Journeys of a Catholic Poster Girl

Found here. 

JP The Great was elected Pope. 

I still miss him. I love B XVI, but I just adored JPII. 

Today’s her feast day, and Elizabeth has this list up over at her blog. I liked it so much that I stole it. :) 

It is most important that we have this [love for one another], for there is nothing annoying that is not suffered easily by those who love one another…If this commandment were observed in the world as it should be, I think such love would be very helpful for the observationce of the other commandments.”

I would counsel those who practice prayer to seek, at least in the beginning, friendship and association with other persons having the same interest. This is something most important even though the association may be only help one another with prayers.”

“Be gentle to all and stern with yourself.”

“The soul is much more more than we can imagine, and the sun that is in this royal chamber shines in all parts. It is very important for any soul that practices prayer, whether little or much , not to hold itself back and stay in one corner.”

“Pain is never permanent.”

“God has been very good to me, for I never dwell upon anything wrong which a person has done, so as to remember it afterwards. If I do remember it, I always see some other virtue in that person.”

“Let nothing disturb thee; Let nothing dismay thee; All thing pass; God never changes Patience attains All that it strives for. He who has God finds he lacks nothing: God alone suffices.” (I have this on a holy card that is pinned to my office corkboard.)

“To have courage for whatever comes in life - everything lies in that.”

“To reach something good it is very useful to have gone astray, and thus acquire experience.”

“We can only learn to know ourselves and do what we can - namely, surrender our will and fulfill God’s will in us.”

“We shall never learn to know ourselves except by endeavoring to know God; for, beholding His greatness, we realize our own littleness; His purity shows us our foulness; and by meditating upon His humility we find how very far we are from being humble.”

“When you suffer often, praise God that He is beginning to teach you this virtue of patience and strive to endure…He gives it to you, and you do not possess it save as though on deposit.”

“There are more tears shed over answered prayers than over unanswered prayers.”

“I complained to Him for consenting that I should suffer so many torments. But his suffering was well repaid, for almost always the favors afterward came in great abundance. I only think that the soul comes out of the crucible like gold, more refined and purified, so as to see the Lord within itself.”

“It is here, my daughters, that love is to be found - not hidden away in corners but in the midst of occasions of sin. And believe me, although we may more often fail and commit small lapses, our gain will be incomparably the greater.”

In spite of all her wisdom she asked the angel: How can this be?but after he answered, The Holy Spirit will come upon you; the power of the Most High will overshadow you, she engaged in no further discussion. As one who had such great faith and wisdom, she understood at once that if these two intervened, there was nothing more to know or doubt.”

“Let us look at our own faults and leave aside those of others, for it is very characteristic of persons with such well-ordered lives to be shocked by everything.”

“Mutual love is so important that I would never want it to be forgotten. The soul could lose its peace and even disturb the peace of others by going about looking at trifling things in people.”

From the bishops of Dallas and Houston–good reading for us all:

(from Fr. Z) 

 

From the Bishops of Dallas and Forth Worth in Texas. They have issued a joint statement.

This is from the hated PDF format.

Office of the Bishop Office of the Bishop
Diocese of Dallas Diocese of Fort Worth
October 8, 2008

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

The month of October is Respect Life Month in our churches. It is a time in which we as Catholics are called to reflect upon the gift of life that has been entrusted to us by our Creator and to focus our attention on the many
attacks against human life that exist in our culture today. This year, Respect Life Month takes on a more profound meaning as we face an election in our country where the protection of human life itself, particularly that of the unborn, is very much at stake. Therefore, as your Bishops, we wish to take this opportunity to provide clear guidance on the proper formation of conscience concerning voting as faithful Catholics and to articulate the Church’s clear and unambiguous teaching on life issues as they relate to other issues of concern.

The Church teaches that all Catholics should participate as “faithful citizens” in the public square, especially through our voice in the voting booth, and that we have the responsibility to treat the decision for whom we will vote
for with profound moral seriousness. We must approach the right and duty to vote with a properly formed and informed conscience in accordance with the teachings of the Church. Last November, the Bishops of the United States issued a document entitled Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in which we and our brother Bishops issued clear moral guidelines to aid the faithful in proper formation of conscience with regard to the many issues we face in our nation today. Through this joint statement to the faithful of Dallas and Fort Worth, we seek to briefly summarize the key points and dispel any confusion or misunderstanding that may be present among you concerning the teaching contained in the document, especially that which may have arisen from recent public misinterpretation concerning this teaching.

1. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship clearly teaches that not all issues have the same moral equivalence. Some  issues involve “intrinsic evils”; that is, they can never under any circumstance or condition be morally justified. Preeminent among these intrinsic evils are legalized abortion, the promotion of same sex unions and “marriages”, repression of religious liberty, as well as public policies permitting euthanasia, racial discrimination or destructive human embryonic stem cell research. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship clearly states:

“There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called ‘intrinsically evil’ actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, ‘abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others’ (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.” (22)

2. The destruction of the most innocent of human life through abortion and embryonic stem cell research not only undercuts the basic human right to life, but it also subverts and distorts the common good. As Pope John Paul II clearly states: 

“Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good… It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop…” (The Gospel of Life, 72; 101)

3. Therefore, we cannot make more clear the seriousness of the overriding issue of abortion – while not the “only issue” – it is the defining moral issue, not only today, but of the last 35 years. Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, more than 48 million innocent lives have been lost. Each year in our nation more than one million lives are lost through legalized abortion. Countless other lives are also lost through embryonic stem cell research. In the coming months our nation will once again elect our political leaders. This electoral cycle affords us an opportunity to promote the culture of life in our nation. As Catholics we are morally obligated to pray, to act, and to vote to abolish the evil of abortion in America, limiting it as much as we can until it is finally abolished.

4. As Catholics we are faced with a number of issues that are of concern and should be addressed, such as immigration reform, healthcare, the economy and its solvency, care and concern for the poor, and the war on terror. As Catholics we must be concerned about these issues and work to see that just solutions are brought about. There are many possible solutions to these issues and there can be reasonable debate among Catholics on how to best approach and solve them. These are matters of “prudential judgment.” But let us be clear: issues of prudential judgment are not morally equivalent to issues involving intrinsic evils. No matter how right a given candidate is on any of these issues, it does not outweigh a candidate’s unacceptable position in favor of an intrinsic evil such as abortion or the protection of “abortion rights.” 

As Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship states:

“The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.” (28)

5. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in paragraphs 34-37, addresses the question of whether it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil – even when the voter does not agree with the candidate’s position on that evil. The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following: 

a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or “abortion rights,” a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,

b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no “truly grave moral” or “proportionate” reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year. To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or “abortion rights” when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible.

6. In conclusion, as stated in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the decisions we make on these political and moral issues affect not only the general peace and prosperity of society at large, but also may affect each individual’s salvation. As Catholics, we must treat our political choices with appropriate moral gravity and in doing so, realize our continuing and unavoidable obligation to be a voice for the voiceless unborn, whose destruction by legal abortion is the preeminent intrinsic evil of our day. With knowledge of the Church’s teaching on these grave matters, it is incumbent upon each of us as Catholics to educate ourselves on where the candidates running for office stand on these issues, particularly those involving intrinsic evils. May God bless you.

Faithfully in Christ,

Most Reverend Kevin J. Farrell 
Bishop of Dallas 

Most Reverend Kevin W. Vann
Bishop of Fort Worth

So a lot of the time, when Catholics talk about voting pro-life, they get “well what about War? Because JP II and BXVI were against the Iraq war, etc., etc.” 

First, a quote from the US Bishops: 

From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Living the Gospel of Life (1998)–their emphasis: “But being “right’ in such matters [other social issues] can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of the positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community…All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundations.”

 

There are five non-negotiable issues for Catholics when voting: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage and human cloning. These are all intrinsically evil and can NEVER be supported in good conscience. 

Note that war is not on that list. The church has a “just war” theory. Good Catholics can disagree with whether or not the Iraq war fits the definition. But the point is that war can sometimes be justified. The five non-negotiable issues above are NEVER justifiable. 

That everyone should read.

I have excerpts and a link to buy over here. 

Perfect reading before the Election! Be sure to pass it around!

