The Danger of Nice

Saturday, March 7, AD 2015

This has been on my mind of late because of the kerfluffle about common core and fact vs opinion, so republishing it from Catholic Stand.

“Be nice.” “That’s not nice.” “Wouldn’t it be nice if people would just get along?”

Nice is almost as hard to define as the notoriously subjective “fair,” but I’m starting to think it’s far more dangerous.  ‘Nice’ is applied to a standard of behavior that does not raise objection among those who are around to be offended; ‘nice’ is a sort of vague version of ‘polite,’ centered around everyone feeling good.

Most obviously, I’m sure anybody that’s stumbled on to this site has at least heard someone say “I’m not very religious, but I try to be a nice person– and that’s what’s really important, isn’t it?” Those of us who have argued theology have almost surely heard “Well, we disagree about that– but we agree that people should just be nice to each other, and that’s the important thing.”

Continue reading...

25 Responses to The Danger of Nice

  • Excellent post.
    God save me from being NICE.

  • How some words change over time.
    Nice is an amelioration it seems.
    Latin: nescius meaning ignorant.
    Old English nice was know as being foolish and silly.

    So fitting though.

    I love this quote because its dead on; “In the absence of faith we govern by nice.” Thanks Foxfier. It’s so true!

  • Thanks Foxfier – great post.

    Much food for thought – I can feel a homily coming on 🙂

  • Phillip

    “Nescius” in Latin can sometimes refer to affected ignorance and so mean something like reticent or coy. One can see how this could evolve into “unwilling to give offence.”

  • MPS.

    Unwilling to give offence. Yes. I could see how that meaning transpired into todays nice. Thank you.

    are you ready…”Have a nice day.”
    Truly. Take care. 🙂

  • Abortion is quite a relevant issue regarding “nice” and I will try not to judge women who have terminated. My big problem with many anti abortion groups is that they don’t speak enough about terminating unborn babies due to detected disabilities. As someone pro life I believe in disabled individuals having a right to live and be born. The problem is progress has allowed for discrimination of those who are not as contributing to economic progress. As Catholic’s we need to fight more for the needs of the disabled, who are often victims of many cutbacks.

  • I would agree with everything that’s been said here with one caveat. There are now many, particularly on the internet, who seem to believe that not being “nice” in this sense means throwing good manners out the window and grants a license to be perpetually insulting, cynical and rude. Yes, there are times when we have to call a spade a spade and not be “inoffensive,” but let’s not go off the deep end in the other direction and use it as an excuse to dispense with ordinary courtesy. I know that the term “civility” has been frequently abused of late, but there is a place for it.

  • St. Augustine from The City of God, “What is reprehensible is that, while leading good lives themselves and abhorring those of wicked men, some fearing to offend shut their eyes to evil deeds instead of condemning them and pointing out their malice. To be sure, the motive behind their tolerance is that they may suffer no hurt in the possession of those temporal goods which virtuous and blameless men may lawfully enjoy; still, there is more self-seeking here than becomes men who are mere sojourners in this world and who profess hope of a home in heaven.”

  • While it is true many people get more offended by swear words than wars or famine, I still find little excuse for rudeness. Living in England I have noticed a rise of celebrity rudeness and bullying on television. There is a difference between Assertiveness and Aggressiveness and good manners costs no money. Being nice and displaying good manners is I feel a duty of all faiths.

  • James Charles: “As someone pro life I believe in disabled individuals having a right to live and be born. The problem is progress has allowed for discrimination of those who are not as contributing to economic progress. As Catholic’s we need to fight more for the needs of the disabled, who are often victims of many cutbacks. ”
    Every human being created has an immortal, rational human soul. Murdering an human being scandalizes his soul as he is murdered. Satan relishes getting his claws into any human soul.
    Therefore, it is incumbent upon the state to protect and provide for the reality of realities, the human being, body and soul and not to do so is evil.

  • Only prayer and fasting will bring the grace to deal with bullying, rudeness and the corrupt form of NICE.

  • The You Tube video part way down the page at the following web link shows how nice the left wing anti-nuclear agitators are:
    This is NORMAL for public meetings arranged by the US NRC. The govt of Barack Hussein Obama encourages this sort of thing: Occupy Wall Street, Ferguson Race Riots, etc.
    Some might say that this comment has little to do with this blog post, but the example cited here in this comment is one of many that shows the barbarism into which this country is descending. Consider: a 60+ year old woman who is pro-nuclear power who attended that meeting about the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant was openly and publicly threatened by the anti-nuclear agitators, and neither the US NRC representatives nor the locally constabulary charged with maintaining public order at the meeting did anything to reign in the outrageous antics of these hyenas and jackals. This is NICE in its truest form: the acting out from ignorance – nescius. And our govt officials do NOTHING to stop it and everything to encourage ti.

  • Paul: “This is NORMAL for public meetings arranged by the US NRC. The govt of Barack Hussein Obama encourages this sort of thing: Occupy Wall Street, Ferguson Race Riots, etc.”
    Divide and conquer. Create a chaos and a smoke screen for evil and enjoy license.

  • Elaine-
    I didn’t say a blessed thing about being not-nice as an acceptable goal.
    In fact, you might want to check out paragraph 4 and on.

  • Mary De Voe “Every human being created has an immortal, rational human soul. Murdering an human being scandalizes his soul as he is murdered. Satan relishes getting his claws into any human soul”.

    What you say makes sense and I would consider most cases of the death penalty and war as murder. Especially when many wars has been a fight for resources like oil. My concerns for abortion include the many women who are forced to terminate against their wishes. Countries like China have high abortion levels and many women around the world are forced to terminate their babies due to being female.

  • “Many wars have been a fight for resources like oil…”
    Not true in the case of US involvement in the Middle East. We get the majority of our oil indigenously or from Canada.
    But if it were true, then would you support replacing reliance on fossil fuel with reliance on nuclear energy, by means of which we can via the Fischer-Tropsch process use nuclear steam heat to convert our vast coal reserves into liquid hydrocarbon fuel?

  • What you say makes sense and I would consider most cases of the death penalty and war as murder.

    Based on what?

  • To love one’s neighbor includes correcting him. But that’s something that has to be done politely. I’ve heard a lot of conversion stories over the years, but I’ve never heard one that was instigated by being yelled at. We look to Jesus as an example – but Jesus knew what was in people’s hearts, and knew when to yell and when to bond. With the woman at the well, he was firm but compassionate. The fact is, we’re an increasingly rude society, and that’s infected the way we approach the faith. Most of the people I know who talk about the need to avoid niceness are also rude. The internet encourages rudeness. We have got to keep a close eye on our tendency to belligerence.

  • Most of the people I know who talk about the need to avoid niceness are also rude.

    Could you please confront them, instead of dragging it in to a post about the problems with “be nice”?
    As you point out, there’s a need to correct people– choosing to take a post that is about what’s wrong with conflating “nice” with “loving” and drag in an entirely different animal of “so make very sure that you actively avoid being nice” to fight is not helping anybody, except for possibly the folks arguing for the “make sure you’re not mistaken for being nice” folks.
    We look to Jesus as an example – but Jesus knew what was in people’s hearts, and knew when to yell and when to bond.
    Jesus also showed a pattern of not using the advantages He had, instead choosing to act out what should be done– for example, being baptized, where it’s even flatly stated that He’s doing it so we’ll have a clue.
    I’ve heard a lot of conversion stories over the years, but I’ve never heard one that was instigated by being yelled at.
    I have.
    You think the 60s style protesters chose the “be incredibly rude” tactic only because it’s emotionally appealing to the person using it? It works.
    Kind of like how “being nice” isn’t a one-size-fits-all, flipping tables and chasing people with whips isn’t a one-size-fits-all– even though it might be emotionally satisfying. You’re less likely to find it being effective in person because most times you test it, it’s already been used, and there’s a good chance that the person you’re testing it on actually enjoys making you angry.

  • “I’ve heard a lot of conversion stories over the years, but I’ve never heard one that was instigated by being yelled at.”
    How about being thrown through a screen door? My paternal grandfather was a saintly man by the time I came along, but that had not always been the case. He liked to drink when younger and when he drank he was a mean drunk. One day he was chasing my grandmother, and if any goodness was lacking in this world before her birth, my grandmother filled that lack, around the kitchen table with a butcher knife. My Dad, and the first time I ever saw my father weep was when his father died, tossed him through a screen door to stop him. My father then went down town and enlisted in the Air Force. After he finished basic he received a letter from his father asking him to come home for Christmas. He told my Dad, accurately, that he had not touched a drop of liquor since the day he was tossed through the screen door. He was a total abstainer for the rest of his life and it had a remarkably positive impact on his character. I would not recommend the solution of tossing someone through a screen door to rectify bad behavior, but it certainly worked in the case my grandfather.

  • Thank you, Donald. Great response about the efficacy of being yelled at (or thrown through a screen door). When I was new in a 12 step program and before my introduction into RCIA, I was routinely “yelled” at by my mentor or sponsor. His sponsor – a saintly Franciscan priest – always seemed to be standing behind him when I was getting my hind end handed to me, and he always had this beatific smile on his face. He later gave me RCIA instruction and heard my first confession.
    Oh what sensitive feelings we have! We didn’t give a darn about whom we hurt or what lives we tried to destroy when we were out there carousing and having fun. But then we decide that all that fun isn’t as painless and misery free as we once thought, and we get religion and we want people to be nice to us, and kind and gentle and tolerant and non-divisive. I thank God that my sponsor and my first Confessor were anything but that for otherwise I would have died with a heroin needle in my veins.
    Yeah, I know I shouldn’t talk about those things in a public forum but sometimes the truth has to be told.

  • “Most of the people I know who talk about the need to avoid niceness are also rude.”
    “Could you please confront them, instead of dragging it in to a post about the problems with “be nice”?”

    Virtue is typically found in the mean. I can’t think of a better place to talk about avoiding rudeness than on a thread about avoiding misplaced politeness. There’s a danger of an either/or mentality about it.

    I’ve said this before on this site, but one thing struck me when reading the lives of various saints, how nice so many of them were. I used to think about the old doctrinaire guys, the Dominic’s and the Francis de Sales’s, as being strict and militant. When I actually read about them, though, they turned out to be genuine, decent people I’d want to spend time with. That’s maybe what I’m talking about here: the value of likeability. It’s very hard to convert someone if they don’t like you.

  • Maybe I’m responding more to the provocative title than the content of the article.

  • I can’t think of a better place to talk about avoiding rudeness than on a thread about avoiding misplaced politeness.
    Then perhaps you should find one?
    Rather than responding to your impulsive reaction to the title, and ignoring the point: “in the absence of faith, we govern by nice. And ‘nice’ leads to the gas chamber.”
    The irony of defending “nice” by being so rude as to ignore both the article and the several specific responses to your only-vaguely-related comments is kind of thick.

  • A question I have been thinking about today– Just how do you convert a heterodox modernist priest so that he quits misleading people you like. I would like to be nice But also effective.
    If I could I would throw him through a screen door! but It’s true that It’s “very hard to convert someone if they don’t like you.” I would probably end up “nescius” (Michael P-S) or coy or disingenuous.

Bad Week

Friday, January 23, AD 2015



Belying the great progress being made at the state level, the pro-life movement had a bad week on the national level.

The GOP leadership pulled a bill banning abortion after 20 weeks, a piece of legislation that has two-one support in polls, because some House members were nervous about the requirement of the rape exception that the rape be reported to the police.  (Really?  A woman twenty weeks pregnant who claims to be raped hasn’t yet reported the rape to the police?)  Bizarre and cowardly.  The House did pass a bill banning abortion funding and credits for abortion, with the usual regrettable exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.

Then we have Catholic prelates attempting to turn the pro-life cause into a giant rally for the welfare state.  Frank Walker at Pewsitter has their number:

Here’s an idea. Let’s take the exclusively conservative movement against the uninterrupted slaughter of unborn children and plaster all kinds of leftist slogans to it. Then we can invite Catholic prelates to come advocate for bigger federal programs while they pretend to care about abortion. After all, what is the point of having a Church if isn’t to shepherd Catholics into amoral statist barns and hand power to the enemies of God and man? Isn’t everything about life?

Dead babies aren’t a constituency anyway. Why advocate for them? And if you care about poor people, this is a great way to make sure there’s a lot more of them.

For the pro-life movement to truly succeed, it must fight not only abortion, but also the broader “throwaway culture” wherever life is being discarded, said Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston at a national pro-life Mass.

“What must characterize the pro-life movement is a special love for the poor, the marginalized, the suffering, and especially human life that is in danger of being discarded,” Cardinal O’Malley said in his Jan. 21 homily at the Opening Mass of the National Prayer Vigil for Life.

The cardinal addressed an overflow crowd at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., the largest church in North America. More than 11,000 people were estimated to be in attendance.

Cardinal O’Malley, who heads the U.S. bishops’ pro-life committee, was chief celebrant at the Mass. Five additional cardinals, 44 bishops, and 343 priests concelebrated the Mass, according to a basilica spokesperson. Some 100 deacons and 530 seminarians also assisted.

Wednesday evening’s Mass kicked off an all-night prayer vigil at the basilica, which ends with a closing Mass Thursday morning. The prayer vigil precedes the annual March for Life, which marks the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that led to nationwide legal abortion. The march routinely draws hundreds of thousands from across the country to pray and witness in the heart of Washington, D.C.

Drawing from the Gospel of the day, the story of the Rich Young Man, Cardinal O’Malley cited Pope Francis to explain how one must not only keep the commandments but also love the poor.

Jesus advocates loving your neighbor and helping those in need. He certainly doesn’t teach legal confiscation of property, ruthless regulation of people’s lives, anti-family laws and pro-death policy all blanketed under the excuse ‘loving the poor’, then calling it pro-life.

In the Gospel story, the young man asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. He “went away sad” when Jesus instructed him to go beyond following the commandments by giving all his possessions to the poor and following Christ.

Jesus was asking the man to take a vow of poverty; to become a disciple, not to give all his money to federally-funded Catholic Charities.

So which does Cardinal O’Malley want from the March for Life in Washington: ascetic lives of poverty, their tax money, their Democrat votes, or all three?

Continue reading...

26 Responses to Bad Week

  • “So which does Cardinal O’Malley want from the March for Life in Washington: ascetic lives of poverty, their tax money, their Democrat votes, or all three?”
    Misery loves company?

  • The walk to victory by the Grace of God is what will happen regarding this 42 year long war on life. Your right in your optimism Mr. McClarey. God will see to it and bless those who hear his voice and march forward.

  • “What must characterize the pro-life movement is a special love for the poor, the marginalized, the suffering, and especially human life that is in danger of being discarded,
    I get where they are going. No human life is disposable. We must stand for those who are targets of being discarded. Out of sight means out of mind, which is what the listed share. Just not sure the pro-life definition should be stretched on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It is focused on saving the life of the unborn because they are the only class of people in the list above who suffer from legally sanctioned killing. Add to that their innocence and youth, and it all equals a horrific tragedy.

  • Do these same prelates argue for the protection of unborn life at rallies/demonstrations/etc. for the poor, for immigrants, or for environmental stewardship? Just askin’.

  • Did the Fifth Commandment, or its Origin, get a mention?
    Any allusion to the spiritual poverty that charity can remedy?

  • “exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.” Science has proven beyond any doubt that the individual in the womb is a sovereign person – See Gracie Crane Snowflake baby. It was the sovereign person who was on trial in Roe v. Wade. The Court stands on delivering Justice through due process of law to the person.
    To execute the innocent person because of the crime of his father, as in incest or rape, the first being worse than the second, ended along with human sacrifice. To snuff out the life of the innocent child in the womb because his father is a rapist upsidedowns civilization. To tolerate the incestuous father and rapist while silencing the innocent victim and witness to the crime who, with his mother, is being victimized and silenced a second time by society, by the court, by the father and rapist is uncivilized, barbarian, and criminal. The death of the mother must be imminent. It cannot be that the child destroys the mother who is giving him life. It is not the case of the child committing miscarriage of himself.

  • Roe v. Wade has not one single piece of truth. In a court of law the person must be given due process of law. Every person under the age of 42 is a survivor of Roe v. Wade. How was it that they were not aborted?

  • I am afraid I turned the channel as soon as I heard what Sean Cardinal O’Malley was saying. I wonder if he realizes the effect of his words. I wonder if people in his live crowd felt like turning their backs.

  • Pingback: Cardinal O'Malley, Pro-Life & Cognitive Dissonance - Big Pulpit
  • Unbelievable media blackout. I was there and the only news camera, vehicle, presence was EWTN. Every year….. Once or twice I saw the media cover the tiny group of counter protestors who usually appear in front of the Supreme Court bldg. All 5 or 6 of them. Really incredible. I told someone who called me yesterday while I was there that I was in Wash DC at the March for Life. (It was hard to talk on your cell with all the movement, crowds, noise, etc.) They said “I don’t know what that is”.

    Anyone have any numbers?
    Any know how numbers for big events are calculated? or who does it?

    As for Cd O’Malley……
    He attended Ted Kennedy’s funeral Mass. He attended Boston College commencement ’14 with speaker John Kerry. He attended the Mass at the fence for immigrants passing communion through the fence to those on the other side.
    Why is he trying to twist the March for Life message- obviously about abortion on the anniversary of RoevWade- into this obsession with the poor and the peripheries?

  • Yes Cardinal O’Malley, we stand with the poor and the marginalized.

    We oppose government programs that impoverish and marginalize persons and their inherent dignity by fostering dependency

    We oppose government programs that do not accomplish what they claim they will do and thus unjustly deprive workers of the fruits of their labor.

    We oppose the marginalizing of people by taking away their right to determine the course of their work through centralizing decisions in bureaucracies in Washington.

    We oppose government programs which foster single parenthood, destroy historic neighborhoods and, as a result, create crime and despair.

    We oppose taxes which sap productivity and the human spirit and create unemployment and despair.

    And we oppose those who think that such programs are good when in fact they are destructive.

  • because, Christine MCS, the Supreme Court has made Roe v. Wade, the unmitigated miscarriage of Justice, the murder of human life and the obliteration of sovereign personhood into a sacred cow.
    The media will milk that sacred cow for all its worth. Human sacrifice must increase as it will not diminish.
    Framing Roe.v. Wade as a right, the media has created a monster that they themselves fear; fear for their very lives. Without trust in God, the media has no one to speak for them and they are afraid to speak the truth for themselves. The devil is frozen to the bottom of hell.
    Jesus descended into to hell to free the patriarchs. Oh, Well, I guess that means that the media will have to stay in hell.
    Phillips: Excellent parsing of O’Malley’s heresy. A saver for future posting.

