AmericanPapist Comments
Never gonna happen. Obama is going to win easily.
Well, that clears things up.
Funny, I would have said that if Obama wins the election then I'll blame it on the Catholic Church, for similar reasons - many bishops, priests, and Catholic laypeople have taken the side of Kmiec et al. for decades.
The failure of the American Episcopate to consistently and forcefully speak up on the subject of abortion over the past 40 years is akin to the silence of the European Catholic Episcopate regarding Socialism in the 20th century, including Fascism and Nazism.
Just as those bishops are now rightfully condemned regarding their attitudes toward the Jews, so too will the liberal American Catholic bishops toward the unborn. And worse: just as Pope Pius XII was smeared as a "Holocaust enabler" (falsely, in his case), pro-life bishops (such as Archbishop Chaput) will one day be smeared likewise, despite their vocal opposition to pro-abortion candidates. Their association with their "abortion enabling" colleagues in the USCCB will be enough to make future generations view them as tainted. Pity...
Oh, man, did I ever give that guy a piece of my mind! Unfortunately, he has comment approval enabled. But I dared him to publish my comments anyway. Hopefully he will. While I was longwinded, I basically told him to LEAVE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH if he doesn't agree with what the Church teaches. Perhaps that sounds uncharitable, but enough's enough. If bishops are refusing communion to abortion-touting politicians, why shouldn't similar measures be suggested for abortion-touting regular guys?
If Obama Loses the Election, I'll Blame the Catholic Church
Bring it. In fact, Everyone vote for McCain, even Obama voters, and we'll see just how much blame the Church can take. We'll call it a stress test. :0
Charlotte, I left a comment too, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it to appear. I love these oh so brave and progressive blog writers.
Basically I told him to actually study the Church's entire teaching on social justice and then get back to me. I love how we laments the death of "hundreds of thousands" in Iraq in 1991 (which "pro-life" people should have stopped if they were TRULY pro-life) yet brushes by the number of 48.5 MILLION babies. Mind you, all death of innocents is unacceptable.
Good news! He's publishing comments, I give him credit for that. Unfortunately, he just played the "abortion will stop if women could just receive adequate health care" card. Well, I just gave him ANOTHER piece of my mind!
Obama is going to lose. I've been doing the phone banks for McCain in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Obama is going to lose.
I will be proud to accept the "blame" for Obama's defeat.
I found this comment and others agreeing with it on a European conservative newsblog. Oy.
What is it that has sold out Christianity to the Devil. and betrayed Europe and led to its imminent destruction?
Could it be the betrayal of Rome [i.e. Constantinople]? Always taking the side of Turks against Russians? Demanding that Russians reverse their liberation of Constantinople and withdraw from "Muslim lands"? The Council of Florence? Papist imperialism inspiring 10,000 increasingly anti-Christian sects? Western ministers and and preachers and priests and cardinals kowtowing towards Mecca? Priests setting such abysmal standards that people are ashamed to be known as Christians? All of which I'd not feel especially obliged to point out, for the sake of "unity" against a greater threat -- fine -- except when some fool starts spouting anti-intellectual and a-historical rubbish about Russia, communism and the Orthodox world.
Is Russia pushing the EU to accept Turkey?
The Romans ["Byzantines"] faced the same problems when they were forced to choose between abandoning their faith r accepting Muslim temporal domination, and choose the latter, to the bewilderment of the West. American conservatives had to face the same problems this year when the talk-radio windbags etc insisted it was a choice between the blasphemous Bishop Romney or Clinton/Obama. Many Christians made it clear that they would never be complicit in making a Mormon bishop president [and that is without a doubt the main reason the bishop is not the candidate today], aso took their chances with a 72 year old man against the Obamessiah.
Anyway, respectfully, please don't be so presumptious about who's an ally of whom.
P.S. I could remind you that the UK's greatest traitor just became a Roman Catholic after handing over the nation to the Mohammadan spawn of Satan, but that would probably be a low blow.
I do not mind having Obama's loss on my conscience. Some things, like speaking up for millions of aborted babies, are worth taking the blame for.
Way to go Atheling!
there's more blame onus if he does win.
atheling
Yeah Obama is going to lose a few rural counties in Ohio, but he is definetly going to win the general election and become the first black president. Don't worry I will remind you of this on Wednesday.
"he is definetly going to win the general election and become the first black president."
With the number of undecided voters, coupled with the number of McCain people, uninterested in being labeled 'racists,' who may have told pollsters that they were voting for Obama, this thing ain't over.
dave:
You can keep on dreaming.
I hope you have lots of kleenex for Tuesday. With all the wailing and gnashing of teeth you liberals will be doing, we ought to buy stock in the paper industry.
