripts -- "X" will be used to abbreviate "Christ", then the appropriate Latin case ending will be added. For example: "Corpus Xti" for "Corpus Christi", the Body of Christ. (The "chi-rho" sign commonly used as a Christian symbol -- what looks like a "P" superimposed over an "X" -- is really the first two letters, in Greek, of the word "Christos". That is, "chi" and "rho".)

This is also the origin of the "X" used in the abbreviation "Xmas", which, contrary to popular -- and ignorant -- belief, is not some sort of secular attempt to take Christ out of Christmas. The "X" is a standard abbreviation for "Christ".

I can't read Scott's mind, but I assume he wrote "Xianity" for the same reason people write "Xmas" or use any other standard abbreviation: it takes less time to write and uses less space. The same reason people write "&" instead of "and".

Exactly - it is a descriptive of who he is. Be is not that to us. So I don't write it because it is actually forbidden for me to do so.

Because Jews - especially religious ones - are not supposed to right the name of someone else's god. So generally, we do not write the name of the predominant religion in this country - because the name your god is in the name of the religion. There is no disrespect intended.
You used to do the same until Constantine.

I respect your preference, Scott, and am in no way offended by it.

But I think you need to back up the claim that Jews generally refrain from writing the word "Christianity". I have never heard of such a rule or custom. And a google search will quickly turn up plenty of uses of the words "Christ" and "Christianity" by Jewish authors, positive, negative, and neutral.

Please elucidate.

David,

Yes, we would apply that all around. Naming a god - anyone's god - gives them a type of power. So if we can't name our own God (and we don't even know how anymore), naming another would in a sense put theirs above ours. It's safer just to not do it at all.

There are many Orthodox Jews who will never write any of this out. I was raised Heterodox.

Ostrea,

In certain cases where the writer is Orthodox, the publisher will simply fill in the abbreviation.

Not all Jews adhere to this. It's old fashioned, but it's still valid.

How can you look at Catholic moral teaching about the intrinsic value of a human life and not understand that your willingness to support legalized abortion on demand flies in the face of that teaching?

Well, there is no such thing as "abortion on demand" except in fundraising letters from the pro-life movement.

Second, my support for affirming the right of women to make medical decisions about their bodies without the interference of the state takes into account Catholic moral teaching on human life. It is competing moral wrongs. In the voting booth, my concern has to be about the policies officials are going to enact. The moral wrong of the state policing women's bodies and thwarting their decisionmaking on the most intimate decisions of their lives is a concern from a policy perspective.

I know you don't worry about these things, but some people do. Some people are concerned about the power of the state--oddly, conservatives once worried about such things--and when we are electing public officials, we must make voting decisions about the kind of country we want to live in and the moral dimensions of the power we give them. I don't want the state executing people, I don't want the state waging unjust wars, and I don't want the state policing doctor's offices and controlling the reproductive lives of women.

The Catholic bishops have long lost their ability to influence the majority of Catholics in the United States. Their failure to protect innocent children from pedophile priests. In fact, the bishops enabled these pedophiles to continue by transferring them from parish to parish. The bishops have failed to castigate anyone in the Bush administration for the use of torture. The bishops have failed to castigate the corporations for their destruction of the middle class. In fact, the bishops have long used their voices to inhibit the rights of women, the equality of gays, and the rights of blacks. It was the Democratic party in all these instances that embraced the equality and universal vote. One doesn't even have to travel back many years in order to find instances where the Church abdicated its role. Where were the boycotts, and strong denunciations by the Catholic clergy when Hitler massacred the Jews? Individual instances did arise, but in generals the bishops in Germany and the Pope made little if any effort to influence the faithful to stop this holocaust. If anyone should stop taking communion it should be the bishops of the United States. These bishops should atone for their own lack of morals.

As rr and others have pointed out, saying "I'm personally opposed to X but cannot impose my beliefs on others" would make it possible to argue for or against any law on the basis of what is right or wrong, fair or unfair, just or unjust. That standard is incoherent and unworkable.