  • With 18T in debt we are all poor – living in a monetary bubble. O’Malley is just kissing up to PF. He is a sycophantic echo chamber.

  • Great to read that you are optimistic. We all should be as we know who wins in the end. However, I do believe the cause will be furthered when we have shepherds who are actually pro-life. How disheartening then that Cardinal O’Malley is head of the USCCB pro-life committee. But, that seems about right coming from that organization.

  • My grandfather was a R. Catholic doctor. He received his MD in 1907. The norm was that babies were delivered at home; rarely was there a hospital delivery. In the twenty some years he practiced in a rural area he NEVER had a case where the in utero baby endangered the life of the mother.
    What I don’t get with all the advances of medical science, why in 2015 is the “life of the mother” still listed as an exception. There is no rational or moral reason for an innocent (and they are all innocent) unborn to be murdered because of the means of his or her conception.
    Why the emphasis on poverty being the reason women abort? I’d like to see the statistics on that. Convenience, I would guess, is the rationale for many abortions on women from middle and wealthy classes. But that sounds just too selfish doesn’t it?

  • CAM.

    Selfishness is next to Godlessness.

    Abortion for health reasons? Hummmm.
    I also would like to see the data.
    The “I can not have a baby now because of lack of money-lack of support-bad timing-school plans”,..they all take priority over a human life. FEAR!

    My guess is Fear. When support networks are found in each Catholic Church in each City Village or Hamlet across the country, then the fear will subside. So will many of the abortions subside. Our Lady of Good Council Homes in N.J. is proof.

  • Quite some time ago during the debate about one the most corrupt pieces of legislation addressing illegal immigration, the I famous gang of 8 senate bill, Cardinal O’Malley was interviewed by Raymond Arroyo. I was struck by his political crassness in advocating passage of this particular bill and his remark that Republicans faced dire political consequences if it weren’t passed. Not much was said about that interview but it stuck with me.

    Cardinal O’Malley, it is said, is a confidant to the Pope. I’m beyond believing that a certain cadre of prelates engage in similar messaging by coincidence. The Pope has instructed us that we should not be “obsessed” about abortion. Cardinal O’Malley’s comments are sleights of hand but appear remarkably in lime with the Pope’s messaging.

  • So you think you’re going to stop abortion in this country by keeping the Pro Life crew an “exclusively conservative movement,” eh?

  • No, by keeping it focused on the issue of abortion rather than neutered by focusing on a laundry list of leftist causes, which has always been the strategy of the proponents of the seamless garment scam.

  • Carlos X: The Right to Choose “crew” have as much freedom to choose Life as they have to choose death. Let us pray for wisdom to make the right choice. Thank your mother and father for giving you life. In the continuum of life, the child lives on as the mother’s and father’s descendant, carrying their genes and some of their cells. Science has discovered that cells from the mother to the child and cells from the child pass through the placenta into the blood stream of the one and the other. It is kind of exciting to know that through the child, the mother carries her beloved’s cells.
    Through abortion, men and women are committing suicide, now, literally discarding their own genes, their own descendants, their own future; the devil’s eighth sacrament.
    Through Life, man gets to enjoy knowing he will not disappear from the face of the earth, for he has chosen Life. If you are a survivor of abortion, know that you have been prayed for.

  • Now, let me comment on my comment: “through the child, the mother carries her beloved’s cells.” The practice of blood brotherhood of the Native American Indians, without scientific proof, bears witness.
    Shawn Marshall: “With 18T in debt we are all poor – living in a monetary bubble. O’Malley is just kissing up to PF. He is a sycophantic echo chamber.

    Deuteronomy 14: 22-29 tells our Pope and our bishops how to proceed about the poor and about our money tithes to God, the practice of charity and the freedom to practice charity. The practice of charity is the taking on the poor to redeem oneself. The poor is our gift from God, but in Deuteronomy, the family comes before the poor. Only the third year tithe is shared with the Levite, the widow and the alien…and these would be legal aliens…because they are mentioned in the Bible, in the very Old Testament.
    Charity is a virtue, a virtue in the exercise of conscience for the individual person. for government to extort charity without the citizens’ informed consent is against the Seventh Commandment. for the government, the violation of the Seventh Commandment is a violation of separation of church and state. It is not “the price of citizenship” to be subjected to injustice. It is the price of citizenship to resist the devil.

  • The republicans will wriggle out of any attempt to ban legalized abortion. Just watch over the next few years.

  • Just like they wriggled out of the partial birth abortion ban or the many pro-life pieces of legislation they have passed in the states where they control the legislatures?

  • “So which does Cardinal O’Malley want from the March for Life in Washington: ascetic lives of poverty, their tax money, their Democrat votes, or all three?”

    My question to Cardinal O’Malley is, “How much did you steal?”

  • I suggest our clergy start looking at the facts (you know, that pesky thing, the truth). Those of us who are pro life give disproportionately to the “poor” and other charitable causes compared to the pro abortion group. Furthermore, If they really want to help the illegal immigrants. then I suggest they put their own money where their mouth is and have them housed, fed, clothed and their healthcare taken care of within catholic institutions, parishes and esp, clerics residences. Better yet, why don’t they take up the cause of bringing the reasons for the USA proserity to these other countries: i.e., capitalism, free enterprize and the rule of law. Oh. I’m sorry… I forgot: that whould be hard. No its much easier to have someone else pay the bill for their upkeep while the clerics and liberal catholics pat themselves on the back as to how compassionate and great christians they are, while reminding us prolifers of how deficient we are to be so narrow.

  • The way to holiness is love for the poor, but the way to love the poor is not to exploit the envy of some to help grant legal authorization of theft from the better off to redistribute it to the poor. Th way to holiness is to appeal to the hearts and generosity of those who could help, and thus bring the love of Christ into their hearts, as well as aid the less fortunate. Confiscation is evil, despite the ends. Jesus did not demand that his disciples confiscate the young mans wealth, he appealed to the man’s heart.

An Exercise in Raw Judicial Power

Thursday, January 22, AD 2015

As we observe the sad forty-second anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that overturned all state laws banning abortions and effectively served as a judicial death warrant for tens of millions of innocents, I think it is appropriate to pay tribute to the two dissenting Justices, Byron White, a Democrat, and William Rehnquist, a Republican.  Here are the texts of their dissents:

MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins, dissenting.

At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical adviser willing to undertake the procedure.

The Court, for the most part, sustains this position: during the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother.

With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to An Exercise in Raw Judicial Power

  • “pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother”
    Any law that allows an abortion to be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother will prove unworkable. This was the position in Scotland before the Abortion Act 1967.
    In practice,
    (1) an unqualified abortionist was always prosecuted
    (2) the Crown Office would not challenge the clinical judgment of a salaried consultant or registrar, still less a professor, in a public hospital performing an abortion on an NHS patient; gratuity was seen as a sufficient guarantee of good faith.
    (3) an abortion performed by a doctor in private practice would be investigated by senior practitioners, nominated by the Crown Office, with indications of good faith including consultation with colleagues, such as a general practitioner, a gynaecologist, a psychiatrist; admission to hospital or a recognised nursing home; observance of normal professional etiquette, such as a consultant being called in only by the patient’s general practitioner; reasonable fees being charged and the keeping of proper records.
    How doctors chose to interpret the law varied enormously. According to the Scotsman (23 December 1966), one pregnancy in 50 was terminated in Aberdeen, compared to one in 3,750 in Glasgow. The difference resulted from the rival interpretations and clinical practice of the two Regius Professors of Midwifery, Dugald Baird at the University of Aberdeen and Ian Donald at the University of Glasgow, both of whom voiced their rival views in public. What was abundantly clear is that the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office had no intention of testing the limits of the law in the courts.
    Many saw the 1967 act as clarifying, rather than changing, the law and introducing additional safeguards (two doctors, licensed facilities) rather than expanding it. Many Christians in both houses, voted for the bill, believing it provided the greatest measure of restriction and regulation that Parliament would approve.

  • This is appropriate here because the U. S. Catholic Conference needs to read it.
    Jesus wept tears over Jerusalem. Jesus wept tears of Joy over the heavenly Jerusalem coming down from heaven. Jesus wept tears of Joy for His Father.
    THE NEW AGE, THE NEW SECULAR ORDER emblazon on the U.S. dollar is the Heavenly Jerusalem coming down from the sky. Jesus wept over Jerusalem. Jesus wept tears of joy over the Heavenly Jerusalem coming down from heaven.
    The righteous brother of the parable of the Prodigal Son refused to weep tears of joy at his father’s command to: ”Rejoice, your brother was dead but now he is alive.” Old righteous brother begrudged his father his tears of joy and his rejoicing and his father’s tears of joy and his father’s rejoicing. Righteous brother refused to bring gladness to his father’s heart. Even then, the father reminded the righteous son that “all that I have, is yours.”
    Would it not have been great, if the righteous brother had brought his friends to the prodigal’s party to make merry with his father as is commanded in Deuteronomy 14: 22-29 about tithing: “and there before the Lord, your God, you shall partake of it and make merry with your family”? Instead he, (there is no other word, but the word I cannot write here) complained about not having enough, not enough heart to ask his father for his friends’ banquet, not enough heart to request to literally throw a party for his friends.
    Deut.14: 28-29 continues, and this is particularly interesting because this passage impinges of the illegal alien. The words of God, Himself: “At the end of every third year you shall bring out all of the tithes of your produce for that year and deposit them in community store, that the Levite, who has no share in the heritage with you, and also the ALIEN, the orphan and the widow WHO BELONG to your community, may come and eat their fill; so that the Lord, your God may bless you in all you undertake.”
    The individual conscience of the citizen CHOOSES to bring out his tithe, every third year, to donate to the community stores. Read food bank. It is not nice to fool Mother Nature, nor try to cheat God. The individual conscience of the man cannot cheat God without forfeiting his life and his immortal soul.
    Obama tries to square himself with God for abortion and legal sodomy by extorting tithe offerings from his fellow citizens without their valid consent or their willingness of conscience. He, then, donates his contraband to the poor, and blows his horn, adorns himself with crowns and gets the democratic party favors.
    Getting back to the new Heavenly Jerusalem descending from God, (as Obama has tried to depict himself). cannot happen in the absence of Truth and Justice.
    I was listening to Malachi Martin R.I.P. Malachi Martin was an exorcist for several decades. Martin said that coming into the presence of evil modifies the soul of even a good person. The soul of the evildoer is modified and the soul of the innocent person is modified. Martin called coming into the presence of an evildoer “dangerous”; an open door to Satan and Lucifer.
    The government is demanding that the innocent proprietors of businesses suffer the entrance of evildoers into their midst as “the price of citizenship.” The state does not own the innocence, nor the soul, nor the sovereignty, nor the personhood, nor the informed consent, nor the CITIZENSHIP, nor the life of the citizen, any citizen.
    For the state to impose regulations demanding that an innocent soul be “modified” by an evildoer is separation of church and state violated. The citizen constitutes and forms the government.
    “Do not weep for me, but for your children”. If Jesus knew about the New World Order”, it was not new.
    “A putative mother” is a very real mother, since the newly begotten child makes a mother of the woman. If the woman was not a mother, she would be a woman without a child. The woman hauled her child into court and demanded his extinction without “due process of law”, literally annihilating the Court.
    The death of the mother is predicated on her imminent death, not a prognosis.
    Snowflake babies, those frozen embryos adopted and gestated are citizens with sovereign personhood even as they are created and destroyed. Science, DNA, IVF and ABORTION, the destruction of humanity, have proven that a sovereign human being comes into existence at fertilization of the egg by human sperm. Enough with the ignorance, denial and tyranny.
    I am sorry this is not better.

  • “I am sorry this is not better”.
    Your not in the position to apologize since your synopsis and arguments are clear and eloquent. You make sense Mary. Your pro-life efforts make a difference. Just consider the babies born that wouldn’t of had a chance if you and other lifers we’re not visible or present to these women who had a change of heart.

    One day in Gods glory, He might just open a book for you. Don’t be surprised if he shows these souls to you. Each and every one, given a chance for life.

  • MPS, your remarks are relevant exactly how?

  • Novus Ordo Seclorum= “A new order to/for the ages,” actually.

    It wouldn’t take much rewriting to apply White to the gay marriage case that will be before the court in a couple of months.

    I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

  • Ernst Schreiber: “Novus Ordo Seclorum= “A new order to/for the ages,” actually.”
    .and that would be to follow our conscience to vocation through freedom and the pursuit of Happiness.
    I love Byron White. Byron White defended against Hugo Black the right to a relationship with almighty God in public square, prayer.
    The one word I would change in his writing is the word: “constitutionally dissentitled.” to constitutionally disenfranchised. The word “disenfranchised” brings the weight of our civil rights to bear as “We, the people…” especially since the scientific proof of the newly begotten child as having constitutional civil rights to Life as our constitutional posterity from the very first moment of his existence.

  • The Supreme Court was as wrong in the Roe v Wade decision of the late 20th century as it was in the Dred Scott decision in the mid 19th century. When the issue is important, the Justices sitting on the bench render the most unjust decisions possible. They fail to realize in this life that the Supreme Justice is NOT a disinterested spectator in the events of human affairs, but they will find out in the next. Yesterday a black man was not a human being and today a baby is not a human being. God sees this. The first time He allowed a bloody civil war to punish us. What will He allow today?

  • Art Deco wrote, “your remarks are relevant exactly how?”
    As the dissenting justices both acknowledge abortion to be lawful in some circumstances, any attempt to restrict or regulate it wouldbe, in practice, have proved futile.
    Things would have been no different, if the majority had upheld the Texas statute, but subject to that limitation. The Scottish experience shows why.

  • Robert Bork wrote a devasting critique of the case in clear language,exposing it as a complete sham.His book should be required reading for anyone going to DC to march.

  • “Things would have been no different, if the majority had upheld the Texas statute,”

    Complete and total rubbish. The number of abortions exploded after Roe, the best estimates indicating a doubling in number.

    Additionally there is quite a difference between a country having a high murder rate and the same country legalizing murder.

  • The very nature of liberty requires a free people to allow and accept behavior from others that is both repugnant and benighted.

  • It does not require that people allow the destruction of innocent human life.

  • On the bright side, Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision. Most decisions upholding abortion since then have been by the thinnest of margins, many only 5-4.

  • Denver, you are describing license, not liberty.

  • Denver: “The very nature of liberty requires a free people to allow and accept behavior from others that is both repugnant and benighted.”
    Snowflake babies, eggs fertilized, frozen and gestated have grown into “people”. (44,000 in U.K.) You say “a free people” must be given due process of law. “a free people” ought not be murdered.

Endless Debates

Tuesday, January 20, AD 2015



The New York Times hilariously believes that by agreeing to take up the question of gay marriage, the Court will resolve the issue, the Times assuming, as I do, that the Court is likely to strike down all laws against gay marriage and impose it by judicial fiat.

Such judicial interventions in the governance of this country in regard to hotly contested questions tend to be the starting of debates and not the ending of them.  This week on January 22, we will be observing the 42 anniversary of the decision of Roe v. Wade which sought to resolved the abortion issue.  The fight about abortion continues unabated, the Court’s pro-abortion rulings notwithstanding.  In a democracy, attempts by nine unelected lawyers in black robes to resolve questions of great moment tend not to work in the absence of political power and consensus to support the decision.  Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist reminds us that the Court has a long history of inflaming, rather than ending, debates in this nation:

In “Abuse of Discretion,” Clark Forsythe’s comprehensive look at how Roe v. Wade came to be, he notes that advocates of legalized abortion polled a very general question about whether abortion “should be between a woman and her physician.” Four months before the first arguments in Roe v. Wade were made, such a question got 64 percent affirming it in a Gallup poll, perhaps because the wording was so vague. (This is a bit of an aside, but Forsythe notes that abortion is almost never between a woman and her physician. Fewer than 5 percent of abortions are performed by a woman’s regular OB-GYN and almost all are performed by a stranger.)

You’d have to be living in a New York Times bubble to think that Roe v. Wade was either a limited decision or would end debate. In many ways, that decision is what led to many more people thinking deeply about abortion for the first time. And when they did begin thinking deeply about the topic, it frequently benefited the pro-life movement.

In another abortion decision years later, some justices signed onto some serious wishful thinking about court decisions settling the question of whether there is a right to kill an unborn child. Scalia’s dissent in Casey speaks to this and offers yet another example when the court thought it was settling another contentious issue (and that one’s a doozie):

There comes vividly to mind a portrait by Emanuel Leutze that hangs in the Harvard Law School: Roger Brooke Taney, painted in 1859, the 82d year of his life, the 24th of his Chief Justiceship, the second after his opinion in Dred Scott. He is all in black, sitting in a shadowed red armchair, left hand resting upon a pad of paper in his lap, right hand hanging limply, almost lifelessly, beside the inner arm of the chair. He sits facing the viewer, and staring straight out. There seems to be on his face, and in his deep-set eyes, an expression of profound sadness and disillusionment. Perhaps he always looked that way, even when dwelling upon the happiest of thoughts. But those of us who know how the lustre of his great Chief Justiceship came to be eclipsed by Dred Scott cannot help believing that he had that case–its already apparent consequences for the Court, and its soon-to-be-played-out consequences for the Nation–burning on his mind. I expect that two years earlier he, too, had thought himself “call[ing] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved–an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation–can be “speedily and finally settled” by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in his inaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. See Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 126 (1989). Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.

I’ll give the New York Times this much: Whatever the Supreme Court decides on same-sex marriage, I bet it will end the debate at least as much as Dred Scott ended the debate about slavery, Roe ended the debate about abortion, and Casey ended the debate about abortion.

Continue reading...

25 Responses to Endless Debates

  • As they say; it was never supposed to be this way. The SCOTUS robes get their paycheck from the USG, just like all the other employees do. The court has been built up by media and university to be something it is not; it is totally in the USG, which makes it worthless in confronting the USG.
    You can lay all this powerlessness at the feet of Abraham Lincoln, who destroyed States’ rights in 1861-1865. The States were the only real check on the USG, but AL changed all that. AL brought in the era of a super strong central government that interferes in our lives in almost every way.
    So stop looking at the SCOTUS for anything that resembles freedom. Not going to happen. Our new god is the USG, which is what communism is all about, replacing God. To Catholics that are faithful, it is not a new God, but a little Satan.

