May 17,2009 President Obama will speak at the University of Notre Dame. That day is the last day that one can call that university Catholic.
Selecting the President to speak to the graduating class after lifting the Mexico City policy, the selection of pro-abortion catholic members of his cabinet has openly challenged the teaching authority of the church on the issue of abortion. The faculty has chosen President Obama over their faith in God and in the collective witness of the past 2,000 years of church history. They will formally rejected not just the human virtues of stable disposition, perfection of intellect and will, nor guidance in conduct. They have rejected the gifts of the Holy Spirit – Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude(Courage), Knowledge, Piety, and Fear of God. Most sad of all is they have given up on the theological virtue of hope.
The Vice President spoke at Gerogetown university
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT FIFTEENTH ANNIVERSARY SYMPOSIUM
The irony of such an honor is VP Bidens support for abortion and the violence against women in the womb and the women who due to lack of support from the biological father & their parents feel compelled to terminate their childs life.
Xavier University in the Big Easy has also followed suit with national democratic strategist Donna Brazile.
St Joseph’s University of Philadelphia will have political commentator Chris Matthews another catholic pro-abortion spokesmen.
Can dhimmitude be far off?
Site supports Most Reverend Jose H. Gomez
Bishop Kevin W. Vann
![[SMMMHDH]](smmmhdh.png){kind=small}
Cradle catholic* Charterhouse 
Hello! I had a post on Donna Brazile last Friday. Didn’t know about Chris Matthews, though. Where will it all end? We can only pray for the best. At least Mary Ann Glendon turned down the Laetare Medal at ND. All good wishes to you.
Hi qboa,
I read your post on Obama giving address at Notre Dame and wish to add my 2 cents to the ongoing debate.
Although I am a atheist, as you well know, I don’t believe that abortion is a good thing that should be offered to all without conditions, in fact I wish there were no reason to have them at all, But (there’s always a but isn’t there?), two things conflict me and cause me great dissonance when I ponder the problem.
First, a woman’s body is her own and In case of rape, incest, or know birth defects I believe abortion should be automatically offered to the woman. This is the woman’s entire life we are talking about, having a baby changes everything in the mothers life forever.
Second, and this probably is just a subset of the first. The government (or a religion) has no moral right to interfere with what a woman does with her pregnant body…period. Women are not property anymore and as long as they are competent…they decide.
In spite of my feeling about the above I don’t think abortion should be used as a birth control alternative, which some few women have done I hear.
So I keep being conflicted…can’t seem to resolve the problem in my mind.
Hey TWOM,
Your position is certainly the majority opinion, BUT (your right) positions have to be applied across the board.
#1) Yes the woman’s body is her own; however the child growing inside is in fact a totally different individual – DNA demonstrates these. My definition of a “right” is that I can exercise it without it costing anyone materially. A woman’s right to chose an abortion kills another right to exists.
#2) The woman’s entire life is changed forever after a rape or incest whether she carries the child to term or not. Although I agree its a burden on the mother to be reminded of the incident every minute she carries it to term, the child is in point of fact innocent of the crime.
So to support killing the unborn of rape in principle means that you are supporting the killing of innocent people under certain conditions is acceptable. I don’t think you want to support that position.
#3) Whether you like it or not law discriminates based on moral values. The governments first responsibility is to protect and defend the innocent. That goes for murder, robbery, or liable etc.
Abortion is morally evil (or I guess in your terms) unacceptable because it accepts that the innocent may be killed under limited circumstances. That principle applies not just to the unborn but to all of society.
#4) So when a certain gov’t desires the lofty goal of providing healthcare to everyone and can’t afford it and additional debts get to the point were the elderly are a financial burden on the rest of society the gov’t and kill the innocent elderly to relieve us of the financial burden we can’t afford. Financial burden is certainly about 30% of the reasons given to abort a child.
#5) I’m surprised you included birth defects as well in your response. So in principle you agree that individuals with physical handicaps that the state can kill them? Again i don’t think you agree with that, but underlying presuppositions of that position lead on to that conclusion.
