03 February, 2010

Can a Christian vote for the Liberal Party of Canada? Go ahead... it will probably only cost you your soul!

The leader of the Canadian Liberal Party has strongly come out in favor of a woman's right to have a government funded abortion for no other reason than she would want to have one. In this article in the National Post, he claims that he does not want to see women die at the hands of back street abortionists (as if somehow pro-life advocates would want such a horrid fate for anyone!).

Michael Ignatieff's challenge to the Conservative Party leader (Prime Minister Stephen Harper) to state clearly his support for unlimited abortion services is little more than a cynical ploy trying to paint the (nominally) pro-life Prime Minister as some sort of fundamentalist extremist.

Leaving aside for one moment the flawed logic of Ignatieff's argument (dead women - bad; dead babies - good), clearly no one of any political persuasion is supporting unsafe medical procedures at the hands of unqualified professionals. To try to label the pro-life camp in such a light is an intellectually dishonest attempt on the part of this alleged academic genius for his own political and personal gain. He should not be allowed to get away with misusing human rights in such a sexist and perverse manner.

If and when the next election comes around, it will be important for Christian's of all stripes to point out that the Liberal Party apparently not only stands for the wholesale slaughter of pre-born children, but is also willing to cynically use womens health issues as a political club to attain their own ends.

It is now as clear as can be:  Liberal Party of Canada desires to kill pre-born children (and the aged as evidenced by their stand on euthanasia). To vote in support of such a party is almost tantamount to material cooperation with evil and is something that a Christian should do with  great hesitation and the gravest of concerns, lest they endanger their own soul with their vote. We all will have to stand before Jesus as our Lord & judge at the end of our life. Those who support pro-death parties like the Liberal Party of Canada should expect the millions of souls killed at the hands of abortionists and doctors practicing euthanasia to give evidence of their unworthiness to be granted entry into eternal paradise.

Something to consider whenever the next election rolls around. Something that Michael Ignatieff should consider as well before he continues down his own path to spiritual (and probably... hopefully political) oblivion.

40 comments:

  1. When someone like Sarah Palin chooses to have a retard baby, she obligates the taxpayer to millions of dollars over its lifetime. Life long medical expenses, special education, licensed and supervised goup home living. All things that a job wiping down tables and picking up trash in the parking lot at McDonalds, if he is a retard of the very highest caliber, won't cover.

    When your Granny gets old and develops diabetes, then kidney failure, then end stage congestive heart failure, she can be kept alive, indefinitely, with frequent, routine, astronomically expensive medical interventions and almost as frequent intensive care unit admissions to nurse her back from the life threatening complications that develop, secondary to frequent, multiple medical interventions. The last few years or even few months of her life, will end up costing millions.

    Respect for life from birth to natural death, all as interpreted for you by an elderly, Bavarian poofter, elected by a bunch of scared old men in a dark room, facing the end of their World. That's your right. Not an ideal. Not a proposed right. It's your actual right, you get it today. The rest of us respect your beliefs and let you and yours live as you please.

    So, some little girl somewhere, doesn't believe the same as the exalted, pastry munching, eidelwiess sniffing poofter. She decides now isn't the time for her to start having children. Or maybe she already has some children and they are proving to be more work and expense than she is up to, especially that retard one. Also, she has to visit Granny frequently in ICU, after she goes into V-fib and has to be rescusitated during agressive dialysis, necessitated by the severity of her fluid overload and CHF.

    You're all Scotchy that your tax money paid for the National Health may shell out a few hundred so this poor young woman can go into clinic one afternoon for a quick scrape and suck.

    Ain't you the right little Tin God, Timmy. Hardly seems charitable, after footing the bill for the retard and Granny.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Reddog: I could not help but chuckle when I read your comment. Let me work from the bottom to the top of your letter.

    1. Labeling a person a "retard" and claiming that they have less right to live than you or I seems to be a far more representative position of a "Tin God" than claiming the opposite, as I do in my letter.

    2. No one is obliged to use any extraordinary means to prolong life. If Granny does not want to use any medical services if she were in need and thus permit death to occur, she is well within her rights to do so and the Church would have no objection. If on the other hand her life is measured by the same utilitarian yardstick that you applied to the Palin child, she should be put to death whether she would want to or not. After all, why waste public dollars on a non-productive person, right? (Just be careful not to slip and fall lest you fall into the same non-productive category.