  • Terms limits and referendums.

  • Even if SCOTUS decides against a constitutional right to SSM, courts across the country will be faced with an intractable problem, similar to that raised by polygamous marriages in Europe.

    When citizens of one country, say Algeria, enter into a marriage there that is actually or potentially polygamous and then come to settle in, say, France, where marriage is strictly monogamous, the courts have to ask themselves whether the relationship between a man and the lady or ladies living under his protection in a polygamous union is sufficiently analogous to the relationship of husband and wife, as described in the Code Civil, to make it just to apply the same rules to them. Otherwise, there is a real danger of the courts creating obligations, rather than enforcing them.

    The same question can arise in relation to succession to moveable and immoveable property, the owners of which are citizens of and domiciled in a foreign country where polygamy is legal.

    No jurist has suggested there is an easy answer to this and the politicians have avoided the issue like the plague..

    The analogy with same-sex marriages is obvious enough.

  • “You can lay all this powerlessness at the feet of Abraham Lincoln, who destroyed States’ rights in 1861-1865.”

    What a bizarre statement. The powers of the states were unaffected by the Civil War. It was the slaveholding South and their Democrat allies in the North that championed an imperial Supreme Court based upon the Dred Scott decision. Their constant refrain was that the Supreme Court had spoken and that the question of whether slaveholders could take slaves into any territory had been resolved in the affirmative.

    Lincoln’s response to this in the First Inaugural was the correct one:

    I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “The powers of the states were unaffected by the Civil War.”
    Only if one rather disingenuously separates the war itself from the war-aims of the victors and from its aftermath, in which those aims were implemented.
    Here was a war fought in defence of State Rights and opposing the right of the Federal government to interfere with a state’s domestic arrangements. Those that defended state rights were defeated and the victors placed them under military occupation, installed puppet governments of freedmen, scalawags and carpet-baggers and proceeded to ratify three constitutional amendments, all restricting the powers of the states.
    If sovereignty is “the right to make and unmake any law whatsoever” (Bodin), the states, for good or ill, were stripped of it as a result of the Civil War.

  • The Supreme Court has not been noticeable for its adherence to the doctrine of Stare Decisis.
    In Jones v Opelika [319 US 584 (1942)] one finds Roberts J complaining that, in some six years, the court had fourteen times reversed one or more of its earlier decisions, many of them recent. He observed that such decisions tended “to bring adjudications of this tribunal into the same class as a restricted railroad ticket, good for this day and train only. I have no assurance, in view of current decisions, that the opinion announced today may not shortly be repudiated and overruled by justices who deem they have new light on the subject.”

    As one particularly egregious example, a case, Minersville School District v Gobitis [310 US 586 (1940)] that was decided by a majority of eight to one, was overruled three years later in West Virginia School Board of Education v Barnette [319 US 624 (1943)] by a majority of six to three. Of the six, three of the Justices (Black, Douglas & Murphy JJ) had changed their minds, two (Jackson & Ritledge JJ) were new appointments and one was the former lone dissident (Stone CJ, formerly Stone J)

    One might have thought that, the highest court having once decided what the law is, it should be for the legislator to say what it ought to be.

  • MPS I will assume that some neo-Confederate is holding you hostage and forcing you to speak such rubbish.

    The War was not fought in defense of States Rights but rather in defense of slavery. The founders of the Confederacy were quite forthright about that at the beginning of the War.

    As far as the Federal government interfering with “domestic arrangements”, what a coy way of speaking of human slavery, Lincoln was quite clear prior to the War that he had no power to interfere with slavery within a state.

    Those that defended slavery were defeated, not those that championed states’ rights.

    The post Civil War amendments would have been approved even if every former Confederate state had voted against them. The same group of people who led their states out of the Union quickly regained power as Reconstruction ended, largely due to the terrorism imposed against freed blacks by the Ku Klux Klan and other organizations that formed the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party in the South.

    The States never had the right to make or unmake any federal law either prior to, during or after the Civil War.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “The States never had the right to make or unmake any federal law either prior to, during or after the Civil War.”
    I am no expert, but did not South Carolina nullify a Tariff Act?

  • I am no expert, but did not South Carolina nullify a Tariff Act?

    They issued such legislation around about 1832. Cannot recall if the customs inspectors in Charleston paid the South Carolina legislature any heed or not. IIRC, the legislature later retreated. The power of Congress delineated in Article I to levy “duties”, “imposts”, and “excises” could not be more explicit.

  • You can lay all this powerlessness at the feet of Abraham Lincoln, who destroyed States’ rights in 1861-1865.

    As late as 1929, public expenditure amounted to 8% of gross domestic product; 65% of all public expenditure was executed by state and local governments, who received little in the way of subsidies from Washington. About 35% of federal expenditure was devoted to the military, not a task you can readily farm out to the periphery.

    Manipulation of the states through federal subventions started small with the financing of the U.S. Route system in 1916; it underwent rapid expansion during the Roosevelt Administration, but the real bender began in 1965 with various and sundry Great Society programs. Abuse of state and local government through federal court decisions was a problem of quite modest dimensions prior to 1954.

  • “The SCOTUS robes get their paycheck from the USG, just like all the other employees do.”
    The Supreme Court Justices are the personification of God’s perfect Justice. Justice cannot be bought and paid for. The Supreme Court Justices are given compensation. The compensation is derived from tax money and ought not be taxed as stipends and donations and free will offerings are not taxed. Justice Clarence Thomas was almost hauled before the IRS for some money his wife was given for a speaking engagement.
    The Supreme Court stands as testimony against atheism. If anyone wants JUSTICE, “We, the people” need God, not the god of atheism nor the god of political correctness but the True God of Truth. Men are not wives, extortion is not contribution, and Truth, Justice and Innocence are born with every human being, from the very first moment of existence. God gives the newly begotten His Name: I AM…an adopted child of God, created and procreated.

  • Snowflake babies will end abortion.The existence of the human being, frozen and gestated into adult individual persons, can no longer be denied. Gracie Crane and 44,000 snowflake babies in U.K. alone. Test tube babies who survived every conceivable evil. Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned.
    Roe v. Wade found that the unborn had no sovereign personhood, disenfranchising the unborn of their right to life. Gracie Crane says that she has sovereign personhood from the very first moment of her existence in the IVF, in the liquid nitrogen, in her adopted mother’s womb and in her adopted family. Gracie Crane has 44,000 witnesses to her testimony in the U.K. God endows sovereign personhood. The rights the state or the U.N. gives, the state and the U.N. can take away. T.J.
    60,000,000 persons have been destroyed in the womb in America.

  • “I am no expert, but did not South Carolina nullify a Tariff Act?”

    No, although it threatened to do so. Jackson was at his finest during the Nullification Crisis, the first attempt by South Carolina to start a Civil War. Jackson made his policy clear on April 13, 1830 when he gave a toast at a Jefferson dinner of the Democrat party: “Our Federal Union, it must be preserved”. John C. Calhoun, Jackson’s Vice President and the very embodiment of South Carolina, responded: “The Union, next to our liberty most dear.”.

    The crisis came to a head in 1832 and it looked as if war was in the offing. On December 10, 1832 Jackson issued his Nullification Proclamation which attacked both nullification and secession. Jackson threatened to hang every leader of the nullification forces if a drop of blood were shed in opposition to the laws of the United States. When Senator Hayne of South Carolina told Senator Benton of Missouri that he doubted if Jackson would really hang anyone, Benton, a good friend of Jackson and a man who had shot him in a brawl, one of many such affrays Jackson was involved in during his life, in 1813 before they became friends, told him that “When Jackson begins to talk about hanging, they can begin to look out for ropes”. South Carolina ultimately backed down, helped by Congress passing legislation lowering tariff rates along with a Force Bill authorizing Jackson to use force to collect the tariff, and our Civil War was reserved for a later generation.

  • Small but significant correction: that the Court is likely to strike down all laws against gay marriage and impose it by judicial fiat.
    Should be “that the Court is likely to strike down all laws upholding traditional marriage and impose its will by judicial fiat.” The vocabulary is important because it leads the conversation. Traditional marriage opponents want to frame traditionalists as “anti”. (“There they go again.”) In the modern public mind, being “anti” requires much higher justification.
    Voters voted to define marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. It is not a stand against a particular association. It is an affirmation of a definition of marriage. Anything else, be it heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise, is incompatible.
    In preparation for our new judicially formed society (Leave it to the robes to create a more perfect union.), I am reading Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything. It’s a fascinating book so far. My Kindle highlighter is used on every page I think.

  • I too have read–and highly recommend– “Making Gay Okay.” Now I am able to understand the poisonous “Enlightenment” roots of the ideology that has brought us to where we are today regarding marriage. Unfortunately, this same time period produced the inspiration for many of the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

  • Don, I agree with your assessement of the Framers’ miscalculation of the Judicial Branch. I have long suspected that the Framers simply did not fully anticipate the scope of judicial review and its implications. Don’t get me wrong — anticipated or not, I do think Marbury v Madison was correctly decided. Judicial review necessarily follows from the architecture of our Constitution, and is conceptually desirable. But had its scope been properly anticipated, I believe the Framers would have supplied both the Executive and Legislative branches with superior checks against abuse. As it stands, the Court can exceed its Constitutional authority with impunity, and sometimes does. It did in Dred Scott, and it did in Roe and much of Roe’s progeny.

  • Agreed as to Marbury Mike. Some colonial courts had engaged in judicial review so it definitely was not a new concept. What would have stunned the Founding Fathers is a Congress so riven by partisan divisions as to tamely consent to judicial usurpations as a way to “win” on contentious issues by judicial fiat. The Founding Fathers always assumed that ultimate power resided in the legislative branch, the branch closest to the people, and to have that power blithely ceded to the Judiciary would have astounded them.

  • One aspect of this is, I suspect sociological or cultural, and that is that the interests and values of the legal profession prior to a certain date were never at such a variance with those of the general public that judicial review was a reliable instrument of political factions. I’d also wager that the closer one grows to our time, the more the legal profession and academe are populated with people quite willing to utter errant rubbish with the utmost superciliousness.

    It should trouble everyone that the disbarred Little Rock Lounge Lizard and his lovely wife Bruno are respected personages, nowhere more so than at the college campuses willing to pay them $189,000 for 50 minutes of boilerplate. It should trouble everyone that David Plouffe was able to merchandise someone as vapid and silly as BO, something never attempted before in the annals of presidential politics. Of course it does not, and the people least troubled are those putatively devoted to the life of the mind. Sorry age we live in.

  • “Sorry age we live in.”

    Amen Art.

  • Donald says; The States never had the right to make or unmake any federal law either prior to, during or after the Civil War. I believe that 3/4 of the states can do anything they wish with the constitution, including completely do away with it. That fact alone shows were the power lies in our country. The USG serves at the pleasure of the states. That part of the constitution was written to ensure that if the USG became a tyrant, the states could control, replace, or do away with the constitution, as the states did in the first and second agreement with each other.

  • “I believe that 3/4 of the states can do anything they wish with the constitution, including completely do away with it.”

    A power which has existed since the inception of the Constitution and which has never been exercised by the States. That of course has nothing to do with individual states seeking to ipse dixit nullify Federal laws.

  • There is a rather interesting observation by Jefferson in a letter to Madison (6 Sept 1789)
    “On similar ground it may be proved, that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation: they may manage it, then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors are extinguished then, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being, till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of thirty-four years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to thirty-four years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form: The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.”
    A salutary reminder that laws, including constitutions, are not judgments (which may be true or false) but commands, that is an act of the will.

  • “There is a rather interesting observation by Jefferson in a letter to Madison”

    Interesting, and as usual, wrongheaded. Fortunately it was Madison who, along with his Federalist (not the political party) allies who had the final say. Here’s Madison himself, in print in Federalist 49.

    In the next place, it may be considered as an objection inherent in the principle, that as every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would, in a great measure, deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on every thing, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability. If it be true that all governments rest on opinion, it is no less true that the strength of opinion in each individual, and its practical influence on his conduct, depend much on the number which he supposes to have entertained the same opinion. The reason of man, like man himself, is timid and cautious when left alone, and acquires firmness and confidence in proportion to the number with which it is associated. When the examples which fortify opinion are ANCIENT as well as NUMEROUS, they are known to have a double effect. In a nation of philosophers, this consideration ought to be disregarded. A reverence for the laws would be sufficiently inculcated by the voice of an enlightened reason. But a nation of philosophers is as little to be expected as the philosophical race of kings wished for by Plato. And in every other nation, the most rational government will not find it a superfluous advantage to have the prejudices of the community on its side. The danger of disturbing the public tranquillity by interesting too strongly the public passions, is a still more serious objection against a frequent reference of constitutional questions to the decision of the whole society. Notwithstanding the success which has attended the revisions of our established forms of government, and which does so much honor to the virtue and intelligence of the people of America, it must be confessed that the experiments are of too ticklish a nature to be unnecessarily multiplied. We are to recollect that all the existing constitutions were formed in the midst of a danger which repressed the passions most unfriendly to order and concord; of an enthusiastic confidence of the people in their patriotic leaders, which stifled the ordinary diversity of opinions on great national questions; of a universal ardor for new and opposite forms, produced by a universal resentment and indignation against the ancient government; and whilst no spirit of party connected with the changes to be made, or the abuses to be reformed, could mingle its leaven in the operation. The future situations in which we must expect to be usually placed, do not present any equivalent security against the danger which is apprehended.

  • PZ
    Jefferson had obviously read Turgot, for whom the maxim thatthe earth belonging to the living and not to the dead or to those on it not under it, is a constant theme.
    Now, as Lord Acton noted of Turgot, “he taught mankind to expect that the future would be unlike the past, that it would be better, and that the experience of ages may instruct and warn, but cannot guide or control. He is eminently a benefactor to historical study; but he forged a weapon charged with power to abolish the product of history and the existing order. By the hypothesis of progress, the new is always gaining on the old; history is the e mbodiment of imperfection, and escape from history became the watchword of the coming day. Condorcet, the master’s pupil, thought that the world might be emancipated by burning its records.”
    Jefferson appears to have been of Turgot’s opinion; he was an extravagant hater of tailzies and perpetuities.

  • I’ve long maintained that Jefferson sounds much more like Rousseau in his language regarding constitutions, tradition, and democracy. Regardless of the influence, Jefferson’s philosophy is one that takes us down a rather dark path, in my opinion, but I’ve spilt so much digital ink on this topic that I’ll just leave it at that.

If Black Lives Mattered

Thursday, January 1, AD 2015

4 Responses to If Black Lives Mattered

  • Yes. Thank you .
    If they want to talk about prejudice they should talk about killing black babies in the womb and right outside the womb… and sterilizing women in Africa without them knowing it. That’s prejudice.

  • Any one using COLOR is making matters worse. Color divides, creates hostility, creates professional victims, depersonalizes and dehumanizes. Humans are more than their color. Beige, black, brown, pink, red, white, yellow are simple light wavelengths meaning nothing but the wavelength. African, Asian, Caucasian, Hispanic, Negro, etc are persons with histories of success, failure, suffering, and development worthy of full human understanding and support. COLOR has failed…is failing…IS part of the problem rather than the solution.

  • Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke: There is life in that man.

  • Liberal progressive Democrats today treat unborn black babies as they treated born black people in the early to mid 19th century. The Democratic Party has not changed in essential substance. It remains as diabolically evil as it has always been.


Tuesday, December 30, AD 2014




Some good news to end the year:

A new survey conducted by Operation Rescue of all abortion facilities in the United States has confirmed that the abortion clinic closure trend continued strongly in 2014. Operation Rescue is the only pro-life organization that maintains a listing of abortion facilities and tracks clinic closures and its extensive research has provided the most accurate accounting of abortion facilities known to exist.

In all, 73 abortion facilities shut down for all or part of the year. The total number of all remaining abortion clinics in the US is currently 739. Surgical abortion facilities account for 551 of that total while the number of medication-only abortion facilities stands at 188.

Out of 60 surgical abortion clinic closures, 47 were permanent. This represents a 23% decline in surgical abortion facilities over the past five years.

Thirteen surgical facilities were allowed to reopen after initially closing, primarily due to court action that enjoined abortion safety laws that had shut down the substandard facilities.

Thirteen facilities that provided only medication abortions account for the remaining closures in 2014. That more than doubles the number of medication abortion facilities that closed in 2013 when six were shuttered.


While the abortion clinic closures did not eclipse the high water mark of 93 total closures in 2013, the 73 closures this year far exceeds the two dozen closures recorded in 2012.

The 2014 figures represent a net decrease of 31 surgical abortion facilities nationwide. even though the number of medication abortion facilities increased by 11 over 2013 numbers, they still remain below the high of 196 facilities in 2012.

abortionclinic6“We are continuing to witness the implosion of the abortion cartel in America,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “The only things that are preventing total collapse are court injunctions that are blocking several state abortion safety laws from being enforced. Once those laws clear the courts, we expect to see even more dangerous abortion facilities close. This is great news for women and babies because when abortion clinics close, lives are saved.”

Like this pro-life news article? Please support LifeNews during our End of Year fundraising campaign with a donation!

The greatest number of closed facilities took place in Texas as the result of the 2013 abortion law known as HB2. Eleven surgical and three medication-only facilities shut down permanently over the course of 2014.

Closures far outpaced clinic openings. Fifteen facilities either added surgical abortions or opened for the first time. Thirteen clinics, primarily Planned Parenthood centers, added medication abortions to clinics that previously did not provide them. Eight clinics that formerly provided surgical abortions made the decision to halt those procedures, but continue to sell medication abortions.

“As new states laws add safety standards for surgical abortions, we are seeing the beginnings of a new trend. Abortion providers who cannot or will not comply with the higher standards have, in some cases, dropped surgical abortions in favor of medical abortions so they did not have to become licensed,” said Newman. “This allows incompetent abortionists to continue exploiting women for money while evading the need to increase patient safety.”

