Who among us has not sinned? Who among us has not grievously hurt another along the way in life? And who among us hasn’t felt deep remorse, guilt, and shame as we realized through the perspective of maturity and hindsight how much our actions have been a stumbling block for those we hurt so dearly?
Working through the guilt and the shame is an essential part of our own spiritual and psychological growth. One of the surest signs that we have accepted God’s forgiveness and forgiven ourselves as well comes when we are no longer controlled by guilt and shame. It comes when we can speak out against the sort of thing that we have done, acting as lighthouses to warn others of the behavior’s treacherous shoals.
In the pro-life movement, and in the Christian life in general, I have encountered not a few who feel a sense of forgiveness for their past sins but cannot speak out as bold and fearless witnesses. They are hobbled by a false understanding of hypocrisy.
“How can I tell my children not to (fill in the blank) when I did it myself?” Drugs, smoking, birth control, premarital sex, abortion… “I would be such a hypocrite,” comes the protestation. There is the sign of incomplete healing, of the stunting of spiritual growth, of the Evil One whispering our guilt and shame. It is all predicated on a very false understanding of what hypocrisy is, and is not.
Hypocrisy is pretending to be someone or something we have no intention of ever being.
It’s an act meant to deceive others into believing we are a very different sort of person. The issue here is intent. The timing for the hypocritical behavior is in the present moment. A brief example to illustrate:
If I used to be an embryonic stem cell researcher and Planed Parenthood escort (which I have not on both counts) but had a conversion of heart after an encounter with the Truth, I would not be a hypocrite for witnessing against those former evil ways. Such a witness would actually be an act of atonement for those sins by warning others against committing them. Such a witness would be akin to the former slave ship captain who penned one of the greatest hymns of all time:
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost
But now am found
Was blind but now I see.
If on the other hand, as the author of this blog, I was working secretly in embryonic stem cell research and a PP escort (which I am not on both counts), that would be the supreme act of hypocrisy. The blog would be my pretending to be something and someone I had no intention of being. In other areas I have had my share of youthful indiscretions, which I shall warn my children and others against.
How, after we have deeply wounded others and ourselves, can we not warn those we love of falling into the same trap? We need not make our past sins front page news (which is why for Catholics both the priest and the penitent are bound by the Seal of Confession, unless the penitent wishes to witness in a way that would require admitting to the sin in a public manner).
Of all my heroes in the pro-life movement, and there are legions of them, those who hold a special place in my heart are the post-abortive mothers and fathers who stand and give their searing testimonials. Some were duped by abortionists into believing they were only carrying a pre-human blob of tissue. Others knew what they were contracting the services of the abortionist for. All bear the agony of never knowing in this life the child they will be reunited with in the next.
Alongside the post-abortive parents stand another group of heroes who hold a special place in my heart: The former abortionists who converted and bear witness against this holocaust. Along with the post-abortive parents, they bear some of the deepest wounds and scars of all.
It is not inconsistent for them to stand and witness against this holocaust. While not every post-abortive parent or former abortionist can withstand the emotional agony of public witness, many have healed to the point where they can. And when they do, their witness is consistent with their conversion, with the healing graces they have received. Such witness becomes an occasion of grace in the lives of all who hear it, especially those who have labored under the burden of silent shame, and those who change course and keep the child they had been contemplating aborting.
The same may be said of our witness against the corrosive effects of extra-marital sex, contraception, drug abuse, and all other lifestyles that are inconsistent with our human dignity, health and well being. The hurt and the damage done to humans everywhere by sin bears witness to the universal human nature of Christian anthropology.
There is simply no inconsistency in our witness being in accord with our values and virtues, especially when we come to those values and virtues through hard won experience.
It would be hypocritical to remain silent.
Bravo! Your posting cuts to the heart (pun intended) of how it’s so easy to not want to make public your sins. About 10 years ago, my middle daughter got pregnant out of wedlock. That type of sin is not easy to hide, as the month’s progress. I even preached about forgiveness in such situations. Making her pregnancy public, opened up many people to share with me their own stories, which they never would have if the pregnancy didn’t happen.
One of my daughter’s good friends, the daughter of another deacon, shared that my daughter’s pregnancy helped her to see that even good girls make mistakes.
This came at just the right moment, when I have been experiencing conflicting feelings and doubts about what I am doing. I often have felt like a hypocrite. As a post-abortive woman, I endured many years of heartache and shame and guilt….never feeling worthy of God’s mercy and forgiveness. But through His marvelous grace, I have been (am being) restored.
You are correct in saying that witnessing against the evil of abortion can be an act of atonement for my grave sin. It is still a daily struggle, but I walk with Christ by my side. He gives me the strength to do what is right.
I now work with Silent No More Awareness and stand silently as a witness against abortion in front of Planned Parenthood mills. I know what is going on inside, and I pray mightily for each girl who enters, hoping with all my being that she will have a change of heart. The lies are still being told, and I know I must stand against them as a small ray of light to penetrate that darkness.
Thank you for helping to convince me that I am not a hypocrite.
Thank you Catherine for your wonderful comment and for having the tremendous courage to come forward and tell about your experience and to mentor to other women.
I have been a long time prolifer and when I was younger especially, I had a very condescending view of mother’s who abort. How can a mother abort her baby? It was even more difficult for me to understand after having my own children and being pregnant and knowing very early in the pregnancy that I was carrying another human being!
I have to say that there IS a part of me that still doesn’t understand the abortion thing and maybe I will never understand it.
BUT, I now do realize that many women ARE sold the idea that abortion is a quick fix to a very difficult situation. Many women are also coerced. I’m betting many women are also very very afraid especially if they are young or burdened in life or abandoned. And sometimes they just simply make a bad decision – they maybe thought this WAS the right one for them.
Regardless of what precipitated the abortion all women deserve to be met with compassion and support if and when they chose to grieve their abortion and even if they don’t.
I think we as a society are very against guilt and shame but these feelings have a purpose because they often lead us to think about what we’ve done and lead to forgiveness and healing.