    3. For a Catholic (or any believing Christian) abortion is the killing of an innocent life and is never proper not matter what the circumstances of her life. There are other option readily and freely available to any pregnant person who does not want to care for the child growing within her. Every month I receive any number of letters from couples who cannot conceive a child who beg for clergy to connect them to such a woman. Thus, if there exists options that do not demand the extermination of an innocent life which would permit the woman of your example from having to raise the child, she should not be permitted to abort the child.

    This nonsense about "backstreet abortions" is a red herring. The days when anyone had to obtain such a procedure to avoid the scandal of an unwed pregnancy is long, long gone. Given that there is no need of an innocent to be slaughtered, and no scandal left to stain the reputation of a woman for getting pregnant, the only reason left for a woman to have an abortion is because she does not want to take responsibility for her own actions. This should never be sufficient reason to kill.

    4. Sarah Palin is an American, thus the state does not pay for her health care, nor for her children. It is a service that she must purchase on her own, either directly or by purchasing health insurance. Therefore the state (or you, or me, or anyone) has no right to judge whether he deserves to receive medical care except his parents (and himself or his guardian once he comes of age).

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reddog: One last point. Maybe its a generational thing, but I assume you are talking about the Pope in your letter, but why do you call him a "poofer"? I am not familiar with that term and it's not in my dictionary.

    Not being obtuse... I really am not sure.

    Thanks.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sarah's little package from God, by virtue of being a special needs child, immediately becomes eligible for Medicaid and Medicare and many specialized supportive State programs. Alaska has a social welfare state more comprehensive than Canada's. If at any time Sarah wishes to turn her child over as a ward of the State, as the majority of parents with severely retarded children eventually do, the State then assumes all responsibility for that person. State run developmental centers, group homes and hospitals are full of retarded adults who live long lives, many into their 80s and even 90s. Every effort is made to provide a comfortable, safe and stimulating environment. The expense is immense. That is the law and I, of course, support it.

    Poofter is a venerable English public school term for homosexual, which the current Pope is. JP II was heterosexual. Paul VI and JP I and Pius XII were all Gay.

    Benedict maintains a long term domestic relationship with his Secretary, Georg Ganswein, with whom he lives at the Vatican. Paul had a long relationship with a well known actor during his Papacy and many other partners over his long career in the priesthood. Most of the Bishops in America are closeted, self loathing homosexuals. New York's Cardinal Spellman, best friend of Joseph Kennedy, used to famously and openly pursue young Broadway chorus boys. Fulton Sheen was an epic drag queen. Cardinal Mahoney, in my neighborhhod, is well known in the community as a homosexual. He is barely closeted and well liked by all, even though he did much to shield priestly child abusers. There is no use denying the deeply entrenched homosexual culture within the hierarchy of the priesthood within the Catholic Church. As a priest yourself, you certainly must be aware of its presence and pervading influence.

    The dichotomy this promotes will bring the Catholic Church to ruin. I don't mind that much. I would think you would. Pretending it isn't there isn't productive.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A poofter is a slang term for an effeminate homosexual man or a cross-dresser (not the same things). And if reddog was using it to refer to the pope, it's probably a reference to the robes (dress, skirts -- "female" attire on a man). All things considered, it's pretty mild, considering that people on the anti-choice side of the fence call those of us who are pro-choice killers and murderers.

    But I have a couple of questions for you: 1) Since when do Catholics get to speak for all Christians? And, 2) Since when do Christians of any stripe get to speak for everybody else?

    If you want to make this a religious argument, you can only speak for yourself. I don't allow anyone to speak for me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lady Janus: First off, what a beautiful screen name!

    You ask if Catholic's speak for all Christians. Well, insofar as all Catholics are Christians, I guess that we can speak as well as any other for the Christian faith. As the oldest communion that can trace its lineage back to the time Apostles (along with our separated siblings in the Orthodox tradition), it is uniquely positioned to do so. However, I don't think this is the point that you are actually addressing.

    As to the 2nd question, Christianity is a revealed religion, growing from Jewish and Christian roots. Since this means that there are revealed truths that must be respected by its adherents, it logically follows that Christians have the obligation and right to speak for what is or is not in compliance with this revelation.

    Thus I don't accept your last statement. As a Catholic, as a Christian, and as a priest, I have every right to speak to the truth of these issues.

    Now, if others choose not to believe in the teachings of Christ, or perhaps believe that faith is something that should be kept out of such issues as abortion or euthanasia, they are in no way obliged to form their opinions to follow Christian principles. I simply state that one cannot hold to such essentially contradictory positions of being pro-abortion/euthanasia and pro-Christian at the same time without having to carry the consequences of these conflicted stances before God.

