Attention U.S. bishops: Abortion is nothing like gay marriage

The Catholic bishops of the United States are attempting to make their own conflation of two polar opposite issues, abortion and homosexuality, a permanent feature of American Catholic prayer life.

On Wednesday, the Catholic bishop of Illinois, Thomas Paprocki, will perform an exorcism for the state of Illinois. That’s right, an exorcism – for the entire state. According to the teachings of the Catholic Church, entire places can become possessed by the devil, not just individuals. Paprocki is convinced that Illinois is now one such place, as the state legislature has passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and Governor Pat Quinn plans to sign it on Wednesday.

Same-sex couples in the Land of Lincoln will soon be wallking down the aisle, exchanging rings and saying their vows. Paprocki is convinced that Satan is the wedding planner. Perhaps even the ring bearer, or the flower girl. Indeed, if you happen to be one of those Illinoisans throwing rice at the newlyweds, perhaps you ought to keep an eye out for horns spontaneously popping out of your head and the heads of your fellow rice throwers.

Outrageous –and perhaps even a bit comical –as many might find the use of the rite of exorcism to make a political statement in the culture wars, the entire body of U.S. Catholic bishops has, in fact, implemented a far less theatrical, yet ever more serious plan in their attempt to sully the love and commitment of same-sex couples, along with their civil marriage equality, in the minds and hearts of lay Catholics. This is no laughing matter.

Though dismissed by rightwing ideologues as “Cafeteria Catholics,” the modern reality is that most lay Catholics navigate their relationship with institutional church, the priesthood, with great thought, care and self-respect. No doubt, this capacity among lay Catholics to employ their God-given human reasoning skills mystifies, and disappoints, many of the bishops.

For example, the bishop of the Diocese of Saint Augustine, Felipe Estevez, rose at one point during last week’s annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to ask aloud why so many young Catholics “get” the Catholic Church’s message about abortion, yet don’t “get” the church’s message against homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Evidently, Estevez can’t conceptualize the fact that the reason so many young people respect the lives of the unborn while simultaneously respect the lives, and commitment, of same-sex couples is that their moral conscience is informed by authentic love; authentic love is compelled to distinguish between instances of human disregard, like elective abortion, and instances of human regard and devotion –like same-sex marriage.

I’ll leave it to God whether those bishops who view their fellow human beings as robots, as opposed to thinking and feeling individuals, will ever connect the dots of authentic love.

Last year around this time, after the string of ballot box victories for same-sex marriage equality, the Archbishop of San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone, announced a nationwide Catholic Church prayer initiative: Eucharistic Holy Hours for Life, Marriage and Religious Liberty. The intent of these prayer services was to gather Catholics before the Blessed Sacrament, which we Catholics believe is the flesh of Jesus, in churches and cathedrals around the nation to pray for an end to abortion, an end to government mandates for abortifacient drug coverage, and yes, and end to same-sex marriage equality.

Let’s get real: The elective taking of a baby’s life in the womb, surgical or chemical, bears no moral resemblance to two people of the same sex falling in love and building a life together.

At this year’s USCCB conference in Baltimore, the bishops voted overwhelmingly, 203 to 17, to extend the Eucharistic Holy Hours for Life, Marriage and Religious Liberty for another year.

The Catholic bishops of the United States are attempting to make their own conflation of two polar opposite issues, abortion and homosexuality, a permanent feature of American Catholic prayer life. And they are using the Blessed Sacrament, the body of Jesus, to do so. To me, this is despicable.

As has been widely reported, Pope Francis has mandated a nationwide survey of American lay Catholics on their attitudes toward church teachings on the whole array of modern-day moral issues.

In addition to filling out that survey, I hope my fellow Catholics of all ages who recognize the sanctity of the lives of our unborn brothers and sisters and who also recognize the God-given love and warmth being brought into our society when two souls of the same sex tie the knot, will pen letters, write e-mails, and use their voices, to boldly tell their parish priests that any prayer services attempting to conflate the gift of human love with the tragedy of human disregard have nothing whatsoever to do with God.