Some of the more notable abortion facility closures included:

Outpatient Services for Women, Oklahoma City, OK: This surgical clinic shut down after the arrest on December 9 of clinic owner and operator Naresh Patel on charges of fraud and racketeering after Operation Rescue filed complaints. Patel had been caught selling abortion pills to women who were not pregnant.
All Women’s Health, Chicago, IL: Clinic owner, abortionist Mandy Gittler, closed this facility after local activists protested there over the death of Tonya Reaves, which was killed by Gittler in 2012 at a Chicago Planned Parenthood clinic.
Novi Laser and Aesthetic Center, Novi, Michigan: This facility shut down after being evicted from two locations this year. After the last eviction in November, owner Michael Arthur Roth had nowhere to go.
Aid for Women, aka Central Family Medical, Kansas City, MO: Operation Rescue discovered evidence of multiple abortion abuses and lodged complaints. This facility was best known for suing in court for the right to stop reporting child sex abuse. Under pressure from the medical board and struggling for business, Aid for Women, finally shut down.
Affiliated Women’s Services, Indianapolis, IN: This facility, associated with the infamous late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart shut down in July due to financial woes and a lack of demand for abortions.
Femcare, Asheville, NC: Its shut down earlier this year for two dozen serious health and safety violations caused an outcry from abortion supporters since it was thought to be the only facility that could pass new safety standards. It reopened briefly before permanently closing after its abortionist, Lorraine Cummings, announced her retirement and placed the building for sale.


Continue reading...

10 Responses to Progress

  • Thank you for sharing great news!
    Our local Right to Life office just purchased a building to move into. The new location is next door to Murder Inc.
    aka Planned Parenthood.

    Talk about trench warfare. Our sidewalk presence is consistent and prayerful.

    The enemy to life has large resources however not as large as the God of Life.
    His are human hearts. His resources will not run dry.

  • When the children realize what has been done to them and what is being done to them there will be the Truth on earth.

  • I find it remarkable that there should be so many private providers.

    In Scotland, both before and after the Abortion Act 1967, virtually all abortions are performed in the large teaching hospitals. There are no more than two or three private clinics licensed to perform abortions in the whole country.

  • This is good news.

  • No Paul, No Michael: Follow the money. The respect for life, health of the child and his mother and even Justice are irrelevant to the abortionist. It is only the money that they get from satisfying any demons demands.
    The devil is everywhere and those who enable the devil will join the devil.

  • I didn’t see it on the map, but an abortion clinic, a 1/4 mile from where we used to live, closed in a little Northern VA city. The clinic was behind in the rent; fewer patients (victims); crying women coming into and out of the building were off putting to the other tenants; and the pro-life picketeers created too much attention, so the clinic lost its lease. Unsaid in the newspaper article, of course, was the answered prayers of the good Anglicans (former Espicopalians), Catholics and other good people. Several months later the city council received a business license request for another abortion clinic to set up shop and the council denied it. Two victories! Luckily the newly elected fallen away Catholic in the peanut gallery, though vocal about women’s rights being denied, wasn’t yet sworn in.

  • anybody know from whom can I order the “I am a Pro-Life Generation” signs? When my mission travels up north to pray at a clinic, we have people in their 80s on down to young people participating. It would be great for each generation present to carry such a sign.

  • CAM.


    They have kits available as well as shirts.
    We have not purchased from this great group however this might be a good starting place for your request. I hope it helps.

  • CAM. The page number in their store is 3 to order signs. Some are sold out but they have other offerings.

  • Pingback: Jordan Church Struggles to Help Christian Refugees - BigPulpit

Wolves in Wolves’ Clothing

Monday, December 29, AD 2014





Anti-Catholic bigot, homosexual activist and Episcopalian minister Harry Knox is back in the news.  Long time readers of this blog will recall that President Obama appointed Knox to his Advisory Council on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships back in 2009.  Go here to read a post on that appointment.

Knox  became the head of  the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice back in 2012.    He had a post on the Huffington Post explaining why religious people should support the slaying of children in the womb, a post which proved, once again the truth of Socrates’ adage that an unexamined life is a tragedy.

Now, just in time for the Christmas season, Susan Michelle at Live Action News brings us up to speed on his latest antics:

The not very reverent Rev. Knox heads up the largest faith-based pro-abortion organization in the nation, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC). Churches like the United Methodists, Evangelical Lutheran, Presbyterian USA, and Episcopals, as well as a host of more well-known liberal churches, are the composite of this campaign for death in the name of the One who came to bring us life. The RCRC is a shame to the reality of Christianity as it manipulates the truth of the faith.

Knox sends many letters, all in an effort to campaign for abortion rights by asking people for money — echoing the letters of Planned Parenthood, who at least doesn’t use Jesus to fundraise, as Knox does. Earlier in December, he sent what was perhaps the most abhorrent letter of all. In it, he lamented that abortion access in the United States is so limited now that “it’s as if the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade didn’t happen.” Women don’t really have a choice, Knox says, when they can’t get to an abortion clinic easily. Sounds like Planned Parenthood, right? But wait! Knox wants you to know that true Christians support abortion. He says:

[T]he majority of people of faith, and the majority of Christians support legal access to abortion. And so they wrap their anti-choice ideology in something that sounds warm and fuzzy.

The Christian tradition says that Jesus advised his disciples to, ‘Watch out for false prophets. They come to you dressed like sheep, but inside they are vicious wolves. You will know them by their fruit.

Stunning words coming from a man who leads an organization advocating death of innocent children for any reason whatsoever. Indeed, Knox shows us what a false prophet actually looks like. RCRC and its members are the ones actually walking around with fuzzy sheep coats, but underneath the costume is a vacuum that sucks a living life from the womb of a mother who’s been led to believe that death is acceptable if she can’t see the baby, doesn’t want the baby. But no, Knox says, we are the real wolves. He continues:

These laws, and the anti-abortion legislators that promote them, are wolves in sheep’s clothing. They say one thing that sounds very nice, but we know them by their fruit. They want nothing more than to deny women the right to decide to have a child on her own terms.

They’re telling a lie. In biblical terms, they’re bearing false witness. Where I come from, that’s a sin.

These false prophets – these vicious wolves – are tearing women’s rights to shreds. And they need to be stopped.

Sometimes I read words that are difficult to take seriously. I wonder how anyone with a faith in Christ and a belief in the Bible could possibly be blind enough to read a letter like this and nod in agreement or click a link and donate money at Christmas to kill a baby.

The reality is that many believe this guy, the one actually bearing false witness. The witness of Christ is the purpose of His life. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says:

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (John 10:10-11, ESV)

The witness of Christ is the reality of giving His own life so that others may live. The witness of the enemy Knox mentions, whom Jesus addresses in this text,  is destruction, such as that of abortion. This seems so obvious. Somehow, to these folks, it’s not. Somehow, they neglect to see that if Mary were carrying Jesus in today’s culture, many would suggest she abort her baby and go on with her life.

Knox ends his letter with a live link that says, “Click here and make a donation because the wolves are circling and we need your support today.”

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Wolves in Wolves’ Clothing

  • Thank God for small mercies: That letter wasn’t written by a nun.

    “it’s as if the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade didn’t happen.”

    “Liar, liar pants on fire!”

    In fact, largely due to peace, kumbaya! and justice uber alles, the USA likely has the most untrammeled access to the most horrific forms of abortion among free world nations.

  • “[T]he majority of people of faith, and the majority of Christians support legal access to abortion…”
    I have always felt such appeals to a supposed “consensus fidelium” are worthless, unless the speaker can give “people of faith” or “Christians” a definite meaning in extension. One suspects that the Rev Mr Knox has no ecclesiology worth speaking of, and is untroubled by the lack of one.

  • Thomas Aquinas taught that the soul is the form of the body. If the soul is the form of the body, then, how did the human body get to ensoulment, unless there is a soul present from the very first moment of existence?
    The rational soul of the human being has the faculty of free will, intellect and sovereign personhood. The will to live of the rational soul infused at procreation, also, named as fertilization and conception is the right to life of our Declaration of Independence. The rational human soul calls for a heart beating at eighteen days and a brain at forty days, and a nervous system, an arm, a leg, a nose, and a whole human body.
    Science has since proved through DNA that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. Not too long ago, in the 1800s, people believed that the sperm contained a microscopic human being. And that the whole child was placed in the womb by the father. The mother contributed nourishment and nurturing.
    Snowflake babies and donated embryos, those frozen embryos created through in vitro fertilization, frozen in liquid nitrogen and then adopted and implanted to gestate, grow fully into human beings and children. Snowflake babies are proof, irrefutable proof that the embryo, fertilized, is a sovereign person with a rational soul, a will to live, free will and intellect, the whole human person, with moral and legal innocence and virginity, with a sovereign personhood, who has been denied the nurturing of the womb and care.
    “In-Vitro Fallout: Donor IVF Teen Says “I Wish I Had Never Been Born”
    by Rebecca Taylor | London, England | | 6/27/14 2:22 PM
    Gracie Crane is a UK teenage girl full of angst, but not the kind that troubles most teenagers. She was adopted as a “leftover” IVF embryo.
    The UK’s Daily Mail has her story:
    Gracie, who is mixed race, was one of the first children in Britain conceived from a donor embryo, which means she has no genetic link to either of her parents. She was born in 1998
    Every year 2,000 people opt for egg, sperm or embryo donation in Britain — approximately 44,000 babies have been born this way over the past 20 years.
    So even though Gracie was rescued from the deep freeze of an IVF clinic and raised by loving parents, she still feels marginalized. We need to listen to what Gracie is telling us. We all, on some level, desire to know and be loved by those that created us, even if we are one of the unwanted “leftovers.”
    ‘But then embryos that can’t be matched will be thrown away, and that’s not right either,’ she adds, her huge brown eyes welling up again.
    The reality is that we should have never made the “leftovers” to begin with.
    Alana S. Newman, founder of and a donor-conceived adult, is bravely standing up for the rights of those intentionally denied what she believes is a fundamental right: the right to a relationship with one’s biological parents. She writes:
    The facts of my conception are that my father was paid to abandon me. There is no dignity in that. I suffered from debilitating identity issues, mistrust of the opposite sex, hatred and condemnation of the opposite sex, feelings of objectification – like I only exist as a play – toy for others, and feeling like a science experiment.
    The children are counting on us.”
    The above is truncated. The article contains a photograph of Gracie Crane, a snowflake baby nurtured to adulthood.
    For the Supreme Court and the monster above to ignore the humanity of the newly begotten individual human being is evil from hell.

  • Abortion is unconstitutional as abortion destroys our constitutional posterity. “Human existence is the criterion for the ordering of human rights.” Francisco Suarez

  • Great title. Wolves in wolves clothing.
    Trying to read what Knox is selling is akin to trying to eat tripe salad with haggas flavored ice cream…..just not happening. Unfortunately many will eat this *¥€~ up and call it fine dining.

    You just can’t beat T.Shaw’s…liar, liar pants on fire. 🙂 It fits Mr. Knox like a small glove.

  • Pingback: In Refugee Limbo, Iraqi Christians Keep the Faith - Big Pulpit
  • I never have subscribed to American Catholic and I don’t want to receive it. Please take me off your mailing list. Your programmer has got it set up that when ever I send it to trash, it keeps coming. Ray Marshall, Minneapolis

  • I haven’t a clue why you are receiving it Ray. We do nothing on our end to send it to people.

  • Ray Marshall: You ought to try to get on The American Catholic when they, the heathens, will not allow it.

  • Good points, Mary De Voe. I believe that each human has a soul and that a human being starts life at conception. There are those who believe in the former and not the latter. Do they think that the soul is in the air of the delivery area and the infant sucks it in with his or hers first breath? Or do they just not think because it doesn’t fit with their pro-abort mind set?
    I wonder what sets people like Knox to become so full of hate? I agree with M P-S that Knox’s theological credentials must be non-existant or slim. Ah yes, preaching the gospel of convenience with which comes money. If abortions were totally free, i. e., the absence of profit, would there be physicians performing them, powerful organizations like Planned Parenthood, pro-abort politicians, etc.?
    Regarding the “leftover” children, another product of “reproductive rights”, I am happy that they were adopted and born, not flushed down a sink in some lab. Prayers are needed for them.

  • CAM asked, “If abortions were totally free, i. e., the absence of profit, would there be physicians performing them…”
    Absolutely there would. During the debate around abortion law reform in the 1960s, The Scotsman (23 December 1966), reported that one pregnancy in 50 was terminated in Aberdeen, compared to one in 3,750 in Glasgow, the difference resulting from the clinical practice of the two Regius Professors of Midwifery, Sir Dugald Baird at the University of Aberdeen and Ian Donald at the University of Glasgow. Both were Crown appointees of endowed chairs, with security of tenure, who derived no financial benefit from the procedures they or their registrars and students performed.
    Sir Dugald was a stalwart of the Galton Society, a dedicated eugenicist and Malthusian, who spoke with undisguised contempt of the working-class women, “stunted, multiparous, with IQs in single figures” on whom he performed abortions and tubal ligatures and which he undoubtedly saw as a form of social hygene.
    During a long career, Sir Dugald trained a whole generation of obstetricians and gynaecologists, a number of whom went on to hold chairs at the leading teaching hospitals throughout the UK.

  • Yes, CAM: “Do they think that the soul is in the air of the delivery area and the infant sucks it in with his or hers first breath? ”
    The state, in Roe v. Wade, has decreed that the immortal soul, with his sovereign personhood of the human being is bestowed by the state at birth through citizenship. The state has arrogated to tell us who “We, the people…”are.
    Ryan T. Anderson at Public Discourse writes: BAKE US A CAKE OR ELSE
    Elane Photography didn’t refuse to take pictures of gay and lesbian individuals, but it did refuse to photograph a ceremony that ran counter to the owners’ belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman (a belief that New Mexico law endorses). Other photographers in the Albuquerque area were more than happy to photograph the event.

    But in 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled that the Huguenins, by declining to use their artistic and expressive skills to communicate what occurred at the ceremony, had discriminated based on sexual orientation. The commission ordered them to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees. The ruling cited New Mexico’s human-rights law, which prohibits discrimination in “public accommodations” (that is, “any establishment that provides or offers its services . . . or goods to the public”) based on race, religion, and sexual orientation — among other protected classes.

    At the end of 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the Human Rights Commission. It concluded that under the state’s sexual-orientation and gender-identity law, the First Amendment does not protect a photographer’s freedom to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony even when doing so would violate the photographer’s deeply held religious beliefs. Justice Richard C. Bosson, in a concurring opinion, made the additional claim that requiring the Huguenins to relinquish their religious convictions was permissible as “the price of citizenship.”
    “(T)he price of citizenship” means the invasion of personal space, forfeiture of the right to privacy and of personal self-preservation, the free will choice of whom to countenance or not to countenance, and the denial of informed consent to participate in and draw a business contract for business services rendered. The sovereign person whose soul is created by God at procreation is relegated to the back seat of citizenship and as long as he refuses to deny his soul, the human faculty, as the means through whom his creativity, imagination, understanding of the meaning of abstract concepts, make judgment as to truth and to differentiate one truth from another truth by inductive and reductive reasoning, (from Professor Peter Kreeft of Boston College), he (the endowed) and his endowed immortal human soul remain an enemy of the state. State imposed atheism… no soul, no God, no civil rights.
    Atheism is unconstitutional. “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.”. The atheist, the gay, the criminal are to be tolerated, but not indulged, nor are “We, the people…” to be forced to indulge the atheist, the gay and the criminal.

  • Someone asked me that if a child was not intended, then could it be aborted?
    The newly begotten human being, the standard of Justice for the state, the compelling interest of the state for innocence, truth and virginity is a sovereign person and as a sovereign person and an innocent sovereign person, must be given due process of law. Death of the mother must be imminent.
    When due process of law is ignored man becomes the servant of the demons from hell. And hell will not allow Jesus to enter so, hell, too, demands due process of law.
    The above wolf in wolf’s clothing, Harry Knox, (they will stand up to be condemned) is a fine example of serving the demons from hell.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: What did “Sir Dugald” get for his efforts? …that will help him now?

  • “Sir Dugald was a stalwart of the Galton Society, a dedicated eugenicist and Malthusian -” Though they claim to be scientists, when the facts and figures are against them, they are religionists faithful to their Creed no matter what.

  • Mary de Voe

    The value Sir Dugald set on individual human life is pretty clear from this extract from one of his lectures: “In India, though Nehru (Times, 11th December 1963) and his Government recognized the dangers of population increase and supported a policy of birth control, in practice in the second five-year plan for India only $10 million was allocated for population control as against $14 million for malaria control, a measure which, by lowering death rates quickly, could further aggravate the population crisis and reduce the standard of living, in that more capital, skills, and experience are absorbed in looking after children and young people and less is available for industrial development.”
    One wonders why he ever chose Midwifery as a profession.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: Mother Teresa of Calcutta came to exemplify human compassion, tenderness and love. Mother Teresa was a response of Divine Providence to mankind. Mother Teresa is a standard bearer of Hope and Change.
    The U.S. insisted on and paid for having 600 men in India sterilized without their consent which ended the reign of Indira Ghandi. These men came for her with pitchforks demanding to know why. The U.S. has made all aid dependent upon abortion and population control. This is taxpayer money. Let the chips fall where they may. If America is to be wiped off the face of the earth by the yellow race or any race, we better start praying…in the public square.

Abortion and Christmas

Wednesday, December 3, AD 2014

Hattip to Matt Archbold at Creative Minority Report Comedian Steve Crowder gets serious in the above video, looking at the havoc that abortion wreaks on the population of kids with special needs. He is correct that such children and adults tend to be abstractions until you get to know them, and you then realize that each one of them is unique, just like the rest of us.  As my family approaches our second Christmas without our beloved Larry, that is a truth that rings home with me.  In my memories of him his autism hardly enters in as a drawback.  What I tend to recall are things like the artistic way he would arrange food on his plate when he made his snacks, his ability to always know what the date was without reference to a calendar, his habit of playing certain scenes in videos over and over again on his computer as he saw and heard things that obviously eluded me, his snickers when he realized one of his siblings was in trouble, his impromptu midnight strolls without telling anyone, the way he would always circle around the house to go in the backdoor, etc.  My life was immeasurably richer for his presence and is immeasurably poorer for his absence.  At Christmas time let us renew our commitment to end abortion, that robs us all of encountering so many people who, in the most unlikely ways, could light our own path through this Vale of Tears.  A babe born in a stable 2000 years ago irrevocably changed for the better the path of mankind, God’s majestic way of underlining for us that each life is a precious gift, and usually not just to the recipient of life.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Abortion and Christmas

  • ‘that robs us all of encountering so many people who, in the most unlikely ways, could light our own path through this Vale of Tears. A babe born in a stable 2000 years ago irrevocably changed the path of mankind, God underlining for us that each life is a precious gift, and usually not just to the recipient of life.’

