Dear NARAL

I read Pope Francis’ beautiful, bold and otherwise death-defying interview. Then I read this.

So I re-read the “pro-choice” view at issue:

We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.

The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.

And at this point, all there is left to say is:

I know it is difficult to fathom that a human being might mumble something beyond the vocabulary of our not-nauseating-at-all, liberal/conservative debate, but allow me to break down the mind-numbingly obvious. Pope Francis has just said that opposition to abortion is a moral consequence of the Gospel, not its focus, and as such, the Gospel should be preached radiantly, that the “moral edifice” of the church — composed of things like sharing, being nice to cats and not killing children — might not fall. This, in a word, is awesome. He has ripped Catholic Church from the “issues” of the world and proclaimed her the source and foundation of a love that determines the truth about these “issues.” He has chided Catholics for primarily preaching consequence before action and the ripple before the rock, and this is good. But he is no more “pro-choice” — nor a boon to that beautifully labeled demographic “pro-choice women” — than a man who says “focus on the value of human life — opposition to the death penalty is its moral consequence” is pro-death penalty.

Those even slightly weirded out by our moral justifications for killing unique, human lives should take happy heart that the Pope is demanding we return our focus to the very reason life is worth living, and all human life infinitely valuable — namely, the Gospel. Those obsessed with chalking up anything the Pope says as a point for a particular side of a particular debate, on the other hand, should be terrified, for the Pope is advocating a radicalism, an essentialism transcending our slogans and bumper stickers that masquerade as ideology.

If this kind of idiocy is not enough to make you ditch your labels and utterly exit the world of American ideology and its culture warriors, I don’t know what is.

You stay Catholic, San Diego.

  • jscalvano
  • Gail Finke

    Tell it, Marc!

  • Maria L B

    BRAVO!

  • QDefenestration

    Did this really need to be said? Every single news source I’ve seen discussing the interview, no matter how liberal, has summarized fairly accurately that the Pope was addressing the need for a balance/focus rather than changing any actual doctrine. Every person of moderate or greater intelligence that has come across reporting on this interview understands what the pope was actually saying. So why bother responding to a “measly point on a reductionist, ideological scoreboard that cannot measure beyond the boring, binary buzzwords of our godawful American culture wars?” What do you actually accomplish here? I think nothing more than gathering a bunch of “PREACH IT BROTHER” reactions from people who already know everything you’re saying.

    • megan

      Apparently it DOES need to be said since some people are still taking the Pope’s words and running in a totally different direction with them. (As seen by the pro-choice women example.)

      • QDefenestration

        I’m not so sure about that example either- I don’t see “Thank you pope for changing the church’s stance on abortion.” I see simply “Thank you.” And if you were a “Catholic” pro-choice woman, wouldn’t you be thankful if you were told that the pope was encouraging people to discuss the issue less? Wouldn’t you (God forbid) consider it a step in the right direction?

        • enness

          This is NARAL we’re talking about…you know…the folks who perjured themselves to the Supreme Court. They’re exploiting it any way they think they can, regardless of how low, shameless, or crass.

          • QDefenestration

            Right, and a response such as the one you describe is not one that should be addressed. It’s a pointless waste of time that does nothing except get a bunch of people already on our side to nod and shout “You go Marc! You tell that NARAL the extremely obvious thing!”

          • BRW

            But the tone of NARAL’s message was one of, “Thank God. We’ve been telling those Catholics to shut the h*ll up for decades.” I think it deserves a response. It’s probably not “extremely obvious” to many of those who read and shared that clever little orange NARAL promo on Facebook.

          • Ashley

            Check out NARAL’s post on their Facebook page with the thank you. It is titled “This is progress” and has a link to an article on the NYT website titled “Pope Says Church Is ‘Obsessed’ With Gays, Abortion, and Birth Control”. They said nothing about the Pope approving of abortion, and don’t even imply it. It appears the exploitation is going the other way, by those who wish to defame pro-choice groups.

        • Sixtus66

          Yeah, those poor pro-choice Catholics. Always hearing how bad and intrinsically evil abortion is. How are they supposed to continue to stick their heads in the sand and ignore a core tenet of Catholic Moral teaching?