    Anyone in our country is permitted to access abortion services. They simply cannot do so and still claim to be among Christ's faithful.

    Hope this helps to clarify my thoughts.

    Thanks for your comment,

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  7. Reddog: I think that I have made it clear in my postings that I do not believe that any cleric (no matter the rank) can or should think of themselves as being faithful if the violate their vows. If the lived witness of any cleric stands in such utter contradiction to their religious obligations, they bespot themselves to such a degree as to obscure the face of God that they are to reveal to humanity. This is why JP II implemented a policy banning openly gay men from becoming priests (although if a priest is faithfully celibate, what does it really matter what his orientation? No one has successfully answered that question for me yet).

    In this they are no different than married people. One cannot be engaging in ongoing extramarital affairs and still claim to being faithful to their marriage vows.

    Clerics do not merit special consideration that would permit such hypocrisy.

    It really is hard to get around that "millstone around your neck" teaching that Jesus gave to the apostles. I would not want to stand in the shoes of any cleric on the day of judgment if I had been so duplicitous and unfaithful to their vows.

    As to the specific allegations you make about Cardinals and Popes; I have never heard this information before so I will not make comment on them, other than to say that if what you state is correct, they will be very frightened men on their death beds as the prepare for their encounter with Christ as Lord and Judge.

    "Poofer". Thanks for the explanation. Only goes to show that there's something new to learn every day.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hold on, Father. This statement by Ignatieff, reprehensible as it is, has apparently taken the pro-life members of the Liberal caucus by surprise. I think they're fighting a losing battle myself, but is this not a matter of prudential judgment?

    Where this is still unsettled within the party (unlike in the NDP, which is officially and solidly in favour of letting mothers kill their unborn children), I fear that you risk squandering your spiritual capital here.


    God bless,
    Alan

    ReplyDelete
  9. Alan,

    I have a good friend who was a Liberal MP (Robert Bertrand - Pontiac). Essentially he was sandbagged by the Liberal party under Paul Martin as he voted a consistent pro-life and Catholic line. I say "sandbagged" because the caucus was informed at the time of the same sex marriage debate that any MP who voted for it would not have to contest his/her nomination. Those who voted against it would not be given the same privilege. Bob voted his conscience and faced a situation where an opponent (chosen by the party) was allowed to sell almost 1000 party memberships before he was informed - a clear violation of the Party's rules. He decided to be a good Liberal and did not complain when he lost the nomination battle by a few votes.

    The Liberal Party has thrown aside any claim that it once held to be a party guided by Christian principles... let alone the principles of fairness.

    At least the NDP has the courage of its convictions and openly states its position. They may be wrong (in my opinion) but at least they are more honest than the Liberal Party.

    Understand that in my life to this point, I have formerly been a member of that party. I sat on riding executives and attended provincial and federal conventions (all before I was a priest). Now, I will not vote for them under any circumstance as they have lost the moral right to ask for my vote.

    Thanks for your interest in my blog and with my NP comments.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Bloq Quebec is the worst of them.
    Reddog and Janus sure have a lot of immature hate to deal with.

    ReplyDelete
  11. All Catholics are Christians, but all Christians are not Catholic. And that's why I asked the first question. There are specifically Catholic takes on Christianity that do not apply to other denominations, so you are correct, that's not exactly the answer I was seeking.

    And I understand about the "revealed" (a misnomer if ever there was one) religions. When I said "everybody else," I was not speaking of members the revealed religions, but of the non-Mosaic religions. There are Christians of all kinds (but not all Christians) who think they own the very concept of religion and that no one else's religion or culture should be allowed to exist -- that citizenship ought to be revoked unless a conversion takes place. They are a minority, true. But they are loud and annoying. Not to mention ignorant and disrespectful, all the while they are yelling that others "need" to "respect" them.

    "Thus I don't accept your last statement. As a Catholic, as a Christian, and as a priest, I have every right to speak to the truth of these issues."

    Ah, but you must accept it. I have my own religion, and it is not Abrahamic in origin, so those "truths" of yours are not necessarily truths to me. You may speak for those who will allow you to do so, but I am not one of them.

    What I wanted to know is why some Christians feel they have a right to speak for non-Christians and/or demand conformity to Christian rules?

    "I simply state that one cannot hold to such essentially contradictory positions of being pro-abortion/euthanasia and pro-Christian at the same time without having to carry the consequences of these conflicted stances before God."

    Instead of saying "pro-abortion," try using the correct term -- pro-choice. Just like all Christians are not Catholic, so too all choices are not for abortion. And the term "euthanasia" in this context is also incorrect unless you are talking about executing a convicted murderer.