A “Soylent Green” society can justify just about anything after they accept certain limited options.
Hi QBOA, thanks for reply
Now that is a good comeback, however I have to disagree on a few points. 🙂
First, I don’t believe that conscious life begins at conception or shortly thereafter. So I don’t think we are talking about murder or anything close to it in these cases…late term abortion now that’s another thing. From what I understand from the news lately, late term is only used in cases of the mother’s life being at risk. I know that Catholic hospital have traditionally saved the child over the mother, but I think most husbands, and me, would seriously disagree with this protocol.
You say:
“A woman’s right to choose an abortion kills another right to exists.”
A fetus at 8 or 10 weeks (or whatever week is traditional) we are not talking about a human being, we are talking about a mass of non-conscious cells. At that point a fetus is not a rights bearing individual…in my opinion of course.
You say:
“The woman’s entire life is changed forever after a rape or incest whether she carries the child to term or not. Although I agree it’s a burden on the mother to be reminded of the incident every minute she carries it to term, the child is in point of fact innocent of the crime.”
Yes the fetus is innocent of a crime, but you are looking at this from the point of a man. If you where the mother in this situation and were faced with giving birth to and forever being responsible for the offspring of a violent sociopath (there is argument that this is at least partly genetic and passable) then how would you feel about this? I know I certainly wouldn’t want anything to do with any of it…I shudder at the thought. We cannot continue to lord over women as if they have no feelings or free-will or rights.
You say:
“So to support killing the unborn of rape in principle means that you are supporting the killing of innocent people under certain conditions is acceptable. I don’t think you want to support that position.”
I truly don’t want to support any of this, but I feel that there are exceptions to anything and exceptions regarding the continuing life of an innocent woman are needed, I feel. My feeling that the fetus is not human at the time of abortion is the only reason I can feel this way.
You write:
“…Abortion is morally evil (or I guess in your terms) unacceptable because it accepts that the innocent may be killed under limited circumstances…”
I do believe that abortion is morally wrong and should not be necessary, But I side with the woman on the issue, there are just some needed exceptions I feel.
You write:
“So when a certain gov’t desires the lofty goal of providing healthcare to everyone and can’t afford it and additional debts get to the point where the elderly are a financial burden on the rest of society the gov’t and kill the innocent elderly to relieve us of the financial burden we can’t afford.”
You’re comparing apples to oranges here. We owe a lot to elderly people (hey, I’m one :-)) first off they gave birth to and raised us and prepared us for the passage of power, love, life, and caring to us and our children. The old folks are treasures to be cared for…quit building the expensive government buildings and buying $200 hammers and $600 toilet seats and other preposterous government spending.
You write:
“ I’m surprised you included birth defects as well in your response. So in principle you agree that individuals with physical handicaps that the state can kill them? Again I don’t think you agree with that, but underlying presuppositions of that position lead on to that conclusion.”
This is a tough one. I am truly not a mean person and I care a lot about people and children, but, there’s always that…but, I think to carry to term a child that will be seriously deformed or badly handicapped is the crueler choice here. I have had occasional chances to observe some handicapped children in their motorized chairs as they observe the world around them…It’s not pretty. I have seen longing there that brings tears to my eyes.
With regard to the state killing the handicapped…no…the mother and her doctor decide what the mother wants to do. The state doesn’t enter into the equation at all; the underlying presupposition behind this is the state has no say other than to keep everything aboveboard…Hmmm is that even possible? 🙂
I used to think that something like Soylent Green would be impossible, but then came Bush and Cheney and my whole outlook changed.
Peace–twom
TWOM: I don’t believe that conscious life begins at conception or shortly thereafter. So I don’t think we are talking about murder or anything close to it in these cases…late term abortion now that’s another thing
QB: Ok so now you don’t want to use science but you do what to use your religion (atheism – “I don’t believe”)? Your slipping;>)
A) The DNA of the unborn is unique and different from the mother.
B) The fetus does not grow into anything but a human
C) The fetus is living – metabolism,exhibits growth, respondes to stimuli, and reproduction.