When I was a sidewalk counsellor many years ago I often did not stay when the women came out three hours later. I couldn’t. I couldn’t stay, not because I looked at these women any differently, but because my heart broke to see the women visibly suffering both physically and emotionally. Many were devastated.
Abortion supporters continue to promote the lie that abortion is easy, available and without consequences.
You and women like you are tellling us that it is not. You are the truth. Continue to be a prayer warrior and most of all, KNOW that God loves you and all women like yourself who have been through this.
Many blessings. 🙂
I have the opposite problem.
I used to be pro-life, until I was 15.
I don’t hide this from my children. I don’t ever let them look down upon people who sincerely believe in the pro-life point of view, because their mother once did, too.
L.,
What made you change your mind, at the age of 15?
Sorry for the delay in answering your question, Dan. I was out of the country for a bit.
I had never thought deeply about the abortion issue until our religious ed class was shown an anti-abortion film, consisting mostly of dismembered fetal remains.
I remember watching it, realizing how ugly abortion was, and wondering how anyone could have one…..and then I realized that I myself would have one, if I were raped, if my health were in danger, etc.
I knew in my heart at that moment that ugly as abortion was, I would have one. (For the record, I was not a sexually active 15-year old. At the time, I had never even been kissed.)
After the film, our parish priest told our class that anyone who supported abortion in any way, and was not 100% pro-life, was automatically excommunicated. I took this very seriously.
Nearly thirty years later, I still do — even after four pregnancies and three children of my own, I still know in my heart that I would have terminated under certain circumstances.
However, I continue to respect those who take a principled, reasoned stand against abortion.
L.,
Most of the justifications for abortion that I have heard hinge on denying that a human fetus or embryo is a person.
But you seem to be saying something quite different, namely that you have concluded that you would be willing to kill an innocent person under certain circumstances in order to solve a (certain kind of) problem. As barbaric as this sounds, I think it is far more honest than the usual “pro-choice” arguments.
Please correct me if I have misrepresented your point of view.
Dan, there are actuall two questions there. When does a person’s human life begin, and when does someone’s legal personhood begin?
I would never argue that human life didn’t begin at conception, and that human zygotes/embryos weren’t human beings in their tiniest forms. I also tend to support crime laws that punish those who harm pregnant women, and ackowlege that the gestating person inside was a victim, too.
The problem with giving full legal personhood from the moment of conception would be that — aside from abortion — it would create all sorts of strange legal situations.
Would you remove an infant from the care of a mother who put a little beer in his baby bottle? Of course you would. Full legal personhood implies to me that you would have to similarly remove all children from the care of a mother who drinks or does any other risky activity while she’s pregnant.
If a mother learned of her toddler’s death (for which she was not responsible) and was happy, glad to be free of her little burden, would you consider removing any other children from the care? I would think so.
Full legal personhood would imply that a pregnant woman who miscarries an unwanted pregnancy and celebrates would be judged as an unfit mother unless she demonstrated suitable sadness.
Anyway…..yes, my support of legal abortion is based in the idea that a person should have a legal right to remove something from their own body, even if that something happens to be another person’s body.
I compare it to war. I am not a pacificist. I think sometimes war is necessary, and there is always going to be disagreement on the meaning of “necessary.” Certainly, war costs precious human lives and is worth avoiding.
Similarly, abortion is worth avoiding. The most desirable outcome would be creating a society in which those seeking to avoid pregnancy had the information and means to do so, and those who faced unwanted pregnancies had the support and resources to carry to term if they so wished (since I think abortion has become the “default option,” which makes a mockery of the term “pro-choice”). I am not interested in criminalizing abortion — why would I want to criminalize a procedure I believe I would have myself? But I think greatly reducing the number of abortions by reducing the situations which result in women choosing abortion is a desirable goal.
Dan, I think that’s what I understood. The sad reality is that you can give all the arguments you want to pro-abortion people, but ultimately many of them are starting to think the way that L. does. Even when they admit that it is a living human person, their answer is: “You don’t understand….I don’t care.”
And that is horrifying, because it also very much relates to end-of-life decisions, as we are seeing by the push toward suicide for any reason related to health or suffering.
May God have mercy on us.
Catherine, on the contrary — I care very much.
L., I think our responses came in at the same time. What you say makes no sense. Removing a child from a mother after it is living is in no way the same as removing a child in the womb, who will not have the chance to live at all.
If you believe in “crime laws that punish those who harm pregnant women, and ackowlege that the gestating person inside was a victim, too,” then abortionists who harm girls who have been lied to about the facts of what they are doing should also be punished. Believe me, I know all about the lies.
Again, this does not make rational sense. You cannot have it both ways. Once you come to believe that it is a separate human person (which science clearly proves), with separate DNA and genetic makeup, then you cannot tolerate its destruction. And you must speak out against it.
If you have studied in depth what occurred in Nazi Germany, you will understand much more clearly. There were thouands of “good” Germans who knew exactly what was going on, but they remained silent.
L wrote.
I realized that I myself would have one, if I were raped, if my health were in danger, etc.
—————————————————
Have you redeemed any other decisions that were made at the age of 15?
You seem to have suffered Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder (the stress is the outcome of a phantasmic event, an imaginary episode set in the future; an event that has never taken place) at 15 years old.
What influence did the media that exorts abortion have on your decision? In the end, you decided at 15 to reject the influence of the Catholic Church and begin your personal revolution by entering into PTSD as sound reasoning.
William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
THE SECOND COMING
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
—————————————————
As one grows older, one either finds life more precious then the self, or one continues to think and decide as a adolescent does, absorbed within themself. Trapped in phantasmic choices offered to a kid by a adult media bound to killing something to survive.
Catherine, I DO believe that it is a separate human person, with separate DNA and genetic makeup — my own child, in fact — and yet I CAN “tolerate” its destruction. But as I also said, it is far from desirable and wholesale destruction is worth avoiding.