    And I have absolutely no quarrel with anyone's justifying himself before his god...whichever god that turns out to be. Where I do have a problem is when a self-appointed "spokesman" for one of those gods puts himself in my path and tells me, "Can't," and tries to justify it by telling me his god told him so.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lady Janus: Again, thanks for your excellent comment. I'll do my best to answer the issues you raise.

    1. I am unaware of any Christian faith that has successfully held together their obligations to God and a pro-abortion stand (more on terminology below) without coming apart at the seems. Thus I think it fair to say that abortion/euthanasia are incompatible with Christian teachings.

    2. The laws, civic culture and values of our Canadian society are the product of judeo-christian thought and belief. Thus to promote something that is by its essence contradictory to this truth is to do harm to our culture & society. I am not trying to force values/positions on you or anyone else. I am simply pleading for respect of our heritage/cultural roots lest we kill the civilizational tree which brought us to this point in our development as a nation.

    3. Your raise the terminology issue (pro-choice vs pro-abortion). You are very wise in making this point for it establishes the basic fact that "words matter". I choose to use pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia rather than pro-choice because we are talking about being in favor of ending a human life. For me as a Christian, one does not have a "choice" to kill an innocent life. I thus use the terminology that accurate describes the opinions of the various camps in this debate and not hide my (or their) intentions behind such neutrally noxious terms as "pro-choice".

    4. I note in your biography that you are a follower of the Wiccan tradition. Your convictions as a witch are every much as "revealed" as are the Abrahamic traditions. You find in nature the patterns that reveal to you how to believe. You worship the creation; I worship the creator. We are both participants in a revelatory communion.

    5. Lastly, yes, I do see myself as being a type of spokesman for the faith. Every Christian should be the same. We have the right (in fact obligation would be a better word) to bring our values into the public square - just as you are doing. Insofar as our respective interventions influence public policy which are expressed in the laws of the land, we each have the opportunity to influence the "can's" and "can not's that are our laws. As a church, Christians have no right to tell you what to do or how you must live your life, but we can in a democracy do all we can by force of argument to influence the laws of our land. I make no apologies to anyone for adding my voice to these debates, just as I support your right to do the same.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hear Hear Father Tim.

    Great posting. Excellent challenging comments, and super responses to them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Fr. Tim:

    Thanks for your good post. I do have a concern, and this is from the perspective of someone embedded in the political world: as we have seen in the USA, the complete political polarization of social conservatives into one camp is, IMO, dangerous for democracy. What we have is the pendulum, where the "pro-life" party takes power for a few years, reduces funding etc for the provision of abortions, and then several years later, the "pro-choice" party gets in, and gives it all back. It also unnecessarily enshrines what should fundamentally not be a partisan issue as a partisan issue. While I myself cannot rationalize support for the Libs or NDP, there are still a few devout Christians I know who struggle away to make their voices heard, usually amongst great resistance to their voices, in those parties. They are not comfortable, but I respect them for trying to be a voice in the wilderness in this way. I wish there were more like them. While I particularly abhor Ignatieff's tactic here, it is very political in order to cause trouble within Conservative ranks. I hope pro-lifers will raise their voices even more strongly TO LIBERALS in concern, and not simply talk to their friends.

    BTW, I would sign my name as Tim but don't know how to do anything but register as "Anon".

    Regards,

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  15. Fr. Tim I am commenting on what you said to Reddog:
    “…..JP II implemented a policy banning openly gay men from becoming priests (although if a priest is faithfully celibate, what does it really matter what his orientation? No one has successfully answered that question for me yet).”

    I will try to answer that question even though it will not be successful.

    God is the only one that knows for sure a priest is gay and is able to be faithful to his vocation to the priesthood. It doesn’t matter to me a priest’s sexual orientation because it is really none of my business. You be surprise how many people know some priest and other clergy that are gay. They don’t talk about it, they do not care as long he keeps himself from getting into trouble like getting caught in a scandal.

    Let’s just say for an example: you Father Tim have this gay orientation (I’m not saying you are gay) and nobody knows except some family members or speaking as a mother she would be glad you are in a safe place and thanking God for taking care of you and all the ones you are shepherding and leading to the Lord.
    As long as your parishioners do not know you are gay, it will not bother them. It is like out of sight and out of mind. Nevertheless, if somehow you are found out to be gay, you will soon see how different you will be perceived by religious people, your parishioners and other folks. They may wonder can you be trusted with children. Many people still think all gay men must be pedophiles even though that is NOT true. All those clergy scandals have got them nervous with those large pay outs to victims. Do not forget the secret pay outs that are yet to be reveal or never will be revealed because of all those cover-ups and privacy laws. Then there is the Catechism of the Holy Roman Catholic Church what it says about Homosexuality?