Funny, I've been saying for weeks now that if Obama wins the election, it will be because Catholics abandoned their faith and gave it to him. I still say that's true. If Catholics would just be true to the teachings of the Church then Obama would lose rather easily. Even if your latest poll from IBD is correct, that's still 35 percent of Catholics voting for Obama. Move that number down to 15 or even 25 percent and McCain wins hands down. The blood of innocent lives will be on the hands of millions of Catholics after this election, and they will continue to eat and drink judgment upon themselves every time they profane the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.
Mr. Philip wouldn't publish MY comment on his blog, even if he was publishing other people's. I decided to answer his charge that "...until pro-life people can get past the smug feeling of self-righteousness about their convictions and start creating a society where women receive the kind of full support, health care, and futures that would lead to a decline in abortion, nothing will change." Maybe my comment was hitting too close to the truth? Here it is, edited a little bit:
"You think that abortion will go away if we "care" for women with medical care and touchy-feely "support"? HELLO! Abortion goes away when the following things happen:
1. Women stop spreading their legs for every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
2. Tom, Dick, and Harry stop whipping it out.
3. TV, toys, media, public schools, and liberal churches STOP telling kids and teenagers that sex is OK outside of marriage.
4. The Catholic Church stops cowering behind the dictates of secular society and actually teaches Catholic Cathechism.
5. People like you stop telling women who are pregnant outside of marriage that they DESERVE free abortions, that they deserve a "free pass" for their thoughtless immorality.
6. People like you stop believing and advocating (as Obama does) that babies are disposable and only valuable if they are wanted.
ANYONE ELSE WANT TO ADD TO THIS LIST? PLEASE DO!
Immorality is the cause of abortion, not poor inner city conditions, not patriarchal society, not unaffordable health care, etc., blah, blah, blah.
Abortion is about selfishness, from beginning to end. From the moment 2 unmarried people (or selfishly married, for that matter), get undressed and have sex (because it's their RIGHT to feel good sexually, now isn't it?) to the moment when they realize what they've done (i.e. create an actual human being) to the moment when then decide that the EASY route to cover up their mistake/inconvenience is the best course of action. Abortion is a selfish cover-up of the truth, it's a person's attempt to cover-up the grave, grave error of their ways (whether in action or thought) in a manner that NO ONE will ever see. When people try to fix things in stealth, it only means one thing: FULL KNOWLEDGE OF SIN AND GUILT."
I'd like to add something charl; your way of phrasing your views will never win others over to your view.
Have you ever stood outside a mill and talked with a woman who is scared and considering abortion?
It does indeed sound smug and self-righteous. It shows a lack of empathy for women who are in very difficult situations, and it dumps blame.
Your words show very clearly that you've never cried with a young girl who has been told she will be kicked out of her home if she doesn't have an abortion, and helped her to choose life anyways.
I find that the "tough" talk exhibited by Charl is often just a way for the speaker to make him(or her)self feel like he is morally upright because his hardness makes him a "real man."
Or maybe that's just a bunch of psychobabble, who knows.
CharL, I sure would hate to see the UN-edited version of that!
I agree with lbc: I worked for a number of years for Birthright, and have talked to many pregnant women in difficulties. Very few of them would think of having an abortion if they got the support they needed when they are rejected by boyfriends, husbands or parents or being bullied into having abortions. When they go to Planned Parenthood, they are faced with the coldest, most bureaucratic assembly-line procedures to get 'em on the table and out as fast as possible. No one wants to listen to them. It is care and compassion that saves them and their babies in these situations.
Care for pregnant women and understanding of their social and economic needs IS important in stopping abortion, along with all our legislative efforts.
Your words sound ill-informed, uncaring and very un-Christian. You are exactly where people are getting their stereotypes of prolifers from. Thanks a lot.
There is a HUGE difference between talking and ministering to those who are actually in the throes of making a decision about abortion -versus- those who stand outside of abortion, advocating FOR abortion, who are totally unapologetic about their stand when you know darn well their stand has everything in the world to do with preserving a lifestyle that is about contraception, free sex, and unrestrained immorality. My comments were directed at such a person who saw fit to "use" pathetic and lame excuses to justify abortion. Was I uncharitable to him? HECK, YEAH! Because I am SICK of people who come off as all self-righteous and educated (especially this guy, "Mr. Peace"), acting as if they have legitimate arguments for justifying abortion, when in fact they KNOW in their hearts it's just evil. I'm not out to soften that guy's heart. I'm out to WAKE HIM UP to the reality of unrestrained murder because I'm MAD. Even if there are crying women outside of an abortion clinic, needing proper help and counseling to save their child's life, most likely that woman got into the situation she's in because of immorality. I'm calling it as I see it (and last night I just heard Fr. Frank Pavone say exactly the same thing.) I just called someone last night and asked her "What on earth can I do to change you mind in voting for Obama?" The resounding answer I received was "I am personally against abortion, but I can't make that decision for someone else." THIS is what we're up against. I know you can attract people to you with sugar, but some people who claim to be "all sugar," as Mr. Peace was advocating himself to be, sometimes need a spoonful of vinegar instead.
