Planned Parenthood is the Golden Calf of the Left

Planned Parenthood is the Golden Calf of the Left July 22, 2015

It is sacrosanct to its subculture and even the most vocal “mavericks” dare not gainsay it in any serious way lest the faithful withhold their hosannas and almighty dollars.

Here, for instance, is gutsy truthteller and unchained prophet Bernie Sanders, Scourge of the Vested Interests, Fearless Attacker of Beltway Insider Hillary, Courageous Opponent of Big Money… meekly breathing into a paper bag and reciting the Approved Text about how casual chat concerning the crushing of babies above and below the thorax strikes the wrong “tone”.

Yeah. “Tone”. That’s the problem. It’s exactly the same jargon Murder Inc. also trotted out as the Rapid Response Squad hit the airwaves to explain how this gruesome banter over fava beans and a nice chianti isn’t anything like it looks and sounds.

The obsession with “tone” makes clear what the issue is for Murder Inc. (and for our culture): aesthetics. Our culture *loves* to kill and torture. We are better at it (if numbers are any measure) than the great totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. But instead of leaving the bloody work to a centralized economy, our genius is to privatize it and make it all clinical and clean and civilized. We do it in abortuaries. We do it in euthanasia clinics. We do it in death penalty chambers. And we do it by sanitizing torture as “enhanced interrogation”. We want death, but we want it to be a neat, clean death.

So “tone” becomes all-important because what matters is not the killing we inflict, but a certain oblique tergiversation that carefully refuses to speak what is happening to the outside world. That is what the PP reps on the video did wrong. They spoke plainly and clearly about what they did. And Bernie Sanders, Straight Talker, is embarrassed by that. Not embarrassed enough to repent the horror he supports. Just embarrassed enough to hush it all back up and go on pretending that the crimes and barbarisms described in these videos are something else when we speak of them in a reverent “tone”.

And he’s the gutsy one. Hillary has said nothing, as far as I know.

"as I'm fond of saying, the Church and the truths she teaches belong to Christ, ..."

Rod Bennett on his new book ..."
"Thank you, Mark. The attitude of some Catholics about the good old days makes me ..."

Rod Bennett on his new book ..."
"The Bible influenced the entire course of Western civ after the Christian era and remains ..."

Some Reflections on the Crucifixion for ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Joseph

    Amazing how tame the rebellious and outspoken lefty becomes when it comes to a scandal revolving around the priests and sacraments in the Church of the Left.

    • Sam_Millipede

      What does this nonsense mean? Has your religion completely addled your brain?

      • Joseph

        Abortion is a sacrament of the Left. The priests that deliver this sacrament are abortionists like PP. The Left has many of it’s own sacraments which they protect, defend, and promote with religious zeal. Bernie Sanders is a member of the Church of the Left. He is otherwise very loud in his condemnations of his fellow religionists. However, when it comes to the holy sacrament of abortion, he is extremely reserved.

        • axelbeingcivil

          That’s one interpretation of it. Maybe, on the other hand, some people just so happen to disagree with you about the morality of abortion, and think that Planned Parenthood provides a great deal of good through providing family planning, access to nutrition guides, supplemental health assistance, etc., to people who might otherwise not get them?

          Y’know. It could be that. Or it could be some kind of bizarre, pseudo-religious association. Just saying.

  • antigon

    Mr. Shea:
    *
    I believe that organization has changed its name to Mengele Inc. in honor of its muse.

  • Dave G.

    I would like to know what he meant by tone. It might be that tone is a problem here. After all, I personally think that someone who hangs their head in shame at sin, versus someone who laughs about it and celebrates it and wants to mandate it, is at least one step closer to repentance. Repentance can happen any time of course. But thinking on things, I remember the old pictures from that less murderous country than ours, Nazi Germany. The pictures of SS troops getting ready to execute Jewish captives. What always struck me was that the guards were yucking it up and having a ball. Like a bunch of fellows at a ball game. Their heads weren’t hanging down, they weren’t weeping. They were loving it. If that is what he meant by tone, he might be on to something. Abortion is bad. But if you know it’s bad at least we have somewhere to go. But the growing notion that abortion is something that you should celebrate and wear as a badge of honor, that worries me. Same with anything else on the list.