    Someone like me may ask you, why did you hide this gay orientation from your spiritual adviser at the time of your formation? Did you keep this secret because if you told the truth to your spiritual adviser about being gay, your ordination to the priesthood for you would be a big NO way plus no employment within the Church, sorry? In your own mind Father, you knew full well you can be a faithful celibate priest and lead a happy productive life yet you are rejected to the priesthood because you have been found out you are gay or your spiritual adviser thinks you are gay or for whatever reason the Holy Spirit has led him to believe to think you are not a good candidate for the priesthood.
    Remember Father,‘the benefit of the doubt must be given to the Church’.

    But on the other hand, if you told your spiritual adviser you can be a faithfully celibate (heterosexual/straight) priest there would be no problem for you to proceeding to the priesthood. It is not complicated as having the label homosexual attach to your name in my opinion.

    It’s the politics of the Church. Why are there so many gay men that are priest? It doesn’t matter to me as long as they adhere to the Holy Roman Catholic Church's teachings and it is business as usual in carrying out their vocation faithfully.

    It is that policy, ‘banning openly gay men from becoming priests’ that helps some men to lie to themselves about their gay orientation and to their spiritual adviser. I am sure there are numerous reasons for saying I am not gay Father. The deep denial, the inner ego that is at work and it wants to survive, it wants to be wanted and it wants to be accepted, it wants to do their part contributing for the good of all humanity.

    I pray for all priests. Especially, for those priests that are struggling with their celibacy issues. Straight or gay!

    True, celibacy is a gift, yet sometimes having a dog Father Tim is just not enough for some priests.

    Blessings to you Fr. Tim,
    Lina

    ReplyDelete
  16. Excellent post Lina! I cannot disagree with anything you wrote! I'm just immensely grateful that my dog is enough for me.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  17. Great post Fr.

    Count Iggy will apparently stoop to any level in order to get elected. First childcare and now this rubbish.

    Hopefully a large enough number of Catholics will now abandon the Liberal Party and give the Conservatives the majority they deserve.

    And finally Reddog, is that you Outlaw ?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Northern Exposure04 February, 2010

    Let's assume that what Fr. Tim has written about the Liberal Party is true. Could someone please explain how the Conservative Party is any better?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Northern Exposure.

    I don't know.

    Has the Conservative Party actively proposed a pro-abortion policy ?

    ReplyDelete
  20. sanwin-

    I'm not outlaw, whoever that is.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Fr. Tim, thank you so much for offering your thoughtful philosophies! I shall accept your gift, and hope that you will accept mine, in return. Without wax. We shall disagree, and perhaps we shall tussle over details, but if we can be honest with each other without hostilities, perhaps we can learn much and help set an example for some of your other commenters...

    "I note in your biography that you are a follower of the Wiccan tradition. Your convictions as a witch are every much as "revealed" as are the Abrahamic traditions."

    Actually not. Not "Wiccan" in the original sense of that word (although yes, I am a Witch -- it's the Catholic/Christian comparison thing again). And definitely not "revealed" in the religious sense of that word! "Revealed" religions require a priest class to "translate" and "explain" what is acceptable to adherents of that tradition/sect. Mine requires that every follower do his own homework and decide for himself what his religion means to him. We encourage individuality and personal responsibilty. Revealed religions encourage conformity and suppression of individual will to the benefit of the group. You march with military precision. I dance and herd cats.

    Your second enumerated point aroused a historical memory of a people whose land was stolen and whose culture and religions were dispensed with summarily by invaders from another world. My ancestors are Indian, Father. My family was nearly wiped out, possibly by your ancestors. Our religion and language was eradicated, our culture suppressed, and our citizenship was denied. I don't necessarily want to bring this up as an argument, especially an emotional one, but don't you find it just a bit ironic that, as a descendant of those who were conquerors and despoilers, you are now in a position of pleading not to have your own culture and religion conquered and despoiled?

    And I take your comments on terminology very much to heart (we very much agree that words matter, as I have been trying to say on other blogs). It is the wrangling over meanings of words that often gets in the way of meaningful dialogue. For example, it appears that you (and some others) see a fetus as "an innocent life." I do not see it as a life until it has been born and the umbilical cord has been cut, separating it from its host's body and forcing/enabling it to function on its own. Therefore, for me, an abortion does not "kill." It simply removes tissue from a uterus -- a body part that belongs to the woman whose body it is, not to society at large.

