Miguel Diaz will, upon certain confirmation by the U.S. Senate, be the United States Ambassador to the Holy See. He, like his colleague Douglas Kmiec, is a so-called pro-life Democrat and ardent supporter of President Barack H. Obama. Diaz, like Kmiec and others of the catholic intellectual elite, claims to be "ardently pro-life," while being content to move beyond the issue of abortion to a more broad spectrum of life issues. These ardent pro-lifers concede defeat on the issue of abortion, and seek to work together with the president and his cohort on the areas where we can all agree. They seem to take the president at his word that he wishes to reduce the number of abortions by working to eliminate the need for abortion. In taking him at his word, they of course stipulate that there indeed is such a thing as a need for abortion.
Miguel Diaz may well believe that he is ardently pro-life. I do not trust anyone who says he is pro-life while at the same time supporting someone whose actions are pro-abortion. Anyone who seriously believes that President Obama wants to reduce the number of abortions is wrong.
One would only want to reduce abortion if one saw it as "bad." If one really did see it as bad, then reducing it would only make sense if that were the only way to move in the direction of ending it all together. If however, one sees abortion as an essential right of choice--an option that must remain on the table for all women, then such a person does not see abortion as "bad" or evil -- and thus has really no commitment to reducing the occurrence of abortion.
I am amazed at the so-called catholics who lap up this common ground dribble. How can anyone simply agree to disagree about abortion, and move on to other life issues?
I think I know the answer!
It's because many catholics do NOT really believe that abortion is the killing of a human child. They use clinical terminology such as abortion, or termination of pregnancy, which acts as a verbal buffer against the ugly reality. It is like calling rape unrequested insemination.
Dr. Alan Keyes, whom I previously considered as a bit over the top, consistently uses the words "Child-Killing" when referring to abortion. Such brazen, and crude terminology used to grate on even my sensibilities. I used to shy away from such explicit verbiage, as though it was fanatic. Similarly, I would distance myself from those who would hold up pictures of the abortion procedure, or display dolls with fake blood splashed on them. This was too much!
Or, is it simply too true? Is it simply too honest? I believe so.
As long as we Catholics allow the abortion debate to be conducted in a clean and sterile verbal environment, we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Child-Killing is not a procedure to be kept safe and legal. It is an evil to be stopped! As G. K. Chesterton wrote, "...We could smash them to atoms, if we could be as indecent in our language as they are immoral in their conclusions" ("The Thing").
The only common ground on abortion is that every single one of these merciless killings ends in the death of a child: Their common ground are their graves -- at least for those few fortunate enough not to have been rinsed down a disposal unit.
We Catholics need to pause -- seriously -- and ask ourselves what we believe about abortion; the Truth?... or the lie put forth by planned parenthood, NARL, and the Obama administration?
Support of those who are either supportive or permissive of abortion is cooperation in Child-Killing. Looking for common ground so as to reduce or eliminate the need for abortion is a cowardly retreat in the face of the wanton slaying of innocent children. While abortion --in this country-- may not presently be called murder, there is absolutely no question that every abortion is an act of homicide. Anyone who can agree to move beyond homicide, and seek other areas of cooperation with its agents, is morally and spiritually bankrupt.
"...Thou shalt respect all weaknesses and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them...Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy...Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and evil..."
(from Leon Gautier's "Ten Commandments of Chivalry" quoted in "The Compleat Gentleman" by Brad Miner. Richard Vigilante Books, 2009.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The Vatican supports the Diaz appointment. Do you oppose His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI?
ReplyDeleteHey "Anonymous!" How nice of you to pop in! Here's my answer to your question:
ReplyDeleteIf you read my post regarding the Diaz appointment,you will see that I never specifically came out against it. The President of the United States has a right, under our constitution, to make diplomatic appointments. Further, the "official" or "unofficial" vatican response to a particular diplomatic appointment does not constitute a teaching or exhortation--nor even necessarily a personal opinion--of the Holy Father.
Mr. Diaz may turn out to be a wonderful ambassador; nobody knows for sure yet. My opposition is to the inconsistency in his thinking on the issues and questions surrounding the sanctity of human life.
My support of Pope Benedict XVI knows no bounds. What he says -- goes. I may not always agree with certain "non-teaching" expressions eminating from "the vatican," but when the Pope speaks, I submit.
On another note: You will notice that I sign my blog -- and any comments I make on other sites. Anonymous comments are somewhat like sniper-fire. They will not be permitted on this blog going forward.