L.,
“…legal right to remove something from their own body…”
In fact, what is being claimed by the “pro-choice” crowd is the right to kill, not merely to remove. Witness partial birth abortions, and the fact that the procedure is considered a failure if the baby survives. What is very clearly and directly intended in a modern abortion is the death of the baby. For the “pro-choice” crowd, nothing else will do.
“I compare it to war.”
Have you heard of “just war theory”? Please explain how you think abortion is able to meet the criteria for a just war. How is it not merely a case of the powerful exterminating the weak?
For the “pro-choice” crowd, nothing else will do, than the death of a baby? Funny, I thought I was part of the “pro-choice crowd.” Go figure.
The concept of “just war” is that the military force must never cause harm/evil graver than the harm/evil it eliminates. Some say abortion never meets this criteria, but I believe it can.
I have no words to say to that tragic statement from L. regarding tolerance, so I shall quote someone much wiser than I:
Tolerance
“America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance It is not. It is suffering from tolerance.
Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos.
Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broad-minded.”
“Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil… a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons …never to truth.
Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error.
Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs
in the laboratory. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, (so much-needed to rouse us from sentimental gush), I make a plea.
Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.”
(Archbishop Fulton Sheen)
love the quote Catherine.
“Catherine, I DO believe that it is a separate human person, with separate DNA and genetic makeup — my own child, in fact — and yet I CAN “tolerate” its destruction. But as I also said, it is far from desirable and wholesale destruction is worth avoiding.”
this is unbelievably barbaric. There is simply no other way to consider it. A mother who would kill her own helpless defenseless baby – deliberately knowing and BELIEVING that it is a human person. How much we as women have truly lost in the last 50 years. 😦
Hypothetical questions.
Should a mother such as me — who freely understands that abortion takes a human life, and yet is not pro-life — be allowed to raise children?
I have three living children. If abortion is murder, and I admit I would “murder” my unborn children in certain circumstances (and indeed perhaps I might already have, using contraception), does this mean that the government has a moral obligation to remove my living children from my care?
And if a woman like me — that is, at a “high risk” of abortion, due to opinions I have publicly stated — should become pregnant, does the government have an obligation to confine me for the duration of my pregnancy, to prevent me from taking steps to end it?
L.,
Are you denying that the “pro-choice” crowd claim the right to kill? Denying this claim would place you at odds with liberal abortion laws, and with the way abortions are actually done (directly killing the child, not merely removing him or her from the mother’s body).
“The concept of “just war” is that the military force must never cause harm/evil graver than the harm/evil it eliminates.”
Well, there is quite a bit more to it than that. See here, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War#Criteria_of_Just_War_theory
“Some say abortion never meets this criteria, but I believe it can.”
Please explain. How about a specific example?
Dan, I am very familiar with the definition of a “just war.” I would also never argue that either abortion or war were anything but barbaric, involving killing, and best to be avoided in the first place.
An example? A pregnant woman’s health is threatened by a pregnancy, so she opts to terminate. It’s what I believe I would not hesitate to choose to do in that situation, while others would rather die themselves than take an innocent life.
I do not expect anyone here to agree with my opinion on this, nor would I ever claim that it is in any way compatible with what the Catholic Church teaches.
As I said, I was pro-life until I was 15, and then realized I could honestly no longer call myself that. I am less interested in understanding the pro-life point of view (since I believe I do understand it, and even at one time shared it) than I am in understanding how it would apply to society, if it were ever put into law.
L.,
“An example? A pregnant woman’s health is threatened by a pregnancy, so she opts to terminate.”
If by “terminate” you mean “directly and intentionally killing the unborn child” (ie. abortion as it is currently practised) then your example fails rather miserably to meet the criteria for a just war. It’s one thing to believe that this is an acceptable course of action, and that you would do it yourself, but please don’t claim that this situation compares to a just war.
With access to modern medicine, I don’t believe there are any situations in which directly killing the unborn child is necessary to save the mother from adverse effects to her health. However, even if there were such situations, that would be a very narrowly defined set of cirumstances in which abortion would be acceptable to you. How do you square that with your claim that you are “pro-choice”? Doesn’t the term “pro-choice” mean that you believe the mother should always be allowed to choose death for her unborn child, no matter the circumstances?
Again:
I believe that a woman has a right to remove anything (anyone) from her body.
I personally think there are good reasons and bad reasons for doing so — and there are certainly many circumstances in which I would actively discourage someone from ending a pregnancy. But I am in favor of giving the choice to the pregnant woman herself.
I believe I would choose it myself, in certain circumstances. (And, indeed, if you count my use of abortificiant contraception, I already have.)
I’m not sure what you want me to say. Is something about my opinion still unclear to you?
“L.
I believe that a woman has a right to remove anything (anyone) from her body.”
This dialogue keeps getting more bizarre and more alarming. At what point does a woman have this right: one minute before birth? Why not, if you believe it’s all about “her rights?”
How about one minute AFTER birth? After all, it’s still a “part of her body” if the umbilical cord hasn’t been cut.
It’s only a short three to five inches between being inside the womb and being outside the womb.
I guess I am most disturbed by your cold attitude that a living human person in the womb has so little value that you would be willing to destroy it on a whim, depending on “circumstance.” Moral relativism is an insidious thing. It’s so arbitrary.
It leads to a downward spiral.
You see how far we’ve come since Roe v. Wade?
“I call heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live, by loving the LORD, your God, heeding his voice, and holding fast to him.
For that will mean life for you, a long life for you to live on the land which the LORD swore he would give to your fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”
(Deuteronomy 30:19)
Yes, Catherine, I am fine with a woman aborting “one minute before birth” — since I could certainly imagine aborting a full-term infant myself if my own life were in grave danger. Every time I gave birth, I let my husband and doctor know that if it came down to a clear choice between the baby’s life or my own, I would choose mine, particularly after I was mother to living children.
I don’t see how your umbilical cord example would fit, though, since the baby is already outside the woman, no longer getting any vital sustenance from her and no longer impinging on her physical well-being in any way.
“I let my husband and doctor know that if it came down to a clear choice between the baby’s life or my own, I would choose mine, particularly after I was mother to living children.”