    So sorry for your loss. Thank you for staying strong enough to help others in untold ways. I saw this saying at a blog out of Italy (Mundabor), and, being half descended from missed Italians and teachings out of the kitchen, thought I’d share.
    ‘In Italy we say that the devil makes the pans, but not the lids; meaning with this that in all devil’s works there is an incompleteness, an imperfection, some missing part that allows good souls to detect the evil, and contributes to the work of Providence, which ensures the ultimate defeat of Satan’s evil works.’

  • Steve Crowder’s testimony is beautiful and I pray that at the very least one soul, one mother contemplating abortion is moved by this 6 minute outreach. That the mother will give life a chance.

    Christmas is giving life a chance.

    Without Christ we can choose our babies sex. Without Christ we can kill our neighbor because of his skin color.
    A life without Christ is the freedom to open the gates of hell and share in the misery of fallen man.

    With the Christ child we have Love.
    A power unequaled in Satan’s arsenal.
    This love is pure agape love. A love which doesn’t count the cost nor asks for anything in return.
    Oh if only folks could embrace this love.
    The world would change forever.
    The gates of hell would be forever locked containing the agents of deception. If only.

  • Beautiful reflections Donald. Growing up I had a neighbor who was mentally retarded and, as kids, we didn’t always appreciate the love and laughter he brought to the entire neighborhood.

  • Thank you Tom. When we would go out on family outings Larry would always position himself at my right hand. I hope and believe he still is there.

  • From the article to which Philip linked: “And how will women who refuse screening be regarded? Will families who ‘choose’ not to abort when ‘abnormalities’ are discovered be seen as socially irresponsible?”
    The answer is Yes, absolutely. Such women (and their families, husbands, boyfriends, etc) would most definitely be considered irresponsible. I am quite confident making that assertion because that is pretty much what I thought back in college some 25 years ago, and I would probably have belonged to the Young Republicans club if I had known of its existence on campus.
    With a little help from Rush Limbaugh, I finally became pro-life, but I wonder if God gave me two children who would have been placed in special education had they been enrolled in public school in order to make certain I learned my lesson.

  • @Donald R. McClarey Thank you!

  • Thinking out loud: perhaps the supposed screening is just a cover.
    When a friend of mine and his wife were expecting their second child (they now have four children), the first question from the wife’s ob gyn, ‘a nice pleasant lady’, was whether they wanted to keep the child. They said yes. They were then asked whether they wanted the amnio testing done. After asking what it was for and how it was conducted, my friend rejected the testing.
    Me thinks it is a racket.

  • Each person, every person can be an “everlasting splendour”. If you make the effort and take the time, you can and will see the splendor in everyone.

    CS Lewis: [from THE WEIGHT OF GLORY] “. That being so, it may be asked what practical use there is in the speculations which I have been indulging. I can think of at least one such use. It may be possible for each to think too much of his own potential glory hereafter; it is hardly possible for him to think too often or too deeply about that of his neighbour. The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbour’s glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics.
    There are no ordinarypeople. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations,
    cultures, arts, civilization—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of
    a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and
    exploit—immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we
    are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that
    kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have,
    from the outset, taken each other seriously—no flippancy, no superiority, no
    presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for
    the sins in spite of which we love the sinner—no mere tolerance or indulgence
    which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbour he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ vere latitat—the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden.

  • Thank you for this post! Your son lives with the author of life Who understood that Larry’s “job” here was done … What a blessing for you & your family! Merry Christmas!!

  • “Thinking out loud: perhaps the supposed screening is just a cover.”
    Ob/Gyns carry very heavy malpractice insurance, and there have been several “wrongful birth” lawsuits–where the couple would have aborted their “defective” child if only they had known.
    My brother-in-law was the only doctor in this one large, rural area of Texas willing to do deliveries–he was a family doctor and not an Ob/Gyn. All the other physicians were retired or refused to do deliveries. This was wearing him down, so he decided to move the family to Sunny L.A. About the time of the move, when insurance was being changed over, he was without some portion of his malpractice insurance, but did this one delivery anyway because no one else was willing. He followed all the standard procedures, but something minor went wrong, and the patient took my brother-in-law/sister’s down payment on their new home in L.A. to cover the “pain and suffering.”
    Some time after, my brother-in-law said that a lot of what doctors do is CYA (“cover your assets”) medicine–stuff driven by insurance companies, both health insurance and liability insurance.
    If the couple is offered pre-natal screenings and either refuse it, or else do not abort if Down’s or some other trouble is found, then I would imagine that it would be difficult later to sue the physician. Physicians are people too, with families and expenses and the like; if they are apt to be driven into poverty because of a wrongful birth lawsuit, then it becomes fairly easy to see why these “search and destroy” missions are carried out. Or, alternatively, why in many areas of the country, physicians simply refuse to go into Ob/gyn.

  • Guy McClung.

    Neighbor as Christ. In all the endeavors of man the most excellent is seeing Jesus in neighbor and serving him.

  • Philip-right on! The Apostle John in his gospel says “no one has seen God, the only -begotten Son has revealed Him.” (Jn 1:17,18). A very limited few got to see the Son, in the flesh; and we get to see neither the Father nor the Son. But St. Paul tells us we can know God through His creations – the best of which is the person next to you in line at the store; the guy driving the car that just cut you off on the freeway (and perhaps gave you some spiritual direction indicating the way to heaven with one of his fingers); the lady whose bag of groceries pops open in the wet parking lot; the person you decide to help with $5 even though you worry she is off to buy drugs or Pagan Pink Ripple. Jesus is revealed in all these folks and with the eyes of faith and hope and love and humility you can see Him.

The Chicago Way

Monday, December 1, AD 2014



The new Archbishop of Chicago has a long history of hostility to the pro-life movement.  Brian Williams at One Peter Five notes that he seems much happier with pro-abort politicians:


In a homily this past June, Monsignor Henry Kriegel (pastor at St. Patrick Catholic Church in the Diocese of Erie, Pennsylvania) referenced an evening spent dining with the well connected Catholic blogger Rocco Palma of Whispers in the Loggia. Regarding the impending episcopal appointment in Chicago, Msgr. Kriegel said at the time:

“…(Palma) told us who’s going to be the next archbishop of Chicago; a position which will be filled in September. And if he’s correct, it’s going to be the beginning of a whole new style of episcopal leadership in the American Catholic Church, away from these bombastic, confrontational, counter-cultural bishops to bishops who are much more conciliatory and overflowing, as Francis says, with mercy.

On Sunday’s edition of Face the Nation, recently installed Archbishop Blasé Cupich demonstrated that Chicago is indeed being introduced to a new style of episcopal leadership. This was nowhere more evident than the archbishop’s response to host Norah O’Donnell’s question regarding pro-abortion politicians and the reception of Communion:

O’DONNELL: So, when you say we cannot politicize the communion rail, you would give communion to politicians, for instance, who support abortion rights.

CUPICH: I would not use the Eucharist or as they call it the communion rail as the place to have those discussions or way in which people would be either excluded from the life of the church. The Eucharist is an opportunity of grace and conversion. It’s also a time of forgiveness of sins. So my hope would be that that grace would be instrumental in bringing people to the truth.

In other words, those who persist in mortal sin and public scandal through their continued political support of abortion should still receive the Eucharist. This very topic has been thoroughly addressed by canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters when discussing the specific case of U.S. Congresswoman and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

“Canon 915, as I and others have explained many times, is not about impositions on individual conscience, it’s about public consequences for public behavior. It’s about taking people at their word and acknowledging the character of their actions. It’s about not pretending that people don’t really mean what they repeatedly say and what they repeatedly do.


“As a canon lawyer, my view is that Nancy Pelosi deserves to be deprived of holy Communion as the just consequence of her public actions; as her fellow Catholic, my view is that Nancy Pelosi deservesto be deprived of holy Communion to bring home to her and to the wider faith community the gravity of her conduct and the need to avoid such conduct altogether or, that failing, at least to repent of it. Quickly.”

Go here to read the rest.  Here is the comment of Cupich on his recent meeting with Obama:

Continue reading...

16 Responses to The Chicago Way

  • Archbishop Cupich is simply wrong that the Eucharist is an ” opportunity for grace “. It is an opportunity for an
    increase of sanctifying grace which sanctifying grace is presumed beforehand and is a requirement preceding the Eucharist and obtained if need be by Confession. To make a long story short, Paul in II Cor.5 said to ” expel the wicked man from your midst” in the case of the incestuous man. The early Church excommunicated for bad physical behaviour. The modern Church does not… except latae sententiae for abortion physical participants. Mental participants like pols e.g. Cuomo get off scot free. At some point the Church switched to excommunicating in ecclesiastical court not for moral theology errors ( Curran was only dechaired from teaching) and physical manifest sins….but….for heresies of de fide dogma in written form mainly. You can march in a pro choice parade without repercussions ( the Biden family) but are excommunicated if you write error about the Trinity….but few are so theological as to do the latter.

  • +Cupich’s words are the same in substance to +Wuerl. +Wuerl approved of giving Communion to abortionist John FARC Kerry, whose wife inherited her late husband John Heinz’ property around Pittsburgh. BTW, Teresa Kerry’s sons are as crazy as she is and are nothing like their father. +Wuerl said he would not use Communion as a “weapon”. This means +Wuerl will not confront abortionists.

    I reiterate Dale Price’s admonishment. If you like your bishop, pray for him. You may get clobbered by the Wuerlwind and get stuck with a +Cupich wannabe yourself. I fear for the good priests at St. John Cantius in Chicago.

    The most recent issue of Catholic Extension, which is based in Chicago, extols +Cupich. It made me nauseous.

  • St Paul to Pukich – er Cupich:
    27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 1st Corinthians 11
    PS, does Pukich care any for the unborn Mexican immigrant babies who will be murdered under the policies and programs of Barack Hussein Obama?

  • Well, as someone commented a few weeks ago, Cardinal George can take comfort that his immediate successor, anyway, is unlikely to end his life in jail.

  • The Immaculate Conception is Mary’s perfect innocence from the very first moment of her existence. Due process of law is a constitutional guarantee to every person from the very first moment of his existence.
    If +Cupich refuses to believe that Mary’s soul was immaculately conceived from the very first moment of her existence, then +Cupich is a heretic. If +Cupich refuses to accept that every person is entitled to constitutional due process of law, that children may not be put to death for the crimes and sins of their parents, then +Cupich is a traitor, a tyrant and a murderer.

  • I’m convinced the humble Argentinian is punishment
    from God for the many Catholics who have rejected the
    teachings of the Church and for the many Catholics who
    have taken the Eucharist unworthily.

    It is obvious Cupich and the great modernizer have lost
    their Catholic faith for popular pagan ideals.

  • Luke 17:14 – 17
    The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all these things and sneered at him. And he said to them, “You justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts; for what is of human esteem is an abomination in the sight of God.
    The law and the prophets lasted until John; but from then on the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone who enters does so with violence. It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest part of a letter of the law to become invalid. …”
    Proverbs Ch. 14:
    in v. 27 – The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, that a man may avoid the snares of death.

    This all is a reminder of the ‘stiff-necked people’ .

  • The Southern Baptist Convention (the largest Protestant denomination in the country) in the 1980s and 1990s were in the middle of the same type of war that the Catholic Church is in now. Those who believe that scripture is inspired by God won the battle, however, it was barely won and there was a schism in their denomination where those who did not believe traditional Christian articles of faith s.a. Christ being virgin born, man being a sinner, man being given forgiveness/eternal life through Christs’ death, burial, and resurrection. Heck, they had atheists teaching in their seminaries as well, and missionaries who were teaching that Jesus did not rise from the dead! However, over several years, the battle was waged and prayed and fought–the liberals had to leave. The liberals tried to take away all of the assets of the SBC through the judicial system after attempting to gain control of the SBC through political means and losing. The atheist crowd finally had to separate and form their own separate denomination.

    My point is: keep praying and working.

  • When two or three are praying to end abortion, AB Cupich may not be there, but Jesus is. Guy McClung, San Antonio

  • Not a rhetorical question,
    Can you name one Catholic pro-abortion politician who renounced his wicked past and said it was from frequent, illicit reception of Holy Communion?

  • +Cupich: “The Eucharist is an opportunity of grace and conversion. It’s also a time of forgiveness of sins.” Hard to square with 1 Cor 11:27-29 (“Whosoever eats and drinks unworthily drinks a judgment on himself..”) nor Ratzinger’s comments that “it is never licit to cooperate in moral evil.” Cupich does not allow himself to be engaged in open debate (as neither do most of his left-leaning robed ones) because his “thinking” would be shredded.

    Cupich does himself one better in his double-talk in his 11/30/14 interview with Nora O’Donnell on Face the Nation. The topic this time is Obama’s unconstitutional edict on immigration. This is precious:
    O’DONNELL: I noticed that you said the work of comprehensive immigration reform is not important because it is on my agenda, but because it is on God’s. What does that mean, God wants immigration reform?

    CUPICH: Well, it means that the aspirations that people have for better life for their children in which they are reaching out in hope as many people who have come to this country have. Those aspirations were placed in their heart by God. We have to attend to that. This is not just something that they’re wanting on their own, but God has always called us to a better life. Has always called us to experiencing how we can provide for our families in a better way. And I think that being a grandson of immigrants I feel that very deeply.

    Cupich avoids the fact that tens of thousands of legal immigrants already in the long process of admission under democratically-enacted laws have been treated with contempt by the Obama amnesty edict. Moreover, he, like Pope Francis, openly advocates the [questionable] end over the means — but that is OK, because the desires of THESE 5 million (ready 25-50 million when we are done with this) illegals are motivated by God. The desires of the rest of us to oppose this injustice, advisedly, are not. Even he seems to recognize the weakness of his claim, having to wrap himself in the banner of “being the grandchild of a [legal] immigrant.” Precious.

  • Later in the interview, +Cupich oh-so-clearly defines his stance on Catholic traditional marriage vs. gay marriage:

    O’DONNELL: “Same-sex marriage is now legal in 35 states with more battles in the courts in the coming months. What should the church say about same-sex marriage? Does it need to change at all?”

    CUPICH:” Well, I think in Washington State where I was bishop for the last four years there was a referendum on this very issue and I spoke very clearly about this. I said first of all that we cannot use this moment of public debate to say anything or do anything that would provoke violence against gay and lesbian people. We have to make sure that we’re not part of that and we would condemn that. At the same time it’s not just about gay marriage. It’s about whether or not we’re going to have statutes in our states that uphold and protect people who take the risk of bringing children into the world. People who as mothers and fathers coming together in their love, continue the human race.”

    O’DONNELL: “Pardon me, do you think gay parents can good parents?”

    CUPICH:” I think there are people not only who are gay but many single people are good parents. And I don’t think that’s the issue. I think the real issue is, should we have — should we continue to have legislation that supports, protects and upholds those people who take the risk of actually bringing children into the world and preserving the human race.”

    O’DONNELL:” I understand the church’s teaching, but just to be clear, so you do think there should be legislation to protect the parents who are bringing children in to the world and caring for them that are in same-sex relationships?”

    CUPICH: “Well, but no. I’m saying that the people who bring children in to the world are a man and a woman in their own love that bring children in the world.

    I do know that there are gay couples, there are others — grandparents, single people who adopt children, who maybe even have children not from the act of love, but to care for children in that way.

    And yes, I think that there has to be way in which we do support them. But I do think there is something unique about a man and woman coming together and bringing children in to the world, preserving the human race and providing that example as a mother and father, a male and female within a family that also deserves the state’s support and also protection.”
    O’Donnell had him on the ropes (“Do you think that gay parents can be good parents?” He mushed his way out of it by saying that marriage of a man and a woman is “unique”—but he doesnt dare define that uniqueness, of course. So, +Cupich’s position on marriage is perfectly clear to me, of course.

  • Pingback: Why Pope Francis Is Demonize Practicing Catholics -Big Pulpit
  • Steve Phoenix – concerning “samesex marriage” -, I guess someone has to buy a copy of City of God for this Bishop. He appears not to fully grasp the underpinning of the long-held Church teachings on the use of the sex act.

  • “Blasé ” !! Yes

Mark Shea, Pro-life and Religion as Politics

Tuesday, November 25, AD 2014


Mark Shea has taken his agree-with-me-on-these-issues-or-you-are-not-really-pro-life routine to the pages of the Jesuit rag America:

But weirdly, when the topic is not the unborn, many allegedly pro-life people often forget their wisdom. Result: on many issues ranging from war to torture to refugees to the death penalty, it is extremely common to run into people who are anti-abortion, but not pro-life.

And so self-identified pro-life people, in a solid majority, favored the launch of the Iraq War, despite the fact that it failed to meet a single criterion of Just War teaching, was sternly denounced by Pope John Paul II, warned of by the world’s bishops, and dismissed as folly by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, who famously remarked that the “concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church” and who warned that it would result in catastrophe—as the destruction of the Chaldean Church, the deaths of at least 100,000 people and the transformation of Iraq into chaos eloquently attests.

Relatedly, self-identified pro-life Christians supported, in greater percentages than the general U.S. population, the use of torture against prisoners. Indeed, along with Evangelicals, self-identified pro-life Catholics may constitute the single most enthusiastic supporters of torture in American public life. This is despite the fact that the church describes torture as gravely and intrinsically immoral—exactly the same terms in which she describes abortion.

Similarly, the death penalty is sometimes treated as an issue in which the church’s guidance to inflict the punishment only if absolutely necessary is rejected on the theory that God “commands” rather than reluctantly permits the death penalty. Some even go so far as to declare the church, not merely entitled to an opinion from which they dissent, but actually “wrong” and work to execute as many victims as possible.

Finally, there is the strange spectacle of some Catholics opposing pre-natal help for low income women (thus increasing the likelihood of abortion for poor families who fear they cannot afford another child) and the even stranger spectacle of self-identified pro-life people brandishing guns and screaming for desperately poor refugee children from Central America to be sent back to the extreme dangers of rape, sex slavery and murder.

Continue reading...

30 Responses to Mark Shea, Pro-life and Religion as Politics

  • I guess Shea also needs to re-define “illegal immigrant” into “refugee.” Otherwise he is not supported by JP II:

    “Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants.”

    “4. When no solution is foreseen, these same institutions should direct those they are helping, perhaps also providing them with material assistance, either to seek acceptance in other countries, or to return to their own country.”

    Now if they were real refugees escaping Central America and “the extreme danger of rape, sex slavery and murder…” then international law is quite clear that Mexico should have taken in these “refugees.” But they were no such thing. They were illegal immigrants encouraged by lax enforcement of just laws. Of course Shea needs to redefine the term as “refugees” otherwise he is not consistent with Church teaching. Now I thought he was against such word play.

  • I also thought (though am willing to be corrected on this point) that he initially supported the invasion of Iraq.

  • Oh, that is correct. Shea later turned against the War when no WMD’s allegedly were found. (They actually were found, but that is another post.)

  • Mark Shea’s absolutism excommunicates so many from the church of Mark Shea it may have a membership of one. But not to worry, if individuals somehow fit through the eye of the needle in agreeing with him on those points he will find others to toss them out.

  • He of rural Washington context ( no crime to encounter ) actually gave me the laugh of the morning …does Romans 13:4 from the Holy Spirit sound like reluctant death penalty to anyone who is not doing mushrooms from Oaxaca…..” not without reason does it carry the sword…it is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who does evil”. So very very filled with sensitive reluctance and indecision….and Jesuitical feminized theologizing. Then Shea quotes a very unfortunate passage of Benedict in which Benedict seems to see the catechism as something inerrant on preventive war and a catechism removed from Benedict who oversaw its editing….lol. Pope Benedict didn’t believe the herem of the Old Testament were ordered by God ( Verbum Domini,42). And all Christians prior to the historico-critical school did believe they were from God. And people now who notice that Christ predicted the worst one….70AD….know that God brings them about actively…not through karma.

  • I once had a tangle with Mr. Shea over the issue of waterboarding. It left a rather bad taste with me.

    Let me start by pointing out that many people assume that any torture involving water is waterboarding. James Bradley had a photo of an American soldier using water torture on a Filipino insurgent in his book The Imperial Cruise: The Secret History of Empire and War; the caption read that the Filipino was being waterboarded. The movie Zero Dark Thirty had a ‘waterboarding’ scene in which the victim spits up a significant amount of water. This is inaccurate – there is no ingestion of water in waterboarding. Senator John McCain has stated that in World War II, the United States military hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American prisoners of war – again this is inaccurate, the Japanese used methods that were much more invasive than waterboarding.

    Point #2, and the most critical one, is that waterboarding is not torture under U.S. law. Why? Because it is used by the U.S. military in Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training. U.S. law prohibits the torture of its military personnel during its training. At some point in the past a decision was made in the SERE curriculum development that waterboarding did not constitute torture, and so could be used in training. It may have involved legal hairsplitting, but the precedent was made.

    Point #3 is that it is hard to say that waterboarding is not torture. One of Bush’s Assistant Attorney Generals [sorry, forgot who] and writer Christopher Hitchens both supported waterboarding of al-Qaeda bigwigs, volunteered to be subjected to it so they could defend it’s use, and changed their minds after being subjected to it. My opinion is that I would hate to see the SERE program lose whatever benefit waterboarding gives to the ability of our military personnel to resist torture, but that loss would be outweighed by reclassifying it to be torture under U.S. law and ending this controversy.

    None of this history mattered to Mark Shea. He believes he is entitled to his own facts: U.S. law prohibits torture, waterboarding is torture, therefore waterboarding is prohibited. I pointed out this history to him online; he ignored my conclusion – which was basically in agreement with his conclusion – and he proceeded to rip me a new bodily orifice. You see, he wants the defenders of waterboarding to be evil men deserving of his ire, and not ordinary men under pressure who grasped onto a legal precedent created for other circumstances. He could have defended himself with a “Thanks for the history Tommie, but it is obviously torture, so the Bush guys shouldn’t have grabbed that precedent”, but he didn’t. He responded with “You’re another supporter of torture”, because my sin was to not agree with his labeling.

    I’ve written this before: if I were to write Mark Shea’s epitaph, it would read “Here lies Mark Shea, Catholic writer. No man was ever so wrong about so many right things than he

  • I’m pro-innocent life, just like I’m anti-unjust war.

  • Shea’s a demokrat party operative masquerading as a Catholic crank.

  • BTW, when it comes to “Render unto Caesar…” I particularly like the words of Soviet dissident Sister Nijole Sadunaite, who told her judges “What is due to Caesar is but the remains of that due to God”

  • Mark is an interesting case study in someone who attempts to turn his religion into his politics.

    Perhaps. Or perhaps a case study in how we get to be caricatures of ourselves as we age (except in his case the act is not the least bit amusing).

  • I once had a tangle with Mr. Shea over the issue of waterboarding. It left a rather bad taste with me. .

    Gosh, no kidding.

    “Torture” or capital sentencing or proper responses to illegal immigration or disaster relief in New Orleans or the utility of psychotropic medications. Different issues, same behavior.

  • “formerly a conservative”. Don, are you sure he was ever a conservative in the first place?!

  • “…on many issues ranging from war to torture to refugees to the death penalty, it is extremely common to run into people who are anti-abortion, but not pro-life.”

    “Indeed, along with Evangelicals, self-identified pro-life Catholics may constitute the single most enthusiastic supporters of torture in American public life.”

    “Some even go so far as to declare the church, not merely entitled to an opinion from which they dissent, but actually ‘wrong’ and work to execute as many victims as possible.”

    “Finally, there is the strange spectacle of some Catholics opposing pre-natal help for low income women…”

    I never realized what a true idiot Shea was until reading this!

  • “One of Bush’s Assistant Attorney Generals [sorry, forgot who] and writer Christopher Hitchens both supported waterboarding of al-Qaeda bigwigs, volunteered to be subjected to it so they could defend it’s use, and changed their minds after being subjected to it.”

    Ok. Here is the problem that I have with water boarding being called “torture.”
    1. Does the person experience physical pain?

    2. Is there any permanent physical damage done?

    3. What is it specifically that makes this torture (supposedly?)

  • ProLife by the numbers: [feel free to add any other category with number of victims and/or dead]

    Persons lynched in the history of the United States: 5000; but let’s err on the side of questioning history and say 100,000; add whatever number you like for beatings, torture etc not resulting in death

    Persons dying of hunger each year in the United States: a few thousands, but let’s go with 100,000 [this is way outlandish]

    Persons tortured in the US and/or by US officials each year: supply your own number-mine is 10,000 -no basis for this

    Persons executed since the death penalty reinstatement: about 2000, but let’s go with 4000

    Persons killled by abortion, including RETA, daily in the United States: 3500-4000.

    Persons killed by abortion since Roe in the US: approx 56,000,000

    Minority members victims of abortion since Roe [Black + Hispanic]: approx 29,000,000

    Mothers of minority abortion victims: less than 1/3 total population

    RETA = Racial Eugenic Targeted Abortion

    Guy McClung, San Antonio

  • Here is a military-doctrine/economy of force analogy to Shea’s and all liberals’ ineffectual pro-life positions. It’s like ordering an infantry division against the enemy’s drummer boys while ignoring the infantry.

    Every soldier knows that in a fight you must first destroy the heaviest weapons shooting at you.

  • Is there an ounce of sympathy for the soldier on the Bataan Death march who has his appendix ripped out on a dirty trail? How about beautiful young Harold John Smith who fought in VN and was literally burned to death after being put on point during one of the war’s fiercest battles? War is hell. Abortion is hell! Who started these wars. We react. Who forced abortion on demand on us. Who has not been as strong as they should have been during this last 40 years? A very liberal church. A church infested with vermin who have robbed this church of billions of dollars to cover their deviant behavior, while Catholic schools are forced to close by the thousands. Give me a break. I am so sick of the two faces of blather. The entire congress of this country is overwhelmingly “Christian” and this is what we have to deal with. CINO(Christian in name only) to get themselves a few pukey votes at the expense of millions. Oh now, Billy Graham “advisor” to all the presidents speaks out about abortion on demand. Do you ever hear a word out of Joyce Meyer’s mouth as she is preaching to thousands in the big arena’s about action. I haven’t heard one word about IsIs or what is happening in Iraq and Syria and wherever about the persecution of and praying for Christians suffering so at any Mass I have attended in the last 6 mo . I am sick of getting the “Diocesan” newspaper and reading about the bishops dog! Good God Almighty, people I might be a measly farmer but even I can see that most “catholics” are reading these rags and that is why they know nothing of the real truths of the faith. Someone better tell the pope and a few of these other ding dongs that someone will be held accountable for this diabolic (confusion) of the faith that they are perpetrating. People are so mixed up.

  • Comment of the week Jeanne! Take ‘er away Sam!

  • Mark Shea needs to be locked up in the Octagon with Chris Ferrara, Texas Death Match style.

  • “Sam the Eagle sounds like Yoda.”

    Hmmm, I have never seen them in the same room together. Sam, have you been holding out on us?

  • ‘Enhanced interrogation techniques’ which included waterboarding were widely used on terrorist suspects (both republican and loyalist) in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, mostly by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (the interrogation of suspects was seen as a police rather than an army responsibility). Many of these interrogations were carried out at the Castlereagh detention centre by teams of detectives specially trained in such techniques. Following a campaign by Amnesty International the European Commission ruled that this constituted torture, but following an appeal by HMG the European Court of Human Rights downgraded this to ‘inhumane and degrading treatment’. The adverse publicity led to its being discontinued, although it had had some success in eliciting confessions which were not later retracted in court.

    The paramilitaries themselves routinely tortured (in a much cruder way) those whom they suspected of being informers although ironically PIRA had ‘traitors’ at the highest level – it has recently emerged that one of its most senior figures agreed to act as a government agent in return for escaping prosecution for sexual offences against children.

    The point is that fighting terrorism is a dirty business since the adversary acts without legal or moral constraints whereas the authorities must be seen to act within the law. One man’s ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ are another man’s ‘inhumane and degrading treatment’ and a third man’s ‘torture’.

  • “One man’s ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ are another man’s ‘inhumane and degrading treatment’ and a third man’s ‘torture’.”

    This is my point exactly.

    I have never had to use physical force in my entire adult life on another person. And I have been in some very stressful, threatening situations. If I ever decide that physical force is necessary–it will not be pretty.

    If I decided to torture someone physically, no one would have to question wether or not it was torture.

    Amensty International has done some good things. However, they have also done some whacky things.

  • PS. The reason that I specified not using physical force in my “adult” life is because before I turned 21, I used some physical force on some folks. Lol

  • But they were no such thing. They were illegal immigrants encouraged by lax enforcement of just laws. Of course Shea needs to redefine the term as “refugees” otherwise he is not consistent with Church teaching. Now I thought he was against such word play.

    Nah, Mark is only against “Lying for Jesus” on minor, secondary issues of no real import, like abortion. When it comes to serious, unambiguous areas of the Faith like the moral imperative of giving amnesty to an unlimited number of illegal immigrants no matter what, he’s okay with it.

  • Deuce,
    Exactly, Shea considers breaking into a country illegally, stealing its resources, overwhelming it’s health and educational systems, and disturbing the peace of its legal citizens as simply a matter of not having the right “piece of paper”. Or as liberals like to classify them, the “undocumented”. When I pointed out to him the hypocrisy of his consequentialism, I was just deleted and banned.

  • “Shea’s a demokrat party operative masquerading as a Catholic crank.”

    No, actually, Mark Shea is a Paul-bot, as in Ron Paul disciple. Or, at least he was, a few years ago, when I got banned (he didn’t like being shown the absence of logic in his positions).
    I haven’t read him much in the past couple of years, so, maybe he’s changed.

  • Mark Shea needs to be locked up in the Octagon with Chris Ferrara, Texas Death Match style.

    Why Christopher Ferrara? Mr. Ferrara may be wrong on some issues and overly astringent on occasion. His viewpoint is not, however, largely reducible to irritable mental gestures.

  • when I got banned (he didn’t like being shown the absence of logic in his positions). –

    In my last attempt at conversing with him, he was in a state of rage against any countervailing opinion. Everyone’s remarks to that end were deleted.

  • Art, it was an attempt at humor. Ferrara is what Mr. McClarey calls him – a crank, but unlike Mark Shea, Ferrara has truth on his side.

Quotes Suitable for Framing: Theodore Roosevelt

Saturday, November 15, AD 2014






“[A] physician of wealth and high standing had seduced a girl and then induced her to commit abortion-I rather lost my temper, and wrote to the individuals who had asked for the pardon, saying that I extremely regretted that it was not in my power to increase the sentence.”

Theodore Roosevelt, from his Autobiography recalling his days as governor of New York (1913)

“Theodore Roosevelt” and “hero” tend to pop into my mind simultaneously when I recall him, and this is yet another reason for me to cherish his memory.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Quotes Suitable for Framing: Theodore Roosevelt

  • If you search further: “Teddy Roosevelt- Great President or Enemy to Freedom? » SWW BLOG” you may modify your cherished memory. A progressive is a progressive. BTW, from the Second Letter of St. John, 4-9, “Anyone who is so ‘progressive’ as not to remain in the teaching of Christ does not have God…” If that aborted baby had not been “perfect” would TR have so vilified the perpetrators of that deed?

  • Nope, Kmbold I would not. I know quite a bit about TR, and I will cherish his memory, warts and all. The demonization of TR by some who call themselves conservatives is largely a result of the hysterics of Glenn Beck and his acolytes who give historical bone ignorance a bad name.

  • Could be. But do you indeed cherish the “wart” of TR’s eugenics bent?

  • TR’s views on eugenics are hardly simple, unless one can imagine a eugenicist who is pro-life and favors large families. To see the complexity of his views read his article Twisted Eugenics at the link below:

Love Makes All the Difference

Friday, October 24, AD 2014

20 Responses to Love Makes All the Difference

  • Perfection. Your love for God and family is nothing less than perfection.

    Todays psalm 24:3,4 reads; “Who can ascend the mountain of the Lord? Or who may stand in His holy place? He (Larry) whose hands are sinless, whose heart is clean, who desires not what is vain.”

    Your description of your love for Larry is incense so sweet and so pleasing to God most high. It’s extremely sad that the woman in the story could not find what your family has such an abundance of…love.

    God is Love.
    Peace Mr. McClarey.

  • Beautiful writing Don. So inspired by faith, and so inspired by your son Larry.

  • Thank you Philip and Tom. God has been gracious to me in surrounding me with good people throughout my life. Larry was the icing on the cake.

  • Donald McClarey: “Christ gave us as His two great commands: Love God and Love our Neighbor. No one is more our neighbor than the children God gives us. Without this love, a pale reflection of the love that God has for each of us, we are but poor beasts indeed.”
    Stunningly beautiful.

  • Such a gorgeous and elegant response to that horrifying article, Mr. McClarey. My twin brother Patrick is autistic and also has seizures (though he hasn’t had one in over a year, thank God). He can be such a pain sometimes, but this just affirms the fact that he’s human. Thank you so much for this wonderful post.

  • Thank you Mary and Rodney for your very kind comments.

  • Yours is the story and the example that should have been presented to the recent Synod on the Family, Donald. You turned a Cross – the disability of your son – into a Crown of how life should be. When I read your description of Larry and his disability, I am reminded of what St Paul wrote, that the power of God is made perfect in human weakness. Thus does disability turn from detriment into asset. Should we ask to become half as disabled? If only to become half as holy? For without holiness no man shall see God.

  • “Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”

  • Veritatis Splendor – 80. “[…] Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honor due to the Creator.” (132)

    Sipping from the poisonous cup of social justice . . . Doubt and confusion. Muddy the waters. It’s how they rationalize advancing abortion and all the evils attendant with progressivism.

  • My hope is that you may be led to reach out in love rather than reject in condemnation.

    Is this woman, who has expressed her feelings, not your neighbor?

    Might you consider laying down the stone and sharing your love?

  • Elizabeth, this woman wishes she had slain her son and encourages other women carrying Down’s children to do so. The height of love is sometimes to tell someone when they are acting like a monster.

  • You have brought tears to my eyes Donald, esp when I got the the two words, “my boy”.
    That love and the difference between you, your wife and other children, and that woman.. is grace. Available to her too, but it must be received.
    You have grown closer to God no doubt because of Larry. Thank you for being willing to share with us.

  • Thank you Anzlyne. My eyes often well up when I think of Larry, but that is counterbalanced by the fact that I know I will see him again. That, and the good memories of him that will remain with me throughout the rest of my journey through this vale of tears.

  • Mr. McClarey, you and your family accepted your son Larry as a blessing rather than as a cross to bear -although I’m sure there were times it felt like a cross, as all parents who love their children know.

    Children with disabilities force their parents to realize that these children will always need them and that the carefree retirement in the Sunbelt and long vacations and ocean cruises aren’t going to happen. The ones who look to the Lord can find the strength to deal with the situation. Those who are selfish – and who isn’t a little selfish from time to time, as I can be – act like the lady in the Daily Mail. One day she will meet her Maker and answer why she did not want to carry her cross.

  • Extraordinary words and writing, Mr. McClarey, and beyond “touching the heart”.

    I have briefly commented before that I am honored to be the guardian for my brother, Joe, who like Larry was, is an autistic adult; in Joey’s case, is blessed with extraordinary good health and strength; but like Larry did, he makes our lives every day unique, intriguing and decidedly un-dull. Like Larry, he loves to lead us in prayers, esp. before meals (can’t drop that!), and prays the “Eternal Rest” prayers also for all the family before every sitting; he also loves going to Mass and knows it is something very important about God and Jesus and “Sweet Virgin Mary” (=his articulation). At Mass: he is quiet as a mouse–amazing! And perhaps best of all, I am/we are always fortunate to have someone who will always say the Rosary with me/us, no matter how long the drive and no matter how many Mysteries we’ve gone through already. A veritable Rosary Machine!
    I can only imagine the hole in one’s life without Larry, based on how much I wonder how poor would my life and a very generous Mrs. Phoenix’s life would be, without Uncle Joe.
    What is the value of a life, and its meaning? “I know our lives would have been happier and far less complicated if he had never been born. I do wish I had an abortion. I wish it every day.” (Daily Mail excerpt) Some people will never know: the value of a life. It is the secret of a life, the secret of the Rosary, the secret of God’s presence in unbelievable circumstances. Franz Werfel said it best: “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible”.

  • “My eyes often well up when I think of Larry,”
    Don, mine did reading this. Thank you

  • Thanks, Don. I needed to read this.

  • “I know our lives would have been happier and far less complicated if he had never been born.”

    Less complicated, maybe, but happier? That is the fatal assumption far too many people make in our culture of death: that less complication, less inconvienience, less effort and less pain always equal more happiness. Many people discover, far too late, that this is not true.

    Oddly enough, I stumbled across a VERY lengthy article in Newsweek (online) yesterday concerning a rather sordid case of a wealthy New York woman on trial for murdering her autistic son. The article goes off into quite a few tangents about the mystery of autism, the search for cures, the “neurodiversity” movement (which advocates accepting autistic youth and adults as they are rather than trying to change them), etc. but way, way, down toward the end of the story is one priceless quote that could apply to any disability:

    “A day at Oak Hill (a residential school/facility for autistic youth in California) reminds you that autism spectrum disorder is exactly as complicated, frustrating and inscrutable as human existence disorder. This, I think, is where the neurodiversity crowd, which can sometimes lapse into anti-science, has a point: Autistic people are, above all, people. We all have our own pathologies. Some are visible. Some are not. Some we can cure. Some, not yet. Some, maybe never.”

  • “You have one here who is greater than the prophets.” Jesus Christ was not referring to His divinity. Jesus Christ was referring to His humanity. Jesus Christ was referring to the opportunity of people to love.

  • Pingback: SUNDAY EDITION -

Indoctrination Not Education

Monday, October 13, AD 2014



Ericka Andersen at Victory Girls, gives us yet another example of the way in which education is often simple indoctrination these days:


The University of California-San Francisco is launching a new course on abortion, the first class of it’s kind.

The aim is to “contextualize abortion care within a public health framework from both clinical and social perspectives.”

What “Abortion: Quality Care and Public Health Implications” is really striving to do is normalize abortion as a typical healthcare procedure.

What they don’t acknowledge is that almost all abortions are elective — and only 3% are due to problems with the mother’s actual health. There are also a small percentage of abortions performed on rape or incest victims, but this is also about 3%. At least (and that’s being generous) 90% of abortions are elective — for reasons such as “not ready,” “too young,” “inconvenient,” “don’t want people to know I’m pregnant,” or “inadequate finances.”

Renowned abortion researcher Alan Guttmacher once said, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”

By the way, Guttmacher served as president of Planned Parenthood and vice-president of the American Eugenics Society, but that’s just a little detail.

Abortion is almost never healthcare. If anything, it’s the opposite. Doesn’t a doctor pledge to, “First, do no harm.” It’s beyond comprehension how any doctor can perform abortions and remember that’s an oath they took. Of course, it wasn’t hard to find one who has no trouble with it.

“I think that if we can inspire even a small portion of the people who take the course to take steps in their communities to increase access to safe abortion and decrease stigma about abortion, then we have been totally successful,” Dr. Jody Steinauer, associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California – San Francisco said.

Steinauer noted that this “stigma” results in silence on the issue of and leads people “to believe that [abortion] is not common,” when it  is.

The course syllabus includes sections on “overcoming obstacles to abortion access” and “patient-centered care for first-trimester abortion.” Well, I’m glad to see they haven’t graduated to late-term abortion care but that can’t be too far down the road.

Here’s the thing, University of California, abortion will never be normalized. A 2012 Gallup poll showed that Americans lean pro-life by a nine point margin. You can’t deflect the reality of abortion, which is ending the life of a human being in growth. There’s literally no way around the science of when life begins. You can only justify in blind denial after that.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Indoctrination Not Education

  • “There’s literally no way around the science of when life begins ..”

    But what follows? In his 1995 essay, Rethinking Life and Death, Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer famously demanded, “[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life” and he goes on to justify both abortion and infanticide.

    In 2012 a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, expressed similar views.

    In France, as long ago as 1975, the first article of the Veil Law ((Law No. 75-17 of January 1975, concerning the Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy) declares, “The law guarantees respect for every human being from the outset of life. There shall be no derogation from this principle except in cases of necessity and under the conditions laid down by this Law.” If derogation from the right to life is permitted, there seems no logical reason why this should not apply after birth, as well as before it.

    For centuries before that, the common French euphemism for an abortionist was (and is) « faiseuse d’anges » [Angel Maker], scarcely the term anyone would have coined to describe the removal of a clump of cells.

    Is the beginning of life any longer relevant to the debate (if it ever was)?

  • “Is the beginning of life any longer relevant to the debate (if it ever was)?”

    Only to those who want to have ethics better than that of child murderers.

  • Rethinking Life and Death, Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer famously demanded, “[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life” and he goes on to justify both abortion and infanticide.
    In 2012 a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, expressed similar views.
    Peter Singer came from Australia. Germany refused to allow him to enter. Princeton gave Singer welcome. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva (a likely name from the goddess of wisdom) are not American citizens, either. None of these individuals have any idea about unalienable human rights, God given free will and endowed sovereign personhood.
    “For centuries before that, the common French euphemism for an abortionist was (and is) « faiseuse d’anges » [Angel Maker], scarcely the term anyone would have coined to describe the removal of a clump of cells.”
    Abortion is the removal of the rational, immortal human soul. Those who deny the soul have no legitimate excuse for being.

  • Abortion, like murder, is a sin against the Author of Life wherein the abortionist/murderer on instructions from the would-be father/mother violently destroys a gestational person: usurping God’s will. All life is His creation.

  • Just as abortion is being regularized within the culture, physician assisted suicide is the latest evolution of the right to control one’s body and one’s life.
    Abortion and physician assisted suicide subsist under the same umbrella of individual liberty for which their proponents claim recognition and protection of the state. Those who promote life are maligned as opposing and placing obstacles in the path of individual liberty and self determination.
    The mantra of “Compassion and Choices”, successor to the Hemlock Society, and a staunch proponent of physican assisted suicide is control and choice compassionately executed.
    Should we be surprised that a right to life is no longer assured to those outside the womb?

  • In a characteristically penetrating observation, Slainté asks, “Should we be surprised that a right to life is no longer assured to those outside the womb?”

    Frankly, no. For too long we have been led up the blind alley of “natura pura” – the notion of a “natural order,” governed by “Natural Law,” consisting of truths accessible to unaided human reason, as something that can be kept separate from the supernatural truths revealed in the Gospel.

    Against this, we have Maurice Blondel’s insistence that that we must never forget “that one cannot think or act anywhere as if we do not all have a supernatural destiny. Because, since it concerns the human being such as he is, in concreto, in his living and total reality, not in a simple state of hypothetical nature, nothing is truly complete (boucle), even in the sheerly natural order.” It was of Blondel that Cardinal de Lubac said, “he is the one who launched the decisive attack on the dualist theory that was destroying Christian thought.”
    Jacques Maritain, too, declared that “Man is not in a state of pure nature, he is fallen and redeemed. Consequently, ethics, in the widest sense of the word, that is, in so far as it bears on all practical matters of human action, politics and economics, practical psychology, collective psychology, sociology, as well as individual morality,—ethics in so far as it takes man in his concrete state, in his existential being, is not a purely philosophic discipline. Of itself it has to do with theology…”

    This is not new doctrine. One recalls Pascal who, drawing on the thought of St Augustine, reminded us long ago that “man without faith cannot know the true good, nor justice” and “without Scripture, which has only Jesus Christ for its object, we know nothing and see only obscurity and confusion in God’s nature and ours.”

  • MPS writes: “…One recalls Pascal who, drawing on the thought of St Augustine, reminded us long ago that “man without faith cannot know the true good, nor justice”
    One wonders how Pascal might have responded to modern day secular uber-liberals who disregard the integrity of life in favor of a flawed understanding of personal liberty and choice?
    Is there an antidote, other than Faith, which might cause proponents of “choice” to recognize that it is neither good or just to choose to extinguish life in the womb (abortion) or outside the womb (physician assisted suicide)?

  • Slainté asks, “Is there an antidote, other than Faith, which might cause proponents of “choice” to recognize that it is neither good or just to choose to extinguish life in the womb (abortion) or outside the womb (physician assisted suicide)?”
    Pascal, I believe, would not have been particularly sanguine. “On what shall man found the order of the world which he would govern? Shall it be on the caprice of each individual? What confusion! Shall it be on justice? Man is ignorant of it.” As to Natural Law, “Men admit that justice does not consist in these customs, but that it resides in natural laws, common to every country. They would certainly maintain it obstinately, if reckless chance which has distributed human laws had encountered even one which was universal; but the farce [la plaisanterie] is that the caprice of men has so many vagaries that there is no such law Theft, incest, infanticide, parricide, have all had a place among virtuous actions.”
    As for the civil law, he was a thorough Positivist: “He who obeys them [the laws] because they are just, obeys a justice which is imaginary and not the essence of law; it is quite self-contained [elle est toute ramassée en soi], it is law and nothing more.”

A Satire, Not an Instruction Manual

Monday, October 6, AD 2014

Infant’s flesh will be in season throughout the year, but more plentiful in March, and a little before and after; for we are told by a grave author, an eminent French physician, that fish being a prolific diet, there are more children born in Roman Catholic countries about nine months after Lent than at any other season; therefore, reckoning a year after Lent, the markets will be more glutted than usual, because the number of popish infants is at least three to one in this kingdom: and therefore it will have one other collateral advantage, by lessening the number of papists among us.

Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal (1729)

To sell abortion, arguments about feminism, a woman’s right to choose, equality, freedom, etc., are used for the masses, but the forces that were behind the drive to legalize abortion tended to be clear, at least when talking among themselves, that eugenics was the prime motivation.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 81, remembers those days clearly, and, no doubt to the dismay of many contemporary liberals, tends to be fairly honest about that motivation.  Kevin Williamson at National Review Online examines how the eugenics motivation still is the driving force behind abortion:


Ruth Bader Ginsburg, having decided for some inexplicable reason to do a long interview with a fashion magazine (maybe it is her celebrated collection of lace collars), reaffirmed the most important things we know about her: her partisanship, her elevation of politics over law, and her desire to see as many poor children killed as is feasibly possible.

Speaking about such modest restrictions on abortion as have been enacted over the past several years, Justice Ginsburg lamented that “the impact of all these restrictions is on poor women.” Then she added: “It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.”

This is not her first time weighing in on the question of what by any intellectually honest standard must be described as eugenics. In an earlier interview, she described the Roe v. Wade decision as being intended to control population growth, “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” She was correct in her assessment of Roe; the co-counsel in that case, Ron Weddington, would later advise President Bill Clinton: “You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor segment of our country,” by making abortifacients cheap and universally available. “It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it.”

In 1980, the punk band the Dead Kennedys released a song called “Kill the Poor.” In it, singer Jello Biafra considers the many benefits to be had from the policy he is singing about: the elimination of “unsightly slums,” the lowering of welfare taxes, reduction of overcrowding, reduction in crime, etc. “The sun beams down on a brand new day,” he declares, “Jane Fonda on the screen today convinced the liberals it’s okay.” To be sure, Mr. Biafra wasn’t singing about abortion; his tongue-in-cheek proposal was for the relatively antiseptic measure of striking poor neighborhoods and housing projects with neutron bombs, eliminating the populations but preserving property values. A ghastly and satirical proposal, to be sure, but not really so different from the case that Justice Ginsburg and others of her ilk make for eliminating those “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

“We only whisper it.”

The economist Steven Levitt, for example, has argued that abortion helped to bring down crime rates; that probably isn’t true, but it has not stopped abortion enthusiasts from incorporating crime-reduction into their case for killing the poor. Abortion as a tool of population control remains very much in vogue, particularly with international organizations: “To avoid a world with deteriorating social, economic, and political stability, with the concomitant loss of personal and national security, we must ensure that safe abortion is made available,” writes the American population-control activist and academic Steven Mumford, who also advocates mass sterilizations.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to A Satire, Not an Instruction Manual

  • This calls to mind Sir Dugald Baird’s 1965 paper – A Fifth Freedom? (freedom from “the tyranny of excessive fertility”) in which he complains that “in the second five-year plan for India only $10 million was allocated for population control as against $14 million for malaria control, a measure which, by lowering death rates quickly, could further aggravate the population crisis and reduce the standard of living, in that more capital, skills, and experience are absorbed in looking after children and young people and less is available for industrial development.”

    Such insouciance is remarkable in a medical man (Baird was Regius Professor of Midwifery at Aberdeen University Hospital). He was a leading light, not only of the Abortion Law Reform Association and the Family Planning Association, but of the British Eugenics Society (now the Galton Institute), founded in 1907 as the Eugenics Education Society. He delivered the 1970 Galton Lecture on “The Obstetrician & Society.”

    During Baird’s tenure, one pregnancy in 50 was terminated in Aberdeen, where he could give his eugenic views free rein, compared to one in 3,750 in Glasgow. Ian Donald, the Regius Professor of Midwifery at Glasgow once sardonically remarked that Baird’s choice of medicine as a career had deprived the cattle industry of a first-class stock-breeder.

    Baird was Sir David Steele’s principle advisor on his 1967 Abortion Bill.

  • This is one fact indisputable; In America, we do not suffer a lack of executioner’s. R. B. Ginsburg being one of the most influential.

    In heaven mansions designated for many have been forfeited by the intended occupants lack of compassion while on earth.

    Pray for their souls, the educated derelict’s that play God.

  • It is important for Catholics in America to educate ourselves concerning this primary ‘force’ in our culture. It is not simply Sanger and Planned Parenthood but many major companies and personages associated with them (both past and present). The power is formidable. The Culture of Death has infested so many levels of our society that it is incredible.

  • Botolph wrote, “The Culture of Death has infested so many levels of our society that it is incredible.” Not least the learned professions.

    Thus, in Scotland, the text-book writers had always acknowledged that an abortion performed in good faith to preserve the life and health of the mother was not criminal. The Crown Office (the prosecuting authority) relied on purely external criteria: consultation with colleagues, a general practitioner, a gynaecologist, a psychiatrist; admission to hospital; observation of the usual ethical procedures, such as a consultant being called in by the general practitioner; the keeping of proper records. Above all, gratuity was regarded as a guarantee of good faith. The actions of a salaried professor or other consultant operating in a public hospital were considered beyond question.
    Thus, the law did not police the medical profession and the medical profession ceased to police itself.

  • I hope it’s okay to place this appeal here.

    Our forty days for life campaign is underway. Hours of prayer before our local P.P. aka Murder Inc., is having an effect around the country. If you haven’t already signed up, please consider it.

    The culture of death can not win, however they can take more babies until the end, so please help with your witness now and shorten the time of this hideous culture.
    Thank you.

  • I join with you Philip in encouraging others to volunteer with 40 Days for Life.

    I am participating in my local campaign as well. May God save the babies and their moms.

  • slainte.
    God bless you!

  • Those who reproduce will inherit the Earth and that is exactly what is feared.

  • “The economist Steven Levitt, for example, has argued that abortion helped to bring down crime rates; that probably isn’t true, but it has not stopped abortion enthusiasts from incorporating crime-reduction into their case for killing the poor.”
    Innocent until proven guilty. Habeas Corpus. The Fifth Amendment. The Right to Life. What unalienable human right has abortion not declared null and void.

  • “Thus, in Scotland, the text-book writers had always acknowledged that an abortion performed in good faith to preserve the life and health of the mother was not criminal.”
    The death of the mother must be imminent as proof of the condition. Babies have been brought into the world after being attached to and growing outside of the womb.
    The destruction of the baby’s body is against the law. Destruction of the baby’s character, as destroying the mother, the mother whom the baby caused to be a mother, is not addressed, nor the destruction of civilization caused by the eugenicists is not acknowledged. Who in hell do they think that they are? Which tells us where they come from and what devil is leading the parade.

Can We Call Them Pro-Aborts Now?

Sunday, October 5, AD 2014

4 Responses to Can We Call Them Pro-Aborts Now?

  • There is no such thing as pro-choice. It is pro-abortion. I hear pro-abortion people say I am against abortion, but I give the woman the right to choose. You can’t give a person the right to do a wrong.

  • From the article: “Abortion saves lives, improves lives, and makes for a stronger society. The facts are decisively on our side.”
    By that logic, then, if we kill everybody, we’ll all be immortal. Hey, ya sold me.

  • Of course-there has always been so much more going on with abortion policy than “empowering individual women,” so many of whom were simply “useful idiots” in the implementation of eugenic racist abortions. And many of power in the Catholic Church have blood on their hands. See below:

    Pecado Mortal Votar Democrata: Conscience + Democrats = Mortal Sin

    Imagine 11,000,000 more minority voters in America. Imagine hundreds of thousands more Hispanic voters in Texas. Such imaginations are not a reality due to what the Democrats and their president have done.

    To have a well-formed conscience as defined by the Catholic Bishops, a Catholic must know not only the facts about a candidate, but also the commitments the candidate and his/her party have made and what they have actually done when they are in power. Obama and the Democrats have made it clear that they will together- all three branches of government- use all their power to promote abortion; to promote racist abortions that target Hispanics and Blacks; to fund abortions with taxpayer money; and to prevent any restrictions directed to the health and safety of mothers on the court-created right to abortion.

    The Democrats and their president have advocated for, enacted, and enforced racial eugenic targeted abortion (“RETA”)– funded with tax dollars – which has resulted in the death of millions of minority babies, primarily Black and Hispanic children. Of 56,000,000 dead babies since the Supreme Court invented the “right” to abortion, an inordinate percentage are Black and Hispanic babies – almost 60% – although their mothers account for less than a third of the population. This is not only population control, this is the real-world embodiment of Margaret Sanger’s scheme to eugenically rid the USA of what she called “human undergrowth.” What the KKK failed to do, Planned Parenthood has achieved far beyond its founder’s dreams. Echoing Archbishop Burke: the Democratic Party is now the “’Party Of Death”.

    No longer can a Catholic with a well-formed conscience say: “Yes, I am voting for a Democrat, but I do not intend to support abortion by doing so.” No longer can a Catholic say “Yes, I am voting for a Democrat, but I am ignoring this Party’s role in racist abortions”. As the Bishops have stated: “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil.”

    No other issue morally trumps issues of racism and abortion – not immigration, not poverty, not immigration, not war. Today a Catholic voter who has learned the facts about the Party Of Death, and who votes for any Democrat, necessarily has the intent to support abortion and RETA and formally cooperates in grave evil, committing a mortal sin. This is developed in detail in my document Virtuous Citizenship 2014 available at

    No doubt Catholic Bishops and pastors will soon be issuing statements explicitly and clearly asserting that a Catholic with a well-formed conscience cannot vote for any Democrat at any level of government without putting their immortal souls in danger of eternal suffering.