The absolutely wonderful FR.Z has this up today: 

 

NYT: Election divides Catholic Church

CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 7:48 am

Last night, as I arrived in the Twin Cities, I had an interesting discussion with the great Fr. GW, one of the most asute political observers I have ever known.  

Our discussion turned to the Presidential campaign.

Amidst the sundry observations forwarded, it occured to us that the Catholic vote might make a great difference this year, but we hadn’t seen much about that yet in the MSM.

This morning I am in receipt of this from the “Hell’s Bible”, as one bishop I know calls it, theNYT.  My emphases and comments.

NYT: Election divides Catholic Church
Liberals, conservatives skirmish over church’s teachings on war, racism
By David D. Kirkpatrick

The New York Times
updated 6:33 p.m. CT, Sat., Oct. 4, 2008

As the Roman Catholic Church observes its annual “respect life” Sunday in this heated presidential election season, the unusually pitched competition for Catholic voters is setting off a round of skirmishes over how to apply the church’s teachings not only on abortion but also on the war in Iraq, immigration and racism.

In a departure from previous elections, Democrats and liberal Catholic groups are waging a fight within the church, arguing that the Democratic Party better reflects the full spectrum of church teachings. ["reflects better the full spectrum"... get that?  That is the old "seamless garment" approach.  What this seeks to do is diminish the foundational issues of human life.]

It is a contest for credibility among observant Catholics, with each faction describing itself as a defender of “life.” The two sides disagree over how to address the “intrinsic evil” of abortion.   [If it is an "intrinsic" evil then it should be clear that it must be addressed in a manner quite different from the treatment of evils that are evil due to circumstances.]

The escalating efforts by more-liberal Catholics are provoking a vigorous backlash from some bishops and the right.  [I deny this premise.  This is not a "right" or "left" thing, this is not a matter of those who are interested "social justice" issues.  This is a matter of human life.  So, I deny the premise.]

In Scranton, Pa., every Catholic attending Mass this weekend will hear a special homily about the election next month: Bishop Joseph Martino has ordered every priest in the diocese to read a letter warning that voting for a supporter of abortion rights amounts to endorsing “homicide.”  [Perhaps "infanticide" might be better, but okay.]

“Being ‘right’ on taxes, education, health care, immigration and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life,” the bishop wrote. “It is a tragic irony that ‘pro-choice’ candidates have come to support homicide — the gravest injustice a society can tolerate — in the name of ‘social justice.’ ”

In response, a coalition of liberal lay Catholics is pushing back, criticizing the bishop’s message for neglecting other aspects of “life” talked about in Catholic social teachings, like concern for the poor.  [I deny the premise again.  Defense of life will create a better foundation for all the other social issues.]

To underscore the point, a nun is collecting the signatures of prominent Catholic leaders there for a newspaper advertisement [This reminds me of those Catholics who signed a NYT against Humanae vitae.] reminding those who may be wary of voting for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic nominee for president, that the church also considers racism a sin that threatens the dignity of life.  [OH. WHAT. A. SLIMEY. TACTIC.]

“Here in Scranton, racist attitudes often prevent us from seeing all of our fellow citizens and candidates for public office as God’s children,” says the petition, circulated by Sister Margaret P. Gannon, a professor at Marywood University.  [All this does is obfuscate the real issues.  And if we really think about it, the problems people in Scranton might have with Sen. Obama are not going to be about race, but with his comments about people in that area who cling to their guns and religion.  But the racism card is a really low blow.]

Scranton, the focus of a disproportionate amount of attention because it was the childhood home of Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, has become a flashpoint in the battle playing out nationwide in weekly homilies, pastoral letters and diocesan newspapers.Scranton is also one of several heavily Catholic, working-class cities in swing states — like Cincinnati; Cleveland; Detroit; Erie, Pa.; Pittsburgh; and St. Louis — where a new network of liberal groups like Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United are trying to promote the church’s social justice teachings.  [Makes them sound like scrappy insurgent freedom fighters.]

Catholics make up about a quarter of the electorate nationwide and about a third in many of the most heavily contested states in the Northeast and Midwest, an increasingly central focus of both presidential campaigns. [This, friends, is why bishops and priests MUST SPEAK UP and ACT.]