But it never happen.
You never had to kill another to survive.
You pre-traumatized yourself to justify a fear of death that still controls your mind.
You entertain a dilemma that exist(ed) in the mind of a 19th century morality. A false dilemma begun at 15 years old. Such phantasmic moral scenarios have faded with medical scientific advances. You are at a site of a Doctor who has written to such a false dilemma.
Soo one must conclude as Bezminov concluded about Americans:
“A person who was(is) demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him/her, even if I shower him/her with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. …he/she will refuse to believe it…. That’s the tragedy of the situation of demoralization”
That’s why Catherine see’s your thoughts formed into words on a screen, as “bizarre”.
To a certain extent, your baptizing yourself again and again to your personal revolution,with the same thoughts that entered your consciousness at 15. That’s why you come to a Catholic site to assure your removed(de) morality of Catholicism are still demoralized.
It’s interesting, reading the apologetics of demoralized Catholics, who failed to assess the true information of Catholicism.
.
Astran, I sometimes don’t respond to your comments because quite frankly, I don’t always understand them (your “Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder” theory is a great example). But your comment above strikes me as quite insightful.
I am indeed a “demoralized Catholic.” I have never claimed to be otherwise.
However, I don’t come to Catholic sites to be further demoralized (although this does happen sometimes, when people call me things like “barbaric” and “bizarre”). Rather, I am encouraged when sometimes there is common ground with people who think I am dead wrong on some issues.
I don’t come to argue. I try to be respectful in my tone. I have a great deal of respect for the pro-life point of view, although coming from me, I doubt that means anything to anyone here.
Oh, one more thing — Dan? You say, “With access to modern medicine, I don’t believe there are any situations in which directly killing the unborn child is necessary to save the mother from adverse effects to her health.”
A college friend of mine died of pregnancy complications when she was 5-months pregnant with twin boys. It happens. An abortion would have saved her, but she wanted to try to save the babies. It was her choice. Others might have chosen differently, particularly since she left a 2-year old daughter.
Sacrifices are noble and beautiful when freely chosen — but ghastly when they are mandated by law in every situation.
…and oddly, I just looked up my friend’s obituary, and noticed it refers to “twin son fetuses.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/15/classified/paid-notice-deaths-hori-callery-tomoko.html
“A college friend of mine died of pregnancy complications when she was 5-months pregnant with twin boys”
Misleading vividness, a logical fallacy, which also confirms your trauma. You even looked up her death notice years latter. You remembered a event that is exceptionally rare. But nothing ever happen to you. Appealing to a exception seems to occur in demoralized Catholics quite often.
Japan suffers from a trauma that occured in the past, such as the use of nuclear weapons on Nagasaki. This leads to a pre-trauma nation that has phantasmic events of the future, leading their consciousness of today.
One can respond to pre- traumatic events in two ways. One is unreasonable demands for peace at any price to liberty, or arming up to stave off the pre-trauma event.
The world media, education system, movies, have set up a pre-trauma consciousness involving nuclear weapons and war. From the movie, On The Beach, to some hillarious Ted Turner production depicting nuclear war. Even those horrible sci-fi movies where ants are mutated into mindless killing machines. Yes, “the sum of all our fears”, is also presented to youth as a rape, or unwanted bearing of a innocent human being, or personal annihilation via the gift of life.
Each generation must be pre-traumatized to assure the future. Just as pro-abortionist pre-traumatized you eventually at 15 years old.
L.,
“I’m not sure what you want me to say. Is something about my opinion still unclear to you?”
No, it is now very clear that you are indeed “pro-choice” according to the meaning of that term that is familiar to me. Your comparison to war is irrelevant and a distraction from what you really believe. That is what had me confused.
“A college friend of mine died of pregnancy complications when she was 5-months pregnant with twin boys. It happens. An abortion would have saved her, but she wanted to try to save the babies.”
At 5 months, those babies could have been born alive by cesarean section. Maybe they would have lived, and maybe not, but at least they and their mother would have been given a fighting chance. Perhaps she declined this course of action, but had she taken it, it would not have been an abortion.
Astran, I admit, I don’t really understand the concept of “pre-trauma.” I can imagine my house burning down, so I buy fire insurance and teach fire safety to my children. I can imagine car accidents, so again, I buy insurance, maintain my vehicle, and drive safely. I bought life insurance when I was still in my 20’s because I could imagine dying and leaving my baby motherless. Imagining and preparing for traumatic events is not the same as actually experiencing them.
And as for my poor friend, she and I were not in close touch after she transferred to another university. I heard conflicting details of her death from mututal friends, and I don’t know the entire situation. I can only believe that as she died at a large, modern medical institution, everything possible was done to save both her and her babies.
Imagining and preparing for traumatic events is not the same as actually experiencing them.
Correct.
You never experienced the situation of the killing of innocent life to live.
You prepared yourself for a future trauma that never happened. Insurance is based on pre-trauma events. Your pre-trauma thinking decided your future. It occured to you at 15 years old. So you prepare for events that are exceptionally rare. From local news you always get a trauma event ………fire, car wreck, and a murder.
If a murder doesn’t occur in the city which you live, the local news will reach out to some city and report the murder in that city(not letting the public know that the “other city report” is from their corporate network,).
The purpose is to continue the self imposed pre- trauma that controls the future actions of human beings.
In essence, your “ceremony of innocence” ended at 15. And you ended up “drowned” and demoralized in a pre-trauma world that never actually existed for you. But, you “actualized” the pre-trauma in your head. The Catholic religion ask for sacrifice, as Christ sacrificed himself to the innocence of the world. That’s the way it works. It’s that simple.
Strangely, in this world, a person may sacrifice their life for a stranger that is in a trauma event. Yet, you declare yourself unable to sacrifice your life in the irony of giving life. Soo, in thinking about a trauma event that hasn’t occured, one must ask you a question.