    • axelbeingcivil

      I don’t see anyone holding parties to celebrate abortion. What I do see is people who are trying to resist a sense that their access to medical procedures is being curtailed by someone’s religious views, or that abortion is shameful, so they try to make it prominent rather than concealed.

    • sez

      There’s a banding-together/bonding thing happening. Group-think responding to a perceived attack. Likely, the SS troops were buoyed by each other’s affirmation that what they were doing was good. Individually, they’d probably balk. But the collective, being pushed in that direction, helps carry people along into doing things they’d never do otherwise.

      The same happens with those who work at abortion clinics. I’ve seen it.
      http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/spokane-planned-parenthood-workers-laugh-as-suffering-woman-loaded-into-an-ambulance/

      And I heard about it as part of testimony given by a former Planned Parenthood counselor: there were times when one or another employee balked, and sought confirmation. “What we’re doing is good, right?” They’d help each other get through those crisis moments, convincing themselves again that they were the good guys.

      The only ones who are proud of their abortions are those still in deep denial. “If abortion is murder, then I’m a murderer. But I’m not a bad person! Therefore, abortion is a good thing. And everyone must agree with me about this.”

      Abortion kills the baby, but the harm it does to the mother, her family, the community and the culture are less obvious, but cause lasting damage.

  • This culture is going down the tubes. Except for conservative Protestants and some Catholics who remains?

    BTW, disqus is acting up again. Bandwidth fading.

  • R. Zell

    Hi Mark,

    The Liberal ideology has taken the USA and the EU on a downward spiral for years. They have placed their gods of bale in every facet of our lives.

    As my children were growing up, I had too, on many occasions, correct the liberalism being rammed down their throats at school. They will have to do the same for their chrildren as well. It’s sad that our once Judeo-Christian country has now taken a final leap into the abyss with the legalization of abortion and same-sex marriage. What’s next on their agenda? Polygamy?

    The Liberal Ideologues cry out: We Have No King But Caesar Obama.

    Let the Persecution begin.

    In Christ,

    Ron Sr.

    • Sam_Millipede

      You sign yourself “In Christ”? Gosh, you’re a hateful hypocrite. Where is your love for your fellow man?

      You corrected the liberalism being “rammed down your children’s throats”, did you?

      By that I assume you mean that you tried to replace tolearance with your hateful nonsense built upon the idiotic lies about the wishes a non-existent supernatural being, and the bully dogma church which proclaims its superiority. You probably told them too that slavery is good and that it’s ok to hate black people (I guess you’re a racist from your anti-Obama rant).

      Your gods don’t exist, your church is hateful, you are a vile excuse for a nasty, nasty, person. Your children will be lucky to escape your house of hate.

      As for persecution, oh puh-lease! Always, always Christians whining that they are persecuted. Yet it is the Christians who have persecuted through the centuries, and the “persecution” you scum claim to suffer3 now is only the loss of your power to impose your bigotry on all others.

      If you don’t approve of same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex. If you don’t approve of abortion, don’t have one.

      As for whining about abortion being killing a human being, your right wing bigots are keen enough on firearms and the death penalty. So that’s hypocrisy.

      Yup, hate and hypocrisy. That’s all you’ve got.

      • Guest

        D+ trolling. At least you tried. C- for effort.

        • Marthe Lépine

          Maybe, but Sam is also pointing out to a sorry truth. Too many Catholics remain keen on firearms and the death penalty – witness the number and intensity of comments on this very blog when these subjects come up – to say nothing of the keen defense of torture… Those heated discussions could certainly be called scandalous, as they do turn away some people from giving a second look and more serious thinking about the Church.

  • Jeffrey Liss

    After this, I don’t know how anyone can go on pretending our country hasn’t become something monstrously evil.

  • Ken Crawford

    Particularly notable is that he talks about “tone” considering “Sanders responded to a question from CNN by saying he had not watched the video (snip).”