The campaign of Senator John McCain of Arizona has dispatched high-profile surrogates like Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, to remind Catholic audiences of the Republican candidate’s opposition to abortion.

For Mr. Obama, who supports the right to abortion, [Not just abortion.  Remember the whole thing about denying support to children who survive abortions so that they die.] his campaign has trained its grass-roots organizers in the details of recent policy statements of the Bishops Conference.

Conservatives argue that ending legal protections for abortion outweighs almost all other issues, [almost?] while liberals contend that social programs can more effectively reduce the abortion rate than trying to overturn Supreme Court precedents. [B as in B.  S as in S.  They are seriously arguing that social programs to "reduce poverty", or distributing contraceptives and abortifacients to teens will lower the abortion rate?]They cite a 2007 statement from the United States bishops explicitly condoning a vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights if the vote was cast for other “grave” reasons.  [That was then and this is now.  Also, I wonder what they are actually citing.  Are they citing what the Holy See passed on through the USCCB or are they citing Card. MCarrick’s enverating spin?]

The subtleties can be slippery. [No. I deny the premise.  This really isn’t all that hard.  Sure there are some situations where you have two candidates who both support abortion, but one might place no restrictions and one would.]  The Cathedral of St. Peter in Wilmington, Del., where Mr. Biden lives, is promoting a video produced by the conservative Catholic group Fidelis that is intended to persuade Catholic voters to put opposition to abortion rights and same-sex marriage above all other issues.  Sounds good to me.

“Many issues are at stake,” a caption reads as the video displays a fetus and choral music swells. “Some are more important than others.”  [So… liberals can make their issue dramatic, but not the pro-life supporters?]

‘Voter guide’

Brian Burch, president of Fidelis, said the group had created the video as “a voter guide for the 21st century.” Many Catholic churches across the country have put it on their Web sites, and Mr. Burch said some statewide advocacy groups had been distributing it to their members.

At the Cathedral of St. Peter, the Rev. Joseph Cocucci has displayed the video prominently on the church’s Web page, and at each Mass he is urging parishioners to view it. Father Cocucci noted that the video also features smaller visual references to Catholics carrying peace signs and marching for civil rights.

“The video does say life is the most important issue, but if you notice it isn’t only abortion,” he said.

In the final push to Election Day, the intrachurch election debate is increasingly spilling into public view.

Last week, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that the head of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. in Missouri had stormed out of a Mass because his priest had invoked Hitler’s name in condemning Democratic support for abortion rights. The Cincinnati Enquirer published a column commending several archbishops for instructing Catholics not to vote for supporters of abortion rights but lamenting that the archbishop there had not done the same.  [That would be the Archbishop of Cincinatti.]

In the aftermath of the 2004 election, many liberal Catholics complained that parishes had distributed millions of copies of a voter guide created by a group called Catholic Answers that highlighted five “nonnegotiable” issues: abortion, stem-cell research, human cloning, euthanasia and same-sex marriage.

In response, liberal groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance quickly began preparing alternative guides emphasizing a broader spectrum of the church’s social justice teachings.

Then the Bishops Conference, perhaps to forestall a blizzard of competing pamphlets, all but banned third-party voter guides from parishes, requiring the explicit endorsement of the presiding bishop.  [And that is … what… wrong to do?  Would that bishops had exercised such vigilance over printed materials for Catholics in the last few decades.]

But some, including the bishop of La Crosse in Wisconsin, [Bp. Jerome Listecki] a swing state, have nevertheless chosen to authorize distribution of the “nonnegotiable” guides this year. [Don’t you love that "nevertheless" in there?  How it changes the tenor the sentence?] The liberal groups are trying to distribute their material through direct mail and at meetings of lay Catholic groups.

Alexia Kelley, executive director of Catholics in Alliance, said her organization was spending more than $250,000 on radio, print and billboard advertisements in Scranton and other heavily Catholic areas. The advertisements emphasize what Ms. Kelley described as the broader spectrum of Catholic concerns about the “common good,” including health care, jobs and home foreclosures. [Remember… "broader spectrum" is code language.]

Douglas W. Kmiec, a Catholic legal scholar who was a legal counsel in the administrations of President Ronald Reagan and the first President George Bush,has been telling Catholic audiences in Pennsylvania and other swing states that Mr. Obama’s platform better fits Catholic social teaching, including reducing the abortion rate.  [Which is, of course, not true.  Those things will not in themselves reduce the rate of abortion.  And even if they did,that doesn’t make any difference for this issue.  If abortion is intrinsically evil, then we must not support it.  If it is more fundamental than other issues, then it must have priority in our weighing of the candidates.]

Mr. Kmiec, who recently published a book on the subject — “Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama” — was speaking in Scranton last week when Bishop Martino issued his letter rebutting those arguments.

Asked how his former Republican colleagues were responding to his Obama evangelism, Mr. Kmiec acknowledged some resistance. “Some remind me that George Washington gave orders for Benedict Arnold to be shot on sight,” he said.

Mr. Kmiec… Benedict Arnold was a traitor.

This weekend is Respect Life Sunday!

I hope that many parishes will work with this theme in their homilies and activities. 

And, since October (along with May) is particularly dedicated to the Rosary, be sure to say a decade (or the whole thing!) for the protection of life from conception to natural death throughout the world. 

her take on the pro-life movement: 

Straw Everywhere

October 1, 2008 by Amy

So much, it’s making me sneeze.

One of the points that is frequently raised by those who say they are opposed to abortion but who nonetheless give their support, advice and endorsement to candidates who are unequivocally and proudly supportive of unrestricted access to abortion (phew)…

…goes something like this:

You know, the anti-abortion movement just has to get over its fixation with overturning Roe. Instead of obsessing about criminalization, the anti-abortion movement should take the energy it puts into politics and work to find ways to decrease the number of abortion and improve the lives of women, children and families.

As I said, this is more than a straw man. It’s an entire straw movement.

1) Anyone who thinks that the anti-abortion movement is all or even mostly about politics and the law is obviously either a)unfamiliar with the anti-abortion movement or b)willfully distorting what he or she knows to be the truth about the movement in order to score points or promote a candidate. Deceitfully.

2) The anti-abortion (and I am using that term to head off the arguments about the definition of “pro-life.” Not in this post, please. We get it.) movement is like any other social movement. It is diverse, it is composed of different elements working at the defined problem from different directions. Some of these elements are even in conflict with each other, also normal for social movements.

3) The anti-abortion movement is composed of people involved in education. Others are working on the legal aspects of the issue. Others are involved in media. Others in supporting medical professionals. Others in lobbying. Others in direct support of women. Others in trying to build institutions that help women choose to carry their babies to term. Others in adoption work or work with the disabled. Others in post-abortion support. Others in prayer. And more.

4) Most of the energies of the anti-abortion movement in this country are absorbed in educational efforts (in schools, churches and the broader culture) and direct work with women in unexpected pregnancies.  That is just a fact. For every individual whose energies go to working the political end of the issue, you have 10 volunteering at your local crisis pregnancy center.

5) Related to this is the “single issue” canard, which I’ll look at more closely in a later post from a couple of different angles. But in this argument, it usually goes, “Anti-abortionists are not working for health care reform with the fervor they give to trying to get abortion criminalized.” First, see #1-4. Anti-abortionists are mostly busy trying to set up women with medical care and social services and helping families work through a lot of surprise and pain. There are probably some in this movement that are, indeed, working for health care reform in various arenas. The rest are probably too busy making phone calls, filling out forms and holding hands. It is okay for people to focus on a specific purpose which involves helping the person who shows up at your door today. There are other, broader issues implicated, certainly. But not everyone can do everything, for then nothing gets done and the doorbell goes unanswered because everyone is so busy studying position papers.

Besides: You don’t want to start fixating on legislative solutions to problems at the expense of helping real women and children….do you?

Further, when it is political season, it is not really surprising that much of the public conversation turns to issues of the law and public policy. But that doesn’t mean the doorbell doesn’t stop ringing or that no one is there to answer it.

