Monthly Archives: October 2005

Talk about somebody who needs to be disciplined under _Ex Corde Ecclesiae_

In a recent discussion, my interlocutor mentioned this person, Prof. Maguire of Marquette University, as an authority on abortion. In the context, I had said that Marie Bain is a murderess, because of her work as an abortion escort (transporting a person to an abortion is listed in The Code of Canon Law as one of the acts bearing the guilt of the abortion, and anyone who knows what Planned Parenthood escorts really do should have no doubt of their complicity). Anyway, my interlocutor offered up Prof. Maguire as an expert to the effect that participation in aborion is not murder.
So, let’s start with this guy’s credentials:
He is the author of Sacred Choices: The Right to Contraception and Abortion in Ten World Religions, Fortress Press, 2001.
Even the title is Satanically repulsive.
One of his articles is “The Freedom to Die.”
Of his many honors, he was listed by Ms. Magazine as one of the “40 male heroes of the past decade, men who took chances and made a difference”, 1982.
That is definitely an honor for a Catholic scholar! Yeah, right!
In this article, this esteemed “moral theologian” does nothing but talk statistics, psychology and Kinsey(!) Like most heretics, he contains a few grains of truth, but this article is a Satanic mockery of _The Theology of the Body_. Yes, sex is a kind of liturgy–that’s why God has given us strict rules for how to do it and under what circumstances. Of course, he apparently does not believe in Transubstantiation, as he speaks of “food symbols.” He “blames” Christianity for the “repression” of sexual desires, “misunderstanding” of women’s sexuality, etc. It’s amazing that rehashed tripe like this is considered scholarly publication.

He seems to have a thing against putting Bibles in hotels, as in one article he says they should be replaced by condoms, and in this article, he just throws them out as an example of hypocrisy. And, now, the following quotation alone ought to get him fired from Marquette and stripped of his license to teach Sacred Theology in the Catholic Church:

He didn’t die to “atone for our sins,” a lousy piece of theology gorily indulged in Mel Gibson’s blood bath. He died resisting an empire that was stomping on the poor, militarily and economically.

God’s great, loving Sacrifice of Himself reduced to a political gesture?

In this post, he gets right to the point of the Lewis Crusade, saying it’s “pro-life” to have an abortion rather than allow your child to be deformed by medical treatments, or to kill the baby if the mother’s health is at risk.
His hypotheticals can be found in any letter to the editor, and his simple” What would *you* do?” is so infantile, I can’t even believe this person has a doctorate.

And in this one, he denies the “personhood” of the fetus. What a great guy!

Stand up and defend this pro-life hero

You may have heard about the baby-killing teacher who was fired from a high school in Sacramento. The blogger linked above is the student whose mother turned this witch in to Bishop Weigand (who has previously denied communion to Gray Davis and apparently Arnie the Nazi).
Anyway, this poor girl is taking a beating from ignoramuses who are talking of “discrimination suits” and such garbage. Canon Law says that if you assist in any way in a person getting an abortion, you’re *guilty* of the abortion; it’s latae sententiae excommunication, the harshest penalty presently enforced by the Church. This woman even passed out Planned Parenthood business cards.
Now, the incredibly liberal Catholic high school I attended fired its second-to-laws principal and assistant principal for endorsing condoms in a school assembly, so I don’t see how this cold-blooded murderess has a leg to stand on.
In any case, Catholic bloggers are rallying in support of this poor girl, who is getting trounced by the enemies of life.

Matter solved

I just received an email from Msgr. Suaudeau, confirming that the document *does* allow conscientious objection where there is no alternative, provided parents insist on the alternativse and use them, and *unless* there is a prevalent epidemic (in the US, there is no prevalent epidemic, hence no extraordinary circumstance for using the tainted vaccines).

I am going to quote the second part of his letter verbatim, as this is my key objection to the CNS article (and the attitudes of some Catholics):

Regarding your second point, the document has really nothing to do with
the “prevention of malformity”, and even less with a possible interdiction made
to have children in some cases of familial genetic disease. You are perfectly
right to protest against such an idea.

1. I really wish that people who were 99.99% in agreement could work together to overlook their other differences in charity.
2. As a philosopher, I hate to engage in ad hominems.

On the other hand, two things really shake me to the core:
1. When I have read what I think is a perfectly plain and straightforward document–as in the case of the Vaccine Statement–and someone with a Ph.D. (usually a liberal, but not necessarily) claims that I’ve read it wrong. And no matter how many times I go back and reread it, I can’t see what the heck that person’s talking about. But it really shatters my self-esteem.
More fundamentally,
2. When a similar person tries to shatter my concept of what it means to be a Catholic.

