The Motu Proprio is (Yawn) Finally Published

Reactions to the recent motu proprio of Benedict XVI on the Latin Mass, Summorum Pontificum (SP), cover a wide spectrum, which was expected. What is more interesting is how the document is being misrepresented.

A negative misrepresentation is that of the anti-Catholic bigot. Abe Foxman. Speaking in the name of the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish advocacy group, Foxman says Jews are “extremely disappointed and deeply offended that nearly 40 years after the Vatican rightly removed insulting anti-Jewish language from the Good Friday mass, it would now permit Catholics to utter such hurtful and insulting words by praying for Jews to be converted.”
(Foxman's favorite Shakespeare play is no doubt The Merchant of Venice.)
A positive misrepresentation is found in the laughable headline of the story on the EWTN site (http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/headlines.asp) : "Pope Establishes the Full Return of the Roman Missal from 1962 with New Letter."

Well, no, the Pope did no such thing.
Another positive misrepresentation is in Pat Buchanan’s essay entitled “A Triumph for Traditionalists.” Mr. Buchanan claims that the

< < < Q U O T E > > >

motu proprio declar(es) that the Latin Mass must be said in every diocese – on the request of the faithful. Dissenting bishops must comply. (Emphasis added.)
(http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56587

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

As we will see, SP never uses the word “must” or any synonym of “must” when speaking of the duties of priests, pastors, or bishops in making the Latin Mass available.
Here’s my interpretation of what the Pope did. I write only for myself, of course, from the perspective of a Traditionalist Roman Catholic who attends the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) at a chapel of the SSPV (Society of St. Pius V.)
The first thing that one notices about SP is that the Pope did NOT restore in any degree the TLM. What the Pope “restored” is the most recent (and to some, a suspect) version of that Mass, as revised and published by the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962. As Fr. John Neuhaus wrote in a laudatory article on the First Things website:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

One of the more deft moves in Benedict’s apostolic letter motu proprio, titled “Summorum Pontificum,” is in referring to the 1962 form of the Roman Rite as the Mass of Blessed John XXIII. It is not the Tridentine Mass or the Mass of Pius V but the Mass of John XXIII. It is the form of the Mass that was celebrated daily at the Second Vatican Council.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=796

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

“Deft” as used by Fr. Neuhaus in this paragraph appears to be a euphemism for “misleading; fraudulent.”

The second thing one notices is that SP is full of weasel words: “may,” “should,” “strongly requested.”

Consider:
Any priest may now say the Mass, in private, according to the 1962 Missal on (almost) any day.

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Art. 2: In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

A couple of paragraphs later, SP states:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Art. 4 Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may – observing all the norms of law – also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Which means, I guess, that the people CAN be present at Masses celebrated without the people as long as they have not been driven there at gunpoint by wild-eyed Traditionalists.
There have been two previous indults (in 1984 and in 1988) giving permission for the saying of the Latin Mass in some circumstances. SP is the latest version of the indult:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Art. 5 § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

What does “stable” mean? How many parishioners are required to meet the criteria of being a “group?” If the pastor is unwilling, what then? He is not obligated to “accept (the) request.” (“Should” does not mean, “must.”) What if he cannot “ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonizes with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish…?” What if, “under the guidance of the bishop…” he determines that accepting the request will NOT avoid discord and will disfavor the unity of the whole Church? Not just his parish, mind you. The WHOLE Church!
What does any of that mean?

To avoid the charge that I am omitting relevant information, Canon 392 reads:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Can. 392 §1. Since he must protect the unity of the universal Church, a bishop is bound to promote the common discipline of the whole Church and therefore to urge the observance of all ecclesiastical laws.