    I'd like to keep visiting and commenting, if you don't mind. And with your permission, I'd like to add your blog to my sidebar's reading list.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Lady Janus: You are most welcome here anytime. I am also honored to be included in your reading list.

    I will respond to your last post here tomorrow. I'll take tonight to reflect upon what you offered and respond tomorrow (Friday).

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Lady Janus.

    I enjoy reading your posts. They are so informative and enlightening.
    Sincerely,
    Lina

    ReplyDelete
  24. Lady Janus: After having taken some time to reflect upon your last excellent post, I'd like to offer the following points.

    1. You say that your religion is not "revealed". By this I think you mean that it does not possess any texts of "scripture" as Christians do.

    Yet I would argue that your faith is very much a revealed religion as well. The fact that you do not have priests who mediate or teach simply means that you leave it to each adherent to "do their own homework". But what is this homework? Is it not to discern, discover, unveil the wisdom that you perceive in nature, creation and within themselves? Your faith is thus revealed to them inasmuch as they are seeking a wisdom that exists outside of themselves, within the very fabric of creation. This is no different than what Christians (and Jews) or any religious community tries to do: to find and respect the fingerprints of God in creation, history and the human heart.

    Not having priests means that you do not have to suffer through poorly constructed sermons as many Christians do as their clergy try so imperfectly to express this divine truth, but it is surely as much an exercise in trying to understand a message imprinted within us and creation.

    2. It is an uncontestable fact that the arrival of Europeans into North America, armed with guns and bibles are responsible for the virtual genocide of the native cultures that pre-existed its arrival. Yet, if history has taught us anything, it is that the cultures that we think of as being "native" or aboriginal in their own time committed similar offense to the cultures and people that pre-date their arrival. If we are going to apply the lessons of science to one faith to castigate its acts, then all must be open to the same.

    Is it possible that some of my ancestors where responsible for participating in the genocide of yours? Probably, just as your ancestors are guilty of the same towards others.

    Human history is little more than the stories of the expansion of a growing population engaged in an ongoing cycle of displacing others. None of us has unbloodied hands.

    3. As regards your stand on abortion: you state that for you, life does not exist until such time as a being is separated from its mother and the cord has been cut. Yet, a fetus attains the ability to be independently viable long before it is born. Further, the potentiality of that life undertakes human form even long before that point; thus I must believe that it is far more than just a collection of tissue cells.

    Seek out the movie, "A Silent Scream" which offers an ultrasound window into the dismemberment of a child in the womb. Watch how the "fetus" tries to move away from the instruments that are ripping it apart limb from limbs to be evacuated from the womb. See if after watching that, you still hold the view that it is not an innocent life but simple human tissue. It changed my view entirely on the subject of abortion when I watched it prior to my life as a priest. It changed my perspective on whether this is a question of a woman's right to control her own body, or the right to life of a child that began within her womb.

    Thank you for this excellent post. I intend for this space to be a place where such intelligent discussions can take place and your contributions are very much welcomed.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think I'm going to enjoy this very much.

    Two things, before I reply to your comments to me: 1) terminology is important, but even more important is that we each understand how the other interprets the meaning of specific words and phrases, something I have had little luck with elsewhere; but your replies give me hope that it can happen; and, 2) I speak only for myself and my own observations/experiences. Other Witches will very likely give you completely different answers, and that is as it should be -- none of us thinks or feels exactly like anyone else. There's a saying: "Ask three Witches the same question and you will get five different answers."

    With that in mind, the concept of "revealed" religion does not apply to any kind of Paganism. You are correct in thinking that "revealed" means "written down." And while lots of people write about their particular take on things, none of it is ever applied across the board as "truth." And none of us ever attempt to lay claim to "truth" on behalf of anyone else.

    I personally have a lot of trouble with the terms, "faith" and "belief." To me, they mean the acceptance of someone else's "authoritative" words without question. I don't know how to do that, and the doing of it -- even if I could -- makes no sense to me, so I try not to use them. I do not quarrel that others should not believe or have faith. But I have none, and I am content that it is so. What I do have works for me, and that is the only thing that is important.

    And while some Witches and Pagans might agree with you that wisdom exists outside ourselves, those in my own Order mostly do not -- one of our precepts is that we create our own realities. This is a difficult concept for most people to grasp. And that's okay. It just means we think a lot about what that phrase means to us. And in that vein, we have members who follow and adopt Navaho and other Amerind philosophies, several who follow Bushido, some who favor Buddhist thinking, some Jedi, some Pastafarians, some Mosaic, and lots of others. We even have agnostics and atheists in the classical sense of those words.