Image courtesy of Jim Capaldi.

  • Catken1

    Nor does “recognizing the sanctity of life” have much to do with “treating half the population as incubating machines to be used for the good of others, without concern for their wishes, their consent or what happens to them as a result of the pregnancy, without any say in when and how their most intimate organs are used unless they manage lifelong celibacy and avoid rape, ”

    You can claim to respect life when you give of your OWN body, time, energy and resources to preserve it, not when you co-opt other people’s against their will. Women are human lives, too.

  • CCNL

    And to protect said female body from unplanned pregnancies, one must practice safe sex. See below for added details.

  • LaraLoganDoesExist

    I think he should do an exorcism on the Washington Post.. Actually on all of leftist America, or at least the portion that has taken over and destroyed journalism.

  • LaraLoganDoesExist

    It’s really quite simple.. He’s wanting to protect the tiny babies from being murdered by leftists who have given themselves over to evil completely.

  • cricket44

    Lara, have you thought about taking some psych meds? You’re ranting absolute fictional nonsense.

  • wp121606

    Paprocki has given everyone the opportunity to observe the irrelevance of his Catholic Church. His exorcism will proceed and so will civil marriages in June, 2014. Neither himself nor his sorry confederates have any business influencing our civil laws anymore than they have jurisdiction over the speed limits on interstate highways.

  • Jade2016

    I meant to write that Timothy Villareal is not in any way officially connected with the RCC.

  • Hlyghst

    Mr Villareal is not a Catholic because he feels Catholics shouldn’t follow Christ, but should follow their own conscience – two different things. He also feels we should see people through our own eyes not God’s eyes. Please wake up W. Post!

    Actually abortion and gay marriage are very much the same thing. Both are attacks on the rights of children. Homosexuals, who are actively living the homosexual lifestyle, should not have children because what children need most to develop to their full potential is love. The homosexual does not love of child because he/she withdraws from the child the love of the father or mother. This is an act of selfishness – putting the wants of the homosexual above the needs of the child.

  • cricket44

    Neither are attacks on the rights of children. How absurd.

  • leibowde84

    It has been shown pretty much conclusively that homosexual couples raise children just as well as heterosexual couples. While it might be hard for YOU to believe, it is certainly true. I have several cousins, for example, (who are Catholic, by the way) who have adopted girls from China. They are both great families and soon the girls will be teenagers. Your hatred or disgust for their way of life and their family disgusts me … both as a practicing Catholic, and a human being. You do not follow the teachings of Jesus, but, instead, are stuck on the teachings of Paul, which were extremely different.

    You do not know God’s will better than anyone else does. You can cling all you want to thinking that the Bible is completely accurate, but you are fooling yourself as many parts of it have been shown to be inaccurate (at least somewhat). Don’t get me wrong, it is the most important book in the world holding incredible truths, but Paul added a lot that Jesus would have been very against. This is just my opinion on the matter, but my opinion is just as valid as yours (maybe more so because I am not prejudiced against homosexuality).

    Pathetic … simply pathetic. I hope you live an extremely lonely, passionless, musicless, hungry, angry life of solitude so that when you die and go beneath the earth, you will have wasted all your time.

  • leibowde84

    And don’t fault me for my comment … It was you who insulted my family members and families that I care deeply about. You should be ashamed of yourself, Hlyhst. You and your kind make the world a worse place.

  • leibowde84

    And I’m sure that Jesus would cast you aside as nothing but an annoyance, misinterpreting his words and claiming to speak for him.

  • Hlyghst

    leibowde84,
    You said: ” It has been shown pretty much conclusively that homosexual couples raise children just as well as heterosexual couples.” Please give us a scientific, peer-review study that shows your statement is true.