    How can he comment on the “tone” of something he hasn’t watched?

    • Artevelde

      If you sell death in a can, you know it’s death in a can and you’re determined to keep selling death in a can, the only logical conclusion from even the slightest bad customer survey is that you need a more inviting label. Elemental marketing.

  • Newp Ort

    It’s a simple matter of seeing how the sausage is made. The problem with the “tone” is DATS GROSS, MANE. She made em look bad, let down the side.

    A clean, neat, early term abortion might be less gruesome, yet it’s still killing a human being.

    This is where pro-lifers screw up. This (rare) type of abortion is horrible! And the focus on it minimizes the fact that any abortion is killing, even if you’re not skull crushin’ and liver savin’.

    Likewise with other talking points. Abortion causes breast cancer! Abortion makes women depressed and full of regret! This is secondary, really. Abortion could make you feel great and reduce wrinkles and the real problem is the same: killing a human being.

    Add on top of that that abortion does not cause breast cancer, does not cause depression, and most women do not regret it. It makes pro-lifers look like fanatics willing to believe anything that backs their position at best, outright liars at worst.

    (If you support all the abortion junk science we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m not getting into a debate about that; it’s not my point.)

    So how do you make people realize that it’s a human being and should not be killed? I have no answer.

    • D.T. McCameron

      I think they already realize it. I think they just don’t care.

      • Newp Ort

        There’s a lot of rationalization for somebody who doesn’t care. e.g. the oft repeated “it’s just a clump of cells” line. (as if that excludes humanity. I’m a clump of cells!) Also the not legally human til it’s born position.

        It’s the rare pro-choicer that says it’s killing a human being and that’s okay.

        • axelbeingcivil

          It’s only a rationalization if you believe that they somehow know it’s a person, but are trying to justify the action anyway. If a person sincerely believes there’s nothing wrong with it, it’s an explanation, not a rationalization.

          As far as the “it’s just a clump of cells” goes, I’d say you do yourself an injustice; you are hardly a clump. A clump is a largely undifferentiated mass, which is not a terrible description of an early embryo any more than it is, say, a bacterial mat. Yes, there may be some differentiation and specialization, but ultimately, it’s limited.

          If you want my “rationalization”, the short version is that what qualifies as a human person (rather than simply a human animal) is defined by capacity for thought and feeling in a human way. Ostensibly, if I were in an accident that pulped my skull and destroyed my brain, but some fanciful life support technology were used to keep my body alive, few people would regard me as anything but dead, despite only losing one vital organ. However, if someone has lost their kidneys and is confined to a dialysis machine, we don’t write them off as dead. Humans clearly agree that our rational, vital capacity is important to our being. If the permanent and irreversible cessation of that capacity is sufficient to deny us our humanity, then surely we do not possess humanity before we first acquire it. Until that point, we are a theoretical person, but not a person yet.

          • Marthe Lépine

            You are making an interesting distinction here, between a human person and a human animal. However, I really cannot see why it would be OK to kill the human animal, but not the human person… That “animal”, as you say, has cells that are growing and differentiating extremely fast in order to “produce” a human person within a very short time (e.g. 9 months is short compared to the average length of a life). To interrupt that process, as I see it, is still killing a human being.

            • axelbeingcivil

              I’ve been writing and rewriting this answer. I suppose the shortest version is to ask a question in return: If you acknowledge that it’s not a person yet, why accord it the rights of one? It has no thought, no feeling, no emotion, no sensation. Some day, those cells might divide sufficiently to produce something that does have those things, but it doesn’t yet. Why does what it might be somehow change what it presently is?

              • sez

                Try explaining that to the expectant mother who miscarried, and is grieving over that loss.

                “It has no thought, no feeling, no emotion, no sensation.” – Neither do you when you go under anesthesia. Can we kill you then? Heck, many have none of those when in a deep sleep (my husband needed a fire alarm to wake up), but that doesn’t rob them of their humanity.

                It’s not “what it might be” that defines that person in utero, anymore than “old and gray” or “dead” defines us. At the moment of conception, that is a living human being, with his/her own unique DNA, already growing and maturing (which will continue happening into adulthood). There is no other logical point to call “the beginning” but: at conception.

                Note that the woman who has an unwanted pregnancy has to literally deny her own natural mother instincts to abort her child. This leaves her emotionally scarred. (One study showed that women live in denial for an average of ten years before seeking help for their post-abortion depression/issues.) Because she knows what she has done.

                You, too, know that it is killing an innocent, helpless person, yet you refuse to face that. Instead, you concoct clever-sounding reasons to defend your position. You may have convinced yourself, but don’t expect to convince those of us who value life and love children, and who’d studied a little biology.

                • axelbeingcivil

                  Yes, yes, human beings temporarily lose consciousness on occasion. Certainly, this is somehow fatal to my argument and not something I have considered before.

                  A human person has the capacity for consciousness. This is what I have said. It need not be active at a specific moment, but the capacity must be there. Irreversible loss of this capacity is what determines the end of life and, with it, the end of personhood; a corpse has no personage, it is property (biohazardous property, belonging to the estate of the decedent, but still property). It does not matter if the heart stays beating and the lungs still draw breath; if the capacity for consciousness is beyond any possibility of repair, what remains is a corpse.

                  If we recognize the capacity for consciousness and sensation as the thing whose loss determines the end of personhood, then surely its beginning is also the beginning of personhood. Prior to that, what exists is the materials for making a person, but not a person itself.

                  This definition might not allow for quick and easy cut-offs, like conception does, but it’s honest and connects with other definitions of what a human person is.

                  I’ve already addressed the topic of “DNA” and how bizarre a claim that is to make, and the sanctimony, but I can at least also conclude this with addressing this claim that somehow, I believe something I do not and simply invent clever reasons to disagree with. Much like the familiar refrain that everyone knows that God exists but chooses not to so they can sin, it’s an attempt to try and avoid having to actually consider the arguments of others by dismissing them; if you claim even they don’t truly believe them, you don’t actually have to weigh them and see why they came to the conclusions they did. Then, you can start ascribing values to them, regardless of whether you know anything about them, like, say, whether they love life, adore their younger relatives, or are an actual, trained biologist.

                  (And, as a post-script, I’ve read studies on “post-abortion depression”. Strangely, analysis and meta-analysis doesn’t seem to show this claim as having any basis. Adler, Coleman, Urquhart, Kimport, Major, etc., all showed no association with abortion and depression above the background trend. The only instances where there was a rise in psychological morbidity were those associated with confounding factors; unsupportive or abusive partners, social disapproval, etc. In circumstances where they made the decisions themselves, had no prior history of depression, and had emotional support, their outcomes were exceptionally positive.)

                  • sez

                    “A human person has the capacity for consciousness.” – A fetus, given time and the right environment, has the capacity for consciousness. In fact, studies have shown that pre-natal learning is occurring: newborns recognize their mother’s voice, and even specific music played to them in utero.

                    Post-abortive studies that show no depression al have a really big flaw: they’ve all been done in the first few years. Studies showing long-term effects tell a very different tale.

                    • axelbeingcivil

                      A child, given time and the right environment, might become a doctor, but we don’t let them add the title M.D. after their initials. That something might have something some day requires the acknowledgement that it does not have it now. A fetus does not have the capacity for consciousness. While pre-natal learning does exist, it isn’t actually possible until neural faculties come into being that only start to exist after the 24th week.

                      Also, citation needed on those studies.

    • AquinasMan

      I think you hit on some really good points. Reminds me of the civic leader who is pro-life, EXCEPT … Really? It’s murder if the child was conceived under “normal” circumstances, but it’s not murder if the child was conceived during the commission of a crime? How do I take that person seriously? I can’t.

      Does abortion cause acne? Who cares, will someone please tend to the dead baby in the toilet? If people are this far desensitized to the horrifying reality of abortion — the sheer numbers alone — then secondary “complications” are not going to change the hearts and minds of a spiritually dead-and-buried culture.

    • axelbeingcivil

      This is something that makes me glad to read. I may disagree with you, but I applaud your commitment to integrity and sincerity. Any honest discussion must be just that: Honest. If we come into it set ahead of time to believe something, we’ll only walk away believing what we did before.

      I once sat in the anti-abortion group, precisely because I believed that, and said as you did: The consequences do not matter, save whether the fetus is a person or not. I eventually came to conclude that it is not, and now find myself in favour of abortion access.

      I have to ask, out of pure curiosity, and feel free to leave it aside if you do not wish for a debate: If you can’t show other people that a fetus is a human being, why do you believe it is, yourself? What convinced you to take that stance?

  • Artevelde

    He is right. It is the wrong tone. It is a tone that does not nearly do the job of numbing the conscience well enough.

  • Na

    Other than that…the democrats are great. because people come to their political positions through disjointed, contradictory randomness and philosophy is just a word in the dictionary.

    the democractic party is only interested in defending the will of some person. the catholic church is supposed to defend the dignity of all people.

  • Alex

    Most mature Christians know that abortion is wrong: plain and simple. But the problem that Christians and conservatives are missing is more dire than that. Liberals are atheist and agnostic, which mean of course that they either don’t believe or question the existence of God. The other flip side to that coin is that increasingly many mainstream liberals in courts and colleges question individual personhood, in terms of the autonomous self. Why is this a huge deal? Well because the framers initiated the bill of rights around the understanding that our personhood is endowed by a creator with natural rights. Liberals think that the person is merely a behavioral outcome. This train of thought empowers them to usurp our freedoms and personal property slowly but surely. One good article on thelandscapeoftruth.comgoes into some of this in regards to atheists Presidents assuming office in the near future. Basically, if you question personhood, killing babies by dubbing them fetus’ is easy.

  • barbieahayes

    How is it that others cannot see that abortion is barbaric? Who, in their right
    mind, could ever see abortion as anything but willful murder? I guess
    they are not in their right minds! Are their unrepentant sins so iniquitous that
    God has closed off His grace to them and allowed them to devolve into the
    clutches of the demonic? Romans 1:18-32 continues to inform me about
    these sinners whose thoughts have become futile.

    • top8305

      Amen.
      Molech
      Called also Moloch and Milcom.
      An idol of the Ammonites Ac 7:43
      Worshiped by the wives of Solomon, and by Solomon 1Ki 11:1-8
      Children sacrificed to
      2Ki 23:10; Je 32:35; 2Ki 16:3; 21:6; 2Ch 28:3; Isa 57:5; Je 7:31; Eze 16:20-21; 20:26,31; 23:37,39; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5

    • axelbeingcivil

      If you want an honest answer, here it is: Abortion is the death of a fetus. Abortion is legal in most countries before the 24 week mark, but most are performed chemically, typically before the 12-13 week mark. Abortions that occur after that point are exceptionally rare, and typically done only for medical reasons (such as the fetus being non-viable).

      Prior to the 24 week mark, the fetus has no development of what might be called higher brain function. No brain activity characteristic of higher brain function is detectable prior to this time; the fetal brain exists, certainly, but it operates on the level of muscle reflex. The interconnections that provide for brain activity and the development of what we consider a human being don’t happen until after this point.

      At around the 12-13 week mark, the fetus’s head is about a centimeter or two across. The brain is even smaller and even less developed than mentioned above; it’s mostly a largely undifferentiated mass, primarily developing ventricles and vessels to feed the neural tissue that will develop later.

      Most abortions occur earlier still (about 73% or so), at around the 8-9 week mark, when it’s still an embryo, and typically only about 1.6 centimeters long, crown to rump; about the length of your thumb-nail. It’s a tiny mass of undifferentiated cells.

      This is why most people have no issue with abortion; most of the time, when it occurs, what dies is a mass of scarcely differentiated cells the size of a thumbnail. Rare is the person who considers that equivalent to a fully developed newborn, yet alone an adult human being; it has no personhood. It cannot think, it cannot process information, it has no more power for feeling than a salp. Abortions that occur later in development happen are considered little different. Those that occur after the 13 week mark are usually done for reasons of serious illness or threat to the mother.