    It is not important to us that we have a "creation story." We have no arguement with those who do. We just don't see how it's important to us. There are some pretty entertaining stories out there, but for the most part, that's all they are -- stories.

    And no, none of us in inclined to allow ourselves to be sermonized at. Interpretations of what may have gone before is a very individual thing, and if one of us dared to suggest he had all the answers, and he knew the "truth" of it all, he'd soon find himself inundated with arguments. And nothing would change. Why bang your head against a brick wall if the only thing you're accomplishing is changing the color of the brick with your own blood?

    And with that, I think I'm going to separate these comments from the next ones. I don't know how much space your comments program allows...

    ReplyDelete
  26. My stand/opinion on abortion is strictly my own. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. In fact, I really prefer that everyone seek his own individual "truth" on the matter. I don't answer for anyone else, but I refuse to answer to anyone else, either.

    I have seen "Silent Scream." I do not interpret it the same way you do. That "moving away" is not a conscious act -- it is a matter of physics and biological reflex. You can get the same effect with any other animal. There is no consciousness there, directing traffic, so to speak.

    Terminology again: it's the difference between "life" and "a life." It is not a life until it separates completely from its host. Or, as an old argument put it, an acorn has life, but it is not yet a tree. Nor is a hen's egg yet a chicken.

    And I always ignore the term, "innocent." It's implication is that there is a possibility of guilt, and I can't figure out of what a fetus may be "guilty." Then, too, it is a word geared to impact the unprepared by blindsiding him with emotionally charged negativity rather than logic, and an attempt to put him on the defensive. In other words, I think it's a cheap shot. A bid for emotional subjugation. For some reason, I always picture a Sally Struthers commercial from a few decades ago, weeping huge alligator tears on behalf of some charity or other. Her cause may very well have been a good one, but the cheap emotional blackmail turned me right off.

    The argument about whether or not the woman or the fetus has the "right" to the womb is simple as far as I'm concerned. The womb is in the woman's body, and it therefore belongs to her. If she wishes to give it over to a growing fetus, she may do so. No one will stop her. Certainly not me. Her body, her choice, and I will defend her choice, whatever that is.

    By the way...something I forgot to add above...the word for my own religion is not "revealed" but "occult." Hidden. Until you find it for yourself.

    And before I completely forget my manners...LINA, thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Er...we seem to be missing one of my comments... It was immediately before my last one, and I split them to keep from overflowing allowed space in the comments system.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Lady Janus: Sorry if the comments are jumbled. I have had a crazy 24 hrs with deaths and other emergencies. I trust that readers will be able to put your thoughts together in a manner that respects the points you are making. Hopefully this evening I'll have a chance to reflect upon what you have shared and respond.

    Thanks for your understanding.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  29. Very solid post.

    I can't help but notice the parallels between Ignatieff’s model of international development aid and that of the CCCB. Both insist on offering condoms and birth control pills when they give out food or medical support.

    The recent statements by Bishop Henry and Archbishop Collins against Ignatieff ring hollow because the CCCB is implementing Ignatieff’s proposal.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Fr. Tim, I'm sorry for your loss. I had no idea when I wrote my little prompt that your friend's death was so near. He was very young, and those who loved him must be feeling his absence with a sense of bewildered injustice.

    You have priorities. I can wait.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Lady Janus: Thank you.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  32. Steve: The CCCB might be floundering, but I hope that with the witness of men like Bishops Henry and Collins, maybe they will eventually (soon?) get their act together and offer a consistent witness to the faith and for life.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  33. Fr. Tim,
    Great title for your post! I belonged to the now-extinct faction of the Liberal Party- "Liberals for Life" years ago. Naively, I thought that I could work within the party. Eventually, it just felt like I was the proverbial Dutch boy holding back the water. The Liberal Party of Canada is now officially out of the closet, with an official pro-abortion platform, as is the NDP Party. It is only the Conservatives who remain officially 'neutral' at this point. That is why it is essential that we communicate our pro-life views to our MP's, to ensure that they know that grassroot Canadians are pro-life!
    Thanks for facilitating this interesting exchange of ideas, Fr. Tim.
    Kathie

    ReplyDelete
  34. The CPC has an official pro-abortion position on the books, while officially the Liberal Party does not. I'm no fan of the Liberal Party and in fact am Conservative by temprament in almost all issues. (In fact, I would argue that Catholicism is, by its nature, conservative on every issue.?

