March 14, 2007

Well, What Do You Know?

I opened up my Pioneer Press this morning and on the front page is a story with a New York Times byline about couples who chose to have their babies even though they have been told beforehand that the baby may not survive long, if at all, after birth. Two of the featured couples are Roman Catholics who chose to have their child but the article says they also support abortion rights. Good news, bad news there. I was sad. The article is sad all around.

The big news, the happy news, has to do with my post from yesterday about the Gay Symposium

Archbishop Flynn has informed the participants of the Gay Symposium that they may not celebrate Mass at this event as they have done in other cities because the speakers views contradict Catholic teaching and may lead the Faithful to think the Church sanctions it. The article delves into the whining and defiance that you would expect from the participants.

I have noticed in the last year or two that the Chancery is speaking up a little more then they used to. They warned Catholics to stay away from the local Womanpriest event. They took a stance on "The Pope and The Witch". They have strongly stated that they support traditional marriage and life from conception to natural death. They have spoken out against embryonic stem cell research. They have denied Communion at the Cathedral to the Rainbow Sash wearers. Praise God! Some may say that it's not enough. I'm pleased that, at least, they are making the effort to teach. That's what we all need: to be taught and corrected. There may come a time when, if the lessons don't stick, the person in error needs to be cut loose but that's not for me to say.


Anonymous Angus McWasp said...

C of A, I think you are exactly right: Praise God! We will not ever have the right cross to the jaw discipline some want out of every chancery--but this constant stream of directives, teachings, and line-drawings will have its effect. Shepherds guide sheep--they don't smack them into shaping up.

March 14, 2007 9:43 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

I read this article today, too. Thank God that these two couples made the right "choice." But they nevertheless are on record as supporters of "abortion rights," which I presume means they think every woman (couple?) has the right to make their own "choice" in a similar situation.

The discontinuity that jumps out at me is this: What is the choice that they made and that they believe others have the right to make? The choice to kill their baby prematurely or not. "Terminate the pregnancy" is the phrase used, but this masks the real issue.

Abortion is often cast in this situation as the merciful one, since the assumption is that such a short life is not worth living. But here's the catch: it is only an assumption.

The Kilibardas' daughter survived that first night and is now 20 weeks old. But her parents realize those anxious early hours might be replayed when she dies, probably before she reaches pre-school. Do the two couples interviewed think that the Kilibardas still have the right to put their child to death? If not, why? What is the difference?

I think we need to press the issue by asking the question, apart from any discussion of legality, "What is the unborn?"

I ramble... I've already written a bit about this here and here.

March 14, 2007 9:56 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

<< # St. Blog's Parish ? >>
Locations of visitors to this page