§2. He is to exercise vigilance so that abuses do not creep into ecclesiastical discipline, especially regarding the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the veneration of the saints, and the administration of goods.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

I don’t know what the difference is between the permission of Article 5 and that of Article 4. Maybe Article 5 is concerned with a situation in which a pastor is requested to set aside one of the regular Sunday Masses for the 1962 Mass.
And one only. There cannot be two such Masses at a particular parish on any given Sunday or Feast day. Article 5, Section 2:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

If the pastor refuses the request of a stable group:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

(Art. 7)….they (the parishioners) should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

There is no “must” about it; the SP only “strongly requests” the bishop to allow the people access to the 1962 Mass, and then provides for an appeal over the bishop to the Pontifical Commission. But how effective this will be is doubtful, for in an accompanying letter addressed to his “Brother Bishops,” Benedict XVI writes:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Which sounds like a rather large loophole for the Pontifical Commission to say that it has no authority to overrule the recalcitrant bishop who decides to ignore SP’s “strong request.”
SP states that a pastor “may also grant” permission to use the earlier ritual in the administration of to the pastor the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Penance, and the Anointing of the Sick, “if the good of souls would seem to require it.” And there are provisions for the use of the 1962 Missal by “Communities of Institutes of consecrated life and of Societies of apostolic life.”

It will be claimed that SP is a reaching out in good faith to disaffected Traditionalists.

But there is doubt about that, too. In that letter to the bishops, Benedict XVI equates that Novus Ordo liturgy with the 1962 Mass:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were "two Rites". Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
….
There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

The Pope’s rhetoric includes the following:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.
What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

This statement displays either a stunning ignorance of history or a stunning belief in the forgetfulness of Catholics who were conscious in the late 1960s. Because back then, there was a rupture; what earlier generations held as sacred did not remain sacred and great; and the Latin Mass, even that embodied in the 1962 Missal, was all of a sudden entirely forbidden because it was considered harmful to the spiritual good of mature Christians.
As “Fr. Moderator” writes on http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0707.htm:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

This pope and his conciliar papal colleagues have apologized to the Mohammedans for the Holy Crusades. They have apologized to the arch-heretic Martin Luther. They have apologized to the haughty astronomer Galileo. They have apologized for Christopher Columbus bringing the Catholic Faith to the New World. They have apologized for the Holy Inquisition, which brought to justice the Cathar anarchists, who approved of murder to overturn the state. He apologized to the Mohammedans in 2006 and went in person to worship with them, Mohammedan style, in the Blue Mosque of Constantinople.

But (Benedict XVI) will not apologize to traditional Catholics for persecuting them when they followed the Apostles, the Popes, the dogmatic Council of Trent, and Pope St. Pius V in doing what he now says they had the right to do all along!

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

If it were true that Benedict XVI had fully restored even the 1962 version of the Latin Mass, would he not have directed the seminaries to provide the necessary training and education to their students so that, upon being ordained, the new priests would be capable of saying that Mass? There is no provision at all for this, not even a recommendation that “Continuing Education Courses” in the 1962 Mass be provided.
There is no provision for it because Rome doesn’t want more priests capable of saying the 1962 Latin Mass. It’s not as if the Pope were unaware of the problem. He writes about it in SP:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

For those priests who are able to offer the Mass of 1962, a directive in the cover letter, closer to a “must” than found elsewhere in the letter or in SP, makes it clear that they must offer the Novus Ordo liturgy too:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Needless to say!

It is clear that the Novus Ordo remains THE liturgy of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church.

< < < Q U O T E > > >

The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the Lex orandi (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same Lex orandi, and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

What the Pope wants is to rescue the abominable N.O. liturgy. He believes that, as it came from the committee that drafted it and as it was promulgated by Paul VI, it was jim-dandy. But jim-dandy it often is not. Speaking of the N.O., Benedict writes in his letter to the bishops:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

“Arbitrary deformations of the liturgy” is the strongest language I have ever read by any high Church official about what goes on in some N.O. liturgies.

I believe that the Pope’s aim in SP is two-fold: to rescue the N.O. and to wipe out the Traditional Latin Mass. His first step in wiping out the TLM is to allow only the 1962 version of it, and even then under limited circumstances. His first step in rescuing the N.O. was to equate it with the Latin Mass. The groundwork for the second step is set out in the letter to the bishops:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The "Ecclesia Dei" Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

More and more prayers, readings, and prefaces from the N.O. will be incorporated into the Latin Mass; less and less of the Latin Mass will remain.