You come upon a car wreck where children are being threatened by fire, caused by the wreck. The mother ask you to save her children. If you save them, and die latter on, you end up being a hypocrite that has pretended to be what you aren’t really . Don’t you? OTOH, you watch them burn, innocence being drown in a fire bath. Then you aren’t a hypocrite, pretending to be something your really aren’t.
Okay, Astran, you are losing me again. You seem to believe that saying, “I believe I would have an abortion in some circumstances” is exactly the same as saying, “I would never, under any circumstances, sacrifice my own life for someone else’s.”
You say, “The Catholic religion ask for sacrifice, as Christ sacrificed himself to the innocence of the world. That’s the way it works. It’s that simple.”
This is very true, and it’s far from simple. I can think of hypothetical situations in which I believe I would risk my own life, and others in which I believe I wouldn’t.
But one thing I do believe: I don’t think any sacrifice should be legally mandated. I don’t think anyone should be required to sacrifice their life for another. A sacrifice, if not freely chosen, is something else entirely.
L.
I refer to some of your statements…my responses are included in brackets [ ].
“Yes, Catherine, I am fine with a woman aborting “one minute before birth” (I am fine with killing a person whom the majority of people acknowledge as such) — since I could certainly imagine aborting [killing] a full-term infant myself if my own life were in grave danger. Every time I gave birth, I let my husband and doctor know that if it came down to a clear choice between the baby’s life or my own, I would choose mine, particularly after I was mother to living children.”
“I don’t see how your umbilical cord example would fit, though, since the baby is already outside the woman, no longer getting any vital sustenance from her and no longer impinging on her physical well-being in any way.”
[Babies inside the womb impinge on a mother’s physical well-being? What a selfish attitude….see the link below about St. Gianna.]
“Rather, I am encouraged when sometimes there is common ground with people who think I am dead wrong on some issues.”
[There can be no common ground between those who believe in preserving human life and those who condone the destruction of human life. Truth is not subjective.]
“A college friend of mine died of pregnancy complications when she was 5-months pregnant with twin boys. It happens. An abortion would have saved her, but she wanted to try to save the babies. It was her choice. Others might have chosen differently, particularly since she left a 2-year old daughter.”
[At five months, this decision does not have to be made between mother and child. Children at that stage of gestation can often survive, without any harm to the mother. There is never a guarantee that an abortion saves a mother, nor is there evidence of that.]
“Sacrifices are noble and beautiful when freely chosen — but ghastly when they are mandated by law in every situation.”
[The law does not mandate sacrifices; it mandates that murder is against the law. And, wouldn’t a loving mother want to be noble and beautiful in choosing life for her child? “Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his fellow man.”]
………
In short, as others have said here (very charitably), you are terribly conflicted by something that happened when you were 15, and it continues to shape all your feelings and beliefs to this day. We can’t always change someone’s mind in forums such as this one, as is obviously the case with you, but we can do our best to convince others who may read this article and comments that there ARE objective truths, and that the killing of unborn children is never necessary, optional or good. It harms both children and women: physically, emotionally, psychologically and, most importantly, spiritually.
May God bless you…
http://www.wf-f.org/StGianna.html
Forgive me….my first comment should have been in brackets, not parentheses: (I am fine with killing a person whom the majority of people acknowledge as such). I was paraphrasing what I felt you were actually saying.
I am quite familiar with St. Gianna. I am fairly certain I would not have made the choice she made, though I am fortunate in that I haven’t faced anything like it.
I am truly not a “loving mother,” who wants to be “noble and beautiful in choosing life” for any of my children in all circumstances — and that includes my living children. I believe I would give my life for theirs in most situations, but I also believe that exceptions to this are possible, and I would never support legislation requiring me to make such a sacrifice in all circumstances.
Nothing traumatic happened to me when I was 15. I simply watched a film, pondered an issue I had never seriously considered before, and…changed my mind. My Catholic family and friends all believed I would “come to my senses,” but thirty years, four pregnancies and three live births later, my opinions are much the same.
Of course, four years later, I fell in love with an “enemy of Christ,” and later married him. 🙂 So I guess that knocked me off the “devout Catholic track” for good.
“I am less interested in understanding the pro-life point of view (since I believe I do understand it, and even at one time shared it) than I am in understanding how it would apply to society, if it were ever put into law.”
well you might want to consider that this WAS the law until the middle of the 20th century.
Once society left the barbaric ages behind and became mostly Christianized it was considered a terrible crime to abort a child. Abortionists were (rightly) considered criminals and murderers.
Even certain pagan societies considered abortion morally wrong.
“Every time I gave birth, I let my husband and doctor know that if it came down to a clear choice between the baby’s life or my own, I would choose mine, particularly after I was mother to living children.””
I’m sure the doctors were very impressed with your (lack of ) maternal instinct. How very sad. You are in great need of healing L.
“A college friend of mine died of pregnancy complications when she was 5-months pregnant with twin boys”
yes proaborts always uses the “hard cases” to make the case for abortion, euthanasia etc.
but laws are not made from hard cases because hard cases are the exception rather than the rule.
the majority of abortions are not done to save the woman’s life.
they are done because promiscuous sex leads to unwanted babies – babies who were not intended and are an embarrassment or a problem to their parents.
it’s just easier to kill them
very very few babies are aborted because of a danger to maternal health.
I agree that hard cases make bad laws.
And I also agree that there should be fewer “abortions of convenience,” since the procedure itself is onconvenient, expensive and generally undesirable and best avoided in the first place. I don’t think the way to do it is to criminalize all abortions, but rather to implement specific targeted policies.
Gender-selective abortions are a great example, in countries like China. Even people like me, who have no moral qualms about abortion, agree they are undesirable, but crimimalizing them does no good. However, implementing incentives for the birth of daughters is beginning to overcome centuries of cultural preference for sons.
And I don’t think I am “in need of healing” — I’m quite healthy, but thanks for your concern. 🙂
“Nothing traumatic happened to me when I was 15. I simply watched a film, pondered an issue I had never seriously considered before, and…changed my mind”
You removed/demoralized your Catholicism.