    Also Dr. Robert Lopez, who grew up in a lesbian household, said that gay marriage is child abuse: “It is abusive to tell a child, ‘We are your moms’ or ‘we are your dads,’ and then expect the child never to feel the loss of such important icons, in addition to the injury of having been severed from at least one, and possibly both, biological parents—not because it was necessary, but because the two adults insisted on the arrangement.”

    The Regnerus study shows conclusively that children raised in homosexual households do not do as well has children raised in heterosexual households. The study found:
    Compared to children from intact biological families (IBF), children of lesbian mothers:
    • Are more likely to be currently cohabiting (IBF 9%; LM 24%)
    • Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance (IBF 10%; LM 38%)
    • Are barely half as likely to be currently employed full-time (IBF 49%; LM 26%)
    • Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed (IBF 8%; LM 28%)
    • Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual (Identifies as entirely heterosexual: IBF 90%; LM 61%)
    • Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting (IBF 13%; LM 40%)
    • Are an astonishing 11 times more likely to have been “touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver” in childhood (but not necessarily by the homosexual parent; IBF 2%; LM 23%)
    • Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been “physically forced” to have sex against their will (at some time in their life, not necessarily in childhood; IBF 8%; LM 31%)
    • Are more likely to have “attachment” problems related to the ability to depend on others (IBF 2.82; LM 3.43)
    • Use marijuana more frequently (IBF 1.32; LM 1.84)

  • cricket44

    Your “study” is hogwash.

  • cricket44

    Family Research Council….well, that explains a lot of your thinking.

    Any *rational* studies?

  • cricket44

    Sprigg has been taken to task more than once for lying about the legitimate findings of others.

    That you *want* to believe fiction, doesn’t make it any less fictional.

  • cricket44

    Don’t sweat it, leibow. HG has proven s/he believes lies over truth in order to perpetuate his/her personal hatred. Someone like that is to be pitied.

  • jay2drummer

    Regnerus himself has backtracked on what his study actually shows, and has had it completely ripped to shreds for poor methodology.

  • leibowde84

    10-4 cricket44. It is just reprehensible that people think they can be prejudiced against certain families and call them “perverse” without any condemnation. Just the Bible says something doesn’t give you immunity for being prejudiced because of it.

  • leibowde84

    Hlyghst, these are orphans that we are talking about. And, there aren’t enough willing heterosexual couples to take them. So, your argument is that they are better off with no parents?! That is nuts.

    Oh yeah, and the other comments address well the fact that your examples of research are completely meaningless, as they have been shown to be inaccurate and unfounded. They are based on stigma … nothing else.

  • leibowde84

    Yeah, Regnerus defending his own research = inconsequential/circular logic.

  • nkri401

    If the Church would burn a Catholic woman for a suspected abortion at the stake, as the Church used to do, then, at least, I’ll say they are serious.

    Regardless, leave the non-Catholics alone.

  • nkri401

    Yea, so why don’t you burn the women who had abortion?

  • nkri401

    Kind a curious – did you need abortion sometime in your life but couldn’t get it so you want all other women to suffer as you did?

    Why don’t you live your life as best as you can and I’ll do the same.

  • nkri401

    Did a post got deleted or got lost??

  • CCNL

    So abortionists get rich at the expense of the Immoral Majority: i.e. those who forget to use birth control properly. Take your Pills ladies, wear your condoms guys and save yourself a lot of money and grief and also thereby sending abortion doctors to the poor house.

    And it is very disturbing that we give legal protection to the fertilized eggs and the developing young of protected animal and insect species but give no legal protection to our own growing young ones.

  • cricket44

    Gosnell is to abortion as John Wayne Gacy is to children’s clowns. Try to stay rational.

  • leibowde84

    “And it is very disturbing that we give legal protection to the fertilized eggs and the developing young of protected animal and insect species.”