6) The implication is the Straw Movement assumption is the primary importance of abortion to the anti-abortion movement is as some abstract “wedge” issue, and nothing more. It is all about winning an argument, it seems, that someone started a long time ago for no good reason, the winning of which will…do what? Get someone a bit more power? It’s all pretty fuzzy to me. I can’t even figure out how that would work.

Years ago, I was riding in a car to a conference with Rosemary Bottcher of Feminists for Life, and at one point she said, “It’s about the babies. Never forget and keep reminding yourself - it’s about real babies.”

And that’s it.

Working  to minimize, to stop abortion and abortions doesn’t win you friends and status in the United States in 2008. Not even, in more quarters than we’d care to admit, in the Catholic Church.  There is no influence to be gained or riches to be made in the process. Certainly, politicians can and do use the issue to win votes and support from core constituencies (a subject addressed here many times), but politicians are not the subject of this post because the critics who wave the Straw Movement don’t specify “politicians.” They talk about the movement in general, opponents, workers in the vineyard who can’t ignore the call. The cry?

There is a lot more to be said about the arguments being flung about, feverishly, right now, but I’ve written this post  with a very specific purpose related to this specific claim: that the anti-abortion movement spends most of its resources and energy on pursuing political paths at the expense of assistance and support of women, children and families.

That’s silly. It’s also dishonest and unfair and does nothing to advance the “dialogue” and “common ground” it is claimed is so necessary and important in regard to this issue.

From First Things: (my emphases in bold)

When Not Aborting Is Immoral

Posted by Keith Pavlischek on September 19, 2008, 4:34 PM

From over on starboard side, Nicholas Provenzo of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism is “troubled” by the implications of Gov. Sarah Palin’s “decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome.” He thinks “it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.” Here’s his line of thinking:  

A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child’s life upon others.

 (me: So, I guess I shouldn’t be here, right, because, you know, some CF people are only “marginally productive.” Who in the world has the right to say what is and what is not productive? How can we be so callous as to reduce human life to production, to economic terms!?)

 

Meanwhile, on the port side, Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb,” treats us to this little thought:

I believe it is immoral and should be illegal for people to have very large numbers of children because they are then co-opting for themselves and their children resources that should be spread elsewhere in the world. You only get a chance to get your fair share. 

To the follow-up question, “How many is ‘very large’”? Ehrlich responds:

The issue is: What is the political position to take? In a country like the United States, we should stop at two. But if you had an ideal situation, you might have a lot of people who have no children at all, and some people who have as many as three or four because they happen to be particularly good parents, and are going to raise their children very well. 

Me: OK, so let’s make this a bit less hypothetical. 

“Let’s stop at two”–that means neither of my parents, both the third child in their families, wouldn’t have been born. 

On my mom’s side, more specifically, that means that my Uncle Tim and my Aunts Sue, Patty, Mary, and Amy would not have been born. Hence I would not have my fantastic aunts and uncles, I would not have my godfather, and I would not have my godson. My grandparents, instead of having 25 grandchildren to love, would have four–Julie, Jeff, Diane and Megan–and four great-grandchildren. 

If, by some miracle, my parents did squeak by, then my little sister would not have been born. Sorry, Mel. Neither would the siblings of many of my friends, especially in the families where the first two children are twins.  

What kind of absolute nonsense is this!? People can have as many kids as they want without subjecting the number to some government entity. Yes, you should be able to take care of the kids you bring into the world. I am not advocating that we all go out and produce like rabbits, here. But NO ONE can tell me or anyone else how many kids to have!

Side note: The social entitlements that the Left so enjoys are funded mainly by–guess what–tax receipts. If you have a growing aging population and a shrinking young population, then you do not have the resources to provide for these massive entitlements, like Social Security and Medicare. Look to Europe–as the birth rate declines, so does their inability to support their massive welfare states. 

The Bible says that Children are a blessing from the Lord–they are a reward! We are to “be fruitful and multiply.” The scathing comments about people with big families, people who trust in God’s providence, and who procreate, are just sickening. 

If I was married I would want at least three kids, and maybe four! I love my big family. I love my siblings. Big families are good training grounds for life. 

This sort of thinking is dangerous and needs to be stopped, pronto. Sure the environment and all that is important, but human beings are more so.