          • QDefenestration

            I’m confused, please tell me how that relates at all to what I wrote? Were you confusing a logical explanation for why NARAL said what they did with some kind of sympathy for pro-choice “Catholics,” a sympathy I never expressed?

          • DianaG2

            :-)

        • DianaG2

          There are no Catholic pro-abortion women. If they’re Catholic, they can’t be pro-abortion.

          If they’re pro-abortion, they can’t be Catholic.

          If they say they’re Catholic, they lie.

          • QDefenestration

            Correct. Thus why I wrote “Catholic” in quotes.

          • DianaG2

            Oh, sorry. I missed that.

    • Jenny Uebbing

      So necessary, and so true. If for no other reason than to answer the endless bellyaching and shame-mongering being back and forth-ed by ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ Catholics who can’t seem to decide who they are more pissed off at this week, the Holy Father or unborn babies. Rock on, Marc.

      • DianaG2

        There are neither liberal nor conservative Catholics. Those are political labels. There is only one Roman Catholic Church. We are all simply Catholic.

  • DatswatItink

    Amen.

  • http://shackra.bitbucket.org/ shackra sislock
    • Anon

      I have to say that the author at least got a little bit of the story right:

      “The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual tendencies are not sinful but homosexual acts are.”

      But he got so much wrong. The author refers to the “remarkable change from Benedict, who said homosexuality was an intrinsic disorder”. Actually, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” It’s too bad the author didn’t get that right, because I can understand if someone who is gay feels attacked personally by the first quote, but the second quote comes across as pointing less to the person and more to the behavior. Anyhow, if you’re going to write about what the Church teaches, you should get it right.

      It is frustrating to see the author continue to play Francis against Benedict. Then again, it almost feels as though that is what Francis is doing when he says that the Church should not be “obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently”. Well, who does Francis think was obsessed? Whose behavior if he correcting? That’s the part of this that I don’t get.

      • QDefenestration

        Francis is indeed set up in opposition to Benedict- but only in his attitude/emphasis, not his teaching. This is not a bad thing- there’s a reason why Christ instituted a system where we always have some kind of personal, spiritual leader to look towards, rather than a church that only establish doctrines. Doctrine is timeless, but attitudes often need to evolve- we need different people to lead us during different times- and so throughout history different [holy] popes have lead the Church in very different ways. Changes like this aren’t scandalous, but normal.

        Who does Francis think was obsessed? Whose behavior is he correcting? US and OURS. As the spiritual leader of our church he is setting an example for how we should all respond to the issue.

  • Dave Hahn

    The problem is NARL doesn’t care about reading. They don’t care about the lives of children what makes one thin they care about reporting something honestly. They will use everything and anything to push their pro abortion cause. The Holy Father in my opinion should not throw them phrases like small minded”. He has to be more careful in what he says. Period. Just learn to say things without giving the media sound bites. I think we can see now why JP II and Benedict were so domatic in what they said. They had to be careful Francis will hopefully learn what he can and can’t say

    • feministbitch.

      oh honey, you don’t care about spelling!

  • Dolce

    Yay BadCatholic! Seriously, you always cheer me up :)

  • Grace220

    Yes, yes and yes! Couldn’t agree more! Thanks Bad Catholic for calling it out. I was getting really annoyed and fed up with reading articles that continue to manipulate and take out of context anything that comes out of the Holy Father’s mouth. Just praying that others will not be misled by things like this Naral Pro-choice post and will dig deeper in search of the Truth.

    • Ashley

      It would be nice if people like Marc would search for the truth about the NARAL post. It says nothing about the Pope being pro-choice, and there’s no reason to assume that the poster believed that the Pope has become pro-choice. It is a thank you to the Pope for calling the church out on its obsession with political issues, as evidenced by the original post on their Facebook page. This article by Marc seems to be just an attempt to find an excuse to hate pro-choice groups and defame them with false claims of stupidity.