    - This is an interesting point. Can you clarify what laws deny the owners of a Cow to “abort” or prevent the birth of animal young. Obviously, this discussion would only apply to examples where the young is not viable outside the womb of the mother.

  • nkri401

    “Why are religion haters always so stupid?”

    I push back only the religion that tries to push their religion on me. Why is that always so stupid to you?

  • DanaB1

    Exactly, cricket. It’s the right’s insistence on making early abortions harder and harder to get, especially for poor women, that allowed a situation like Gosnell to occur – women were desperate enough to have no other choice.

  • J. Davis

    Part of the reason is that people who support religion have a right to express their beliefs under the First Amendment. Religions, themselves, have a right to petition government.

    If you don’t like it, then you should go live in another country.

  • jay2drummer

    For someone using the 1st amendment to support their argument, you seem not to understand it. Yes, the free exercise of religion is protected, the next clause of the amendment (the establishment clause) clearly states that your religion cannot be made law. As for religions having the right to petition government, that’s not actually true. There are a number of restrictions on political expression for religious organizations receiving tax-free status.

  • J. Davis

    Baloney.

  • J. Davis

    Baloney. The only restriction on 501(c)(3) organizations is that they cannot contribute to the campaign of an individual candidate.

    You haven’t got a clue of what the First Amendment is about, or, what it means.

    Thomas Jefferson actually drafted the First Amendment. The purpose of the First Amendment is to promote tolerance of religions. Jefferson understood that a country cannot extend freedom to its individuals without religion and religious tolerance. He pointed out that either you have freedom of religion (not freedom “from” religion) or you have to have a police state.

  • jay2drummer

    It is both freedom of and from religion. You can’t have the first without the second. You have the freedom to practice your religion, I have the freedom not to practice your religion and to practice my own. That’s freedom from religion. It has nothing to do with a police state, just EVERYONE being free to live based on their religious beliefs, without being coerced to practice another person’s. Nobody is taking away any person’s freedom to practice their religion, just preventing them from forcing the rest of us to follow it.

  • jay2drummer

    …is something you put on meat, but not relevant to the facts of the Gosnell case, which, as has correctly been pointed out, was the result of what happens when you make it impossible to get safe abortions.

  • Jade2016

    History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.

    -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

  • Jade2016

    Lack of government regulation and oversight is what caused the Gosnell case.

  • cricket44

    “Nobody is taking away any person’s freedom to practice their religion, just preventing them from forcing the rest of us to follow it.”

    Correct.

  • Jade2016

    So . . . . who is forcing you to be a Catholic? Catholics have a right to petition the government, even as an organized Church, just as much as any other group. Catholics, and their Church, have a right to express their beliefs. Most adults understand this. Deal with it.

  • nkri401

    J,

    ” Religions, themselves, have a right to petition government.”

    The above does not seem right as it would violate Establishment clause. An individual, religious or not, of course can petition the government but cannot ask for his religion be the state religion or any preferential rights.

    BTW, You can express your religion within law all day long.
    Shouting your Jesus message at 2AM with 200W sound system on my side walk is NOT religious freedom.
    I’m all for the religious freedom for YOU and for ME as well.

  • Jade2016

    “Shouting your Jesus message at 2AM with 200W sound system on my side walk is NOT religious freedom. I’m all for the religious freedom for YOU and for ME as well.”

    This is a prime example of a “straw man” argument. It’s pretty silly. Why don’t you come up with something that is based in reality if you would like to discuss first amendment issues.

  • nkri401

    Exactly. Who’s forcing you not be a Catholic?

    The subtle difference is the petitioning cannot be based on your religious edict. It must have secular purpose only.

    At the end of the day, why do you want to impose your religious law on the rest of society. Would you like to be imposed of Sharia rule under the penalty of law?

  • nkri401

    Yea, my middle name is “straw”

    BTW, how can one discuss religion based in reality?

  • Jade2016

    When you have something intelligent to discuss, let me know.

  • nkri401

    I can express any stupid thing just like any other religious people under the same 1st amendment.
    So deal with it please.

  • nkri401

    Jade,

    BTW, I liked your quote –

    History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.

    -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

    I admit I’m nowhere near intelligent as TJ and if that is your bench mark for intelligence, alas, I’m not it.

  • leibowde84

    “I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”

    - Thomas Jefferson

  • leibowde84

    “The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
    ~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by John Adams

  • leibowde84

    Ah, I see. You brought up a completely unrelated example. There is a reason behind the endangered species act. We want to do what we can to keep certain species of animals around, preventing them from going extinct. People, obviously enough, are not going extinct. There is actually overpopulation, and we are in need of a decrease in population growth.

    Further, with your comparison you completely disregard the legal issue at hand … the rights of the mother of bodily autonomy. The government cannot make a law that forces women to give up the use of their bodies against their will. There must be consent, and since, legally, having intercourse is in no way consent to pregnancy, pregnancies cannot be forced on women.

    Now, I am not saying that there is no moral aspect. On that front, I agree with you to a certain extent. But, my feelings toward the morality of abortion in no way erases the rights of the mother to deny the use of her body to anyone.

    It is a legal issue, and until the issue is addressed, you aren’t making any traction. It just bothers me that the rights of the mother are completely ignored by pro-lifers. You can’t win the argument without acknowledging that of the other side.

  • leibowde84

    You can’t blame the media. They print what sells. And, people don’t like traditional, religious, up-tight candidates on TV. Thus, they like the left.

  • leibowde84

    It always strikes me as hilarious when Catholics try to claim that homosexuals aren’t “really catholic.” If not adhering to Church doctrine or rules somehow makes you less Catholic, then I would argue that the Catholic Church is the smallest in the world. 99.9999999% of Catholics don’t adhere to certain aspects of Church rules on a consistent basis, whether it be sex outside of marriage, allowing women to speak during mass, masturbation, using contraceptives, etc. Further, the purpose of Christianity was to spread the “Good News” to those who haven’t heard it or don’t quite understand it yet. How on earth can homosexuals be taught the Good News if they aren’t welcome in the Church membership?! It is counterintuitive that any act would preclude anyone from joining the Church. I mean, what is the risk? Do people truly think that God is petty enough to punish us for the actions of others. If we allow Gay marriage, will those who don’t participate be punished along with those who do? If so, God must be pretty unreasonable. If not, mind your own business and let God be the judge.

  • J. Davis

    Nkr: It is not about your intellect or intellectual capacity. It is about honesty.

    You don’t like religion, or religious people, or, people expressing their religious views at times and places that you think are inappropriate. It’s that simple. I respect other people’s religious beliefs even if I don’t agree with them, and, I too, don’t want to hear their religious beliefs expressed when it is not in an appropriate time or place.

    It is not necessary to try to construct arguments from the First Amendment or the Establishment clause within the amendment in order for you to express your preferences.

    Just come out, state and admit your preferences, and tell people why you feel that way.

  • nkri401

    “One has freedom of religion but NOT from religion”

    I guess one way to resolve the above is by declaring a “non-religion” as a kind of religion.

  • J. Davis

    To some extent, that is valid under the First Amendment. Atheism is not a religion, however, atheists are permitted, under the free speech clause, to oppose religion in their speech.

    In the same manner, however, religious people are permitted to oppose atheism in their speech under the freedom of speech clause.

    Open and free debate is one of the elements of a free and democratic society.

  • cricket44

    “But, my feelings toward the morality of abortion in no way erases the rights of the mother to deny the use of her body to anyone. ”

    And that is the crux of it. Well said.

  • nkri401

    So now I’m stupid and dishonest…

    Anyways – you are wrong.

    I am neutral to religion; if it helps you to be a better person, I’ll personally thank God.
    However, I do not like religion that pushes itself on me.
    Same with religious people. e.g. I am sure leibowde84 is a beautiful religious person.
    And, I do not like loud person for the same reason as the loud car/music.

    Why do I feel this way? Because I believe I have inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

  • J. Davis

    I don’t know any Catholics who say that homosexuals “aren’t really catholic.”

    Personally, one of my oldest and dearest friends is gay, and, he is Catholic. He may be a better Catholic than me in many respects.

  • J. Davis

    I don’t think you are either stupid or dishonest . . . . however, you are definitely entertaining.

  • nkri401

    Minor technicality – non-religious is not ipso facto Atheist.

    Nonetheless, the point is “oppose”; a debate is welcome but not mob fight. Freedom of speech is not a call to oppress the other.

    BTW, First Amendment was not championed by any church. Each church if they could, would like to be numero uno the most exalted supreme church of all; well except may be the Quakers…or Amish…

  • nkri401

    Thanks for being a good sport…no sarcasm.

  • J. Davis

    What you are saying about Churches wanting to be a state religion is true in many instances. Saudi Arabia is one example.

    Another example were the protestants of the Second Reich (The Prussian Empire). Protestantism became the state religion in the Prussian Empire. It resulted in Catholics being exposed to the death penalty, in some circumstances, because they were Catholic. Many Catholics came to the U.S. to escape that Prussian/Protestant oppression.

  • leibowde84

    There are plenty out there who claim that those who disagree with Church doctrine aren’t real Catholics. It’s despicable.

  • J. Davis

    I’m sorry to hear that. I hope Pope Francis has brought us a lasting epiphany when he said: “Who am I to judge them?”

  • Jade2016

    I, also, don’t think you are stupid, nkr. I am sorry if I gave you that impression. It wasn’t my intention.

  • CCNL

    So we have relegated our developing human species to that of the development of cows, rats, mice, flies etc. Immoral indeed!!!

    And using abortion as a means of population control? Why not reinstitute the methods of the Nazis for population control?

    And using the word mother in a discussion of abortion is absurd !!!

  • leibowde84

    Me too. Francis is trying to make a change, but there will be a lot of old, traditionalists who will actively stand in his way.

  • leibowde84

    “So we have relegated our developing human species to that of the development of cows, rats, mice, flies etc. Immoral indeed!!!”

    - Why do you think this? I, for one, never said anything even related to this. You can deny it all you want, but the human race is not “endangered.” Obviously there are reasons to outlaw abortion, but claiming that we must outlaw it simply because we protect the young of endangered species is completely irrational. There is absolutely no connection. And, if there is one that you see, you have not put forth effort to describe it adequately.

  • leibowde84

    I mean, you can defer the actual issue as much as you want with claims like yours above, but the real issue, or bar to making abortion illegal, is the right of the woman involved to deny the use of her body to anyone. If consent is achieved, as with military service, employment, etc. there is no problem. But, having sex is not consenting to pregnancy under the law. If that changes, which I doubt it ever will, that change must be made extremely apparent to every woman.

  • Top_8305

    “Let’s get real: The elective taking of a baby’s life in the womb, surgical or chemical, bears no moral resemblance to two people of the same sex falling in love and building a life together.”

    Brother Villareal, moral equivalence exists in that both taking of an innocent life and sexual acts outside of marriage (rightly reasoned as being between a man and a woman) are both grievous offences against God (this includes masturbation, fornication, adultery, same sex activity and artificial contraception) – contrary to God’s Will, His Judgment and manifest in His Law.

    Theologically, in both situations, God’s Creative Prerogative is usurped by Man’s will (akin to the disobedience of Lucifer –the highest Angelic Creation of God- and that of Adam and Eve – the highest Creation of God in the temporal order).

    Abortion is a reactive thwarting of God’s Creative Prerogative (and our procreative cooperation); sex outside actual marriage possessing the natural potential for procreation (our participation in the Creative Prerogative of God) is pre-emptive in thwarting God’s Will.

    Both are offenses to God in the effect of thwarting His Creative Prerogative; this is the gist of the theological equivalence of the two.
    These precepts are coherently and cogently defined in Catholic Teaching.

    May God Bless you, Brother, with the Grace of Devotion to His Truth.

  • Top_8305

    “The decision by the Illinois legislature & the governor to redefine marriage in law does not alter the natural reality that marriage is & can only be the union of one man & one woman,” said Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion & Defense of Marriage, responding to the decision by the Illinois legislature & the governor to redefine marriage. “Furthermore, marriage redefinition is a serious injustice. The law exists to safeguard the common good & protect authentic rights, especially the right of children to have a married mother & father.”

    Additionally, Archbishop Cordileone said, “When referring to the family, Pope Francis said very clearly in his first papal encyclical: ‘I think first & foremost of the stable union of man & woman in marriage.’ & very recently, the Pope offered these words: ‘Let us therefore propose to all people, with respect & courage, the beauty of marriage & the family illuminated by the Gospel!’ Pope Francis has forcefully reminded us that we are to show love & respect to all people & to seek their greatest good, & he therefore continues to clearly promote & defend marriage & family, recognizing that this is in everyone’s best interest as members of a common society. In fact, when confronting an effort to redefine marriage in his home country of Argentina, he said as Archbishop of Buenos Aires: ‘The identity of the family, & its survival, are in jeopardy here: father, mother, & children.’ He even added: ‘At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.’ It is therefore disgraceful that some legislators would manipulate the words of Pope Francis to suggest that he would support marriage redefinition.”

    Archbishop Cordileone added, “The courageous efforts of those, including religious leaders & legislators, who helped defend marriage in Illinois is to be commended. The defense of truth & goodness is never in vain.”

  • Catken1

    OK, LaraLogan – show us an example! Protect the tiny born babies by giving your body over to government, rather than evilly claiming your right to control it yourself, so that government can give the helpless innocent little born babies any of your body parts they need to survive, without the inconvenience of having to get your consent for it.

  • Catken1

    In any case, any religion that is imposed on all from above becomes oppressive, dangerous and cruel.
    Freedom of religion – including the freedom to have civil contracts, marriages, families, and ownership of one’s own personal body without having to adhere to religious dogma of one sort or another to “earn” it – is necessary for a decent, humane, civil society.

  • Catken1

    When the law forces an unwilling bald eagle mother to care for her eggs, or an unwilling chimpanzee mother to bear offspring, you might have a point.
    As it is, humans may rescue and care for abandoned offspring of endangered species, but they cannot and do not force other animals to parent their young.

  • larryclyons

    Another Christianist who cannot follow his own bible. There is no real mention of abortion in the Bible. In fact the Bible, or at least the Old Testament does not consider the fetus to be a life until after it is born.

    The Bible clearly states that life and personhood begins with “breath”. With the creation of “man” in Genesis 2:7, God:

    “…breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.”

    The Hebrew word for human being or living soul is nephesh, which is also the word for “breathing.” Nephesh occurs over 700 times in the Bible as the identifying factor in human life. Obviously, fetuses do not breath and therefore cannot be considered as human beings according to the Bible. Here is another verse that reinforces this conclusion. God says:

    “Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live.”
    (Ezekiel 37:5)

    God also tells Moses how to calculate the value of persons being offered to God:

    “If the person is from a month old up to five years old, your valuation shall be for a male five shekels of silver, and for a female your valuation shall be three shekels of silver.” (Leviticus 27:6)

    The fact that God assigns no value whatsoever to newborn infants or fetuses means that “God-fearing” anti-choicers are openly defying their God!

    Moreover abortion is not murder. The only reference I found regarding what happens when a woman has a spontaneous abortion because of a conflict states quite plainly. A fetus is not considered a human life.
    “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.”
    – Exodus 21:22-23

    The Bible however is quite clear on murder, the penalty is death except in cases of the above quote, then the killing of a fetus is a misdemeanor fine.

