Monday, February 16, 2009
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
In an extraordinary move, the US Bishops finally had the gumption to issue a statement in no uncertain terms:
"We want to be clear... Our faith requires us to oppose abortion on demand and to provide help to mothers facing challenging pregnancies.
The Catholic community is second to no one in providing and advocating for support for women and families facing problems during pregnancy. Catholic hospitals, charitable institutions, and thousands of pregnancy aid centers, provide life-saving care and compassionate alternatives to the violence of abortion. We have advocated for universal health care coverage, generous family leave policies, increases in the minimum wage, humane welfare policies for women who are pregnant or caring for young children, expanded funding for WIC and other nutrition programs, and a federal children’s health insurance program that includes coverage for unborn children and their mothers. Because some women still feel pressured by economic hardship and lack of support to resort to abortion, our task in this regard is far from over.
These efforts, however, are not an adequate or complete response to the injustice of Roe v. Wade for several important reasons. First, the Court’s decision in Roe denied an entire class of innocent human beings the most fundamental human right, the right to life. In fact, the act of killing these fellow human beings was transformed from a crime into a “right,” turning the structure of human rights on its head. Roe v. Wade is a clear case of an “intrinsically unjust law” we are morally obliged to oppose (see Evangelium vitae, nos. 71- 73). Reversing it is not a mere political tactic, but a moral imperative for Catholics and others who respect human life.
Second, the many challenges to the Court’s error since 1973 have borne fruit, leading to significant modifications of Roe. Most recently in its ruling on partial-birth abortion, the Court upheld a ban on an abortion procedure for the first time in 35 years, and acknowledged that abortion takes a human life and does serious harm to women.
Third, Roe itself enormously increased the annual number of abortions in our society. The law is a teacher, and Roe taught many women, physicians and others that abortion is an acceptable answer to a wide range of problems. By the same token, even the limited pro-life laws allowed by the Court since Roe have been shown to reduce abortions substantially, leading to a steady decline in the abortion rate since 1980. Bans on public funding, laws requiring informed consent for women and parental involvement for minors, and other modest and widely supported laws have saved millions of lives. Laws made possible by reversing Roe would save many more. On the other hand, this progress could be lost through a key pro-abortion proposal,
the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which supporters say would knock down hundreds of current pro-life laws and forbid any public program to “discriminate” against abortion in providing services to women.
Providing support for pregnant women so they choose to have their babies is a necessary but not sufficient response to abortion. Similarly, reversal of Roe is a necessary but not sufficient condition for restoring an order of justice in our society’s treatment of defenseless human life. This act by itself would not automatically grant legal protection to the unborn. It would remove an enormous obstacle to such protection, so the people of the United States and their elected representatives in every state could engage in a genuine discussion of how to save unborn children and their mothers from the tragedy of abortion. Both approaches to opposing abortion are essential. By protecting the child’s life to the maximum degree possible, improving
life-affirming support for pregnant women, and changing the attitudes and prejudices imposed on many women to make them see abortion as an acceptable or necessary solution, we will truly help build a culture of life."
Posted by SWP at 5:49 PM
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
"In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as expiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also must love one another" (I Jn. 4:10-11).
Here is a quote that I would like to share, from Hans Urs von Balthasar's book Love Alone is Credible:
The principle (of love)... cannot be reduced to man as a governing center. God remains the center, and man is drawn beyond himself toward the absolute as it manifests itself. He "possesses" love only insofar as love possesses him, which means that he never possesses love in such a way that he could describe it as one of his powers, which lies at his own disposal. To be sure, this does not mean that love remains external to him, but if it does not, it is only because love itself takes possession of him in his innmost heart--interius intimo meo.
One of the implications of this is that we must always look to Jesus Christ to see what love is, and open our hearts to be loved by him. He is here with us, in the world, and in the world he is absolutely unique--for he came down from heaven.
Posted by Mark John at 9:28 PM
will find full fellowship... in the Christ who alone binds us together. Thus this spiritual love will speak to Christ about a brother more than to a brother about Christ. It knows that the most direct way to others is always through prayer to Christ and that love of others is wholly dependent upon the truth in Christ. It is out of this love that John the disciple speaks. "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth" (3 Jn 4).
A good reminder: For us, all things must be done in Christ; we must take the utmost joy in walking in Christ, and seeing that others walk in Christ. Christ is everything: God and man, the Creator and creation united. He sums up all in himself. If we have him, we have all things. "All things are yours, you are Christ's, and Christ is God's."
Posted by Mark John at 2:16 PM