  • Benjamin Hardy

    *Applause*
    So when I saw what NARAL posted I kind of wanted to rant, pitch a fit and fall in it, or kvetch at everyone who could see that orange square of stupid. Again you’ve beaten me to the punch, so again I’ll thank you, like, share, subscribe (oh wait). Stay classy Marc.

  • Ben

    I was hoping to find some reasoned and intelligent response to NARAL, and all I found was an angry man taking a dump on the internet. Your orange graphic is nothing but a middle finger, so please cross off the word “catholic” at the bottom of the image. You can let them run up points on the measly, reductionist ideological scoreboard and not try to answer every score.

    A Catholic response to that graphic might look like this:

    Dear Pro-choice women everywhere,
    You are very welcome. As a women, the future of the human race has been entrusted to your hands. The Catholic Church knows how awesome and frightening this task is, because the Church is also a mother to many children. We promise to help and support you in this great work.
    Sincerely,
    the Catholic Church

    • Kaitlin

      But that Catholic response is also missing the part where it says being pro-choice does not help the future of the human race. That would be the Catholic response: where it calls you out but offers to help you find the right path, and then we walk it together.

      • SandyRavage

        Is being pro-life any more helpful?

    • RainingAgain

      NARAL are about the non-future of members of the human race. You seem to share their inability to read.

      • feministbitch.

        HAHAH. Do you actually think humans are going extinct!?!?!? HAHAHAHAH.

        Additionally, I plan on having children…when I am good and ready. Right now, I am young, and not ready, and would leave my child at a higher risk of abuse and neglect, as well as a host of other issues that go along with parents having children too young. That seems to me like I’m looking out for the future of my someday children, not creating a non-future for them.

        • Nikki Valentine

          If you can be so concerned and aware about your someday children, then why not be concerned about your potential today children and use a condom? I’m asking the general “you” of course. It takes away from the moment?? You aren’t concerned about diseases? What?

          • feministbitch.

            oh I don’t like abortion and I would rather have the societal factors go away that precipitate the need for such procedures. I think one of the best ways of changing the need for it is providing people with low cost and effective birth control. However, the Catholic church is pretty adamantly opposed to that as well

          • Obpoet

            How does one obtain adult life without fetal life? The answer to which will lead us to the link between abortion and eugenics. If you do not value fetal life, you do not value life.

          • DianaG2

            There is never a “need” for abortion.

            Contraception does not prevent abortion. But, there’s no need for anybody to stop using it anyway.

    • Jon Kay

      I like how you think you represent the Catholic Church. Nope.

  • AMM

    It is somewhat ironic you are engagine in the very binaries that you are accusing NARAL of. You need to ask yourself who’s the actual culture warrior — you or NARAL?

    Could it be possible that NARAL, in fact, understands that Catholic teaching is not going to change on the topic, but welcomes the Pope’s suggestion to you and others that we in the Church not place such a priority on abortion (and gay rights) and emphasize instead OTHER issues of life that also deserve our attention. Now, maybe, just maybe, the Catholic Church will dislodge itself from American secular politics on these issues and begin to speak out instead on — for example — the attempt to deny poor people food stamps and health care. Or at least devote equal time to them. And maybe NARAL welcomes that change, given that abortion isn’t the only women’s health issue they care about.

    But your anger here is strange and misplaced. Seemingly the very opposite of what Pope Francis is calling us to do. There are Catholics who support NARAL, who support a woman’s autonomy, who understand that not all women faced with these tragic choices are Catholics bound by Catholic views of sin. You’re screaming at me with expletives — even typographical ones — just makes you look irrational, bordering on juvenile. And now, I kind of feel Pope Francis would disagree with me but certainly wouldn’t be hurling invective at me. Which may be the thing that’s making you angry.

    • Stephanie Larsen

      *whispers* No one was screaming

      • AMM

        Oh, my mistake. I’m sure he meant to say “F*cking” very, very quietly. I doubt you would tolerate that kind of language from a NARAL supporter. But from this guy, it’s fine.

        • http://www.fewmets.org/ unclesmrgol

          Unless you have man parts, you ought not to be commenting on the uses of man parts.