Charl-- your attitude will wake no one up. Your vitrol gives pro-lifers a bad name. If you're mad then go for a walk.
Calm, clear reasoning will always win the day. Here are the talking points you need to master and meditate on:
1- all human life is valuable and murder is wrong (ask your dialog partner, do you believe that all human life is valuable and murder is wrong?)
2- life begins at conception (ask, when does life begin? If not conception, then when? Incrimential victories are still victories. The focus should not be on a right to choose, but on if the baby is alive or not. After all, murder is wrong. So if the baby is human than abortion is wrong)
3- the woman is the second victim of the abortion. Doctors kill these babies. Women in these situations are usually scared, hurt, alone, poor, and confused. No one wants to punish the woman, we want to help her.
4- the way to end abortion is to actually stop killing the babies. Poverty prevention and government programs are great, but we must stop the killing. No one wanted to make slavery or the holocaust economicly unneccessaey, because there were never neccessary to begin with. We don't try to implement programs to reduce rape, we criminalize rape because it is wrong.
Charl, stick to these talking points and you might have some success. Right now you are giving pro-lifers a bad name. If a blog that has very involved and serious pro-life commentors is setiously misunderstandubg you, the problem is probably your failef attempt to communicate. Next time you feel the need to bash women... don't do it.
LCB, I truly maintain that I am NOT bashing women. Why is it bashing women to say that immorality (or an attitude that is not open to life) is the reason they are in the situation they are in? Why is is bashing women to say that men and women need to stop having responsibility-free sex? When I was 20, I found out I was pregnant and the word "abortion" was the first word out of my mouth. Thankfully(?),I had a miscarriage before I ever got to the point of killing my baby. I remember the confusion and fear I felt. I don't deny that. But I also don't deny that I was in a state of mortal sin because I had sex outside of marriage. Why can't compassion for women and admission of immorality stand side-by-side? And why can't I say that to a guy who wants to believe that "healthcare" (and don't be fooled - I truly believe that his using the word healthcare is code for contraception) and "support" for women (again, I think code for "unrestricted abortion") is the answer to a reduction in abortions? THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME TRAIN OF THOUGHT OBAMA USES! Obama is on record as sort-of saying that he isn't for MORE abortions, but then saying in the same breath that unrestricted abortion will solve that problem. It makes no sense. I think there IS a place for me to use "vitriol" in that kind of discussion. Is it not vitriol when abortion protestors stand in front of abortion clinics with signs picturing mutilated babies? Is that helping the women who walk in feel better about what they're about to do? What's the difference between those photos and my words? I'm only trying to wake this guy up, just like the abortion clinic protestors.
I understand why you and others think I'm being unkind and doing more harm than good, I honestly do. (I am a much softer, kinder woman than I come off as here, I promise.) But for some people, I still think someone needs to sock-it-to-them with the truth. Especially since this guy (if you didn't know) is a fairly well-known poet within the peace and anti-war movement. This isn't the first time he's espoused these views. It's guys like him who CONSTANTLY try to wear-down fellow Catholics with their liberal viewpoints on abortion. Why can't someone come back at him? I recognize that the best, most productive outcome is to sway him to our side. But if he's already upset that people were standing at the doors of his Catholic church last weekend, peacefully passing out pamphlets explaining in a calm, rational fashion that the Church does NOT support candidates who support abortion, is he really going to listen? I am not the judge, I know. I openly admit that my fire-breathing tongue has gotten me in trouble before. I, myself, turned from my sinful views on abortion, I know he deserves the same opportunity. But truly, just as far as *I* am concerned, it really was my understanding of my sinfulness that turned me away from that lifestyle. Maybe that's not how he will change his mind, but in my opinion, what's
...what's wrong with trying another avenue, especially since he started the conversation?
charl,
Let me be as clear as possible.
Your writing is poorly experssimg your views.
You are coming off like a jerk. Your approach is wrong and doesn't work.
CharL, I was surprised to learn you're a woman, mostly because some of your vulgar expressions like "spreading her legs" made you sound to me like a man who is a misogynistic jerk.
You also came across to me like someone who had no compassion for pregnant women in a bad situation, and it turns out you've been there yourself! I have to apologize for misjudging you, something that happens all too often.
I never disagreed with any of your facts or analysis - especially about abortion being the fruit of the sexual revolution, and being pushed by that movement's spokespeople -- but only your way of expressing yourself.
Seriously, take a look at how you're saying what you're saying. God bless.
LCB, I think I am hitting a nerve with you on something extremely specific, but I don't know what it is. Anyway, if you think I'm coming off as a jerk, you should read some of the other anti-abortion discussions out there, especially by the Catholic academics. They will make me look like an angel.
Because I want to call sin what it is, and state that it has a place in the abortion issue does not make me a jerk. Because I think people who consistently go against incontrovertible teachings of the Church, but still want to continue to call themselves Catholic, and as such should maybe reconsider their committment to the Catholic faith, does not make me a jerk. Because I respond to someone's PUBLIC blog comments with the same snarky passion in which he wrote, does not make me a jerk.
You want to believe there is only one way to convince people against abortion. There's not. You want to believe there's only one tone in which to talk to these people. There's not. You mistake my true concern and anger at the genocide of now multiple generations of people as my being a jerk. There is such a thing as righteous anger, and even while my anger is not perfect in the eyes of God, I have the right to be angry. Just as you have the right to be angry with me.
No, my tone is not always charitable. I've admitted as such now 2 or 3 times. But that's who I am, I don't apologize. There is a place for the humble and a place for the forthright in this discussion. Jesus had an uncanny knack for having both qualities, I wish I could say the same for myself. In the meantime, I am NOT going to stay silent about abortion, especially in answering to people who want to believe that abortion should just go on unchecked because there's nothing we can do about it or because of lame arguments like Iraq.
Plenty of people got on this guy's case about abortion and Church teaching, even if I was the most blunt and angry. I am positive that even without my comments, this guy for sure felt he was being ganged up on. I'd say that without one word from me, in fact, the disdain he had originally expressed for the Catholics he was miffed with might have even grown. So if this guy is unconvinced or unrepentant, there's plenty of "blame" to go around, it doesn't all lie with me.
Actually, maybe we should all give some thought to the effect a downpour of negative comments within the commbox of someone we disagree with can have - perhaps the sheer volume of comments, no matter how gracefully or humbly articulated, might prove to have the opposite intended response? Something to think about, including by ME.
Lori,
Woman-to-woman (just asking LORI, sorry LCB): Tell me the exact comments I made that seemed as if I had no compassion for women. Seriously, I'm asking because I truly do not understand what got everyone's goat on that one subject. I want to be educated as to why people think I have no compassion for women.
In saying this, yes, I admit the comments about "spreading their legs" and "whipping it out" were crass. But I feel that this is one point no one ever makes - and I really wanted that point to hit home. Sometimes when you say "If people would just stop committing immoral acts or stop fornicating," I don't think they hear. I feel like there's a place to make people sit up and take notice.
I also said what I said because, I admit, the memories of one girl who lived on my college dorm floor, who had 3 abortions, never leaves my mind. She was, truly, a slut. She never gave one thought to what she was doing, and I believe that her behavior isn't an isolated case, I think there are alot of women who behave irresponsibly when it comes to sex. I understand that there's other cases of women who consider abortion for other more serious reasons, but I never hear people talk about people like this girl I knew.
If people think I am uncompassionate because I am calling sin for what sin is, then I might have to stand by my guns. If saying something is sinful equates to having no compassion, then we need to re-evaluate what Christ taught. He had compassion for Mary Magdalene, but he also told her to "sin no more."
Yes, I express myself in very strong terms, I always have. People either love me or hate me. It's always been that way. I tried for years to sublimate my strong responses to various issues so that people would "like" me, and found I was unhappy with the fact that I was changing who I was to accomodate others. The people who love me know from talking to me in person (which, obviously, can't happen in this kind of forum) that I have nothing but compassionate, true concern about the various topics that get me steamed. Others who have read my comments here and on Mr. Peace's blog may beg to differ, but I know that in my own life, it has often been people like myself that finally got me to stop, listen, and think.
Seriously, Lori, tell me what it is that I said about not being compassionate towards other women. Thanks alot!
CharL, I think it was the following line:
"You think that abortion will go away if we "care" for women with medical care and touchy-feely "support"?
You sounded as if you were sneering at the whole idea of medical care and support for women with problem pregnancies. Now that I've read more of your position, I can see that's not the case, but it's a hundred to one the guy you were writing for would have shut you out instantly, and never listened to another word you were saying, because obviously he believes those things are important; he would have written you off without hesitation as a "typical" uncaring pro-lifer.
It's hard not to go overboard when you are passionate about something. It helps you let off steam, but I think you are wrong if you really think it's going to wake people up, because they are going to take it in a completely different way than you meant it.
Take a deep breath first, and try to get inside the mind of your listener. It's much more effective.
Now if I could only follow this rule myself!
This whole abortion issue boils down to one thing! The woman can just say "No" to the guy who propositions her or expects "payment" for their evening together and also lay off the sauce! A jerk will look like Slyvester Stallone to any woman who is bombed!
Commenting by HaloScan