      You can say it’s murder, but you won’t convince people by saying so. You have to convince them that something without a brain or capacity for sensation is a human being. If you can do so, I welcome you to try.

      • sez

        That’s a whole lots of misinformation you’ve written there, axel.

        Here, why don’t you get some of those errors cleared up:
        http://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy-week-by-week

        Chemical abortions are only approved by the FDA for up to 7 weeks post-fertilization. After that, it’s a surgical procedure. You are correct that most abortions are done at about 8-9 weeks. “Those that occur after the 13 week mark are usually done for reasons of serious illness or threat to the mother.” Not likely. In most cases, those done between 13 and 20 weeks are done for the same reasons as those done before 13 weeks, plus extra time to get the money together. Amnio isn’t typically done until 16-20 weeks, so the genetic issues become reasons for killing the baby then.

        But, as the details at babycenter.com clearly show, even at the typical 8-9 weeks, they are not “a tiny mass of undifferentiated cells”, but are, indeed, clearly a developing human being. Left unmolested, that human being will continue to develop right through to adulthood. IOWs: Even after a child is born, development continues. It’s a continuum from fertilization until adulthood. Killing that person at (how old are you?) would be just as immoral as killing at 9 weeks, or 9 days, or 9 minutes. Because, from the moment of conception, all of the DNA is in place for that once-in-forever, unique and unrepeatable human being, who’s life has just begun.

        You can say it isn’t murder, but you won’t convince people who understand biology and haven’t closed their hearts off to love.

        If you have participated in an abortion, please know that there is help and healing available: http://rachelsvineyard.org/ – for women, men, parents, friends – anyone who has participated in an abortion needs healing, without which claims like “it isn’t murder” might seem logical, due to the defensive instinct to make something be “OK”, to stave off self-loathing.

        • axelbeingcivil

          If you’re going to say I was erroneous in some way, you may wish to be specific. Nothing you’ve said contradicts me thus far.

          Likewise, while differentiation has begun at around 8-9 weeks, they’re still largely undifferentiated. Very simple structures have begun to form, yes, but as the website points out, the fetus is the size of a kidney bean. The amount of differentiation there is minimal. It’s mostly the earliest stages of ultra-simple tissues.

          Also, your comment about DNA makes me quirk an eyebrow, because, at some point after conception, it is entirely possible for a developing blastocyst to schism and become two (or more) blastocysts that can then become two (or more) viable embryos. This is the origin of identical twins/triplets/etc. DNA isn’t exactly a tremendous basis for declaring someone’s personhood, unless you wish to say that identical twins share the same identity as a person.

          A cell after conception is just a cell. It has no emotions, no sensations, nothing. Not as we understand it to be for humans. If you consider that to be equal to a human person, you and I will not find much ground to agree on. I am an entity composed, as you are, of trillions of cells, some significant portion of which will live and die on a monthly basis. I am not defined by any single one or group of them, but by the intelligent process that results. When that process ends, so does personhood. Inevitably, when that process begins must be the definition for the same.

          You can talk about “hearts closed to love” if that’s what you want, but realize that all that will ever come across as is sanctimony, and your ad hominems of “knowledge of biology” will fall a bit flat when said to someone whose previous week was spent doing bacterial cell line transformations…

      • barbieahayes

        Thank you for being civil (hence your username, lol). I appreciate it. What bothers me, however, is that your posts are very dispassionate, axel. Even about the subject of what true Christians know is murder. I have met many “intellectual” writers who really have no feeling, no real empathy for their fellow man. They just have their own wounds which cause them to “turn in on themselves” instead of sharing the good news. That is something you must look at but I know I won’t convict you of that or of the truth of abortion. If you are engaging with Christians honestly then I believe you can be convicted of the truth. But it will have to come from God. Many atheists have converted and I pray, because I do love you, that you will have eternal life in heaven. I will try to write a little more about your post as soon as I can but I am not an apologist and you probably are aware of several bloggers who could address your concerns better than I could. Again, I appreciate your civility and I am sure many of our fellow commentators here do too.