    • Cha5678

      The recent vote does not prevent the poor from receiving food stamps. The cuts focus on administrative costs and fraud within the categorical eligibility process. The low-income and low-asset poor may qualify for food stamps under eligibility standards not under prospect of review. Please learn the issues, not the liberal media headlines and liberal talking points.

      • AMM

        This is simply silly. The people who support the cuts are telling you that its aimed at administrative costs and fraud, but what it actually means is that people who need food stamps will have to spend down their savings before they become eligible. So basically, before you qualify for food stamps, you’ll have to be completely destitute. All because we have to continue to give rich people tax breaks and we have to subsidize the oil industry and every other program of corporate welfare.

        Why don’t you go learn the issues and step away from Fox News?

        • Cha5678

          Telling me? FN? Wow. I’ve studied the issue. The federal regulations provide for one to qualify under categorical eligibility with roughly $3000 in assets, although that is superseded by 38 states that do not have any cap on maximum assets. http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Memo/BBCE.pdf You can have a million dollars in assets, and qualify for food stamps if you have a low income. The program is ripe with fraud. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/09/food-stamp-fraud-costing-taxpayers-billions/
          And, sorry, rich people getting subsidies for oil doesn’t excuse rich people getting subsidies for food. I’d rather they get neither. And I’d rather the middle class not be qualified for the support intended for the poor. I’d rather not we expand government programs and dependency from the borrowed economic wealth of the youth. I’d rather provide for and deposit something for our heirs.

          • http://www.fewmets.org/ unclesmrgol

            Cha, the reason food stamps exist is to allow the government to distribute food which it has established price supports on at an artificially high cost to people at a lower cost. It’s why our milk costs so much, and why food stamps are needed for the poor to purchase the artificially priced goods.

            Better is no food stamps and no price supports.

        • GoodCatholicGirl

          One of my friends has been out of work for quite some time and when she attempted to get some sort of rental assistance, she was told that she would have to have an eviction notice first and then they could help. How does that make sense?

          • kirtking

            It doesn’t, but it is the method the federal government is using to ration rental assistance. Frankly, I thought the standard was not “eviction notice,” but “court-granted eviction.” A notice just says the landlord wasn’t paid, and it is not uncommon for landlords to conspire with tenants they like to get government funds. But a tenant who has been evicted per court order undeniably needs rental assistance (or they are really committed to committing a fraud, which I have a hard time imagining).

      • http://www.fewmets.org/ unclesmrgol

        My son, who worked as a cashier in a grocery store, told me that lots of people buy alcohol and cigarettes using their food stamps. They do it by spending a bit less than the amount allocated, and, for certain types of food stamps, the change comes back as — cash. They then take the fungible cash and then return to the checkout line with their items which are supposedly not to be purchased with food stamps, but actually are.

        This same approach is used by Planned Parenthood — the Government will pay them for breast cancer screenings, and they will use some of that money to construct a room with two purposes — breast cancer screening, and abortions. And the abuse is considered legal — for is not the room necessary for breast cancer screenings?

    • Santiago

      There is a place for anger. Bad Catholic’s anger here is perfectly justified, reasonable, controlled, and for a damn good cause. Good on you Bad Catholic.

      • GoodCatholicGirl

        Perhaps his anger is justified but the big orange box boasting a big expletive is not. It doesn’t make for a powerful message, just a loud and juvenile one.

        • Santiago

          You might not have liked it, but I did find it humorous. It is one of the things that makes this blog unique and attractive, the fact that it is not all entirely sanctimonious and Holier than thou. Thus, it appeals to a more alternative audience, whilst still preaching goodness to young Catholics who need it. A worthy trade-off, a little bad -> for the greater good ;)

    • Ou Boet

      Well said!

    • http://www.fewmets.org/ unclesmrgol

      No Catholic supports NARAL. In the act of support, they excommunicate themselves latae sententiae — they sever themselves from the Church. And that’s a fact, not a scream, not an expletive. Jesus said that what sins the Church binds on earth are bound in heaven, and what sins the Church looses on earth are loosed in heaven.