But that was Mario Cuomo's position on abortion, not Nancy Pelosi's. What Pelosi did was "explain" to a national TV audience that the Catholic Church doesn't have a clear teaching on abortion and that historically different views have prevailed within the Church. Even allowing for the usual garbling of history by a politician, Pelosi's statements about the Church teaches and has taught were false and grossly misleading. She made an argument on theological and historical grounds where she has no competence and doesn't even know the basic facts. Archbishop Chaput was right to correct the record, and failure to do so would have been negligent.

RR points the way. The use of analogy or comparison to another issue must draw the lines accurately.

There are two arguments here.

The legal argument focuses on Roe v. Wade, changes to SCOTUS etc.

The other argument deserves its own emphasis:

The [deliberate lack of qualifier] moral argument.

It doesn't matter what an individual's basis for the moral argument might be. That the individual chooses to make it a moral argument is the important aspect.

The question becomes simplified: do we accept the moral argument as justification for or against making, changing or repealing a law (slavery, segregation, prohibition of alcohol) or do we reject it (abortion, capital punishment, prohibition of alcohol)?

I try to envision the actual scene in which Nancy atttending Sunday Mass in her home parish marches up to receive at Communion time in the line formation we all use nowadays. What will the priest offering that particular Mass actually do on the spot. If she stands before him with her hands held out in the usual way, will he refuse to put the Host into her hand, will he tell her to go away, suppose she just continues to stand there with her hands held out? What do the folk standing behind her in line do? Can they get around her in order to receive? Does the priest just stop giving out Communion to everybody at that point and put the ciborium back into the tabernacle? I just can't imagine the actual scene.

Should the pastor call her home number and beg her not to show up in his church so as to avoid confrontation? Urge her to go to another church where she might not be recognized? (I don't watch TV and I wouldn't recognize her on the street.) Or beg her just to stay in the pew?

It's one thing for Bishop Chaput and other bishops and even the Pope to say what ought not to be done, but if you lived in Nancy's home parish you might have difficulty imagining the actual scenario of refusal to give her Communion.

You should research the Church's previous acceptance of the "quickening", ie when a soul actually enters a body. You will find the Church did not always take the position it currently does.

As to quickening, but not as to abortion which, pre or post quickening, was a crime. I'm not sure today even that ensoulment at fertilization is dogmatic. Of course, the prior distinction was owing to the belief that pre-quickening the vegetative humors of the female had not yet be animated by animal spirits of the male seed. Persumably, Continuum, you also hold to this antiquated understanding of human biology. Good luck with that.

It's worth stressing that, for secularists, ensoulment should be irrelevant. Should human rights inhere in humans, or in persons determined by the polity to be worthy of rights? Fertilization "works" philosophically because the nature of the thing is at one point different from what it was at another point. Any other line drawing is arbitrary (as to the nature of the thing, it may be based on a quality, smartness, good-lookingness, whiteness, but those non-essential qualities are arbitrary as to whether or not a thing is by nature a particular kind of thing).

"Second, my support for affirming the right of women to make medical decisions about their bodies without the interference of the state takes into account Catholic moral teaching on human life. It is competing moral wrongs."

I know rr has asked, Daniel, but what part of a woman's body is cut up, burned, poisoned, suctioned out, and thrown away in an abortion? Are those tiny hands and fingers part of her body? Was that little heart pumping blood through her circulatory system? Is this her body, her property, to do with as she pleases?

Catholic social justice teachings tend to focus on the powerless, the voiceless, the oppressed. A woman has all the "power" in the abortion equation, since it is, except in those tiny percentage of rape or incest pregnancies, by her choices that reproduction occurs in the first place. Her decision to kill the unborn human growing inside of her is made without regard to the inherent rights and dignity of that other human, the one she wants to destroy. It is in no way a "medical" decision involving "her body" alone.

"A woman has all the "power" in the abortion equation"

And the moment the state takes away her right to make medical decisions about her body, it is a matter of justice because now the mother is the one who is powerless, voiceless and oppressed at the hands of the state.

A pregnant woman is not an incubator just keeping the fetus warm. She is not just a bassinet carrying the fetus around for nine months because it has nowhere else to go. At least until viability, the fetus cannot exist outside the mother's life blood and body. It is, quite literally, a part of her body that--if removed--will die. Therefore, in balancing the interests of the autonomous human being and the fetus that cannot exist without being a part of the mother's body, the rights of the autonomous human being and the moral harm that comes from policing those rights must be an important consideration.

As a voter, I have to consider what the impact of public policy is when weighing those moral harms to the mother and the unborn. Social justice requires us to advocate for the voiceless, the oppressed, and the powerless. A nation that is willing to imprison and punish women who want to make medical decisions for themselves--and punish and imprison doctors who want to protect those women's rights to make medical medical decisions about their bodies--is not a nation I want to live in.

Therefore, in balancing the interests of the autonomous human being and the fetus that cannot exist without being a part of the mother's body, the rights of the autonomous human being and the moral harm that comes from policing those rights must be an important consideration.

What moral harm? She can't fit into a bathing suit for a few months? Frankly, Daniel, when you start talking about abortion it becomes clear that all of your bloviating about just war and torture and economic justice are just so much hot air. If you can't recognize the evil of abortion, you are incapable of recognizing evil. Period.

It might be that social justice requires that we put in place structures that reduce to the extent possible the economic burden of an unwanted pregnancy (although they already exist). But to argue that the autonomy of a pregnant mother outweighs the life of her child is crazy cuckoo. It's laughable on its face. In no other circumstance does autonomy outweigh human life. None. But abortion is sui generis because of the admixture of humors? Please.

But I agree that we shouldn't imprison women who want to kill their kids. But for the safety of her friends and neighbors she should be institutionalized until such time as her homicidal urges subside.

"At least until viability, the fetus cannot exist outside the mother's life blood and body. It is, quite literally, a part of her body that--if removed--will die."

No, Daniel, it is not "quite literally, a part of her body." It, or rather he or she, is simply connected to his or her mother's body by means of his or her umbilical cord. Removing the unborn human being before a certain gestational age has been reached will indeed cause the unborn human being's death, and the woman then becomes the mother of a dead child instead of the mother of a living one; but at no time is the body of her embryo or fetus a "part" of her body in the way that her own limbs, internal organs, etc. are.

I don't really understand why you have such a hard time with this. Why do you see pregnancy as so "oppressive" to women? Isn't there a subtle misogyny in the view of women that reduces pregnancy to a woman becoming an incubator or a bassinet? Isn't there a male chauvinism at work in the view that pits a mother against her child and forces the two of them to engage in a Marxist-feminist power struggle with each other where only the adult woman is allowed to survive, while the fetal female inside her must die? Isn't there a male-oriented viewpoint in the world that equates pregnancy with disease and oppression and sees all women as naturally desiring to be rid of the developing life within them? Isn't there a complete shirking of male responsibility embodied in the notion that a pregnancy is the woman's fault, the woman's problem, the woman's responsibility--and that it's best if she kills her offspring rather than place financial and other demands on the child's father?

Frankly, Daniel, I have to challenge what you said earlier about finding abortion "abhorrent." If you really found it abhorrent, you wouldn't want it to be legal, would you?

"I don't really understand why you have such a hard time with this."

I've had the same question about you and you disinterest in the individual rights of women whose health decisions you want to police and criminalize. So I guess, yet again, we are at loggerheads.

By the way, you never answered the question. Did you vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004?

I'm sorry, Daniel; I've "aborted" your question about my past political decisions. I will only say that this is not by any means the first presidential election during which my vote will go either to a third-party candidate or no presidential choice at all (I usually go vote anyway for the congressional and other races, but even that's not a given).

And one more thing: it's a lie to say that I'd criminalize a woman's health decisions. I'm all in favor of healthy diets, good exercise programs, and the judicious use of chocolate and/or spirits to ease the female soul. But having an abortion, especially for those 97% of women who do so for "convenience," isn't a health decision, unless you consider a mob gangster's decisions to eliminate various enemies a "health decision." Having someone killed isn't about health.

Well, you answered the question by refusing to answer.

You think I did, Daniel. And that's fine. I'm fairly sure I know who you voted for the last two elections, too; certainly your complete lack of concern for the unborn wouldn't stop you from voting for any Democrat, and your view that killing unborn humans is fine but confiscatory taxation is morally necessary to combat the evil of wealth makes you a good fit for the Dems.

JPL, not all war is unjust. The classic example is of a nation fighting back against an aggressor who seeks to take land that doesn't belong to his country. But I'm not an expert on just war theory; I'm sure there are people here who have studied it in depth.

But you're right: intrinsic evil means something that is always and everywhere gravely morally wrong. It means that no circumstances can ever excuse it or make it permissible.

Abortion fits this definition because it always involves the unjust, direct, intentional killing of an innocent human life. Like every form of murder it is, in a manner of speaking, the ultimate act of iconoclasm, the deliberate shattering and destruction of the image and likeness of God that exists in every human person.

Wars that involve disproportionate killing of innocent civilians are evil. Our actions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to me, fit that definition and were evil acts. Torture is intrinsically evil because it, too, treats the person as an object and refuses to him the dignity proper to all human beings.

Killing someone as a last resort in self-defense is not evil, nor is taking up arms to repel an unjust aggressor or to free the weak from being preyed upon by the strong. I know some good people think the Iraq war meets one of those categories and is therefore just. I disagree with that analysis, but it doesn't follow that I therefore think Obama will do the best job of extricating us from the situation.

"Evil is still evil, even if it is done 'quietly' ".
David J. White

That reminds me of English Voice's British Parliament conducting its ever so genteel business of fostering civilized (i.e., the instruments of torture are usually sterilized) termination of animated carbon pathologies in the womb. I must say, if a provocateur were so uncouth as to commit the faux pas of speaking plainly he would be ejected from the house straight away.

Yes, Papism and Merrie Olde England were one in the same, but the Brits have progressed. N'est-ce pas?

There may always be an England, but will it be populated by Brits or Arabs?

"If a person believes that no woman is entitled to the choice of having an abortion, then the paths are two and clearly defined: prohibiting the practice of abortion with anything short of making it a felony and providing for stiff penalties to both provider and woman is just like spitting in the wind."

Franklin, not necessarily. But I think any real eradication of abortion is going to have to do both: make abortion illegal, AND reach out in charity to women in crisis pregnancies.

I see the situation in terms of the law as similar to the way the law treats drug *users* vs. how the law treats drug *dealers.* The person who sells the drugs and profits off of the misery of others should be punished to the fullest extent of the law; the person who has become addicted to the drugs should be offered the opportunity to break the addiction, and lenience in proportion to the age of the person and other extenuating circumstances are often considered. (In fact, though this is OT, I'd be in favor of diminishing sentences for drug *users* provided they didn't commit another crime [reckless driving, theft, etc.] during the use of drugs or for the support of their drug habit; I'd also be in favor of much tougher penalties for dealers.)

So in a post-abortive America, I'd like to see enforcement directed at abortion providers, at keeping them from preying upon women in crisis pregnancies. I'd also like to see women protected by law from every form of discrimination based on pregnancy, from job protection to the right to complete an education (I'm thinking of college or high school classes interrupted by labor and delivery; every accommodation should be made to help pregnant women complete these classes without having to repeat them) to housing and other areas. And people who pat a pregnant woman's stomach uninvited should be executed. :)

Seriously, if our nation were more welcoming and accommodating of expectant mothers, an unplanned pregnancy wouldn't be the crisis it is for so many women. But as long as abortion is legal and encouraged the way it is, what incentive do Americans have to stop thinking of pregnancy the way our Puritan ancestors did, as something vaguely shameful that had to be hidden even for a married woman? What incentive do we have to reach out in love to our sisters in need?

Karen: I proceeded with the kindest form of termination possible, labor induction at 23 weeks gestation. She died in my arms. I cried for months, but I never regretted the decision.

Karen, I am not often move to tears but your post got me. I don't think you will convince the militant either, but my heart goes out to you. In your situation, my wife and I would have done the same.

My mother told me a story that happened in her mother's town in Provence. The midwife delivered a baby of a woman who had had several children. The child was un monstre, and apparently lacking anything but a torso and shrunken head. The midwife did not permit the child to breathe and gave it to her husband to dispose of. The local curate knew of this and said nothing. Some priests are truly men of God. I mention this because, owing to an incompetent obstetrician, i delivered my own son. He was perfect (then, and thank God, since) and everything turned out fine. But I have often wondered, what if I had been presented with the situation faced by that Provençal midwife. Would I have permitted my son to breathe? I think that my human instincts would recoil from placing a monster in my wife's arms.

God is not perfect, except in His perfect mercy to his imperfect creatures, made in His image. Pace Keats, that is all we know on earth and all we need to know.

War and the death penalty can indeed be justified if a number of conditions exist, not the least of which is the protection of innocent life.

Abortion is always the taking of innocent life.

The pro-aborts seem incabable of making that distinction.

How is my post any more unworthy of me than your is of you, Roland? Is a poor child born in the condition you describe unworthy of the few shuddering breaths of life he might take, or the waters of baptism? Was a lady of my acquaintance who heroically carried her anencephalic child to term in the hopes of a few hours' grace with her poor little one deluded as to the value of this baby's worth?

If it is "churlish" in me to denounce the evil that seeks to make a God of men, letting this one live and depriving that one of life, then I'll gladly be churlish. As I hope for Heaven I'd rather be churlish in the defiance of evil than congenial in compliance with it.

Erin: As I hope for Heaven I'd rather be churlish in the defiance of evil than congenial in compliance with it.

Your eloquence, rising as I know it does from an inexhaustible wellspring of incontrovertible faith, has given me pause. I envy you that faith and that certitude. I don't have a ready answer for you or for myself. I have to think about this.

I am not Hamlet. I am not even Laertes. I am but a confused Horatio with more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy.

Steve, not really. Any induced labor can be more complicated than natural labor, and such an early induction can carry risks of bleeding, infection, or damage to the cervix that could affect future pregnancies; in fact, a pro-abortion website I just consulted considers induction abortion to be among the most risky of abortion procedures (for the mother, anyway, as they're all 100% fatal for the child), but this is disputed by some Planned Parenthood sites which say that a D&E is riskier.

Pro-life sites will sometimes break down known deaths and another maternal complications by the type of abortion and the gestational age of the unborn child, but I know most people here wouldn't accept such information because of the source, which is why I consulted pro-abortion sites to check out the risks associated with induction abortion.

In my case, we chose induction w/out instillation. Yes, it is a risky procedure, but no riskier than the typical interventions performed in the term hospital deliveries of my second and third children. Induction also provided the opportunity for my husband and I to grieve with our child and to perform genetic testing that was of great value when we later decided to expand our family.

Erin, I am so sorry to hear that your acquaintance also had an anencephalic baby, and I hope that she is now doing well; however, I take issue with the implication that I did not value my child because I chose to let her go earlier than later. It was a terribly conflicting and incredibly painful time. I do not know that I would choose the same path again...but then, I also do not know that I wouldn't. What I do know is that I'm grateful to have options.

Erin, the French do not call their handicapped monsters. I would join you in chastising Roland for being excessive in his circumlocutions, but yours was, if not willfully, a reaction out of ignorance to something that was not there.

In colloquial usage, a child born with little more than a head and torso is rightly and properly called un monstre, and you could infer compassion and sadness in that usage rather than otherwise.

Beware of literal translations... and Roland, you might do well to avoid leaving monolingual readers less opportunity to make that sort of mistake.

Erin Manning: "Mark V, I'm assuming you're not Catholic, right?"

Erin,

I don’t normally like to divulge personal information even quite anonymously on a blog, but since you asked and it’s relevant I was in fact raised Catholic. While growing up my family went to mass almost every Sunday except when the weather was bad or there was urgent farm work to be done. On my mother’s side of the family, we had a nun (aunt) and 2 priests (uncle & first cousin). My mother taught CCD classes. In my adult life I attended Catholic churches to varying degrees until I married my wife, a Lutheran, and joined her church.

Here’s the thing: In all that time at mass and such I remember learning about the trinity and the sacraments. I remember learning about social justice and helping the poor. I remember being taught about personal morality. And of course, I was taught that abortion, among other things, was wrong and a sin. However, I don’t ever remember it being emphasized that the be-all, end-all litmus test of what it meant to be Catholic was supporting the criminalization of abortion. Maybe all of those Catholics in my life were remiss in their duties. Maybe I was just dense and bought into all that fluff about doing unto others, and forgiving of trespasses, and judging not. Anyway, I’m stuck now thinking that maybe pregnant women have rights too. And that there are better ways to reduce abortion, like comprehensive family planning education and services, and adoption counseling. That criminalizing abortion will just drive it underground and desperate women will do what they’ve always done and travel to places where it is legal or will self-abort. Many countries that have criminalized abortion have the highest abortion rates. In parts of Europe where abortion is legal the rates are low. Criminalization is not a guarantee of lower abortion rates.

What really sticks in my craw though is that certain bishops think that they can intimidate people and tell them how to vote. And make no mistake, that is exactly what they are trying to do. They can make all the pronouncements they want, but in America people are free and feel free to vote their conscience. You can cite canon law all you want.

Franklin, are you contending that a woman who seeks abortion is abdicating personal responsibility for her actions? I can't speak for all women who have had abortions, but I certainly didn't allow someone else to dictate my path. I was fully aware of the consequences of my choice, and I pursued it because it was the option I believed (and still believe) was best at the time.

And, Erin, perhaps I'm the exception, but I took a full three weeks to consider all of my options. I underwent amniocentesis, obtained second opinions, communicated with women like your acquaintance who saw their pregnancies to term, sought counsel with my pastor, read my Bible, and prayed fervently for guidance. In the end, I still chose to abort.

My goal as an advocate for choice is not to dictate what I think is best for a woman considering abortion, but to listen and support her as she pursues whatever option she believes is best. Regardless of her choice, my goal is to help her obtain the best & most compassionate care possible. I do not find that this position conflicts with my faith in any way.

As an aside, the person who most helped me during my long period of grief is a devout Catholic and former monk.

pelosi is not catholic she is just another so called catholic that is trying to defe her beliefs with her personal lifestyle you can not and will not have it both ways on abortion it is murder nothing less nothing more its a unnatural to all faiths the 10 commandments has told us that and she will never change those writings by god

Joseph, is your keyboard missing the shift and period keys? If not, I kindly request that you make use of them, so that the rest of us can discern your point more easily.

Franklin, I did not mean to be anonymous, I simply hit the submit key prematurely. I appreciate the opportunity to share my story and engage in thoughtful debate. Erin is person of extraordinary conviction, who inspires me to consider my position deeply. She has not changed my mind, nor do I expect that I have changed hers, but reading her posts has enriched my understanding of the issue.

She makes a good point when she draws attention to the failing of abortion providers to care effectively and compassionately for the women they serve. I was very fortunate, as the daughter of an obstetrical nurse, to have access to the very best facilities and medical practitioners. Unfortunately, the quality of care I received is uncommon, particularly for those on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder. I fear that Erin is correct in her assertion that many clinics rush women through the process at a time when they are emotionally fragile and unprepared to advocate for themselves. I further fear that both sides of the debate use that fragility to their advantage.

The last thing a woman considering abortion needs is someone shoving photos of dismembered fetuses in her face, or assurances that it's just a ball of tissue. Neither are accurate or helpful. What she needs is a good listener, who can give her the time and space she needs to discern what is best given her specific situation. Clinics are woefully unprepared to provide this kind of unbiased, emotional support.

I realize I am late coming into this but:

I don't really understand why you have such a hard time with this. Why do you see pregnancy as so "oppressive" to women? Isn't there a subtle misogyny in the view of women that reduces pregnancy to a woman becoming an incubator or a bassinet? Isn't there a male chauvinism at work in the view that pits a mother against her child and forces the two of them to engage in a Marxist-feminist power struggle with each other where only the adult woman is allowed to survive, while the fetal female inside her must die? Isn't there a male-oriented viewpoint in the world that equates pregnancy with disease and oppression and sees all women as naturally desiring to be rid of the developing life within them? Isn't there a complete shirking of male responsibility embodied in the notion that a pregnancy is the woman's fault, the woman's problem, the woman's responsibility--and that it's best if she kills her offspring rather than place financial and other demands on the child's father?

Wow. I mean, WOW. Brava, Erin, brava.

RDP, if it was such a bad choice then why would you not want to suade others away from such a horrible choice? Speaking as one with personal experience you're in a unique position to share your struggles to ensure other women don't make the same choice and have to live with and suffer the same consequences. What if it was your daughter having an abortion? Wouldn't you do anything within your power to convince her not to make such a horrible choice?

P.S. some of us don't judge women who choose abortion because we ARE aware of the various kinds of circumstances that pressure women to make these choices. We like to share the facts that the abortionists are unwilling to because it hurts their business or conflicts with their dogmas about humanity. I'll bet your abortionist didn't show you an ultrasound even though he most surely used it to locate the fetus and better perform the procedure.

RDP,
Thank you for your thoughts. I agree with you. It is a choice that only that woman can make for herself, even though the circumstances are different for each.

Karen,
I agree with your thought that this is exactly what RDP wanted to express.

Tom,
Sorry, I don’t agree with you. To say, “some of us don't judge women who choose abortion because we ARE aware of the various kinds of circumstances that pressure women to make these choices.” Perhaps but the vast majority do judge. For the RR, it’s all about judgment. That’s why they bitch about everything that doesn’t go their way. That’s how I see their religion as one wanting total control and having laws subject to their belief system. They don’t want anyone to have any access to something they disagree with or goes against their beliefs. They comprehend that people have the right to choose but don’t like or want others to have something that they claim goes against their beliefs.
No one should have to have their or anyone’s permission to have an abortion, assuming that the woman is of legal age. The reasons are vast as to why a woman would want or need an abortion but that is her decision alone.

I think slavery is horrible, but it's MY CHOICE! My SLAVES, my PROPERTY, MINE MINE MINE. If I beat them, the government allows me to do that. Don't take away MY freedoms if I CHOOSE to buy slaves.

Even though I may be personally opposed, I am not going to tell someone else they can't have slaves, that would be imposing my beliefs on them, and really, WHO would do that?

I live in Northern Colorado, and have met Abp. Chaput on a few different occasions, and he is one of the greatest shepherds God has given to His Church.

Mrs. Pelosi, I think, needs to find another church platform for her radically erroneous thoughts.

Yes, Roland, but remember the parable of the weeds, and Christ's promise that Hell would never prevail against the Church.

While the homosexual, Socialist and MSM ménage à trois did
allow the smoke of Satan into the Church via V II, in the final analysis the trio failed. They caused great harm, and continue to tilt at windmills, but the smoke finally is clearing, thanks be to God and to B XVI, Chaput, Burke et al..

Joie de vivre, bon ami.

I simply fail to comprehend why men (good, strong, moral, intelligent, God fearing men) have stood by and allowed the government to take away their God given right, their moral responsibility to protect their unborn children. WHY?

Why is it considered a crime if the father through an act of violence ends the life of his unborn baby, yet the mother can do so with no repercussions? (legal repercussions that is - for without a doubt the emotional and spiritual repercussions are many).

The government has said that a father has no right to protect his own children because it is the mother who carries that child within her womb, not the father.

Fathers are parents too. These children (whether born or unborn) are theirs as much as their mothers. DNA proves that. One may argue that the act of sex does not make a father. Yet can’t that argument work both ways?

God has given the blessing (yes BLESSING because that’s decidedly what it is no matter how inconvenient, painful, or scary it may seem initially)... God has BLESSED women with the marvelous ability to carry a tiny developing HUMAN LIFE inside their bodies until at such time it can sustain some minimal form of independence on it's own... and just because that God given gift belongs to women doesn't in the least minimize the fathers right and responsibility to care, nurture, and protect his child.

There will be an accounting one day and men whom God ordained as the head of the home will be held accountable before the Lord. Just as in the beginning, when Eve sinned first and then talked Adam into sinning; it was Adam whom God confronted first. Why? Because it was Adams responsibility to protect his family and he failed.

I address this to men, wake up! You are important, so very important, to the lives and welfare of your children. I simply cannot understand why in only a few generations godly men have set silently by and allowed their rights to be stripped from them. Why?

Ok, I get it that there are many irresponsible, self absorbed, selfish men, who because of their own fear and weaknesses have readily stepped aside and shirked the responsibility to their children. But I also know there are just as many, if not more honorable men whom have felt the pain and hopelessness inherent in a society such as ours which beats into them, one precedent at a time, the message, the lie that they don't count, that their rights are just as nonexistent as the yet to be born babies.

In no way does this diminish a women’s responsibility to her children. She, in whom God bestowed His creative energy, when He gave her the gift to bring forth life, is just as responsible as the father to insure protection for her baby. It's unconscionable that either would in any way, through direct or indirect means, choose instead to kill their own child.

Men - your families need you! Your women, your children need you to be the godly men God created you to be. Stand by your families… Write your representatives, they will listen! Your vote counts, let it be heard! Your prayers count, let them be heard!

I say THANK YOU! And BRAVO to Archbishop Chaput. The truth is rarely appreciated by the masses. More often it tends to offends the most, the closer it comes to the neediest and deepest part of our souls deprivation.

For those of you who are infatuated with Absp. Chaput's "knowledge" and "fortrightness," let me give you an example from 2002, in which the good arsebishop criticized Justice Antonin Scalia's thoughtful questions about the Church's revisionism on capital punishment (from Front Page Magazine):

In response to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s thoughtful disagreement with the church’s revisionist stance, published in First Things in 2002, Chaput stated:

"When Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia publicly disputes church teaching on the death penalty, the message he sends is not all that different from Frances Kissling disputing what the church teaches about abortion,... the impulse to pick and choose what we're going to accept is exactly the same kind of 'cafeteria Catholicism' in both cases.”

Frances Kissling is a former nun who leads Catholics for a Free Choice, which advocates legalized abortion.

(Cdl. Joseph) Ratzinger exposed Chaput’s irresponsible ignorance less than two years before becoming pope. In July 2004, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the following as part of a letter to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C. concerning the American bishops’ stance toward Catholic political candidates:

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion….There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about … applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Until the good arsebishop issues a public apology to Justice Scalia, I will not pay attention to anything he says. Scalia is a good and honorable man; Chaput is an ignorant, ambitious charlatan who is bucking for a better see (Los Angeles, maybe?)