Here’s a list of the development of the unborn by weeks.
http://www.sfuhl.org/k_appendix_1.htm
I don’t like placing the burden on an individual to prove a negative, but when it comes to KNOWING when life begins or for that matter ends we should as a society rule in favor of living until we are certain. The unborn certainly have brain waves btwn 22 to 24 weeks (pro-lifers like to use 40days but I’ve found that to be false). Medical technology allows the unborn to live outside the womb at 26 weeks.
On a political level I’d consider it progress if we simply said no abortions after 25 weeks except in the case that the woman’s life is in danger (and that term should be well qualified).
TWOM:Yes the fetus is innocent of a crime, but you are looking at this from the point of a man
QB: Actually I’m looking at it from the view of the unborn. I did perform some social service work with unwed pregent mothers when I was younger so I have an appreciation of what they go through.
TWOM: If you where the mother in this situation and were faced with giving birth to and forever being responsible for the offspring of a violent sociopath
QB: Well again the woman isn’t forced to raise the child she could give the child up for adoption. On a political level I wouldn’t want to require it, but on a moral level IMO you have to maintain that standard.
TWOM: I truly don’t want to support any of this, but I feel that there are exceptions to anything and exceptions regarding the continuing life of an innocent woman are needed, I feel. My feeling that the fetus is not human at the time of abortion is the only reason I can feel this way.
QB: Two issues with this reasoning. First as I’m sure your agree is that the generation coming up after us were raised in an era where abortion is legal and in some cases Euthanasia as well. Our country is facing 35 trillion dollars in debt by 2040 for medicare with all us baby boomers living longer then we probably should. Given that the younger generation already accept killing the unborn for reasons that are not life threating and the financial burden we will impose on them in the near future. Don’t you think its likely that we will move from a society were euthanasia and willing wills turns into forced “assisted” euthanasia when either the loved one or doctor determine if your viable? Doctors will view patients in terms of their treatment costs instead of their innate value as human beings. Your costing the system (especially if we go gov’t health care) to much, pull the plug.
IOW we will as a society move from right to life to right to die to duty to die.
The arguements for abrotion and euthansasia are very similar.
Look at the Netherlands
The 1991 Remmelink Report was the first official Dutch government study of the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands. It reported that in 1990 “1,040 people (an average of 3 per day) died from involuntary euthanasia, meaning that doctors actively killed these patients without the patients’ knowledge or consent. 14% of these patients were fully competent. 72% had never given any indication that they would want their lives terminated. In 8% of the cases, doctors performed involuntary euthanasia despite the fact that they believed alternative options were still possible
http://www.euthanasia.com/hollchart.html
Soylent Green while intended as a joke is IMO not very far away.
Hi Qboa,
Thought you might like to read this:
Pope Benedict XVI’s Final Word on the Case of the 9 Year-Old Rape Victim Who Underwent an Abortion…
“Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church have come out with the definitive pronouncement on the case of the 9-year-old Brazilian girl who was raped by her stepfather and underwent a therapeutic abortion: the Ob/Gyn who performed the abortion and the parent who consented, still totally excommunicated.” The little girl is also I might add.
I suppose this fits right in with his disapproval of Condoms for the poor Africans who are struggling with AIDS and seriously high rates of child starvation.
No disrespect to you, but I think there is a possibility that Benedict has lost it and needs to be replaced with someone who has more sense…and empathy.
twom
The girl was not excommunicated.
(While the doctor and the girl’s parents were excommunicated, the girl, being under age 18, was not subject to automatic excommunication.)
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1911495,00.html
“I suppose this fits right in with his disapproval of Condoms for the poor Africans who are struggling with AIDS and seriously high rates of child starvation.”
I believe we went over this before, but I guess in this case that you have been fed the lie that condoms reduces the risk of AID is true. The facts however bear out that is not the case at all. The fact is that condom use INCREASES the contraction of AIDs in Africa.
Back to the issue. Does innocent human life have the right to exist (as in given this by God) or is all human life subject to the generosity of the state for their very existence?