    Be that as it may, the worst choice is still the Liberal Party. HOWEVER, as a matter of strategy, we should always vote for the MP regardless of Party. If all the candidates are rabidly pro-abort, vote for the candidate the represent the better Party.

    In any case, politics is essentially useless. Take it from someone has run in elections 4 times. It's the back end of the cultural work that needs to be done first. Politics is a reflection of the culture.

    As a side note, did you notice how Iggy is somewhat mitigating his comments now that 2 bishops have rebuked him? Can you imagine what would happen if the proper and balanced response (i.e. screaming bloody murder) were forthcoming from ALL of the country's bishops?

    The politicians would be scared they'd have wee'd themselves running for the back door on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Father Tim
    Thank you for speaking out so clearly on our obligation and the consequence of not meeting it. My question now is what to do with my vote as we do not have a pro-life party in Canada ...i do think we have an obligation to vote
    Mary

    ReplyDelete
  36. Mary G: I agree that we have an obligation to vote. As I see it, we have two choices as believers.

    First we can assess the respective candidates, and vote for the one the closest resembles what we believe. There often is a pro-life candidate in many ridings for whom one can vote.

    Failing all of this, I spoil my ballot. I write "refused" across the ballot and return it for counting. I express with this some of the wisdom of my dear departed friend Richard John Neuhaus as we expressed in his final work: "American Babylon:Notes of a Christian Exile" in which he reminds those who claim the mantle of 'Christian' they live here, now, in anticipation of the New Jerusalem (over which he fervently hoped hung the sign: "Brought to you by the people who built New York") and daily called to mind the rights and obligations of my life as a "citizen in exile." This is not a consideration for those who do not hold to a theist position. If ones existence is limited to the 'here and now' of daily life, and nothing more, then such a person can fall back upon only the will and dictates of the majority in the determination of what will or will not be allowed by the state. Rights held firmly today and founded in 40+ yrs of settled law, can be altered, strengthened or reduced by little more than the corporate will of the citizenry through elected governments.

    Forgive me for saying so, but that seems to be a mighty shaky foundation to base ones logic upon. Please remember that in such a culture, nothing is so strongly held as 'common wisdom', until the moment it is held no more as wise. Such a system which grants to the state the power to pervert or alter its core covenantal/cultural conventions on little more than the will of the majority, often ends up morphing into an oppressive regimes of either the left or the right; systems both theocratic and atheist which have killed millions upon millions throughout the ages (think of the change in Iran at the time of the fall of the Shaw - secular became theist almost overnight; or Poland becoming secular in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Empire as good examples of countries which experienced a sudden change in its theistic orientation) culminating in the horrors of the Inquisition and the ovens of the concentration camps.

    I do not hold any of my fellow companions in this discussion to be representative of either extreme, but we should heed the effects of our cultural/societal experimentation lest we inadvertently repeat the errors of history.

    Fr. Tim

    Sorry for grammar errors - hard to work in such a small window (sigh).

    ReplyDelete
  37. Fr. Tim,

    I believe it is only right to do one's duty and vote.

    Fr. Tim, are you suggesting if there is no pro-life candidate in an area or speaking about our area which is Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, a voter like me should think seriously about spoiling my ballot by writing on it 'refused'?

    I know both levels of government in our area is Conservative. Cheryl Gallant MP is on Federal level and Mr.John Yakabuski MPP is on Provincial level?

    Any NDP candidate is usually not pro-life I think?

    Which candidate in Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke is nearest to pro-life views anyway in your opinion?

    By the way, I pray not only for all world Leaders. I also pray for our local leaders. I probably should be praying more often for them.
    It is not a easy job they have.

    Lina

    ReplyDelete
  38. Lina: My understanding is that both the representatives you reference are solid pro-life candidates. It is a pleasant coincidence that they represent a party that is at least morally neutral to the question of abortion and euthanasia. You are correct in your assessment of the NDP stand, and after the latest edicts from the Liberal leader, it seems they too have removed themselves from any list of acceptable parties. Even if the candidate him or her self is pro-life, the dye seems to be cast for the direction of the party. It is sacrificing itself in virtually all of rural Canada with the heavy handed intrusions that threaten what is becoming a majority opinion, aided in becoming so by the advent of sonograms and ultrasounds.

    I live in a different riding (Nipissing) and thus I have to make the same determination here among whatever candidates I face at election time.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  39. Fr.Tim,
    Father, I believe there is no need for me to worry about what candidate I am going to vote for in my area when election time comes around.
    Thank you for the information and thanks for responding to my post.

    Lina

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics