Why Catholics for Obama?
It was no coincidence that the Kennedy/King era coincided with Vatican II. Both Kennedy and King embodied a new vision for government in the same way that Vatican II brought forth a new vision for Church.
As Vatican II Catholics, we have considerable reason to support Obama. For us, Christ laid down his life to prove that God was NOT about domination and power OVER us. For us, Jesus' message was that of a God WITH us, a God who inspires and motivates us to love one another and care for each other. For us, Church and World are inseparably linked. It's not a case of one fighting the other in a turf war.
Like Vatican II, the world today teaches us a new salvation-view. We WILL work together to save each other AND there will be NO salvation until we do just that. Salvation by proxy is NOT an option. Iraq proves that if nothing else.
From the beginning of his campaign, Barack Obama has called us all to the difficult tasks at hand, reminding us that the time for singular saviors has passed. We know too well that singular saviors can be "erased" or made ineffective. The good news is that hope and change cannot be driven into oblivion as long as one person remembers and reminds us who we are together. Barack remembers and calls us to our power and responsibility.
It is time for an end to cynicism and apathy in regard to politics. The time has come for transforming the way the system works. Experience and success with the old system isn't enough today.
Barack Obama recognizes this. And so do Caroline and Ted Kennedy.
You might want to check out his website, www.barackobama.com/index.php
In collaboration with a
In collaboration with a small group of Catholics from throughout the country, who've only met online under the auspices of a networking site sponsored by Barack Obama, I have recently launched:
http://www.romancatholicsforobama.com/
It remains under construction but will be largely completed within the next few days.
Come visit and spread the word, please!
What a truly historic speech Obama gave in Philadelphia,today! If you'd like to read it or watch it on video, please visit:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/johngramercy
Deep peace,
JB
p.s. And, yes, gladly, some of the RADICALLY Religious Left are undergoing chastisement, even exile, too!
Familiar With This? >>>We
Familiar With This?
>>>We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian. Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.<<<
There are distinctions to be drawn between the celebrations of an inculturated faith community and what might otherwise be the articulations of an overtly racist cultural tone. There's another distinction to be made and that is between the overt racism that is rooted in bigotry and personal sin, which our country has progressively transcended since the civil rights era, and the institutional racism that lingers - socially, economically and politically - and that we continue to harvest as the "fruits" of an original-type sin, which is rooted moreso in our human finitude.
It has been said that it takes five miles to turn an aircraft carrier around, even after the captain gives the order. Our country took great strides in its civil rights legislation, as the co-captains of an authentically prophetic protest and a politically-awakened conscience of a great nation spoke the command together to turn our centuries-old heritage of overt racism around, but we have not fully crossed the five miles of ocean that will be required to swallow up the pains of past misunderstandings and the cross-generational effects of socioeconomic disadvantage, which yet leave so many in poverty and otherwise genuinely at-risk.
A problem with institutionalized racism and original-type sin is that no one is truly at fault or necessarily culpable, at least not to the extent that we can talk any longer of any particular sins of commission (for the most part). However, once we witness the intractability of lingering social injustices and inequalities, once we hear the voices of authentically prophetic protests, we are at-risk of sinning through omission and, make no mistake; we are exposed to guilt by association with institutions that Scott Peck would describe as having "sick identity structures." To remain exculpable, then, we must speak out and contribute to the healthful transformation of our institutions - social, economic, political and, yes, religious.
And this brings us full circle back to the distinctions we need to draw between the celebrations of an inculturated faith community and what might otherwise be the articulations of an overtly racist cultural tone. Let there be no mistake; any congregation which self-describes as "Unashamedly Black, an African people true to our native land," is joyfully celebrating its ethnic heritage in a religious experience and tradition that is deep. Let there also be no mistake in that words of intolerance, which disparage our country and degrade individuals, are not what can be considered an authentically prophetic protest and they have no place in our dialogue, public or private.
America IS beautiful. God HAS shed His grace on her. Those who cannot see this beauty are blind. However, those who cannot see her blemishes are equally blind. Somewhere between the polarizing forces of a shameful self-loathing anti-Americanism and a shameless nationalistic jingoism is an authentic self-critical patriotism.