Even if one does not believe in God it is IMO well worth it to make that assumption in this case rather then permit the state to determine if your worth keeping around or not.
The child conceived from the act of a rape is innocent of any wrong doing. Totally innocent. The girl is totally innocent as well, but she will carry a price for it the rest of her life regardless of whether she carried the child to term or not. The doctor killed an innocent child and the parents consented to murdering their own grandchild. Those are facts.
There is no doubt that my church will take a hit on this one, but frankly its standing by its principle that ALL innocent life much be protected even if it causes people to leave the church or make it look like the pope is heartless.
Hi Qboa,
From the NY Times:
“From an individual’s point of view, condoms work very well in preventing transmission of the AIDS virus from infected to uninfected people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cites “comprehensive and conclusive” evidence that latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are “highly effective” in preventing heterosexual transmission of the virus that causes AIDS. The most recent meta-analysis of the best studies, published by the respected Cochrane Collaboration, concluded that condoms can reduce the transmission of the AIDS virus by 80 percent.”
Full article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/opinion/18wed2.html?_r=1
And of course we know that condoms are very efficient at preventing Pregnancy.
The real science is out there and the Pope blew it.
Hi again Qboa,
How about those little black babies that are born for lack of birth control that will live momentarily only to die horrendously a few months later in agony…how is this better than birth control?
You know, the more I think about these cases we have talked about…the more upset I become, (Your cue to say,”Yeah…So What.”) Here we have the leader of the richest single institution in the world telling some of the poorest people on earth that they shouldn’t use something that may very well save their life or prevent them from having another child that will die from hunger—which from what I have been told is a Very painful way to go.
Here is this high and mighty ruler with his fine garments and special cars and private jet and mighty houses…using Catholic dogma to sentence more humans to death. As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow that is what the Pope is doing to these people.
The church continuously messes with poor and ignorant people’s minds and bodies and keeps the cycles of poverty and death going. What does the church care, it lives in luxury.
Not much thought seems to have gone into church dogma. Let the black bitches keep pumping out babies…it doesn’t matter that earth’s resources are finite, that Africa is almost a lost cause, and could never be rehabilitated. The Catholic agenda in Africa is just as bad as the Muslim one…they both lead to death.
The Pope and his associate’s needs to go into the temple and do what King Josiah did…find a new book of laws.
Daniel T Halperin, Markus J Steiner, Michael M Cassell, Edward C Green, Norman Hearst, Douglas Kirby, Helene D Gayle and Willard Cates.
The time has come for common ground on preventing sexual transmission of HIV.
The Lancet, Vol. 364, Iss. 9449 (27 November 2004)Pages 1913-1915.
“Fortunately, we can now move beyond debating how well condom promotion might work to examining how well it has worked,” says Dr. Norman Hearst, professor at the University of California, San Francisco. “So far, there’s no good evidence that condoms will reverse population-wide epidemics like those in sub-Saharan Africa,” Dr. Green (Harvard University)notes…”It’s simply not appropriate or effective to offer a 15-year-old girl in Africa the same AIDS-prevention message we give to a 50-year-old gay man or injecting drug user in Baltimore. Contrary to Western stereotypes about African sexual behavior, most 15-year-old African girls are not yet sexually active.”… “When it comes to AIDS epidemics, one-size-fits-all health prescriptions don’t work. Different types of AIDS epidemics require different solutions.” “This ‘ABC’ message [Abstain, Be faithful, or for those who refuse to do either, use Condoms] is the only approach that has ever resulted in a significant decrease in HIV infections in what we call generalized epidemics,”
http://www.sciencedirect….efa35585f0e1eade33f972992
Ifone factors in an 85% effective rate for condoms (includes those who forget to use it or refuse to do so in the heat of the moment) if 100 people have sex with HIV infected partners 7 will contract HIV, if they use condoms 1 in 100 will contract it. Apply that to 10 million people having sex for three years and you have 300,000 new cases of HIV/AIDS using an effective rate of 99% for condoms which we know is not valid due to factors outside the product itself.