When such debates over interpretations occur, it does become important to look at the motives or philosophical principles of the interpreters.

In the case of Dr. Kevin Smith’s position on the Vaccine Statement, I’ve racked up the following:
1. Both American Life League and Human Life International support the work of Children of God for Life. When I contacted HLI for a statement on their position, in fact, they recommended I talk to Debi.
2. I know that several bishops, most notably Bishop Vasa, support the work of COG.
3. I emailed Debi and asked her response on the calumnies being spread about her by this gentleman.
4. I emailed the Pontifical Academy for Life, and am awaiting a response.

I am quite confident in my position on this matter. However, it raises the question: “Why is this man, who should be on our side, so adamantly against us?”
From what I can tell, Dr. Miller is guilty not so much of malice as of a grave intellectual error. He contends that

For all of us Christians, our bishops are our fathers. . . . If a priest acts in a way that is at odds with this relationship, he is, whatever else he may or may not be doing, by definition a bad priest.

But there’s no such thing as a bad bishop?
If a bishop speaks or acts at odds with the Holy Father, and the priest ignores the bishop and obeys the Holy Father, does that make him a bad priest?

This post from way back in January 2004 could very well be Miller’s manifesto. You see, according to him, Community always outranks the Individiual. In social life, if society says, “Do this,” then individual conscience must surrender to society. In the Church, even when canon law provides the laity with a right, the laity must surrender that right when it’s at odds with the bishop!

All of this was in the context of the controversy at that time over Arlington’s proposed sex abuse “prevention” program. In this post, Miller uses the same sling of accusations against those of us who protest these “safe touch” programs that he does against those of us who oppose vaccines.

The Church teaches freedom of conscience, informed by right reason and God’s law. Liberals say “freedom of conscience” means that you can do wahtever you want, as long as it feels good.
Miller contends that “freedom of conscience” means that “Whatever your bishop says, goes, and whatever the civil law says, goes, because you’re bound by the 4th commandment to surrender your individual conscience to legitimate authority and the Common Good.”

It’s really quite a Faustian dilemma he posits, but the dilemma is all in his head. If his strict interpretations of “common good” and episcopal authority were on-target, then a great many canonized saints would be burning in Hell now, whether for a) disobeying/criticizing their bishops/religious superiors or b) going out into the desert and living as hermits.

Wow! What a powerful story!

I need to get in touch with this lady, and see if she’ll team up with us. This was a great witness! And it’s in the Washington Post, no less.

Here’s a document from 2003/2004, signed by Bishop Vasa

While it’s written by Debi Vinnedge of COG, it’s signed by Fr. Euteneuer of HLI, Bishop Robert Vasa (one of my heroes!) and others. It’s an appeal to the National Catholic Bioethics Center and the USCCB to reconsider their positions on vaccines. Obviously, it predates the Vatican instruction, but since certain people want to impugn the motives and integrity of COG, I figured it helps to show what company that Debi keeps.

I just emailed the Pontifical Academy for Life.

I wrote:

To whom it may concern:
I am very sorry to bother you about a subject you no doubt consider settled. But there is some dispute among commentators concerning the proper interpretation of the letter on vaccine usage, regarding conscientious objectors such as myself.Some have even gone so far as to say vaccines are a non-issue for pro-lifers, even in the light of the document.
Does the document approve of conscientious objection by parents in the US? My reading of it is that one must consider the issue carefully, and that particulars of individual or public health *may* necessitate “tainted” vaccines in certain cases (such as parts of the world where diseases like Rubella are epidemic.In the US, where there is adequate health care to treat symptoms of diseases, many vaccines (flu, chicken pox) seem more oriented towards keeping kids in school and perpetuating a culture of “living to work.”Some have said that those of us who refuse to use vaccines are morally culpable for the spread of infection.That does not seem to me to be an accurate reading of the document: am I right or wrong?
Secondly, the CNS article implies a moral obligation to “prevent malformity”. I found this personally hurtful, as I have a genetic disorder, and I have often been told–usually by non-Catholics and secularists–that I am “cruel” to have children.I believe in being open to life. I believe that a life lived with pain or disability is still worth living, and has benefits that a “healthy person” does not experience.I would certanily welcome an ethical cure for my condition, but I do not believe that it’s wrong for me to have children: quite the opposite.
If you could please comment on these matters, it would be greatly appreciated. My Catholicism and my pro-life position are fundamentally important to me, yet the commentators in question have attacked what I consider to be two important aspects of being a committed pro-lifer: a) never benefitting from immoral medical research and b) being open to life, no matter how “malformed.”
Sincerely,John C. Hathaway198 Farrell Ln.Fredericksburg, VA 22401