I hope the folks from the American Life League bothered to go to Mass this morning instead of just picketing other Catholics while they went to Mass. That is, if the Mass is still as important to them as opposing abortion is.
I prefer Rachel's Vineyard. Far less militant and hateful than the American Life League.
How could you even say such a thing about American Life Leaque, and how judgemental is your accusation. You must be a Kerry supporter, because I heard they are beginning to infiltrate the Catholic blogs.
While I share ALL's criticism of Cardinal McCarrick and think something ought to be done about the scandal created by Kerry's reception of communion, voicing discontent with ALL's tactics (something which, as I recall, divided members of CKW as well) does not make one a Kerry supporter.
I only know Nathan from what I've read through his own blog ("The Tower"), but I don't get the impression that he'll be voting for Kerry. Judging from his posts he is categorically anti-abortion and is critical of such politicians from both parties, Democrat or Republican -- such criticism having been voiced by myself and others on CKW as well. (See CKW post "Kerry Catholics in the Republican Party", July 17/04).
I would have serious questions whether the Paulists are even saying Mass, given that they apparently don't even say the Creed.
Not having had the opportunity to weigh the evidence and preferring to deal with the message rather than the man--generally, the more prudent course, I'll forgo speculating on Nathan's motives for his irrational and vituperative outburst.
My friend and colleague Christopher's point is well taken, but it should be applied equitably. I.e., if it is speculative to judge Nathan's views regarding Kerry on the basis of rhetoric that aids the camp of Kerry and the baby killers, it is irrational to judge the faith of Catholics because they protest those whose actions betray that very faith.
Those who have had the privilege of collaborating with Judie Brown in the defense of innocent life--as I have had for nearly 4 decades--know that it is precisely her love for her faith, even more than her love for the innocent unborn child, that inspires American Life League's vitally needed apostolate.
Our Lord asked who would cast the first stone at the woman caught in adultery. One wonders what He might say about the hateful stones so heedlessly hurled at the faith of Christians unknown to their assailant, whose "sin" is defending the Body and Blood of Christ from hands stained with the blood of babies, crying to God for justice?
"By their fruits, ye shall know them."
I don't agree with some of ALL's tactics since sometimes they seem to view it as "ALL or Nothing" I would never slight them with saying they skipped Mass. Unfortunately Nathan must have had a bad day since that was totally out of character for him and lacked charity.
The fact is though that the Paulist Center needs to be protested since nothing has been done about their activities there. These pro-gay, pro-abortion clergy are preaching heretical views and encouraging dissent.
I think it's awful to protest a Catholic church. That just isn't how we do things. We don't picket Catholic churches.
Also, no, I am not a Kerry supporter. I haven't decided how I'm going to vote yet, but I am not anyone's supporter in this election. I can't stand either Kerry or Bush, and I think it really says something about our country when these are our two choices, these men who both support murder by their policies, and who scandalize the Christian faithful throughout the world.
I have always been unable to tolerate the American Life League. I have heard Judie Brown speak myself, as well as many of her co-workers (some of them at the March For Life I marched with in January of 2003, for those of you who are quick to brand me an evil Kerry supporter trying to "infiltrate" Catholic blogs) -- their rhetoric is often much more harsh and much more hateful than the talks given by members of other pro-life groups, such as Rachel's Vineyard and Roe No More, just to name a couple.
This is not something I'm making up. If you listen to Judie Brown and then compare her to speakers from other organizations, unless you're clearly bent on supporting her, you'll see that she is hateful toward her own gender, toward those who have had abortions and those who think about it. Women do deserve better, but they don't deserve the horrible things that Judie Brown has said about them.
The pro-life movements needs to shun the American Life League in favor of organizations that are actually doing something about it, such as Rachel's Vineyard.
It amazes me that the ones who speak against Judie Borwn and ALL are the same ones who don't know how they will vote. Obviosuly for these people abortion is not the most important issue, otherwise they would not even hesistate voting for George W. Bush.
Bloggers beware, the Kerry people are getting invovled in this. A friend of mine who is a Kerry supporter said that the Dems were trying to recruit him in infiltrating the Catholic blogs. If you read carefully, they use the same tactics. Attack what some may perceive as extreme (ie. ALL) and then create doubt in voting for GW Bush.
This is an election war and Kerry needs the Catholic vote. The Dems are desperate and they will do almost anything to at least confuse the pro-life Catholic voter.
But if you read carefully, their words will identify who they are.
How can any devout Catholic doubt who to vote for in this year's election. The chocie is very clear if you truly beleive that abortion is murder. And if that makes me an extremists like Judie Borwn, well, I guess I am.
I just found this blog. I will just say one thing. I find that quite often there are "catholics" that cloud the truth in order to excuse their reluctance to be loyal to the Chuch Doctrine. To many do not, it appears, to put any effort to have informed conscience. Their is no gray in the truth and it must be accepted, as the church is guided by the Holy Spirit!!!
A vote for Kerry is a vote for abortion on demand in all nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever.
A vote for Kerry is vote for pro-abortion judges who will impose their view of morality upon the entire nation.
A vote for Kerry will impose our liberal abortion laws upon the entire world, especially Catholic latin Ameirca, and Kerry has made that very clear.
A vote for Kerry will remove any chance sof appointing devout Catholic judges to the courts.