        • axelbeingcivil

          Oof… While I know your intentions are good, there’s a lot in your answer that isn’t particularly nice. I am not sure if the choice was deliberate on your part or not, maybe you agree with some of the things I’m going to point out, but if you don’t, it’s best you know.

          Firstly, and most minimally, I don’t consider maintaining as dispassionate a tone as possible when explaining something to someone to try and give them perspective to be a negative; if you mix in too much charged language, it will frequently drive the person you’re trying to explain it to away, or cause them to ignore substance for flavour, especially if they’re already trying to look for such things so they don’t have to address the substance of your argument.

          Secondly, “what true Christians know” is a profoundly arrogant statement. You may not agree with me here, but proclaiming yourself and others “true” can’t really be denied as claiming to know the mind of God. Other human beings exist who claim to be Christian, and many of them will claim to have had just as profound experiences as you, including many who will say God has guided them to try and ensure abortion is freely available so women can make family planning decisions. There is nothing in Christ’s words that speaks of abortion, and the Old Testament has several examples of the death of a fetus not being considered murder (causing a miscarriage carried a fine, instead of the death penalty as murder did; an unfaithful wife could be forced to have a miscarriage as a part of a test by a priest; etc.), but even if it didn’t, calling yourself a “true Christian” isn’t something I think anyone will take seriously. Maybe if a pentecostal flame danced above your brow, or a gloriole followed you about as you healed the sick with a touch, people might consider you a more authoritative representative of Christ than most, but I doubt we’d be having this conversation were that the case.

          Third, talking of people who disagree with you having “wounds”, of having no empathy… That is outright insulting. I took the time to explain a position to you, with as little judgement as possible, in the hopes of allowing you to see another person’s viewpoint; I acknowledged that you and I have differing points of view, and tried to help you see mine a little more clearly, without tearing down yours. How does that not show empathy? I understand and accept your difference of opinion, and I hold the one I do and try to mediate such discussions because I do care for my fellow human beings. I don’t mind personal attacks – I’ve received enough in my time to let them roll off my back; talk about abortion enough, you’ll eventually find people comparing you to all sorts of uncharitable things – but I do worry when I see these sorts of statements, as they betray an attempt to distort the disagreements others may have: Rather than seeing them as legitimate outcomes of examination of the facts, they make an assumption that there is one obvious, self-evident truth and those who disagree must know it but have some desire to pretend otherwise.

          I don’t believe your response was intended as an attack, or anything unkind. I think you responded sincerely in an attempt to try and reach another human being, and I want it known I read it in that context. That’s why it took me so long to decide on a reply; because I think you have a compassion for others. I just also see a number of assumptions being made that, in my opinion at least, will hinder any usage of said compassion when directed outwards; a compassion encumbered by assumptions.

          You can pray for me if you want. I doubt it will do anything to convince me, though. If you want to convince me, I’m here to be spoken to and reasoned with; I’m not reaching out because I wish to keep my ears shut. If you can answer my argument, I’ll happily try to do the same for you and, hopefully, we can each learn from each other. And if not, for whatever reason, then I hope at least this message is received and understood in the context it was intended.

          Best regards, either way.

  • barbieahayes

    And how about our own “Marxist Catholics” who support the dictates of liberation theology? They quietly laud abortion as the answer to poor women and promote funds for such a travesty through the organizations our parishes support. We not only have the atheists and agnostics who worship the creature, we have proud Catholics creating their own laws. I have to say that the Demoncrats stick together through good and bad, though mostly bad if we are truthful; there is nary a public rift, though plenty of jealousy just simmering at the surface. Yet, we so-called Christians can’t ever seem to coalesce into the One Body, to fight the atrocities and to build up God’s kingdom on earth.

    • top8305

      My Dear, Holy Mother Church has repeatedly denounced Liberation Theology as a false and errant teaching. Look it up please. Pax et bonum

      • barbieahayes

        I know, top8305. I didn’t know my post said or implied otherwise. We are on the same page, ;-).