A movie was all it took. In the end, for a certain time, you were pretending to be someone you never intended of being. Interesting, nothing ever happen to you. You concluded that you would not sacrifice your life, for a imaginary event of the future, that never came. Hmm, maybe the Insurance industry should offer “abortion insurance”. The’re impeccable at the game of pre-trauma.
Astran, how is my perception that I would not sacrifice my life in all circumstances different from a perception that I would CERTAINLY sacrifice my life in ALL circumstances? Both are hypothetical, never put to the test.
And is buying abortion coverage any different than buying cancer coverage? (I mean, in terms of the possibility of ever using the coverage — I don’t mean to compare a pregnancy to cancer.)
I have had term life insurance for nearly 20 years, and yet I am still alive. Does that make me a victim of “pre-trauma?”
A “hypothetical” determined your future actions, to a trauma, that never occured, in real life for you. Your “mind was changed”, which is a euphemism for demoralizing your Catholicism to meet your trauma, that never occured. A pre-traumatic stress was introduced to your 15 year old conscience.
It’s quite simple. Have you told your children that you “admit I would “murder” my unborn children in certain circumstances (and indeed perhaps I might already have, using contraception)”?
Have you told your children that your “truly not a “loving mother,” who wants to be “noble and beautiful in choosing life” for any of my children in all circumstances — and that includes my living children.”
Have you told your children that ,”I am fine with a woman aborting “one minute before birth” —”
I assume you have told them and, have begun the process of pre-trauma in your children. Quite simply your children know that when the chips are down, your life is not there to save them, in all or some trauma event of the future. Just as you were pre-traumatized by a movie, your children are pre-traumatzed by your conscience, expressed by your words. But, your words aren’t a movie to your children, and their processing a pre-trauma, as expressed by you, will change their conscience towards you. Or, did you drive your Chevy to the levy and the levy was dry? When did you end their innocence towards their mother?. A mother who would die in any and ALL trauma events of their future/present life.
As for your life insurance, nothing has happen, and yet you pay them in waiting for a trauma that could occur soo swiftly, that you didn’t know you were traumatized.
Or in the words of Bob Curtin, a character in the Treasure of the Sierra Madre: “You know, the worst ain’t so bad when it finally happens. Not half as bad as you figure it’ll be before it’s happened.”
All his pre-trauma faded away.
purchasing abortion coverage is very different than buying cancer coverage.
for one thing, when you purchase abortion coverage you are paying for the right to kill your children. To pay for the right to kill anyone would normally be considered a barbaric practice that violates human rights but because abortion has been tied to women’s emancipation, it becomes a “basic right” and “access to necessary health care”.
secondly, paying for cancer coverage is a healing treatment or at least an attempt to heal an legitimate illness.
Pregnancy is not an illness, despite what 30 years of feministas would have us believe. Carrying an unborn baby is not an illness. Of course a sexually promiscuous woman might considered an unwanted pregnancy an illness. Even when a woman becomes ill as a result of complications in her pregnancy, almost always the child can be saved. It is NEVER permissible to take the life of the children by direct means in order to save the mother.
What I find interesting is that you still accept abortions for convenience, believing only that there should be “fewer”.
As for criminalizing abortion we must look at the objective act of abortion itself. Abortion is either a morally licit act or a morally illicit act. There is a knowable truth here about abortion. You can’t legislate the killing of human babies to be permissible in some circumstances and not in others. For one thing there will be no way to police such a policy as some countries such as Canada learned through the 70’s and 80’s.
The only reason this is put forth by proaborts such as yourself L, is because you do not believe in a knowable objective truth. Moral relativism is what has led us to this place.
And I do agree with Astran: you never really have had much of a Catholic faith. Something for which the priests, teachers and your parents will carry some responsibility for. However, ultimately, the culpability for rejecting the truths of your faith and distorting those truths to your children will be borne by you alone. 😦
Mary Catherine, I am indeed a “pro-abort,” but I am not “distorting” any truths to my children. I do not claim that any of my strong opinions on abortion, contraception, gay marriage and sexual liberation are in line with those of the Catholic Church.
And I guess I am a true fornicator, because I would indeed consider an unwanted pregnancy to be akin to an illness, which I do not want to “catch!” 🙂
“What I find interesting is that you still accept abortions for convenience, believing only that there should be ‘fewer’.” —>
Why would you find that “interesting?” I think it’s consistent with what I’ve been saying all along.
Also, why are you so eager to blame my priests, teachers and parents? You don’t know any of them. At least I don’t think you do — it seems to me to be a very odd thing to say.
You will have to take my word for it, that none shares blame for my opinions in any way.
Mary Catherine, I am indeed a “pro-abort,” but I am not “distorting” any truths to my children. I do not claim that any of my strong opinions on abortion, contraception, gay marriage and sexual liberation are in line with those of the Catholic Church.
you insisted earlier on in this blog that you are a “Catholic”.
If you believe you are catholic then you have a duty to pass on the faith in all its fullness and truth to your children.
As for “strong opinions” there is no strength in what you believe.
I know your use of the word strong was as an adjective.
But like many today, your play on words is what has helped promote the lies of the culture of death.
But these opinions are not the beliefs someone with a character of “strength” would hold.
It is not strength of character when you believe in the right to kill the very baby you by nature, are designed to protect and nurture under your heart – in what should be the safest place on God’s earth.
It is not strength of character when you promote behaviours which go against the dignity of human beings and which have been proven to be harmful.
It is certainly not strength of character when you believe licentiousness and promiscuity are “sexual liberation”.
The freedom you promote is slavery – a fact millions of women who have aborted have come to realize. My heart aches for your children and so many like them who have never had the chance to hear the truth. 😦
To be quite honest, L, I find it puzzling that you have the need to (attempt to) redeem yourself and your beliefs on a prolife blog.
What could possibly be your intent here? To convince us? To mock our beliefs?
So I sound as if I am trying to convince anyone of my opinions? Do I sound mocking? (I don’t mean to mock, in any way, although I do have a very sarcastic sense of humor at times — I think I’ve kept it in check here, though.)
As I said, I often find common ground on pro-life blogs. I hear about other points of view, and learn many new things.
(But I really doubt I will find any commmon ground with you, Mary Catherine, because I have a feeling that whatever I say about anything — tax cuts, big business, free trade — you would likely take the opposite viewpoint.)
I don’t recall defining “sexual liberation” as “licentiousness and promiscuity.” Perhaps gender liberation would be a better term for what I meant.
Simply referring to “strong opinions” is a “play on words” that “has helped promote the lies of the culture of death?” Ah….wow. I don’t quite know what to say to that.
And while I do not, nor would I ever, claim to be devout, and I am unlikely to ever be in full communion with the Church, I am as Catholic as you are, whether you choose to acknowledge this or not.
I think I will answer my question here myself:
I think it is time L that you are outed.
Just as there is an economy in salvation there is also an economy in damnation too.
This blog is a prolife blog written by a devout orthodox Catholic who has the science to back what he believes.
Faith and reason go together to learn the truth and Dr Nadal has demonstrated this time and again here.
What better way to cause worry, apprehension and anxiety than to have an apostate catholic in full rebellion come on here to present the essence of rebellion against God and the pride in this rebellion to believing orthodox Catholics:
I am Catholic.
I CAN believe in abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, homosexual sex, contraception, living together and anything else I CHOOSE to believe in.
I am a GOOD CATHOLIC for believing in this.
I am part of the church and you will NOT get rid of me.
I WILL pass on these lies to my children and they will believe that these lies are part of what it means to be catholic.
I believe your presence here L, is satanic.
Maybe that seems “flaky” to you. But I do believe that satan uses people in the same way that God also uses people.
“It is not strength of character when you believe in the right to kill the very baby you by nature, are designed to protect and nurture under your heart….”
For the record, my particular body was not designed to nurture babies — or at least, not designed to allow them to pass safely out into the world, without some major surgery. Nature needed a little help there.
One last thing: I do not believe you are open to discussion at all.
Your discussions are circular and close minded often ignoring very important and valid points – likely because you have no argument against them
You are not open period.
Even people who are far from God can come to know the truth and undo their hardness of heart.
This is because they are truly searching for the truth and God knows this.
This is why there have been many great conversions throughout history.
It is your brutal hardness of heart (especially exhibited here and with much pride) that is so very disturbing to me. 😦
Mary Catherine, I have never — nor will I ever say, “I am a GOOD CATHOLIC for believing in this.”
And I am willing to stop commenting if Dr. Nadal believes my presence is disturbing the peace of his personal space. It is his blog, and I will respect his wishes.
For the record, my particular body was not designed to nurture babies — or at least, not designed to allow them to pass safely out into the world, without some major surgery. Nature needed a little help there.
again a common distortion used by proaborts.
not interested in this circular argument. DONE
Mary Catherine, I have never — nor will I ever say, “I am a GOOD CATHOLIC for believing in this.”
And I am willing to stop commenting if Dr. Nadal believes my presence is disturbing the peace of his personal space. It is his blog, and I will respect his wishes.
another distortion.
this is not what I said.
please do not play the victim card here.
you do not have to say this openly L.
It is implied by your references again and again to the fact that this is what you believe AND that you are CATHOLIC
what I find interesting is the title of this post:
the words hypocrisy and myth are used here and we’ve seen plenty of that in the comments. 😦
“I believe your presence here L, is satanic.”
by this I mean that you are being used to mock the Catholic faith by the means I mentioned above.
you flaunt your rebellion and do not remain open at all to learning the basics about natural law, reasoning or the Catholic church’s teachings.
your positions are unreasonable because they are not based in reason.
you refuse to accept basic science and basic logic.
you refuse to accept or even understand basic theology or spiritual understanding.
the only thing left to you is the grace of God.
But because of your rebellion at this time and your incredible hard heartedness, you are simply not open to that grace at this time.
I am telling you this L, because it is what you need to hear.
It is a hard place to move away from – hard heartedness is something that sometimes only God can undo.
‘For the record, my particular body was not designed to nurture babies — or at least, not designed to allow them to pass safely out into the world, without some major surgery. Nature needed a little help there.’
[So???? How does that preclude being a nurturing mother, even if you do need a little help from nature? Adoptive mothers are certainly capable of being nurturing. What a ridiculous, nonsensical statement. These arguments are confusing, weak and juvenile….almost as if a fifteen-year-old had written them. Hmm….]
“And while I do not, nor would I ever, claim to be devout, and I am unlikely to ever be in full communion with the Church, I am as Catholic as you are, whether you choose to acknowledge this or not.”
[Your words and your behavior condemn you. A dissident Catholic has severed ties with the Catholic Church. This isn’t a cafeteria. Boy howdy! Are you confused….]
………………
Mary Catherine, I think we have enough evidence to see that this is a very troubled person, and all we can do is to pray for her to return to the sacraments and to Our dear Lord. Only then will she find true peace. I have also felt a presence here which has left me feeling without peace. But I am happy to see a few others who love Christ and His Church, and are committed to defend it. Peace!
St. Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle….
I will stop commenting here for a while, because, much as I enjoy a good spirited discussion, I homestly have no idea how to respond when someone calls me “satanic.”
I think that’s a good indication that a discussion has gotten out of hand, and as I said, I am not here to sow seeds of discord with people who hold very strong views (which believe it or not, I do respect).
I wasn’t even going to leave a final comment, but then I wondered exactly what Mary Catherine meant when she said, “I think it is time L that you are outed.”
I assumed she meant “outed” from this blog, as in, banned. But then I realized “outed” has another meaning, and that is “publicly exposed.” (As in, “The teacher was outed as a closet homosexual.”)
So I thought I would comment one more time to say that I have not revealed anything on this blog post, or on my personal blog, that I do not reveal in public life, to everyone at my present and former parishes. I am entirely “out of the closet,” so to speak, as the noncommunicant “cafeteria Catholic” that I am.
If anyone is praying for me, I do appreciate it, and may God judge me as I am.
L, rest assured that I will pray for you.