A vote for Kerry will impose a very anti- Catholic world view upon the entire nation.
A vote for Kerry will only reaffirm that CATHOLICS CAN BE GOOD CATHOILICS AND BE PRO-CHOICE.
Please, support human life and vote for GW Bush.
In the words of Teresa Heinz Kerry: Shove it.
You can all decide which one(s) of you I'm referring to.
Nathan --
You oppose a certain 'extremism' -- but abortion is an issue on which there is no 'middle of the road'. Think about it for a second: which Jews and how many were acceptable to kill in the ovens? None, of course. If Hitler had agreed to ban the killing of Jews, except...... everyone except Neville Chamberlain would have known there was no slowing down of the killing. Can we justify hateful discrimination against persons? Of course not. Therefore, even one Negro left in slavery is too many. Couldn't we agree, so as not to be extremist, to ban abortions except in the case that a human life is not ended?
Nathan, how much is the DNC paying you?
The DNC isn't paying me anything, and I don't support John Kerry. You can believe whatever you want, but I would like to remind you -- a Catholic, I presume -- that bearing false witness against your neighbor is a mortal sin.
Chris -- I think abortion should be banned. At issue in these comments are the actions of the American Life League outside of a Catholic church on a Sunday morning, not John Kerry and not abortion.
Nathan--
You're obscuring my point.
ALL and Judie Brown refuse to compromise because the issue at stake is the killing of innocent life. The tactics are based on the seriousness of the crime visited upon our defenseless brethren. Ends do not ever justify means. Nevertheless the crime requires being stopped.
The American Life League is attacking the Bishops in an ad that is irreverent toward their office at best, and schismatic at worst. They have set opposition to abortion up as their god, and now they're bowing down to worship that principle every day instead of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They have an idol, and it's wrong, but it just happens to be an idol that many Catholics like, so we'll say it's okay.
Do you have the ad? I think it's the one showing a cluster of bishops at the bottom of a mountain having no knowledge of how to proceed.
It is never right to WANT to attack bishops (cf. Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand), but it can not be argued that error must be allowed to go unanswered.
So answer it. But answer it so publicly? I don't think that's necessary.
Let's explore how publicly the error must be denounced. Or even MAY be denounced.
"it would be better that a millstone be hung around his neck ...." Our Lord says when describing the penalty for those who mislead the "little ones". There are several ways to mislead. First is outright lying, impugning the known truth. I don't think this is happening here, although some public statements come awfully close. Second there is what in modernspeak is called nuancing -- taking a perfectly clear answer and making it somehow seem not to apply to a given situation. The Jesuits were famous for this many years ago, and it was called casuistry. Third, there is speaking without knowledge -- arrogating to oneself authority he does not possess or deserve. When Fr. McBrien says " Bishop Bruskewitz' directive is so far outside the mainstream that it should be ignored", which is the essence of what he said when Bruskewitz excommunicated the members of Call to Action some years back. McBrien threw doubt on the authority of a bishop in the right exercise of his office.
If the bishops have excellent cause for not protecting Our Lord, they should announce what that cause is. When Pius XII spoke more obliquely than formerly about the plight of Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis, no one was in doubt as to his judgment. Bishops had asked him to refrain from speaking publicly since these speeches were only bringing down the fury of the Nazis on the Jews. Here is just cause. Such just cause does not, to my knowledge, exist in this case. Therefore it is the right and duty of right-thinking Catholics to work to protect Our Lord and effect the conversion of souls who daily commit a sacrilege by receiving Him in mortal sin. Can we argue about the best method? Of course. Can we agree that Bishops shouldn't protect Our Lord from profanation? OF COURSE NOT!
I just found this blog and I find this discussion very interesting. I think ALL and Judy Brown have offered me so much. I have to admit, that although abortion is my number one issue, I struggle with all life issues. I still have trouble with Bush's death penalty and war stance -- both of which are so contrary to my Catholic beliefs of promoting a culture of life and peace. How do you reconcile those issues?
For me, Bush is the one who will stop these women from committing murder, but who will save our troops from the horrors they are forced to perform? And yes, Kerry has actually committed such atrocities in war - at least Bush avoided the issue all together. Kerry will continue to promote the war not matter what he says.
On the death penalty, how can we justfy judging people to death when we are not God?
Personally, Bush is the lesser of 2 evils (many more children die in the womb than people die in Iraq). I just wish we could have a real pro-life candidate who will protect and respect all life and promote God as the ultimate judge.
Welcome Angela,
I can sympathize (and share) your wish for a candidate who adheres to the full range of Catholic moral teachings. President Bush is far from perfect, but there is no question in my mind that to have Kerry in the White House would constitute a crucial setback to the pro-life cause.
That said, with respect to the death penalty and the war in Iraq, one point that has been made on this blog a number of times is that these remain issues about which the Church acknowledges there can be legitimate differences of opinion. See my post What about "pro-death penalty" legislators? .
Kerry is conflicted because he knows it is a baby and knows he is advocating murdering that baby but is pandering to those who would also murder defenseless little babies. The graphic and article on the following webpages says it all.
http://www.geocities.com/
kerryad...atesmurder.html
http://geocities.com/
kerryadvoca...nadvocatemurder
http://geocities.com/
kerryadvoca...sadvocatemurder
Robert Black
achristianplace@charter.net
Commenting by HaloScan
