Monthly Archives: January 2017

by

Finding common ground in the abortion debate

There is almost certainly no issue that evokes more anger than the topic of abortion. People on both sides of the issue frequently resort to name-calling and valueless retorts that are meant more to put the other person down rather than to reach any common understanding. When we resort to this path, nothing constructive happens. Instead, we need to look for some common ground and discuss matters cyellingalmly and respectfully. I had an example of that very recently. I was in a discussion on Facebook with a woman who was obviously very much pro-abortion and she started out by using many of the well-rehearsed soundbites that are meant only to disparage and not to lead to constructive argumentation. After some back and forth where I refused to follow suit and kept responding to her attacks with calm argumentation, we did end up reaching some common ground. She mentioned how men who take the time to father a child have to also be there for the child once the baby is born. Many times men get a woman pregnant and then run to the hills. I absolutely agree with her on that! Certainly, if you’re going to father a child you better be there to take care of the child as well. I told her I understand that a woman whose baby’s father will not be there for her is in a difficult situation, but when the solution we come up with is to kill the baby, we have to say “Stop! That is not an acceptable solution! find another!” Sadly, the woman chose to end the discussion there, but we were at least on amicable terms by the end. If the conversation had been able to continue I would have wanted to say the following to her: it is certainly true that men have to take responsibility for their actions, but so do women. In the overwhelming majority of abortion situations we are not talking about a woman who was abused or raped or became pregnant after being in involved in sexual activity that was against her will. Most of the time the women were willing participants in the sexual act and thus they must take equal responsibility for what happened. If you’re going to engage in the act that leads to the conception of the new life then you better be willing and ready to accept the ramifications of that decision, which is that you may become pregnant, and if you do become pregnant and did not want to be, then either you raise the baby your choice brought into existence or you give it to someone who will raise it, but the baby should not be asked to pay the ultimate price by giving up its life so that the mother can have an easy solution to her misdeed. I don’t know if she would have agreed with me, but I know that she would at least have been open to hearing me out.

In the above case the woman was pro-abortion for ideological reasons. Other times it is more personal. Let me share with you a conversation I had many years ago with a young woman while I was in college. I had written a letter to the school newspaper against abortion and that evening in my room I received a phone call from a very irate collegiate who was screaming into the phone with venomous comments about all the horrible things I allegedly thought of women simply because I was against abortion. Within a minute or two a friend of hers got on the phone and was a little more levelheaded. She apologized for her friend’s behavior and at least attempted to discuss the issue calmly and rationally. She said to me, “Let’s imagine you go to a party in school and you are drinking and you do some drugs, you end up having sex with a boy and you get pregnant. Do you expect the girl to have that baby?” I said “Absolutely!” She asked, “Why? She didn’t realize what she was doing.” I replied by saying, “There was an awful lot of irresponsible behavior going on there. If you go to a party and you drink and do drugs and you can’t control yourself, you’re responsible for what happens to you in those situations, and asking a child to give up its life just because you were careless one night is totally unacceptable.” She then asked me if I had a girlfriend. “Yes” I responded. “Well suppose you got your girlfriend pregnant, wouldn’t you want her to have an abortion?” I said to her “Well that would never happen because my girlfriend and I are not sexually active. We both believe that the sexual act is the seal of the covenant of marriage and we choose to abstain from sex until we are married.” She then responded “Well then suppose you are married and you wife got pregnant and you didn’t want to have a baby?” I answered “I would never get married if I did not think I could welcome a child, because one of the reasons for marriage is to raise children and have a family. And if I was ever worried about taking care of another baby, I would do whatever it takes to provide for my child, and if I reached the conclusion that I could never be able to provide for it properly, I would give it up for adoption, but I would never kill it!” She then said “Wow! If everyone believed what you believe there would be no need for abortion!”

I had awakened in her the understanding of taking responsibility for your actions, but she still was not convinced that abortion was wrong. We then continued the conversation with other things and she tried to use the arguments that the fetus is not a human life yet, so therefore abortion is okay. I responded to her “Well, we could argue back and forth as to when life begins and neither one would probably be able to prove the point. But even if I were to grant your point or it could be proven definitively that the fetus is not yet a human life, do you agree that, left to run the course that is already in action, the fetus eventually will become one?” “Certainly!” She responded. I said, “So whether the child is already alive or is in the process of becoming alive, haven’t you taken the child’s life either way?” I then said to her, “Imagine this example: somebody is running in a track meet and they won. They are awarded the medal. But you are not happy that she won the medal and so you come up with a fake reason to have the person disqualified that the judges believe, and she has lost her prize. In another situation the person is running to the finish line and you trip them before they get there so that someone else crosses the finish line first and they don’t win. Either way you have made them lose their prize. Does it really matter much whether the person had already won the prize and you took it away or if you stop the person before they got to the finish line? Either way they’ve lost.” The woman responded “But that person can always get up and run in another race.” I answered “Yes, but the child cannot! That was the only chance the child had at life and you took it away from her.” Afterward she confided in me “Wow I see I see your point.” She then said “Well the reason I gave you that example about somebody doing drugs and drinking is because that’s what happened to me. I did that and got pregnant and I had an abortion.” Gulp! If I’d have known beforehand that she was speaking from her own experience I might have tried to soften my point. Anyway, I found out she was Catholic and told her to speak to our college chaplain who was very compassionate and understanding. I told her he could help give her some peace with her decision. She thanked me and said she was going to. I never spoke with her again but we ended the conversation on very friendly terms and when we avoided the name-calling and the sound byte catchphrases that her friend had used we were actually able to make progress. Perhaps I even changed her mind about abortion, and even if I inadvertently exposed her guilt, she could find healing, which she couldn’t do by yelling worn-out slogans.

talkingNo matter what the issue may be, I always urge people to avoid using expressions that are meant only to ridicule and silence discussion and instead engage in constructive dialogue that will help the parties understand each other. We may not come to an agreement and we may not change someone else’s mind, but we will always have a greater understanding of what the person’s concerns are and perhaps be able to address them in a way that may leave room for future progress. Respectful constructive dialogue always leads to a better understanding and increased respect, and maybe will change the other person’s mind . Name-calling and flinging mud never does.

by

Tolerance: an right American virtue and attribute – unless you’re liberal!

I find it so sad to see the number of liberal groups and individuals who are threatening violence at Donald Trump’s inauguration this week. Observe how the people demanding that others tolerate their opinions, practices, etc. have absolutely no todisruptj20-640x480lerance for anyone who disagrees with them and some groups have actually been formed to disrupt the inauguration and damage public property! read the story here. I know the election was extremely contentious and anyone who didn’t like Donald Trump will not be happy on Friday. But look: I was very upset when Barack Obama won the election twice in a row. But the American people had spoken and our political process had run its course legitimately. I didn’t start screaming that he was “not my president” nor did I threaten to destroy anyone’s property; I just accepted it and prayed that he wouldn’t make any bad decisions or policies as president. If Hillary Clinton had won the election I would have been very upset and fearful for our nation’s future, but I would have begrudgingly accepted the outcome as I did with Obama and would never have threatened violence against anyone.

Those who are carrying on, refusing to accept the results of the election, and threatening violence, are showing themselves to be immature sore-losers. They have lost any semblance of credibility in my eyes.  Apparently there is no such thing as a true liberal. Liberals always pontificate to people with more traditional views that we have to be open and accepting of people who don’t see things our way. But they can’t do the same.  Liberals love to call anyone who disagrees with them “hate-filled.” But who is actually doing the hating and threatening the violence? It is not the people with traditional Christian values; it is the liberals who aren’t getting their way.

All of this threatened violence could be quelled by one word from Obama or Hillary condemning it. But you don’t hear a peep out of the White House or Chappaqua. Why are they so silent?

What liberals are really saying is that we all have to have respect only for liberal opinions. Traditional conservative values have no grounds for respect according to them. But that does  not represent the values of our founding fathers and the Constitution, who valued the free exchange of ideas and in the long run cooperated for the well-being of our new nation even if they disagreed vehemently with each other (cf. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson). Rather, this new liberalism reeks of totalitarianism, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and every other malicious “ism” that threatened freedom during the 20th century. The more these sore losers carry on, the more glad I become that Hillary didn’t win, as her minions are becoming increasingly the people of “my way only”. It’s amazing that the party that accused Donald Trump of wanting to divide America is doing far more to divide us than he ever could. They are advocating violence and are threatening destruction in order to get their way. Sounds a lot like Kristallnacht to me!

I didn’t vote for Barack Obama and I disagreed vehemently with many of his policies, but he WAS my President, whether I liked it or not. Whether or not you like Donald Trump, as of Friday he IS your President. Deal with it!

by

Dear Abby encourages a two-year-old boy to be clothed in dresses and pink clothes!

I don’t normally read Dear Abby because I rarely agree with the advice she gives, but today’s headline caught my attention and I was horrified at what I read. Did anyone else see it? Here is the column for today:

DEAR ABBY: My brother and sister-in-law have been dressing my 2-year-old nephew, “Charlie,” in dresses and pink clothes. They say these are what the boy has chosen. To me, a toddler will pick out whatever gets his attention at the moment, and children that age have only a rudimentary understanding of gender.

It would be one thing if Charlie were old enough to understand and still insisted he felt more comfortable in girls’ clothing. But at his age I feel what they’re doing will only confuse him. Keep in mind, I do not believe this is a transgender issue. I think people who are transgender should dress and act the way they feel. I just feel that age 2 is too young to determine this.

My parents (the boy’s grandparents) are worried and angry. My sister-in-law knows this upsets my mother and yet it’s like she’s taunting her with texts and pictures of Charlie in pink and/or dresses.

Should we be worried about this or should it be none of our business? Are we overreacting? Would it be best to approach my brother to tell him our concerns? — TOO YOUNG TO UNDERSTAND

DEAR TOO YOUNG: It is likely that Charlie is going through a phase and doing something he has seen other people do. But more important than what his mother buys for him is how others respond to it. A family’s negative reaction sends a strong message. If Charlie is innocently testing out his/her authentic self, his grandparents’ negative response will signal that they disapprove of who he is, which could have lasting ramifications for him.

Counselors at PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) have told me that many parents say that, looking back, they realize that by disapproving, they had sent their child the message that they couldn’t accept him/her. One child had suicidal thoughts at the age of 5 because of it. (And yes, sometimes children that young do act on the impulse.)

Hello??? The child is two years old!!! What two-year-old chooses his own clothing for the day? It is obvious to any sane person that the decision to dress the child in pink and dresses is the parents’ and not the toddler’s.

Why are these parents behaving in this way? Are they trying to encourage him to grow up believing he’s actually a girl? Did they perhaps want a girl but got a boy instead? What their rationale is I certainly cannot say, but whatever it is, what they are doing to the child is downright cruel. What parent would want to encourage their child to grow up gender confused?

As for Dear Abby’s response, this is a clear example of what I have repeatedly said is the dangerous afterbirth of an overly accepting attitude toward gender confusion. What started out as a perhaps noble attempt to understand and be compassionate toward those who are gender-confused has deteriorated into an effort to encourage people to be whatever gender they choose to be. There are even some people who will tell you that can change from day to day. “If I want to be a woman today, I’ll be a woman, and if tomorrow I want to be a man I’ll do so.” Don’t believe me? Look at one case that took place in a Ross department store in Texas.

A female customer complained that a man was changing in the ladies’ fitting room. When confronted by the manager, the man said “he was identifying as a woman today” and the manager told the woman who had complained that he had the right to change in there. see video here  Target has also had serious problems with abuses due to their policy openly welcoming people to use whatever bathroom they feel better matches their identity. See this link: click here

When it comes to a toddler (as it is in this case), whatever the motive of the parents is, trying to force their child to identify with the opposite gender is unconscionable! It is an unthinkable kind of violence to do such a thing to a child.

I think it’s time the world wake up and face reality: we are male or female down to every gene in our body, and with the exception of the rare case of people with genetic abnormalities, our gender was determined at the moment of our conception and does not change because we feel differently. Feelings don’t dictate reality; only facts do, and encouraging people to choose whatever gender they want to be is an insult to the Lord who “created them male and female” (cf Gen. 1:27).

 

by

12 Cardinals and Bishops Condemn Gender Theory Madness. Great Quotes.

This post appeared on the webpage of TFP

By

Bentley Hatchett II

Topics:

The truth cuts through error like a sharp sword.  These twelve Catholic cardinals and bishops have spoken out against gender theory, clearing the toxic fog spread by the transgender movement and its biology deniers.  In clear terms these prelates call gender theory what it really is: destructive, anti-reason, neo-Marxist, tyrannical, a form of spiritual terrorism and demonic.

Please share these quotes:

Most Rev. James D. Conley
Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska

Bishop Conley

“We are living in a time when ordinary human reason is quickly being replaced by ‘the barren thorns of passion.’ Our entire culture has been caught up in a kind of sentimentalized and relativized tyranny of tolerance: we vilify and condemn, ever more quickly, any sense of reasonable and ordered social policy. We have a vague sense that endorsing certain fashionable kinds of social and emotional disorders—including transgenderism—is a mandate of justice, or a victory for civil rights…

“But the Church will not deny that God created us male and female. We will not confuse respect and compassion with capitulation to a tragic delusion. Our Catholic schools will continue to teach and live the truth, because of our care for every student. We can only help students grow in holiness when we help them to live in accord with the truth. We will continue to do that, no matter the cost.”

(Source: Southern Nebraska Register)

Cardinal Robert Sarah
Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

“[In France] they corrected me, they said I cannot use the word ‘deviation’, but I would not know which other word to use [about gender theory]… Even fools recognize that, between a man and a woman, there is a difference and a complementarity. Man is nothing without a woman and vice versa. This is not my own position, this is the position of the Church, and all Christians, all families are called to fight against this deviation.”

(Source: LifeSiteNews.com)

Cardinal Raymond Burke
Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta

Cardinal Raymond Burke

“Gender theory is an invention, an artificial creation. It is impossible to have an identity that does not respect the proper nature of man and that of woman.  It is madness that will cause immense damage in society and in the lives of those who support this theory. With gender theory, it is impossible to live in society. Already today, in certain places in the United States, anyone at all can change identity and say, ‘Today I am a man; tomorrow I will be a woman.’ That is truly madness. Some men insist on going into the women’s rest rooms. That is inhuman. In the schools, you can imagine the confusion. […] Nowadays there is enormous confusion, which is based on the false idea that there are practically an infinite number of possible sexual orientations. The twofold expression of the human person is not heterosexuality and homosexuality, but male and female. This is the authentic theology of anthropology: that God created man: ‘male and female he created them.’”

(Source: LifeSiteNews.com)

Cardinal Rubén Salazar Gómez
Archbishop of Bogota, Columbia

Cardinal Gomez

“We reject the implementation of gender ideology in the Colombian education, because it’s a destructive ideology, [it] destroys the human being, taking away its fundamental principle of the complementary relationship between man and woman… Individual rights can’t go against the rights of the community… [we must] proclaim the family as the cell of social life.”

(Source: Crux)

Cardinal José Francisco Robles Ortega
Archbishop of Guadalajara, Mexico

“The future of humanity is played in marriage and the natural family is formed by a heterosexual couple… The proliferation of the mentality of gender ideology… denies the natural reciprocity between a man and a woman.”

(Source: Crux)

Most Rev. Demeterio Fernández González
Bishop of Cordoba, Spain

“[G]ender ideology is an atomic bomb that wants to destroy Catholic doctrine, the image of God in man, and the image of God the Creator.”

(Source: Crux)

Most Rev. Rudolf Voderholzer
Bishop of Regensburg, Germany

Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer

“Gender theoreticians use the equality issues in order to introduce in society a notion of man that goes far beyond specific concerns of equality and, finally, paradoxically, leads to the dissolution of that which ought to be protected, specifically the intrinsic value of male and female existence. The gender theory implies a denial of the nature of man and woman and, hence, also the exclusion of the belief in God, the good Creator… the essence of man and woman is the potential to become a father and the potential to become a mother, respectively. These are not exchangeable roles, but, rather, gifts from the Creator, and, in the last instance, a calling… gender theory [is] an ideology that completely opposes reality and the integrity of human nature.”

(Source: Catholic News Agency)

Most Rev. Thomas Paprocki
Bishop of Springfield, Illinois

Most Rev. Thomas Paprocki

“The transgender activists would have you believe that their politically correct ideology is based on science; however, the American College of Pediatricians has pointed out that transgenderism is classified as a mental illness and therefore has warned legislators and educators that conditioning children to accept transgenderism as normal is child abuse. They advised, ‘When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind, not the body, and it should be treated as such.’

“… People who are confused about their gender identity—especially children and adolescents—should be treated with compassion and provided counseling rather than being further confused by activists promoting their political ideology.”

(Source: Courageous Priest)

Most Rev. Frederick Bernard Henry
Bishop of Calgary, Alberta — Canada

Most Rev. Frederick Bernard Henry

“What is at stake [in the fight against gender theory] is the very order of creation […]

“The primordial divine plan was spoken of clearly by Christ himself: ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female?’ (Mt.19:4). At the core we see the father and the mother, a couple with their personal story of love: ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’ (Gen.2:24). The result of this union is that, both physically and in the union of their hearts and lives, and eventually, in a child who will share not only genetically but also spiritually in the ‘flesh’ of both parents. The family is thus the place where parents become their children’s first teachers.”

(Source: Catholic Diocese of Calgary)

Most Rev. Thomas J. Tobin
Bishop of Providence, Rhode Island

“I go back to the very basics and in the book of Genesis we read, ‘God created the human family.’ Male and female, he created them. There was no third option.”

(Source: NBC 10 News)

Most Rev. Andreas Laun, O.S.F.S.
Auxiliary Bishop of Salzburg, Austria

Most Rev. Andreas Laun, O.S.F.S.

“Gender ideology, which is so popular today in the so-called highly developed world, is not rational.  The foundational thesis of this sick ‘product of reason’ is the end result of radical feminism, to which the homosexual lobby has attached itself. It is claimed that there are not only man and woman, but other ‘genders.’

“[…] They want to force us all to believe in this fully absurd, new gender-fairy tale! But, is there really a ‘self-chosen gender?’  Experience points to a simple answer: NO!…

“[I]s gender theory demonic?…It is obvious, after seeing the many draconian laws in favor of the new gender ideology, ones that simply rape our God-made natures, ones that ‘change the form’ of people only show one thing:  Their proposers want to be like God. They desire to ‘create’ new, self-made men. In the meantime, the Slovak, Polish, Croatian, Portuguese, and bishops from Italy and other lands have lifted their voices in protest. They are all united in their message: Gender ideology is a threat to civilization itself, especially the Church. The gender ideologues are a sort of spiritual ‘Taliban’ and they even have their own ‘sleeper cells’ ready to go into action at any time!…

“Yes, gender ideology is the destruction of man.”

(Source: Kath.net – translation is ours.)

Joint Statement of the Polish Bishops’ Conference

“The gender ideology (movement) is the product of many decades of ideological and cultural changes that are deeply rooted in Marxism and neo-Marxism endorsed by some feminist movements and the sexual revolution. This ideology promotes principles that are totally contrary to reality and an integral understanding of human nature.”

(Source:  Rorate-Caeli Blog)

Council of European Episcopal Conferences (CCEE)
(representing 45 countries in Europe)

“The Church does not accept ‘gender theory’ because it is an expression of an anthropology contrary to the true and authentic appreciation of the human person.”

(Source: Zenit.org)

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI

People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves.
According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply.

(Source: Vatican website)