    Guy McClung
    San Antonio TX;

  • “Most profoundly, Pollitt’s book is a call for us all to reclaim and speak out about the truths we know. Personally, I like abortion. I’ve never needed one. I’m still glad to have the option. I’m glad for the people I’ve known who got pregnant at the wrong time, with the wrong people, and didn’t have their lives ruined by it.
    If Pollitt gets her way, more of us might feel free to admit that, hey: We like abortion.
    hey: We like killing the unborn of our species.

Evil as Bad Performance Art

Tuesday, September 23, AD 2014

To Nero, Emperor of Rome, Master of the World, Divine Pontiff.

I know that my death will be a disappointment to you, since you wished to render me this service yourself. To be born in your reign is a miscalculation; but to die in it is a joy. I can forgive you for murdering your wife and your mother, for burning our beloved Rome, for befouling our fair country with the stench of your crimes. But one thing I cannot forgive – the boredom of having to listen to your verses, your second-rate songs, your mediocre performances. Adhere to your special gifts, Nero – murder and arson, betrayal and terror. Mutilate your subjects if you must; but with my last breath I beg you – do not mutilate the arts. Fare well, but compose no more music. Brutalize the people, but do not bore them, as you have bored to death your friend,

the late Gaius Petronius

Fictional letter from Gaius Petronius to Nero in the novel Quo Vadis



Bad enough that someone has slain an innocent, but making a bad poem out of it?  At least the Nazis did not attempt to make swing tunes celebrating the glories of their extermination camps.  Ben Johnson of Lifesite News gives us the details behind the above video:



To take the second question first, The Huffington Post is promoting a video featuring Scottish “poet” Leyla Josephine, celebrating her decision to abort her daughter. The video, “I Think She Was a She,” was uploaded to YouTube a month ago.

In the video Josephine, decked out in military camouflage, justifies herself in part by saying that she would have been willing to serve as a sacrifice to abortion just as she offered her daughter to the idol of “choice.”

“I would’ve supported her right to choose – to choose a life for herself, a path for herself. I would’ve died for that right like she died for mine,” she said.

In the next rhyming line, she addresses her unborn daughter: “I’m sorry, but you came at the wrong time.”

“I am not ashamed. I am not ashamed. I am not ashamed,” she continues – a phrase she repeats a total of six times. She repeats the phrase “This is my body” three times. (She also takes the Lord’s name in vain once.)

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Evil as Bad Performance Art

  • Halloween is early this year aye.
    Spooks and hobgoblin’s witches and demons try their best to reward themselves with virtue but cometh only stench sorrow and vomit.

    This is a sign of THE times.

    Call it Killer Pride! Gay pride is nothing when in its shadows springs forward the true foulness of Killer Pride! How sweet oh progressive woman. They may wish to soil themselves in feces and parade in this years New York St. Patty’s as Oh Happy Murderer’s.

    This is YOUR future oh slimy feminist.
    Wrap yourself in feces and sing your swan song!

  • The standard fig leaf refrain from pro-abortion sickos especially those who drape themselves in Catholic mantle, is that no one is actually pro-abortion.

    Memorializing the abortion of your own child by verse, while worshipping at the altar of personal convenience, is in fact a stance that is nothing if not stridently and undeniably pro-abortion.

  • ““I would’ve supported her right to choose – to choose a life for herself, a path for herself. I would’ve died for that right like she died for mine,” she said.”

    The soul of the child chose life for herself or she would have become a miscarriage. Leyla Josephine has been seduced by the Great Liar.
    “I would’ve died for that right like she died for mine,” she said.”” NO, the child was murdered. Did anyone ask the child if she wanted to die for her mother’s right to choose? …when she was emancipated with informed consent? Informed consent denied makes a slave of a human being. One person cannot own another person…Abraham Lincoln.

  • “The essence of the Sacrament of Matrimony, a covenant with God, is to emulate the Creator through the gift of procreation. A man’s word is clothed in flesh by his helpmate.” pasted as well at Tactics.

  • That woman is no different than her Canaanite forbearers who sacrificed their children to Molech. They are as evil as their diametric opposites: the Islamic terrorists. Sadly there is only one way to stop both these people and I wish that were not the case. They neither know nor respect any other language. Then people wonder why God commanded the Children of Israel what He told them to do. I do NOT want that solution, and I do NOT advocate that solution, and that solution would surely grieve the heart of Jesus for God said in Ezekiel 18 that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. But neither liberals nor Islamists will apparently allow any other solution. Like the Seleucids before them, they are intent on wiping us out along with their own children, whether it’s by liberal abortion or by Islamic suicide bombers. Pray that God’s mercy may reigns over us before God’s justice rains down upon us. And remember that God’s mercy for unborn babies may mean God’s justice for us.

  • “Sadly there is only one way to stop both these people…”
    Well, we could always try to convert them. And try, and try. I know the odds are long, but still…

  • “I can think of few things which underline the emptiness of evil more than this talentless poet babbling about how she would have died for the “right to choose” of the daughter she just murdered.”
    It is possible that she did die for the right to choose, and sadly won’t know it to be true until she meets her Maker. The word ‘repent’ comes to mind here.

  • TomD.

    Your right. Without repentance we just DID witness her own death.

    Now it’s our duty to pray for her soul.
    That she comes to the light of repentance before her last breath.

    Surely she knew “Thou shall not kill.”
    But wait. It’s not P.C. to place the 10 commandments in public places.

    Wow. Souls are falling into hell, like snowflakes falling from the sky.

  • I can’t bring myself to watch this video, so I can’t speak with any real insight about it…but I recently read an article (it could have been on this site) that the “pro-choice” crowd was becoming more overtly pro-abortion. I’d hate to see people continue down this path, but public candor may help to shock society back on course.

  • I’ve hear other abortion apologists say the same thing about their own mothers’ ‘right to choose’.
    How very brave of them.

  • So why don’t these courageous baby murderesses kill themselves now? It’s only abortion albeit 20 or 30 years after the fact. Godless putrid liberal progressive Democrats.

  • “So why don’t these courageous baby murderesses kill themselves now?”
    Paul, you and I both know they are working on it. They just want it quick and painless, medically and legally approved. Just like the progressive parts of Europe.

    Have you ever read Mgr. Robert Hugh Benson’s 1907 novel Lord of the World?

  • Could it be, that as Satan’s time is shortening he is desperately scrambling for souls like Josephine to be his spokespersons? Seriously.
    It’s as if he is recruiting a brazen army and their public “service” announcements are becoming more and more public. Black mass in the news as another example.

    Showdown on horizon?
    If more and more Josephine gong show rejects show up touting their “talents” then maybe old screwtape is running out of time.

  • The thing reeks of shame and denial. Were there a hint of literary skill, one would suspect satire by means of the unreliable narrator, in the manner, say, of Browning’s dramatic monologues.

  • This is how we stop the devil:
    “V. Do you reject Satan?
    R. I do.
    V. And all his works?
    R. I do.
    V. And all his empty promises?
    R. I do.”

    Philip: “Black mass in the news as another example.”
    Satanic ritual is a tool, a weapon, to levy against believers in our Creator, and our unalienable human rights; to gain power, to owning another human being, slavery, slavery to the devil to whom the Satanist will not grant his allegiance nor his sacrifice, but our lives and our sacrifice.
    While the government attempts to write law against “hate speech”, the black mass is total evil, devoid of any love. The black mass is total evil, absolute hatred.

    The essence of God is existence. The essence of the devil is annihilation. “We, the people”, who exist, would like to go on existing in love and peace. Hatred and annihilation are diametrically opposed to love and peace. Absolute evil is the antithesis of love and peace.
    The Lord of Chaos is absent in any law and order. Therefore, the black mass is unconstitutional and may not be allowed under freedom of religion.
    The Declaration of Independence says that we must rely upon Divine Providence.
    The Satan worshippers have invited the Lord of Chaos and when the devil comes they have the supreme ignorance to blame God.
    See more:

  • Philip: “Halloween is early this year aye.”
    Homosexual practitioners always bring up the rear.

  • Hi Mary De Voe.
    Punny comment “…bringing up the rear.”

    The Holy Rosary indeed. The enemy can not win. They fear Our Lady and those who daily devote themselves to her chain of victory.
    Thank you for the link.

  • Pingback: Interview with Vaticanista Vet on Pope Francis -

Jesus Wept

Tuesday, August 26, AD 2014



Since my beloved son Larry died last year, not a day has gone by that I have not thought of him.  Immediately after his death I would think about him, literally, almost every minute of each day.  Now it is usually once every 15 minutes.  He enriched beyond measure the life of myself and my bride and I miss him with all my heart.  Larry had autism, and, as a result of his autism, my conversations with him were limited in words, although we each got our meanings across.  I greatly admired the way in which my son did not let his disability add sorrow to his life, and the joy he normally radiated warmed my soul.  I have had several privileges in my life that have been granted me by God, but I think the greatest was being entrusted with Larry.

Then I read how some parents who are having their unborn children tested for Down Syndrome react:


Rayna Rapp, a former abortion clinic worker who aborted a baby with Down syndrome herself, conducted a survey of women and couples who sought amniocentesis to screen for Down syndrome and other problems with their babies. All of the interviewees intended to abort if the baby was found to have Down syndrome. Some of the things that these parents say about Down syndrome children are deeply troubling to anyone who values life. Here are some comments from men and women who said they would abort if the test came back positive for Down.

  • I would have a very hard time dealing with a retarded child. Retardation is relative, it could be so negligible that the child is normal, or so severe that the child has nothing… All of the sharing things you want to do, the things you want to share with a child – that, to me, is the essence of being a father. There would be a big void that I would feel. I would feel grief, not having what I consider a normal family.(133)

  • I have an image of how I want to interact with my child, and that’s not the kind of interaction I want, not the kind I could maintain. (133)

  • I’m sorry to say I couldn’t think about raising a child with Down’s. I’m something of a perfectionist. I want the best for my child. I’ve worked hard, I went to Cornell University, I’d want that for my child. I’d want to teach him things he couldn’t absorb. I’m sorry I can’t be more accepting, but I’m clear I wouldn’t want to continue the pregnancy.( 133 – 134)

  • The bottom line is when my neighbor said to me: “Having a “tard,” that’s a bummer for life.” (91)

  • I just couldn’t do it, couldn’t be that kind of mother who accepts everything, loves her kid no matter what. What about me? Maybe it’s selfish, I don’t know. But I just didn’t want all those problems in my life. (138)

  • If he can’t grow up to have a shot at becoming the president, we don’t want him.(92)

  • It’s devastating, it’s a waste, all the love that goes into kids like that. (134)

  • I think it’s kind of like triage, or like euthanasia. There aren’t enough resources in the world. We’d have to move, to focus our whole family on getting a handicapped kid a better deal… Why spend $50,000 to save one child?(146)

All of these mothers and fathers (for they are already mothers and fathers to their babies growing in the womb) had chosen to have abortions if the baby had Down. The book did not specify which pregnancies actually tested positive and how many went on to abort. But all of the quotes above were made by men and women who fully intended to kill their babies if they turned out to be mentally challenged.

Continue reading...

28 Responses to Jesus Wept

  • With parents attitudes as bleak and weak as theirs, who in Gods name would want to be their children?

    You are given an Angel that just also happened to be in human form, and just so happened to be created from the love you your wife and God share.
    This Angel wasn’t pure spirit mind you, however Donald was close to that caliber. I say this because I have a neice that is a Downs syndrome baby, and the light that fills our hearts comes from her smile love and positive energy.

    You are given of of Gods greatest gifts, and there is no past tense here.
    He loves you sees you and hugs you.
    He lives in our homeland. He calls you “my dad on Earth.”

    You’ve been so blessed to share his years on Earth…as he was just as blessed to share in your families years.
    Peace Donald.

  • “The sins of the fathers will be visited on the children for ten generations.” Jesus fell under the cross three times. The Downs syndrome child is doing reparation for the ten generations before him. Least a person could do is appreciate the sacrifice, the Downs Child is making for all of us…lest God wipe us all from the face of the earth. Thank you dear. See you in heaven when we will talk.
    The Downs child is more one of us than any other.
    The despicable responses from those who have contempt for God and God’s people is pukes.

  • typos…excuse me please. “…however Donald he was close to that caliber.”

    “You are given one of Gods greatest gifts.”

    Mr. McClarey. I write from my heart.
    The posts about your mom and your son
    Reveal a love of and from God.
    It is in this spirit that my poor fingers fly faster than my intellect. Please keep this in mind. I love God and try to love my neighbors in His love. I’m in great awe of parents like you.

  • What a gift you had in your son, Larry.

    One day you’ll be reunited in Heaven…forever. Then there’ll be no more tears.

  • “Then there’ll be no more tears.”

    Only eternal joy and the love that surpasses our understanding here below.

  • Pingback: Sviatoslav: Ukraine Needs Christian Support -
  • “I will eventually summon up the will to pray for these parents…They are the truly disabled, in heart and soul, not the priceless children who have the misfortune to be their offspring.”
    God yes. That brought a tear to my eyes Don, knowing the loss that these parents unknowingly have. The truly disabled. Yes indeed, pray for them.

  • We can pray that when these twisted souls have a normal child, God will use them to save their parents.

    In Christ there is always hope!

  • Their excuses are all I Self and Me – the essence of liberalism, progressivism, modernism – whatever you want to call it.
    God bless you Donald for how much you loved Larry.

  • Years ago I read a satirical article written by an adult with autism (Aspergers) in which he described “neurotypicality” (i.e. not being autistic) as if THAT were a disability — one that makes people too obsessed with popularity, being “cool”, impressing people and fitting in with the crowd. Sounds to me like some of these people cited in the article have a really, really bad case of it. It isn’t always easy having an autistic daughter as I do, but give me a kid like her over one of these clowns any day.

  • Honestly, many of us felt this way before our first child, and God granted us a child who awakens us from such thoughts. It doesn’t even require a disabled child or one with a lot of needs. Just realizing a child’s will and temperament are not one’s own, his interests are not one’s own, her taste is not the same, etc. is often enough to move us from our thoughts of what parenthood is for to His thoughts of what parenthood is about.

    It is evil that there is an industry of people to help kill our child just because we are selfish for a time. But most of us are selfish beyond measure, and parenthood is God’s plan to teach us humility, charity, true love. Don’t be so angry that a not-yet parent would not yet know true love. Save that anger for the evil that feeds off it.

  • Dear Mr. McClary, thank you for this article, and for sharing your experiences with Larry. Please keep a friend of mine in your prayers. He is fighting a very aggressive form of cancer and the prognosis is grim. One of his children is a young man with severe autism. They are very close, and we are all concerned about this young man’s well-being if he loses his Dad. They would appreciate prayers from everyone reading this, as I am sure Larry is praying for his spiritual brother and family. Thank you.

  • Sincere condolences with prayers for your family. I lost my younger daughter on 09/11/01 in the world trade center . She was only thirty and she was my sunshine and the sunshine for her father and brothers and sisters as well.
    We learn to live with our losses but we never stop loving and praying we will meet in heaven.

  • My prayers for your daughter Cathy. Death has no power over true love.

  • Donald, My heart goes out to you for having to suffer the flaws of the human character via their comments about your son. It speaks volumes of your character as to your forgiveness to their wronging/hurting you and ability to withhold your anger at their ignorance/shortsightedness/bigotry. Walter

  • Donald,

    You are a great witness as a Catholic man, husband and father. You are in my continued prayers along with your whole family

  • Donald, are you sure you should even be reading articles like this? I’m definitely not telling you who you should and shouldn’t pray for, and you may be displaying a heroic courage that I’d be in no position to understand, but even exposing yourself to this kind of thing strikes me as imprudent. For what it’s worth.

  • Ah, Pinky, thank you for your concern, but I see far worse in my professional life regarding terrible things done to kids.

  • “You are a great witness as a Catholic man, husband and father.”

    Thank you for your kind words Botolph. I look at myself as a sinful attorney who needs all the prayers he can get. I am fortunate in that the people around me have tended to be very good people indeed.

  • “It speaks volumes of your character as to your forgiveness to their wronging/hurting you and ability to withhold your anger at their ignorance/shortsightedness/bigotry. Walter”

    Thank you Walter. I am afraid that I have a bad temper that I strive to control with imperfect success. I actually feel more pity than rage at people who can have such contempt for the most innocent among us.

  • I don’t understand why an obstetrician at a Catholic hospital* insists that pregnant women have amnios to screen for Down’s syndrome, especially when those women insist that they have no intention of artificially aborting any child no matter what.

    *Now the chain that operates that hospital calls itself Dignity instead of Catholic.

  • Micha Elyi: “I don’t understand why an obstetrician at a Catholic hospital* insists that pregnant women have amnios to screen for Down’s syndrome, especially when those women insist that they have no intention of artificially aborting any child no matter what. *Now the chain that operates that hospital calls itself Dignity instead of Catholic.”
    Wrongful life ( a life not worthy of live) lawsuits have been decided against the doctors.

  • As horrible as these sentiments by the expecting parents are, it only gets worse. For each challenged child that gets aborted, think of the effect on other or subsequent siblings as well. My brother has cognitive challenges, and if he were not around, I doubt I and my other siblings would be as aware of the true contributions he and others like him make. It would make an even more callous world of one that is already far too callous to begin with.

  • As an educator of specially abled kiddos–the reality is this: no child can ever live up to those expectations. The other thought I had–accidents happen. Would these parents kill their child with a traumatic brain injury? I’ve worked with several students that have had this happen, and the efforts and battles to keep the child from dying is ALWAYS fully supported by the parents, no matter how the child’s brain is damaged. I am near tears thinking of the arrogance and stupidity exhibited by these parents. I will pray for them.

  • Pingback: Pastoral Sharings: "22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time" | St. John
  • Some of these comments are unfair. I am prolife. I had a baby at 39 – my first – Thanks be to God. I has amniocentesis. To this day I do not know what I would have done. I struggled for the time period it took for the tests to come back. When they called to tell me all was good – I could not hear the voice giving me the good news I had to have my husband call. I had to deal with truth and I began to research all the possibilities. Do not judge harshly – but embrace and forgive as Christ would and feel blessed for every gift you are given by God. I hope you never have to know the torment of what to do if……

  • “I hope you never have to know the torment of what to do if……”

    If I had known Patrece that my son Larry was going to have autism it wouldn’t have changed the love that my bride and I had for him and his brother in the womb by one iota. We specifically had no amniocentisis performed because we do not believe in search and destroy missions in utero. As my bride told her pediatrician, the babies she carried were coming to term no matter what.