I honestly believe that you like many of us are victims of the culture of death. How else am I to explain some of the words you have written on this blog.
Perhaps “satanic” was a regrettable word – instead I meant as I indicated that your flaunting of your rebellion on a catholic blog is particularly upsetting, disturbing and yet not surprising given the spiritual warfare that is being waged these days on all fronts.
Catherine I quite agree with you. I rarely comment here anymore because I feel the same presence. There is a definite spirit of dissension and I have encountered similar people to L also on other prolife blogs.
I too wont’ be back for some time. 😦
L wrote.
I am as Catholic as you are, whether you choose to acknowledge this or not.
=============================
Confiteor
I confess to Almighty God, to Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, to Blessed Michael the Archangel, to Blessed John the Baptist, to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and to all the Saints, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word and deed, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.
Therefore, I beseech Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, Blessed Michael the Archangel, Blessed John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and all the Saints, to pray to the Lord our God for me. Amen.
The Confiteor is said during the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and many say it like an Act of Contrition before or during Confession in the Sacrament of Penance (Catholic Reconciliation). It is certainly a consolation to have these great members of the Communion of Saints
=============================
They say Catholics and Jews have guilt and shame.
Now L, the above prayer must have been said by you as a child at mass. At least a Catholic should have said those words. But, as a child, what sin could you have committed that required you to put your little hand over your heart and say”through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault”?. You may have said them hundreds of times, yet not actually knew what you were saying.
Then latter, the Church would also say that it adores the mother and baby/child. Such a “dialectic” might confuse a child going to church and being called a sinner, yet being admired as a child. But, when one becomes a adolescent(15), rudimentary reasoning begins. Problem is, the biology of the brain ain’t finished, and emotion is still the “main decider”.
Now L, you were pre-traumatized by the Confiteor. And those Ten Commandments too. Can you understand now, L?
“Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder (the stress is the outcome of a phantasmic event, an imaginary episode set in the future; an event that has never taken place) at 15 years old.”
You hadn’t broken the Comandments, or even sinned “enough” to be “grieviously and heartily sorry”, as a adorable child of Jesus.
But, you had been pre-traumatized to imaginary events and phantasmic events of the future.
I enjoy Catholics who have failed intellectually(ratio) and as a confused innocent, and then conquer their mute intellectual(church) opponent at 15 years old. They amuse me, as nothingmore then living as a Protestant, yet professing their Catholic from birth with no visible signs tattooed on them. Don’t get me wrong L, your just working out your imaginary and phantasmic future events in your mind still. You replaced Catholic pre-trauma with your own form of pre-trauma introduced to you by a movie at 15. It’s adorable, the fact of you “pretending to be someone or something you have no intention of ever being.” How many years were you a hypocrite? And still doing that trick to this day.
============================
And here’s to you Mrs. Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know, wo wo wo
God bless you please Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray, hey hey hey
Hide it (pre-trauma)in a hiding place where no one ever goes
Put it in your pantry with your cupcakes
It’s a little secret just the Robinsons’ afair
Most of all you’ve got to hide(show) it from the kids
Koo koo ka choo Mrs. Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know, wo wo wo
God bless you please Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray, hey hey hey
Catherine and Mary Catherine.
I enjoy Dr. Nadal’s articles. It’s enough for me to come to this site. I especially enjoy his medical/scientific articles. St. Michael moves in Dr. Nadal, and both of you.
=============================
Turning away from God would not be a defect except in a nature meant to be with God. Even an evil will then is proof of the goodness of nature. Just as God is the supremely good creator of good natures, so he is the most just ruler of evil wills, so that even though evil wills make an evil use of good natures, God makes a good use of evil wills.
– St. Augustine, The City of God, XI, 17
===========================
Keep up the good work Mary Catherine and Catherine. I do read your excellent replies, and God bless you both.
“How many years were you a hypocrite? And still doing that trick to this day.”
Nope. No hyprocrisy, no tricks — just brutal honesty about what I think and feel, and a perception that perhaps I have said too much here, and that it was not an appropriate forum for it.
And I “amuse” you? That notion amuses me. Your sense of humor appears even stranger than my own.
L.
You were pretending to be something your were never intending to be, for a length of time. Somewhere around 15 years old. If you can’t introspect yourself that small amount, your over defensive about yourself. People are hypocrites as defined by Dr. Nadal sometime in their life. It’s natural. Come on, admit you were a hypocrite, I can.
Dr. Nadal wrote the article so people can understand themselves and their previous actions. You just happen to be the reverse action of Dr.Nadal’s article. You can’t get rid of your pre-trauma Catholicism because the words are known and conscious within you today. As a joke. have you considered shock therapy to clear your hard drive memory of your intellectually failed and pre-trama Catholicism? Why can’t you just forget it, and let your pre-trauma just fade away? You never know L, you might be conversing with a “barking dog” who comes out of his “tunnel” to calm the pre-trauma victims of this world. OTOH, you might be the snarling, barking dog coming out of your tunnel just defending your inabilty to shake off some phantasm that just never occured.
Then again, dogs smell the perfume on me, the perfume before the fall. Hachiko, Hachiko, where have you gone, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you!!!!
“You just happen to be the reverse action of Dr.Nadal’s article.” –> I believe I said exactly this, in my very first comment on this post.
And I admit I was a hypocrite for the 15 years when I didn’t attend mass, and described myself as a “former Catholic.”
Okay, I truly will stop commenting now. Sorry, I did let myself get drawn back in.
I wish everyone well.
And thank you.
Gentles All,
I haven’t had time to follow this thread and am rather saddened by the tone that has developed here.
I cannot and do not respect pro-choice ideology. It is simply incompatible with the truth of the Gospels as held by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
However, I DO respect the pro-choice people who post here and welcome their thoughtful participation in this forum.
I’m shutting down this thread and ask that we all take some time to consider the vast common ground that we share with one another as children of God, as that is the purpose of this blog.
Then with renewed understanding of one another let’s meet on another thread and continue our conversations with a bit more patient forbearance.
God Bless,
Gerry