Before, however, we castigate those who suffer any degree of blindness to America's beauty, let us engage a prayerful and dutiful introspection to discern what we, ourselves, may have done to hide her beauty and light under a bushel basket. Before we excoriate those who are apparently blind to America's blemishes, let us look within our own hearts to discern whether or not we are truly in touch with the wellsprings of gratitude that should flow in response to the accident of our birth in the most prosperous and generous nation that civilization has ever grown. It is true that some still sleep, slumbering in the illusion of our separateness. There is a little of that in all of us, wounded and weary as the journey can make us? When we do speak intemperate words, however, they are not necessarily defining moments unless they are repetitively reinforcing moments, unless our actions of a lifetime betray our otherwise sanctimonious pretentions.
Those of us who are Catholic and truly in touch with our innate catholicity, who advocate inculturated theology and celebrate our unity of mission and diversity of ministry, will not be at all put off by cultural expressions that reflect our rich diversity and that celebrate our wonderful, even when arduous, journeys of liberation and traditions of transformation. We should not fall into such a temptation as would parody, like our young fogey, former seminarian, Sean Hannity, the mission statements and explications of the Trinity United Church of Christ, cynically substituting the word "White" in place of "Black," or Caucasian in place of African, as if to charge that congregation with overt racism and bigotry (notwithstanding the intemperate and inflammatory speech that was spoken in its pulpit). I see that mission statement and am led, instead, to insert the words **Cajun and Acadian**! Others might rightfully insert their own cultural heritage and place of origin (or forced exile).
In closing, as Catholics, we (some, anyway) affirm a model of local church that does not overidentify (thank God, eh?) with its pastors and institutional hierarchy but which is, instead, defined by, and invested in, its families, its ministries, its social justice programs, its small faith communities, its catechists and prayer groups, its outreach to those in grief and those in need, its liturgical rhythms and communal fellowships, and a solidarity with a church universal and a Body of Christ, mystical. The same can be said for the Trinity United Church of Christ.
So, when we read the mission statements and explications of the Trinity United Church of Christ, we won't see an overt racism (except, perhaps, as a reflection of some of our own inner dispositions, which might say more about some of us than anyone else). Rather, we might experience a deep inner resonance and heartfelt solidarity with a journey that is both our own and not our own, seeing a difference in the oceans we have crossed, the chains we have worn and the sorrows we have borne, to be sure, but experiencing, at a deeper level, what we truly share: the redemptions we have known, the salvations and resurrections we have owned and our looking, together, to the One, Who is the Author and Finisher of the work that will one day awaken us all to the depthful reality of our joyful and loving sisterhood and brotherhood.
Since there is a direct
Since there is a direct correlation between poverty in the United States and the break down of the Family, I wonder why Obama, who considers himself a Christian, is not a strong supporter of the sanctity of Marriage.
Whatever has he said to make
Whatever has he said to make you to think that he "is not a strong supporter of the sanctity of marriage". He and Michelle surely seem to be devoted in their marriage.
With all due respect,
With all due respect, Sylvester, I am not refering to his marriage which appears to be a very good one. My Mother, as well as my sister, were social workers. They both were well aware that the break down of the family structure has contributed to the increase in poverty. You can research this yourself on the internet if you do not believe me.
Another participant on this
Another participant on this thread quotes your Bishops' instruction and writes:
"Opposition to intrinsically evil acts also prompts us to recognize our positive duty to contribute to the common good and act in solidarity with those in need."
As you seem to enjoy identifying and judging 'evil acts' may I ask how you fulfill the other side of such judgment which is the pastoral obligation to ACT (beyond comfortable rhetoric) in "solidarity with those in need"? Or does judging-talk fulfill your standards of moral and spiritual rigor?
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil, if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness ..." (Isaiah 58)
Why don't you just tell us
Why don't you just tell us what you are referring to? I'm not aware of what Obama has said or done that suggests that he doesn't value marriage, so it would help to know what you are referring to. Thanks.
I have no doubt as to the
I have no doubt as to the destructive effect of persistent poverty on family life. I do not however see how Mr Obama can be faulted for poverty that prevails in society and its effect on family dysfunction. He perhaps was disadvantaged by the very problem you refer to, but seems not to have been frustrated by it. Maybe for this very reason he is even more aware of societal threats to the sanctity of marriage.
Well, since there is an even
Well, since there is an even more direct correlation between poverty in the United States and a lack of household income (!), I wonder why Obama, who considers himself a Christian, is not a strong supporter of providing a guaranteed minimum income...
If he did that it would
If he did that it would prove that he is a socialist
What would you think an
What would you think an appropriate minimum hourly wage would be for it not to be considered
"socialist?"
Do you think if there were not a minimum wage that employer's would do the Christian thing and pay a living wage? I wonder what they pay people per hour in China?
If someone is paid more money, does that make it "socialist?" I would really like to understand your thinking about this.
Well, first, the point was
Well, first, the point was obviously a point challenging the logic of the statement given before mine.
Secondly, the proposal for a guaranteed minimum income came from President Richard Nixon, who is not and has never been and never will be considered a "socialist" by anyone. So the "proof" part of your statement seems unlikely, does it not?
And not only that, I think I
And not only that, I think I remember something about price controls, and this from the party of free enterprise.
colkoch.blogtoolkit.com
I believe the very lucrative
I believe the very lucrative HMO Health Business started or ballooned under Nixon. Supposedly to help us when in reality it provided the Health Industry with a rich cash cow of excessive profits at our expense. It's still killing us economically today while our overall health standards are lower than they were before this new business started.
Vote for Obama and get health care that is better and less expensive to those who receive it.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
good memory. yes, nixon's
good memory. yes, nixon's the one that got us going on our delightful managed care experience...
Social Justice Criteria From
Social Justice Criteria
From Neela Banerjee of the New York Times regarding the Bishops' document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: Abortion is among a few evils greater than others, the document asserts. But it also concedes that Catholics face difficult decisions when voting and in some cases might be able to vote for those who support abortion rights or stem cell research. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons, the document says. Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who is pro-choice?, said the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University: What they are saying is, Yes.
In Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the Bishops write: Opposition to intrinsically evil acts also prompts us to recognize our positive duty to contribute to the common good and act in solidarity with those in need. Both opposing evil and doing good are essential. As Pope John Paul II said, “the fact that only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances does not mean that in the moral life prohibitions are more important than the obligation to do good indicated by the positive commandment” (Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, no. 52). The basic right to life implies and is linked to other human rights to the goods that every person needs to live and thrive—including food, shelter, health care, education, and meaningful work. The use of the death penalty, hunger, lack of health care or housing, human trafficking, the human and moral costs of war, and unjust immigration policies are some of the serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act.
________________________________________
Who will best emulate Catholic social justice principles across the board?
Who will best provide healthcare for all without onerous mandates?
Who has worked and will continue to work the hardest to abolish the death penalty?
Who will ensure the most robust and effective response to relief in natural disasters?
Who has the most consistent articulation and application of Catholic just war principles?
Who will take the most compassionate and prudent approach toward immigration issues?
Who will best lead the poor out of poverty through education mandates with no money left behind, an economy that floats all boats??
Who will take the most aggressive stance toward gun control, giving urban America needed flexibility?
Who will follow the most responsible fiscal policy, not mortgaging our children's future with runaway deficit spending?
Who will best advance the civil rights agenda, eliminating systemic justice system inequities in prosecutions and incarcerations?
Who will reinvigorate a faltering social security and medicare system and advocate a more progressive and simplified tax approach through IRS reform?
Who will be most effective in nurturing a socio-economic environment and providing a safety net and outreach programs that will make abortion increasingly unnecessary and rare?
Who will most faithfully follow John Courtney Murray's guidelines for jurisprudence requiring the translation of moral ideals into civil and criminal laws only with universally compelling arguments transparent to human reason and not rather through theocratic hegemony on the part of any religious groups?
Good Lent, JB. This is a
Good Lent, JB. This is a very helpful contribution that I shall use for my Wednesday Eucharist & Supper group's weekly meditation. Good to see you here! God's peace be with you, e+
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil, if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness ..." (Isaiah 58)
A very good document
A very good document spear-headed by Brooklyn's Brillant Bishop - Nicholas DiMarzio. All Catholics should read that document.
Shirley Bianchi I was an
Shirley Bianchi
I was an Edwards supporter (still am), but as a Californian I would happily support Barbara Boxer for VP. She votes her conscience, works for her constitutents, and is an all around good Senator. And, by the way, I will support Obama with pleasure if he wins, and Clinton reluctantly if she wins.
Relative to Catholics and abortion, however, I do not know of any Catholic among my limited circle (we live in a remote rural area) who is pro-abortion. I do know many who are pro-woman, and who recognize that women will have abortions, have the brains to make rational decisions, and without Roe v Wade, some will die. Even the ultimate misogynist, St. Augustine, didn't believe that there was a problem with abortion in the first few months of pregnancy. It always amazes me that in the discussion of abortion, the health and well-being of women never seems to enter into the conversation. Don't the lives of women have value also? And a final question -- why is it worthy of discussion that men have the right to make decisions to kill children in war (collateral damage), but women may not have the right to choose an abortion, and thus kill them a few months earlier? Is mass murder in war preferable to one at a time?
No wonder the hierarchy doesn't want us women around. We ask too many questions.
I was the most interested in
I was the most interested in John Edwards as a candidate and he is gone. I have a great sense of unease with both Obama and Clinton. Aside from a few pot shots I've heard no serious dialogue among all of the candidates about the need to undo the destructiveness of the Bush II reign of error. I find this silence ominous. I interpret it to mean, "I cannot wait to get my hands on the power structure that's been created..."
Specifically:
*unitary executive
*state originated torture
*loss of civil rights
*suppression of freedoms, particularly speech, through corporatization and concentration of power in the hands of the few in the press and media
*loss of habeus corpus
*illegal spying
*unlawful war
*lack of oversight of the financial sector which has resulted in unleashed greed and predatory lending practices
*Guantanamo Bay
*an obvious alliance between big business and government that speaks poorly for the rights of the worker and the interests of individuals
*and the criminal misuse of our power to wreak absolute havoc in the country of Iraq. An illegal war and a highly destructive war.
No one talks about these issues. I can only assume that the next exec cannot wait to have that power structure at their disposal.
And as for McCain, two things he has said AND one action on his part means I will not vote for him under any circumstances.
The first thing he said is that he wants to stay the course in Iraq. The second is that he admits he doesn't know that much about economics and needs to learn more. He's reading Adam Smith. This amounts to a "more of the same" on Bush policiy in Iraq and in the economy. I cannot imagine anything more foolhardy.
He also needed to be a strong and outspoken voice against torture and he hasn't. He has used equivocation and not come out with the statement he should have, "No torture, ever. We are the United State of America."
I just posted an essay, Why
I just posted an essay, Why Catholics Can & SHOULD Vote for Obama, at url =
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/johngramercy
My other recent Obama blogs are entitled:
The Economy & The Presidency? Our Children & Obama!
Catholic Just War Theory or Why We Need Obama!
Iran- a case against war
Martin Luther King, Jr or Why We Need Obama
Thomas Merton on War or Why We Need Obama
Could the so-called Religious Right Be wRonG?
Great CEOs Surround Themselves with Greatness
Diversity of Ministry & Unity of Mission: The New Politics
Beyond Ideology
Many of these essays were developed, at least in part, by fruitful dialogue here in our NCRCafe.
The opening line of my latest blog reads:
As a heavily Catholic Louisiana goes to the polls:
We are called.
We are called to be: political but not partisan…
principled but not ideological…
clear but also civil…
engaged but not used.
This sounds like a description of the Barack Obama approach in a nutshell, doesn’t it?
While these words certainly apply to the Senator, whom so many of us have come to admire, and precisely for those very traits, they are actually taken from a recent voter’s guide issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/johngramercy
Deep Peace and hello to all my NCRCafe family!
johnboy
Peace to you also my
Peace to you also my brother! I'm just now catching up with some non-pressing newsreading and see your poat. While we certainly differ on our voting choice (I think you know how skeptical I am of unsupported rhetoric ...), it's good to see you back here. I trust your Lent is wonderfully nourishing. Shalom!
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil, if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness ..." (Isaiah 58)
Unsupported Rhetoric of
Unsupported Rhetoric of Obama?
RE: While we certainly differ on our voting choice (I think you know how skeptical I am of unsupported rhetoric ...), it's good to see you back here.
Certainly, there are some risks vis a vis his lack of seasoning. They should be mitigated, in part, by those with whom he will surround himself, administrations being much larger than the individual.
I assure you my choice is neither uncritical nor facile:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/johngramercy
It is good to see you, too, e+ !
Between Obama and Clinton
Between Obama and Clinton it's a matter of trust. I like a little of what they say but can I believe that they are not lying. I hope they are not but......
Although a gifted orator and
Although a gifted orator and interesting personality, Obama's record and experience is not one I would trust with Supreme Court justice selections. The elimination of Roe and Doe are absolutely essential to our country.
No country can survive killing off its children.
Peace and Good,
Your Brother in Christ (Franciscan Tertiary of Mary, Mother of the Most Blessed Sacrament)
Obama is more pro death than
Obama is more pro death than even the NARAL (National Abortion rights Action League) In 2002 in the Illinois Legislature obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. NARAL even suppoted this bill. If Catholics are to really follow the seamless garment of Life mantra Obama is not the man.
SaintandSinner &
SaintandSinner & mavfan46:
The criminalizing of abortion has nothing to do with the mission and mandate of religion, much less of Christianity. Morality cannot be legislated. If there were no moral/rational justification for abortion in the judgment of a woman, abortion wouldn't happen. Women deserve respect for the very tough decisions they sometimes have to make under very difficult circumstances, and yes, for mistakes they sometimes make.
The politicizing of abortion morality/ immorality has become very much an issue of male arrogation and demagoging. When arrogation is shamelessly bold it easily becomes vicious. Jesus stopped in their tracks the righteous men who had stones in hand to execute the woman caught in adultery. The subversion of laws and courts is only a little more sophisitcated than stones. Barach Obama will, I believe, prevent the subversion of the Supreme Court for political reasons.
Neither adultery nor abortion are to be condoned, but mean-mindedness does nothing to resolve either. We don't need judges prejudiced by politics.
My sense of Barack Obama is that he has a true sense of Christian morality and eminent political practicality. These are but two reasons why I will vote for him.
It would agree with you if
It would agree with you if we were talking about legislating gossiping and not hanging the toliet paper role the right way. But the fact that abortion which by definition is the murdering of an innocent child is not already illegal is unjust. What if we were talking about a candidate in the days before slavery was abolished and someone said, I think he has a true sense of Christian morality and foreign policy, but his pro-slavery stance is kind of troublesome. We would be fools to advocate for that candidate. Well abortion in our day is the modern form of slavery, it cares not for the dignity of the Human Person, the mothers or the childs and the emotional pain of murdering your child is something that never leaves women.
Moral vs Political
Moral vs Political Distinction
mavfan, some candidates do not disagree with the Church's moral reasoning, only with its political strategies, the latter being a practical element and the former being an ethical element of prudential judgment. This judgment belongs to a conscience formed but not determined by our Catholic faith and morals. It is thus a question of ways and means rather than the ends of our shared aspirations and obligations.
More specifically, in pluralistic societies, as opposed to theocratic, for example, the question of when a moral law should become a civil law is one of jurisprudence, which requires practical wisdom and political prudence, and not speculative moral theology.
When a moral belief is urged by any given religion but is not otherwise clearly grounded in natural law and readily transparent to human reason, as evidenced by lack of public consensus through time, the issues of primacy of conscience and religious freedom come to bear and it becomes problematical whether or not that belief is a matter of public morality.
Because it is manifestly clear that the pre-embryo/ embryo-fetus is human life and is thus inextricably intertwined with human dignity, the regulation of abortion is certainly a matter of public morality to be regulated by the government. Even then, there are further distinctions to be drawn between government regulation, public morality and justice, itself (criminalization and its concommitant punishment); who gets interdicted, prosecuted, punished and how? The principles are directly analogous to those we employ in our just war calculus; when should we declare war to stop genocide?
Because it is less clear vis a vis the natural law at which point in gestation a human person is involved, ensoulment being a metaphysical and religious issue, neither Scripture nor Tradition nor the Magisterium would properly define all abortions as murder. Even accepting your definition, stipulating that it is indeed murder, still, the question of enforceability arises for this type of "murder" versus other types. I'm afraid that the evidence is indisputable that abortion prohibitions are largely unenforceable and ineffective. They can even be counterproductive, which is to say that there can be unacceptable double-effects from such laws and that such effects can make them indefensible via proportionate reason regarding foreseeable adverse consequences, which is to say, more clearly, that untold numbers of unborn and their mothers will die.
All this said, Roe should still be overturned because there is nothing in this argument that supports the facilitation of the moral evil of abortion through public funding or through coercion of hospitals and pharmacies, which is to say that one neither has a "right" to an abortion nor to be free from government regulation thereof.
Not all candidates are the same in their line of reasoning. People of large intelligence and profound goodwill can disagree and not call each other fools.
http://tinyurl.com/3yne3f
Sylvester one of the issues
Sylvester one of the issues I have with the prolife movement is the constant castigation of women for choosing abortion. It seems we've forgotten about all those women who were forced into abortion by their men folk. Whether that be their husbands, fathers, or boy friends. Abortion is not just a morality issue for women and never has been.
I suppose the prime example of male influence on the choice for abortion is the sex selective abortions of China and India. I've written elsewhere that I find the prolife silence on this issue conspicuously ominous for what this says about mysoginy and male perogative.
It also speaks to the gutlessness of our current prolife president that the West has been very silent on this issue. I guess the economic interests of our corporations in these two countries supercede the pressing need to speak about the whole sale slaughter of two generations of girls.
Enough with the hypocrisy of prolife politicians. At least I know Obama can't use this issue to procur large donations from supporters whose interests are hardly prolife.
I don't know what pro-life
I don't know what pro-life sources you have been exposed to, but Dr. Stephen Mosher was one of the first and most vocal critics of the one child policy of china. As for our current president, I voted for the man twice and looking back I regret it, what has he done to build a culture of life?
Colkoch, thank you. You are
Colkoch, thank you. You are so right. All the male righteous clamor over abortion is less about respect for life than it is about male sex "privilege" and dominion over females.
The pretenses of male celibates (clerics) is least credible of all — what with the ongoing Church cover-up of clerical sexual abuse at the highest levels of the hierarchy. I have no doubt that priests have counseled women to abort and have paid for their abortions.
Church panic over the ordination of women is of a piece with the feral instinct of the male sex to dominate over them. The rationale and mandate of Christian love still gets trumped by the crass sexual instinct of males.
I will venture one step further: the gender harmonics of same-sex culture is, it seems to me, a natural defense mechanism against the hypocrisy and real threat of cultural sexual violence against women, whether as to their place in societal institutions or whether as to forced physical surrender to male imposition.
"Abortion is not just a
"Abortion is not just a morality issue for women and never has been."
You are right, we (pro-lifers in general) have fallen into the trap of letting the opposition define all the terms in the discussion. The pro-abortion crowd argues that this is a women's rights topic and so we argue it as a women's issue.
I do take exception to the 'constant castigation of women for choosing abortion' phrasing. It is pro-life movements that offer post abortion counseling, Rachel's vineyard, and other programs to help women forgive themselves after an abortion.
The US pro-life movement is overly invested here (and tends to have a defeatist attitude after 35 years of open warfare on the unborn) and tends to focus too much on internal squabbles to be affective on a national or global level.
++++++
What I'm Pondering...
for the record, both lifesite and lifenews have covered the sex selective abortions, but
Here Today, I am getting
Here Today, I am getting nervous. This makes two separate threads were I am rating your comments a "4". Either I'm going to the right, you're going to the left, or we both have underestimated our ability to "cross the aisle."
My junior year in high school (1981), I wrote a position paper on "Men, the silent victims of abortion." If it takes two to tango, how come only one gets to make the decision? I don't believe much progress has been made on that front.
HT you are correct about
HT you are correct about Rachel's vineyard. It's a great program, but it isn't the only one. I can probably state with some safety, that there isn't a mental health therapist in the country that hasn't had to deal with the post traumatic events of abortion---and that would be with men as well as women.
colkoch, as one who has been
colkoch, as one who has been mental health therapist for many years, I have seen a great deal of PTSD as a result of abortion - with men as well as women. The intensity of the pain is overwhelming and the effects are far-reaching.
I was a strong-headed pro-lifer as teen and young adult. As a mental health care worker, I became more sensitive and open-minded about abortion, especially where the health of the woman was a risk in back alley abortions. In working in the addictions field, there were times when I even silently hoped that a "miscarriage" would occur. However, as I began to deal more and more with the post-traumatic events of abortion, especially when I was a priest, I became more aware of the unforseen price that is paid and an abortion is made.
I do believe, even more than ever, that the Catholic position on many moral issues is correct in its ends, but lacks logic in its means. Especially in the area of sexuality, the Church just can't seem to put together thorough reasoning of why it believes something. It becomes too authoritarian rather than compassionate in its sexual teachings. It is like the parent who says "no" to a child and follows up with the argument "because I told you so" as opposed to the parent who sits with the child and shares personal experience or wisdom with his/her child for his/her position and than hopes the child will follow the suggestions/desires rather than do the opposite just to be defiant.
jstab, I personally think
jstab, I personally think that the choice to abort is pretty costly and truly some can assimilate the experience and some do not. What I would encourage you to do is to sensitize yourself to people who are living the costs of having and keeping a child AND having and adopting (out) a child AND having and miscarrying or give still birth to a child. All potential outcomes of childbirth can have costs and they can be quite high.
My goal is not to convince you that the cost of the choice of abortion is cost-free. I do not believe that. It is to appreciate the costs of ALL decisions around child bearing.
I once asked a young high school age girl who had given up a baby at birth due to her own youth what per post-high school plans were. She turned her face from me, set her jaw firmly and said, "It's to get out of this state where my baby lives." The choice to adopt out her infant may well be a decision she will embrace in a decade or more, but it will never be determined to be cost free. Women who miscarry or give birth to stillborn infants are often told to get over it, have another baby. But to loose a baby, a child is a cleft in your soul not reparable. Finally, women arguably suffer when their children are very young, when they have too many children, when a child has special needs. Most of these moms will tell you that they would not give up one child but a cost has been exacted. There is pain and guilt.
Re-set your perspective to understand that pregnancy, childbirth, mothering, decisions about children exact a price, eliminate other choices, are not without cost.
The "Catholic position on
The "Catholic position on many moral issues" does not necessarily include the Church's teaching on the social context of responsibilities either. Until those two are brought together, one has not yet taken a catholic christian moral position.
Although I am a republican
Although I am a republican and will be voting for McKain, I have been impressed by this young visionary. I would really like to see him get the democratic nomination.
jstab, Of all the republican
jstab, Of all the republican candidates I like McCain. I see him as aman of integrity Just like Obama. that's what I like about both of them. Even though the things they believe in may be at odds. I like the way they believe in them.
I hope Obama Wins the democratic nomination. I'm not worried about his experience anymore than I was worried about Kennedy's who at teh time was our youngest President ever. I voted for him and tried to support him as best I could. In my county in CA. He got 47% of the vote and Hillary got 43%. I strongly believed which ever Democrat won teh primary in CA would be our next President. Now I hope I'm wrong. And work to support Obama some more. I sent teh following letter to serveral newpaper editor's prior to the Primary.
"You may not think it's time yet, BUT IT'S TIME.
It's time to rally around Obama. He's ready. The avalanche is coming. Let's jump on it and ride it all the way to the Whitehouse.
He’s the best and most moving Democratic candidate since John F. Kennedy. I've never been more moved by a candidate other than Barack Obama, since Kennedy. I worry that he will be killed. I admire his conviction, courage and integrity.
I hope he chooses Barbara Boxer as a vice presidential candidate to get the women’s vote from those who would vote for any woman candidate if there was only one. She is the closest to his politics of any other women of Major Federal Government status. She has the experience and the values and integrity that Hillary lacks. Boxer WON'T sell the progressives out. She'd be the best one to carry out Obama's prerogatives should he meet an untimely death.
I'm just being realistic. If I could give my life to save Obama's, I would. He IS that valuable and precious of a resource to our nation.
Joseph H. R., Santa Rosa, CA."
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
joer, You said: " I worry
joer,
You said: " I worry that he will be killed."
If Hillary Clinton were the VP running mate with Obama, I think that someone would think twice about such a thought.
butterfly - that is a
butterfly - that is a classic!!!
I have been saying that Clinton is writing the Bobby Kennedy script for Obama. If it becomes more evident than it already seems to be that he will be the nominee, and if by some unfortunate cruel event - God forbid he gets assasinated before the convention, they should throw the cuffs on Hilliary before the he is cold. She would probably set up some redneck and have someone shoot him soon therafter. But let us not forget Whitewater and Arkansas. They are the pine barrens and Giant Stadium of the mid-west. Need I say more....
jstab, I don't believe that
jstab,
I don't believe that there is any such script as you say for Hillary. I don't believe it for a second.
When a lot of people compare Obama to Kennedy, naturally one might think that there would be evil forces of the opposite side of the political spectrum who would want to do him in. Hillary is not on the opposite political spectrum as Obama by any means. I believe the antithetical voices to his message and programs are where you might want to look for your "enemy".
If Hillary was his running mate, it seems that many who do not like Hillary more than they do not like Obama, would not want to see her replace Obama should something happen to him. That is what I meant.
Hi butterfly, Thanks for the
Hi butterfly, Thanks for the reply.
I've heard that the republicans would actually LIKE to see Hillary get the nomination as that would serve them better in galvanizing the party against. Some people believe they (Republicans) had something do with the fact that the Diebold electronic counting machines in every instance up and down the state gave Hillary a higher percentage of the vote while all the other candidate had their totals slightly less than the hand counted ballots that had Obama winning the highest percentage of the vote in every instance across all precincts hand counted and compared up and down the state.
So I'd rather see Boxer she more like Obama in her politics than Hillary and there would be no advantage in killing Obama to than have her and then Pelosi behind her.
God Bless you Butterfly and ALL here at this site. :-)
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
joer, I've heard that also
joer,
I've heard that also that Republicans would rather have Hillary as the Dem candidate running as President, because there's a little more baggage for them to drag her into. The Republicans fear a candidate like Obama a lot more. He's relatively new on the political landscape. I'm still researching him. I think we have to be real careful in what we are hearing and make sure it is the truth.
Hillary is a more divisive
Hillary is a more divisive figure than Obama, so yes Republicans would prefer to run against her. Exactly how and why she obtained the image that she has, I have no clue, but it is what makes Obama a better candidate. (not that I could vote for either one).
I really think that Obama will be our next president, as much distaste as I have for many of his positions. Too many conservatives are asking themselves whether we can vote for McCain. We may have reached a new turning point in the party system, as many conservatives note that their party has abandoned them.
++++++
What I'm Pondering...
You and I can finally agree
You and I can finally agree on something. I just read your comment today. ;)
P.S. I will clarify as to what I agree with: I agree that Obama will probably be the next President. I agree that "Republicans would prefer to run against her" (Hillary).
I agree that "many conservatives note that their party has abandoned them."
You had me till you
You had me till you mentioned Barbara Boxer as a running mate!
I agree with you on many things, especially the integrity issue. McCain and Obama have it. With those two running a campaign, the issues will get the discussion, not the people. I am really turning into an Obama fan. More pathetically, I have to go to confession just because of the joy I am taking in watching Hillary squirm. Her excuses for not doing well in the primaries and caucuses was that the states she lost in didnt matter or were racially stacked and that the caucuses were a poor determinent of a candidates ability. But enough about her . . .
I'd like to see Obama talk more about moral values. I think he needs to get more realistic about war and foreign dipolmacy. Also, his wife is a real asset and would make a charming and intelligent first lady.
As for running mates: Ed Rendell for Obama and Condelleza Rice for McCain.
I'll have to check out Ed
I'll have to check out Ed Rendell. But I really think Obama needs a woman running mate. Otherwise Condelizza might pick up a lot of the conservative democratic women voters who want to see a woman in the highest position possible. Then McCain might beat Obama in November and I wouldn't want that. ;-)
If he choose Hillary I doubt she would accept. But you never know. I just think there are other democratic women politicians who are less compromising than Hillary. More integrity.
Thanks Jstab. God bless you.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
At Play in the Fields of the
At Play in the Fields of the Lord
in what all too often seem more like "killing" fields!
I like to say that there is a certain serenity to being *at play* in the fields of the Lord (even in something like politics) and that, when it is absent in any significant measure, then, we might have a sign that we are, instead, *working* on our own agenda.
Now, this might still seem to beg the question of how folks of both large intelligence and profound goodwill could all be playing in the fields of the Lord, inspired by the same Spirit, but otherwise promoting different candidacies?
I think that one way of looking at this, among others, is that the deliberative process, itself, can sometimes be more important than the election results, themselves. This is because that process, most often, greatly influences those who get elected and empowered, shaping their agenda and defining the boundaries of future governance for whomever gets elected.
And so, it makes sense to ask: What issue is closest to your heart this year? Which approach to that issue best feeds your spirit?
How our deliberative process is carried out is important, too.
Have we elevated civil discourse? Have we been generous and open in our dialogue? Have we energetically explored, with open minds and hearts, as many prudential options as we can in order to best realize the values that most all of us already share? Have we framed our debates with a generosity of heart, characterizing alternate positions moreso in prudential or pragmatic or practical terms and much less in moral terms, recognizing that, on the vast majority of issues, we already share visions regarding ends and goals, differing mostly in ways & means and strategies?
Have we conceded the reasonableness of others' perspectives, as far as is truly possible, and our best understanding and benefit of the doubt for why those perspectives may differ from our own? Have we avoided condescension regarding others' intelligence and prudence, not engaging in facile caricaturizations of their true positions, ever mindful of their nuances?
In that, with open hearts, the Spirit will not leave us orphaned as we play at politics!
Have a Most Maundy Thursday!
JB