The study also concluded that condom effectiveness could be “as high as 94.2 percent” or “as low as 35.4 percent.”
So I believe condoms have the complete opposite effect and Africa’s numbers demonstrate, dispite what you may think is a higher compliance rate in the USA.
Again lets just assume a 99% compliance rate for the USA as well.
How many times do people have sex per/yr x the total number of individuals who have HIV that don’t tell the other individual and the number of times those individuals don’t use a condom.
It doesn’t work.
On your last comment I’ll just assume its venting. Why not apply the same standard to ourselves. You recognize that every person living in the United States is at a minimum 3 times richer then the same individual in Africa?
So while dying of hunger is worse then never existing, is that the position your supporting?
Can you name any other head of an institution that is the most global one with over 1.2 billion members? . Yes he is surrounded by the greatest works of art in the world and he doesn’t own any of it. It would be much easier to take a low key position in the Germany Alps then be Pope. The car is donated so is the plane and everything else. And all that stuff is passed on to the next guy who gets to borrow it for a few years as well.
You want to earn 3 or 4 college degrees, learn to speak several languages, say mass everyday of your life, hear confessions of the worst that humanity can disclose to you, bury countless people, console the living, remain celibate and essentially work 18 hour days for 60 plus years – be my guest.
Currently the Vatican is running a deficit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/05/vatican-runs-deficit-amid_n_225810.html
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/14/charities08_Catholic-Charities-USA_CH0030.html
Hi Qboa,
Thanks for your even toned reply. Yes I was venting…sorry. I actually took out some stuff before sending what you got. 🙂
I do realize the Pope inherits all the bling with the office and since he usually dies in office he doesn’t take it with him. It is merely the sight of the man with all the regalia and contrasting with the half naked black people.
The fact is the condoms do work for AIDS/HIV—we know not always—but often, and they work pretty well for birth control.
This world is changing at a rate never seen before in all our history…we-you-me-every person-every institution must change our everyday thoughts and routines or we will kill the human race.
Again I apologize for venting to you.
twom
TWOM,
I understand your feelings, its not uncommon. Heck that’s how Luther felt about the very same buildings and art back in the 16th century. But that’s the point, the church isn’t building up new structures for itself every 10 years. Look at all the money and land that was stolen from the church over the centuries. Vikings, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, Visigoths, Huns, Mussolini, all the churches in North Africa in the 7th century (estimated over 3,500 churches) under the sword of Islam, China, Vietnam the list is almost endless.
The fact is that the church preserves value of each century for the generations that follow. The rest of society consumes everything. Science, history, art, music all supported by the church as well. Again when the nations have their next global war who is going to be trying to save all this intellectual and material wealth for the future?
“This world is changing at a rate never seen before in all our history…we-you-me-every person-every institution must change our everyday thoughts and routines or we will kill the human race”
Sure so name another country which operates more green then the Vatican State? On population control again I ask that you look at the facts. The globe will peak at 9.1 billion by 2045. Then we are faced with the actual crisis of a population implosion. All modern countries will be faced with inverted population ages and none are able to support them. Imagine all those land values that the old will be depending on but there won’t be any youth to buy it? There won’t be enough youth to fill all the jobs needed either. The biggest concern IMO is the viability of actual cultures. Western civilization is breeding itself out of existence. Spain, Italy, Germany, France, England, Scandinavia, and Russia are all dying out.
So yes we have to radically change our mindset. Nihilism has a choke hold on humanity.
I don’t understand how pro-abortion view is all we focus on. Would Notre Dame be more Catholic if anti-abortion Bush gave a speech? You know, the one who ruined the whole nation of Iraq by unjustifiably attacking it and plunging it into civil war that costs billions of dollars, thousands of American lives and hundred thousand of innocent civilian lives? Why don’t we focus on that, instead? Those billions spent on war could have gone to anti-abortion and birth-control efforts…
Helloe Aleksod,
“I don’t understand how pro-abortion view is all we focus on.”
QB: It’s not all that’s focused on but abortion is evil in all cases no exception. War on the other hand may or may not be permissible depending on whether it meets with the justified war theory. The Iraq war didn’t meet that standard.
“Would Notre Dame be more Catholic if anti-abortion Bush gave a speech?”
Nope.
“You know, the one who ruined the whole nation of Iraq by unjustifiably attacking it and plunging it into civil war that costs billions of dollars, thousands of American lives and hundred thousand of innocent civilian lives? Why don’t we focus on that, instead? Those billions spent on war could have gone to anti-abortion and birth-control efforts…”
I don’t really care about the political position of either party their both secular institutions motivated by vices contrary to the Gospel. The difference btwn the Democratic and the GOP is that the former are socialist willingly and the latter are socialist reluctantly.
The issue at hand however is that a purported Catholic institution is not holding a debate but was honoring an individual with a legal degree who happens to have the worse record at the state, senate and now executive levels of gov’t.
If they wanted to give him one for his community service from the humanities department then perhaps. It’s not Obama I’m expecting accountability its the Catholic church and its institutions.
Point taken, thank you for the response. However, based on your logic, no politician (or mostly none) should ever be allowed to be honored like that since a lot/all of them have anti-Christian views to one degree or another.
Correct.
The problem with ND is that it desired to be accepted as an Ivy league research institution.
It is suppose to be a university that holds a Catholic world view; that reason and faith can and do work together to promote the betterment of mankind and the spreading of the Gospel message.
Its not just ND its the majority of “Catholic” major universities IMO.
You can add Marquette, Georgetown, BC, Holy Cross, etc. to the list. While there are pockets of Catholics at those institutions they are the exception rather then the rule.
Catholic Universities want to hire the best in a given discipline rather then the best professor in a given discipline who practices the Catholic faith.
If they are forced to choose btwn lowering their faith standards or lowering their academic standing which do they chose?
In most cases it seems that they have chosen the latter to the point that a Catholic priest and old women can’t protest by saying the rosary on a Catholic institution’s property against a sitting president who supports the most radical position on abortion for which the Catholic church has proclaimed as intrinsically evil in all cases.
Heck the ND president still hasn’t dropped the charges.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2347617/posts
OK, I am glad we agreed on this. Thanks for the info on ND’s president, I can see the obvious conflict there.
Hi Qboa, I hope you are well.
I have a question to ask you…are we still on speaking terms?
twom
Yes of course, ask away.
This is a most serious matter fitting for this webpage. I hope you continue to write on such serious cultural and ecclesiological matters. Peace William. I invite you to check out Orthodox essays on wjholland.wordpress.com Peace, William
“St Augustine taught that error has no rights. He cited biblical texts to justify the use of compulsion, notably Luke 14:16-23 (especially Luke 14:23). Had not Christ himself blinded St Paul in order to make him see the true light?
According to Augustine, coercion using “great violence” was justified. He made a distinction between unbelievers, who persecuted because of cruelty, and Christians, who persecuted because of love. A war to preserve or restore the unity of the Church was a just war, a bellum Deo auctore, a war waged by God himself.
He also found a way to avoid churchmen getting blood on their hands: dissension against the Church amounted to dissension against the State, so anyone condemned by the Church should be punished by the State. Centuries in the future such ideas would culminate in the activities of the Inquisition, which also required the secular authority to execute its judgements of blood.
Augustine is often recognised explicitly as the father of the Inquisition, since he was responsible for adopting Roman methods of torture for the purposes of the Church in order to ensure uniformity. Already, in 385, the first recorded executions for heresy had been carried out under Emperor Maximus at the request of Spanish bishops. Priscillian, Bishop of Ávila, had been charged with witchcraft, although his real crime seems to have been agreeing with Gnostic opinions.
Along with his companions he was tried and tortured. They confessed and were executed. The Church now had precedents for both witch-hunting and for persecuting heretics , with a moral unpinning provided by St Augustine.”
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gbc_heretics.htm
I seem to remember that we had a discussion about this a few years ago.
I hope you and family are well and prospering.