      • Andy, Bad Person

        Careful. Excommunication is a penalty that excludes Catholics from many benefits of membership in the Church, but it does not actually sever then from the Church. Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics.

        • http://www.fewmets.org/ unclesmrgol

          You are right. After all, Nancy Pelosi, in spite of her material support of abortion, is still a Catholic.

          That said, material support for abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae — in the moment of the act. No official statement of excommunication is necessary, even though it has occurred. It’s why I shudder at the thought of Pelosi receiving Communion.

        • http://www.fewmets.org/ unclesmrgol

          Well, here it is — no communion for Nancy Pelosi!

          http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/24/vatican-court-head-no-communion-nancy-pelosi/?utm_source=feedly#ixzz2fpMIpBNv

          “Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be
          applied. This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin — cooperating with the crime of procured abortion — and still professes to be a devout Catholic. This is a prime example of what Blessed John Paul II referred to as the situation of Catholics who have divorced their faith from their public life and therefore are not serving their brothers and sisters in the way that they must — in safeguarding and promoting the life of the innocent and defenseless unborn, in safeguarding and promoting the integrity of marriage and the family.”

          • Andy, Bad Person

            This is Cardinal Burke’s private opinion, and as such it is not binding in any way. I happen to agree with his interpretation, and there are several bishops connected to Pelosi who should state such, but this is not an act of the Vatican Court, regardless of what headlines have been saying.

          • http://www.fewmets.org/ unclesmrgol

            Andy,

            The decision as to whether Ms. Pelosi is allowed to receive communion rests, under canon law, with the Bishop of the Diocese in which she is enrolled. That would be San Francisco. I was just being a tad tongue in cheek, because while I also agree with Cardinal Burke, the real decision rests not with the Vatican but with San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Joseph Cordileone. Remember, a bishop is pope in his Diocese.

          • DianaG2

            Finally! Thanks.

      • DianaG2

        Absolutely.

    • Ashley

      I absolutely agree that NARAL is thanking the Pope for calling the church out on its obsession. There is a post on NARAL’s Facebook page with the thank you picture attached to it. The post is titled “This is progress” with a link to a NYT article titled “Pope Says Church is ‘Obsessed’ With Gays, Abortion, and Birth Control”. It’s unfortunate that the author of this post didn’t bother to fact check his assumption, and instead decided to rant about it on a popular site.

      • Fr. Denis Lemieux

        And another person who hasn’t read the interview chimes in about what the interview said…

        • SandyRavage

          I’ve read it about a dozen times, and the shift if signifies is profound. This is not a matter of dogma, non-Catholics don’t care about Catholic dogma, this is about policy. Pretty soon abortion and gay marriage will be like contraception and divorce: issues that the Church is no longer prepared to fight about in the public sphere.

    • DianaG2

      This interviewer has already admitted he took no notes, and made at least some of it up.

      Abortion is NOT a health issue.

      You say “abortion isn’t the only . . . issue .”

      Well, Abortion IS the name of the organization:

      Doesn’t the first “A” stand for “abortion?”

  • Brian Anthony

    huzzah!

  • Sixtus66

    Not for nothing but…When I was in both undergraduate and graduate school, I was always taught that whenever possible, when directly commenting on a quote, go to the source. Don’t depend on newspaper articles because they have a propensity to exaggerate, mislead or just be plain wrong when interpreting something someone else said.

  • Carlos Carrasco

    Well done! You should change your shingle to read ‘BAD-ASS Catholic.’

  • Joseph Jablonski

    “You stay Catholic, San Diego”

    I’m wondering if there is any good to the fact that people play so easily into the cultural cliches when the Pope is actually destroying them. Like, eventually their lack of reality will end up causing some sort of cataclysmic, widespread conversion experience.

    Maybe.

  • tamsin

    Dear Pro-Choice Women Everywhere,

    I thank God you were not aborted. Your life is precious. Let’s get together sometime and talk about it.

    Love,

    Pope Francis

    • feministbitch.

      Thank god (ahah-excuse the sarcasm) if I was aborted, I wouldn’t know, as I wouldn’t exist. You really need to come to terms with the fact that very few people hold fetal life to be ‘sacred’

      • Santiago

        Numbers don’t necessarily equate to truth or goodness.

        • feministbitch.

          I’m not going to argue about statistics with you. I was merely stating that no one is going to take that condescending comment seriously, especially when the belief is so ridiculous and hurtful.

          • Santiago

            Hey, but you’re the one who brought up statistics! I was merely here searching for the truth. The truth is that I find it hurtful that babies are killed.

          • Meander

            Wow, the belief that “life is precious” is ridiculous and hurtful?

          • feministbitch.

            When the life of the fetus, which is completely dependent on the mother until at least 24 weeks, is more important than a woman life, it is hurtful. When legalized abortion goes away because of that belief, and women die from unsafe at home abortions, yes it is hurtful.

          • BRWMT3

            Nobody is saying the life of the fetus is “more important” than a woman’s life. Nobody. What those of us who oppose abortion are saying is that the fetus is also a human being. According to the CDC, there were 39 maternal deaths in the U.S. due to illegal abortions in 1972 – the year prior to the Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton decisions which essentially legalized abortions through all stages of pregnancy in all 50 states. Each of those 39 maternal deaths was a tragedy – but it seems to me there is a better way to have prevented those deaths than to legalize the murder of over 1,000,000 unborn children a year. Abortion treats as dysfunction that which is uniquely feminine – the capacity to bear and nurture new life. Not very pro-woman, in my opinion. And yes, I am a woman. And I used to feel as you do. God bless.

          • Jon Kay

            Even newborn babies are completely dependent on their mothers. The same with one year old children. I am 18 and still dependent on my parents for college. We are dependent on electricity to do most things throughout the day. Not sure what your point is.

          • feministbitch.

            it doesn’t have to be the biological parents of the child to care for the newborn. You can’t take a fetus out of the mother and implant it into another woman. That is the difference; both are dependent, but only one has to be dependent on a certain person.

          • BRWMT3

            Wow. That is a cold-hearted “feminism” that would justify taking an innocent life simply because that life happened to be dependent upon a particular person (who happens to be a woman). I decided quite some time ago that I want nothing to do with such “feminist” thinking. It certainly does not represent my beliefs as a woman. You are right – it does not have to be the biological parents who care for the newborn child. Obviously, sometimes circumstances require that someone else raise the child. It’s an imperfect world. But I can tell you as both a biological and adoptive mother, there is a significant loss when the child is separated from her biological parents, especially from her mom. We are only just beginning that part of our journey with our adopted daughter. Parents “belong” to their children just as much as children “belong” to their parents. We have no right to treat our children as commodities whom we will only allow to continue living if it suits our life plans. Dependency prior to birth does not negate the unborn child’s humanity – it actually affirms it, because even just biologically speaking, we Homo sapiens are placental mammals – therefore, dependent by design upon a uterine environment that is (also by design) our first home. We are alive in the womb. It is a falsehood to use the fact of that early dependency to dehumanize an entire class of persons. It also constitutes a profound lack of empathy, as we were all fetuses once.

          • Ronk

            “You can’t take a fetus out of the mother and implant it into another woman.”

            Wow. You haven’t read, watched or listened to the daily news much in the last 35 years have you? I’m sure that it’s technically possible (albeit immoral, though of course not nearly as immoral as murdering an innocent baby) to do so and no doubt will be done soon if it hasn’t been done already. When/if it is done, will you come up with some new irrational claim to try to justify the unjustifiable?

          • prolife

            How old are you? Are you dependent on anyone for anything? Hint: the answer, no matter what age you are, is YES! How would you like it if someone killed you for being dependent on others for water, shelter, etc.

          • Marcia Brown Castro

            We are all dependent on God, for every breath we take could be our last , if He so ordains it!

          • Marcia Brown Castro

            Women die from so called safe and legal abortions everyday in this world. Just because an abortion is legal it does not make it medically safe. We only need to look at Kermit Gosnell’s facility and many others like it to prove this. Get a copy of Lime 5 and read what some of these women went through before they died at the hands of physicians, perforated uterus, torn cervix, even intestines that were ripped out when trying to grasp a fetal extremity.
            Or read this article and see how safe abortion is even in a hospital, http://afterabortion.org/1999/two-senseless-deaths-the-long-road-to-recovery/

          • Santiago

            Yes it is hurtful.
            Life is hurtful and truth hurts, but it must be kept.

      • mary york

        What? Respectfully, have you ever been pregnant? My secular coworker just experienced a miscarriage at ten weeks or so. She was so traumatized that she could not come to work for several days and she requested that nobody speak about it to her for fear she would lose control and break down in front of her chem classes.

        The fact is that MOST people know it is sacred, but they differ on when it becomes so (fertilized egg vs four week old fetus etc.) and then they fool themselves into thinking it is not sacred when there is fear or convenience involved in the decision to maintain a pregnancy or not. Why on earth would Planned Parenthood fight so hard to prevent women from seeing an ultrasound of their baby before consenting to an abortion? Because they know that bonding occurs right then. Ultrasound makes it abundantly clear that there is a life, a person growing inside. It is undeniable.

        • feministbitch.

          screw you lady. When I see someone say “respectfully”, I automatically know they are going to say something asinine and want to excuse their actions before hand. Yes, I have been pregnant. I too lost the child due to spontaneous abortion. I was very upset about it, because I didn’t have the choice as to whether or not to continue on with the pregnancy. It had nothing to do with the little blob of cells that came out of my body 12 weeks after conception. It had everything to do with the potential family that myself and my partner could have had, but lost the ability to do so, without any say in the matter. Don’t talk down to me as if I am some 14 year old girl sitting behind a computer screen without any real life experience.

          • prolife

            If a baby inside you is a blob of cells, aren’t you just a blob of cells that can type? And I am only 14 so please don’t use bad language with me, ok?

          • Guest

            12 weeks is a long time. You say first he/she was a child, you say you lost a family. Then you say this was only a “blob of cells.” I too know that pain and anger. I wish you mercy and peace.

      • DianaG2

        That is untrue.

  • Rock

    Brilliant. Fucking brilliant.

  • Mary Vollhaber Snustad

    Yes, the finger waving approach just isn’t productive….love how Francis is all about going back to the basics! Preach the good news with LOVE LOVE LOVE!

  • Santiago

    My response to hardline or ignorant Catholic critics of what Pope Francis said:
    “Let the dead bury the dead, come follow me.” Jesus.

  • http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ CT Catholic Corner

    I am so glad I put down my hot cup of tea before I open this. :) LOL

  • Tony

    To me it seems the Pope is asking us to stop being media-puppets to the usual abortion, contraception, gays, etc rhetoric because it just plays into their profiteering hands. To me it also seems that the American bishops coming out and questioning his non obsession on such topics may come across as a bit… naive.

    • http://www.fewmets.org/ unclesmrgol

      I haven’t seen any American bishops coming out and questioning his non-obsession on these topics. But Christians will always be media puppets so to speak — because we believe that there is an unchanging truth and we oppose all of that which opposed that unchanging truth. The media can no more tolerate us Catholics than they can tolerate a plagiarist having stolen their stuff — we are alien, and our culture is counter to theirs.

      When I argue against abortion, I never argue against the woman, I argue in favor of life. When I argue against the death penalty, I never argue in favor of the criminal — I argue in favor of life. These are part and parcel of being a good Catholic — and to lose sight of the reason for valuing life is to lose sight of Jesus.

  • Tony

    oh, and well said Marc.

  • Cal-J

    So, I just read the second sign. Interrupting my reading of the article to point out that I just lit up like a Christmas Tree.

  • LeighLeigh

    Amen…I couldn’t take the utter “out of context” crap the Media has had…they want the Pope to be so “open minded”, but he is a son of the church.

  • Marwan

    I think they read it pretty clearly. This is a retreat. If nothing else, Catholics who are on the fence on abortion likely will take this as an excuse to finally become pro-choice.

  • SandyRavage

    If this kind of idiocy is not enough to make you ditch your labels and utterly exit the world of American ideology and its culture warriors, I don’t know what is.

    Nothing would make us happier

  • Philomena

    You are gifted. You are loved by many and by your Creator. Now consider elevating your own vocabulary to that of Our Lord and dispense with the uncharitable asterisk profanity when representing the pure and Holy Mother Church.

  • Philomena

    Marc, you are gifted. You are loved by many and by the Creator. But Please… consider using your own vocabulary that would be pleasing to Our Lord instead of fallen human uncharitable asterisk obscenities in your post, just to make a point. We all get it, but it doesn’t really represent Our Holy Mother Church so well, as you choose to do in your writings. It is offensive to see this next to Pope Francis’ name, and as a representation of the beauty of your point.

  • Philomena

    Marc, you are gifted. You are loved by many and by the Creator. But Please… consider using your own vocabulary that would be pleasing to Our Lord instead of fallen human uncharitable asterisk obscenities in your post, just to make a point. We all get it, but it doesn’t really represent Our Holy Mother Church so well, as you choose to do in your writings. It is offensive to see this next to Pope Francis’ name, and as a representation of the beauty of your point.

  • Philomena

    Marc, you are gifted. You are loved by many and by the Creator. But Please… consider using your own vocabulary that would be pleasing to Our Lord instead of fallen human uncharitable asterisk obscenities in your post, just to make a point. We all get it, but it doesn’t really represent Our Holy Mother Church so well, as you choose to do in your writings. It is offensive to see this next to Pope Francis’ name, and as a representation of the beauty of your point.

  • Amy H

    I really thought that NARAL was thanking the pope for exactly the gesture that you are praising: taking a religious institution away from a political debate. They didn’t say “Thank you for being pro-choice.” It seems like they’re just thanking him for respecting them, unfortunately it is clear that his fellow Catholics aren’t following his lead.

  • feministbitch.

    So you are tired of having to explain everything to people who don’t read? Then maybe try reading yourself. Not one NARAL supporter or member thinks that Pope Francis is pro-choice. We are just really freaking sick of constantly being condemned by the Catholic Church. It’s probably time the pope focused on something he can change any way. Abortion will never go away regardless of the legality as long as unplanned pregnancies continue; abortions will just be less safe for the women. ‘Jesus’ lived in a time period where abortions were a common place and he never spoke out about it, so where is the biblical and gospel condemnation of this? The catholic church didn’t have a thing to say about abortions until the 1800s when they became more medicalized rather than an at home method of doing something dangerous and hoping they survive.

    • Daniel

      The Church had nothing to say about abortion until the 1800′s? You obviously don’t read or are just ignorant. The Church has condemned abortion outright since the first century. Look it up. Nice try, though.

      • feministbitch.

        I said that maybe incorrectly in my anger. There was no widespread consensus on the matter and no doctrine concerning the matter until the 1800. sure there were those who condemned it, but their were surely many more women who use it as a way to not have so many freaking children, as they had very little to no say about how or when they had children.

      • feministbitch.

        Also I have done more bible study and had educational courses on Catholic teachings than any most any atheist you will ever meet. Honestly, I am confident that I better versed than most in this discussion about the formation of the Catholic church, how the teachings were chosen, and early saints as well as the church’s view on reproductive rights in the past 150 years. So sorry buddy, but I have dome my reading. How about yours?

        • DianaG2

          I’m not convinced.

    • DianaG2

      Tee, hee. Good one. Please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

      Or else stop pretending to preach Catholic doctrine.

  • Katherine Anne McMillan

    Bishop Sheen said only preach Christ Jesus crucified. Sin is serious. It separates us from the love of God. It doesn’t matter how many different ways Pope Francis says it, they can’t hear it. “There is none so deaf as he who cannot hear.” Christ said it over and over again.

    We are all in this together, we have to fast and pray collectively as a church for a year or more or nothing will change. That is what Pope Francis needs to declare, a year of fasting and prayer. pax, k.

  • 2

    I’m guessing most of you live in Canada, since all arguments from both sides seem to ignore the fact that abortion is an industry in the United States, and “health care” is not free in the United States.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X