  • CCNL

    And then there is the adoption option and again one must come to grips with the brutal effects of stupidity as noted by the major reason for the high rates of abortion and STDs.

  • wehutson

    The author of this article doesn’t know what the bishops know….and it shows with the superficiality of his article.

    When the unitive aspect of sex is divorced from the procreative…lots of dominoes fall. Gay sex, gay marriage are just the next dominos line. Abortion fell some years ago, contraception before that.

  • cricket44

    Adoption is a parenting choice, not a reproductive one.

  • Therese Z

    there was a shift in scientific knowledge over the years (ya think?) and the concept of when a fetus became alive changed. Science thought that the first time the mother felt the baby move, that was the moment it was “ensouled” and “became alive.” abortion up to that point was wrong but sort of understood. After that point, it was gravely and always wrong.

    The church stays current with scientific thought. and we’re the original organic life-stylers (no contraception, no artificial insemination, no infertility treatments messing with eggs)!

Read More Articles

Screenshot 2014-04-23 11.40.54
Atheists Bad, Christians Good: A Review of “God’s Not Dead”

A smug Christian movie about smug atheists leads to an inevitable happy ending.

shutterstock_134310734
Ten Ways to Make Your Church Autism-Friendly

The author of the Church of England’s autism guidelines shares advice any church can follow.

Valle Header Art
My Life Depended on the Very Act of Writing

How I was saved by writing about God and cancer.

shutterstock_188545496
Sociologist: Religion Can Predict Sexual Behavior

“Religion and sex are tracking each other like never before,” says sociologist Mark Regnerus.

5783999789_9d06e5d7df_b
The Internet Is Not Killing Religion. So What Is?

Why is religion in decline in the modern world? And what can save it?

concert
Why I Want to Be Culturally Evangelical

I’ve lost my faith. Do I have to lose my heritage, too?

shutterstock_37148347
What Is a Saint?

How the diversity of saintly lives reveals multiple paths toward God.

987_00
An Ayatollah’s Gift to Baha’is, Iran’s Largest Religious Minority

An ayatollah offers a beautiful symbolic gesture against a backdrop of violent persecution.

river dusk
Cleaner, Lighter, Closer

What’s a fella got to do to be baptized?

shutterstock_188022491
Magical Thinking and the Canonization of Two Popes

Why Pope Francis is canonizing two popes for all of the world wide web to see.

Pile_of_trash_2
Pope Francis: Stop the Culture of Waste

What is the human cost of our tendency to throw away?

chapel door
“Sometimes You Find Something Quiet and Holy”: A New York Story

In a hidden, underground sanctuary, we were all together for a few minutes in this sweet and holy mystery.

shutterstock_178468880
Mary Magdalene, the Closest Friend of Jesus

She’s been ignored, dismissed, and misunderstood. But the story of Easter makes it clear that Mary was Jesus’ most faithful friend.

sunset-hair
From Passover to Easter: Why I’m Grateful to be Jewish, Christian, and Alive

Passover with friends. Easter with family. It’s almost enough to make you believe in God.

colbert
Top 10 Reasons We’re Glad A Catholic Colbert Is Taking Over Letterman’s “Late Show”

How might we love Stephen Colbert as the “Late Show” host? Let us count the ways.

emptytomb
God’s Not Dead? Why the Good News Is Better than That

The resurrection of Jesus is not a matter of private faith — it’s a proclamation for the whole world.

shutterstock_186795503
The Three Most Surprising Things Jesus Said

Think you know Jesus? Some of his sayings may surprise you.

egg.jpg
Jesus, Bunnies, and Colored Eggs: An Explanation of Holy Week and Easter

So, Easter is a one-day celebration of Jesus rising from the dead and turning into a bunny, right? Not exactly.