The title kinda tells you where the author is going, doesn’t it? Well, she does a good job getting there– and I’m going to grab a paragraph that I found especially helpful to counter the argument-by-verbal-abuse so common in this ‘discussion’:
She provides a template for a “dialogue” with someone asking for an exemption. From the get go, she makes it clear that those who refuse to get vaccinated are egocentric, deficient in their understanding of what the healing ministry of Jesus requires, not committed to unity or the common good, without concern for the poor and vulnerable, and lacking in charity.
What a beginning! Lysaught doesn’t exactly exhibit the charitable practice of assuming the best motives on the part of one’s “dialogue” partner. Indeed, neither in the template nor in the essay written to accompany the document does Lysaught show the slightest interest in why Catholics or others might resist taking a COVID-19 vaccine. Clearly, they are just selfish dunderheads who don’t understand what is manifestly true for those in the know. In such a “dialogue” the dialogue partner could not get a word in edgewise. They have nothing to say of value.
Sound familiar to anybody else? A very literal attempt to control the conversation… which isn’t something I especially want to show up on my side in the pro-life movement. It can get short-term gains, but is only useful for those trying to get someone to take a step that can’t be undone, which is why it is so popular on the pro-death side. You can’t unabort a child, uneuthanize grandma or an injured sibling, nor unpartake of a vaccine produced using deliberate killing of an absolute innocent so they can become a material. The pro-life side recognizes repentance and redemption, so even on a tactical level it’s a terrible choice, even before one considers the damage done to the truth.
Excellent article by Janet Smith. It’s worth a careful reading.
Her “art” of persuasion is reminiscent of Cheech and Chong’s 1972 album [ The Big Bambu ]
In it, the old man MUST SIGN ZE PAPERS.
When anyone uses intimidation to win an argument or bully someone into something, it doesn’t take much to see the armband and jackboots.
Not always the case. Having personally counselled women in a pregnancy crisis in the past for a number of years, women need a solid voice to tell them the truth. It was always a very small window of opportunity for counsellors like myself to reach their hearts on a decision which would ultimately change the course of their life and their families life. I always felt that burden of responsibility whenever I started my roster. You could hear the tinge of relief in their voice that someone was actually flat out telling them that a baby won’t destroy your life. In no uncertain terms. That the long term risks associated to their health in having an abortion were real. In no uncertain terms. If they want dialogue to think through a decision whether to keep the baby and not keep the baby then there are plenty of voices out their which can afford them that. When it comes to life and death, gentle dialogue is not always the best course.
That isn’t trying to panic someone into making a RIGHT NOW choice that can’t be reversed.
That is giving them the other half of the information, which they have been denied, and (emotionally) giving them “permission” to wait, and get more information.
I guess so. Its difficult to do. No one likes to be flat out told the truth. And it’s heart-pounding saying it. It’s that word dialogue. I feel like it’s double-talk by some sections of society to push untruths. And if you try and say hey that thinking is insane, you are the one branded insane.
There’s some coincidence because the lesson yesterday at services was on Ephesians 4 and speaking truth in love. It is a balancing act we all must struggle with and figure out.
And it’s heart-pounding saying it. It’s that word dialogue. I feel like it’s double-talk by some sections of society to push untruths. And if you try and say hey that thinking is insane, you are the one branded insane.
::nodding::
Yeah.
Part of that is the stakes, and part of that is because at least one side is actively trying to stir folks up in order to get choices made that would not be made if people were allowed to consider calmly, with all the information.
The Testimonies Project.
For your discernment;
https://youtu.be/S4BpEr8gztU
Heart pounding,yes. Espescially when the father -to-be wants the baby, but the parents of the mother to be admantly want the abortion for the 19 yo who’s had wild ride as a teen and her life is now stable. My son her pal not the father to be, tells me, “Mom, I’m pro life but you need to stay out of this” Of course I told him that I couldn’t but out when a life was a stake. That his dad and I would pay for pre-natal appts and delivery, I heard back that she had a miscarriage. I don’t know. The girl is now a 40 yo woman and has 3 children by 3 husbands.
This is interesting given Lysaught bent catholic moral teaching into a pretzel to justify abortion at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix.
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/Phoenix-abortion-case.htm