Summorum Pontificum is nothing more than another “indult” authorizing the occasional use of the youngest version of the “Latin Mass.” Those who portray it as anything more are perpetrating a fraud.

Copyright 2007 James F. Csank
All Rights Reserved
A slightly different version of this essay was posted on www.angelqueen.org. and on www.michnews.com.

(This essay was originally published in June 2007 on www.michnews.com)

It is June, A.D. 2007 (or do I have to say, “C.E.”?) and for only the third time in forty-three years, a Cleveland professional sports team (the Cavaliers of the NBA) is within reach of a championship. (It will have to be quite a reach: as I write, they have just lost the first three games in the best-of-seven series. The fans are not sanguine.)
As for me, I am almost interested. I have lived in Cleveland all of my sixty-four-plus years and I, with thousands of others, have been disappointed too often.
But there are other thousands who feel differently. For these, living in a championship city is a mystical experience. It is like being in heaven. It is like experiencing God.

In America, athletic contests, on both the professional and the college levels, are a religion. The various sports are the sects; the team owners are the bishops, and the coaches are the priests; the fans are the faithful; and sports arenas, hockey rinks, baseball parks, and football stadiums are the churches. Services are held at various cities throughout the year; these services are raucous, sometimes to the point of being destructive of property and injurious to persons.
And the gods? Well, the players are the gods
Greek gods, to be sure: existing on a higher plane than we mere humans, but exhibiting all the weaknesses of humanity, lust, greed, and addictions to various substances. These American gods personify the things Americans find holy: sex, sports, celebrity, and money.
This year, Cleveland gets to host some meetings of the faithful. We are all just thrilled. We are so thrilled, we have dropped all pretenses and admitted to the world that sports is the new religion of America.
The leader of the Cavs is Lebron James, who is in his fourth year of NBA play, and is only twenty-two years old. He passed up playing college basketball (with its relatively paltry, and mostly illegal, income) for the millions of dollars he can make as a Cav and as a spokesman for various products.
Can’t say as I blame him.
He is one hell of a basketball player.
And the fans adore him.
Not quite literally, but almost.
James qualifies as a god: he is making millions, he is known internationally, he is a great player, and he is the father of two illegitimate children by his “long-time girlfriend.” (This is a status below “fiancée” but above “hook-up.”)

The Cleveland Plain Dealer on May 8 published an article by Jodie Valade one of its reporters which, in part, discussed the PD’s reporting of the James phenomenon. The article’s first line is catchy and cute, filled with puns that make its point instantly:

< < < Q U O T E > > >
In the hands of some advertisers, getting the message across means giving their message a cross. Witness all of the church themes associated with LeBron James. They have not just chosen one. Open the doors to merging religion and sports marketing, and see all the people take notice.

…we are all “witnesses" to the "Chosen One" as he tries to lead the Cavaliers to the Promised Land - that is, an NBA title. Nike and the Cavaliers have leaned hard on the merging of religion and sports in their marketing of LeBron James…Even The Plain Dealer recently released online the "King James" Statistical Bible - the unabridged version, of course.

Now, everyday followers are buying into the theme, as an anonymous fan purchased ad space on a billboard along I-77 proclaiming, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." A large basketball and shades of wine and gold flank the commandment. "Believe in Cleveland," the sign directs.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Cleveland fans are happy to the point of being giddy. Kenneth Chalker is pastor at Cleveland's First United Methodist. He likes to tell his congregation a parable.

< < < Q U O T E > > >

It's about a messiah born amid poverty in the East, a young boy who rises up to perform miracles and lead his disciples to salvation.
Usually, (Chalker) feels the need to clarify.

"And it's not LeBron, born in Akron…”

This season, the Cavaliers' playoff slogan is "Rise up!" Coincidentally, a popular Christian hymn urges, "Rise up, shepherds, and follow. He will show you the place where the child is born. Rise up, shepherds, and follow."

The Christmas song, remarkably, isn't referring to Akron.

"Somebody is spending a lot of time being very organized about this," Chalker said, laughing.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Such childishness is amusing.
But it has its dark side.
The use of religious symbols to describe athletic contests and athletes acts as a leveler: it is meant to elevate and make more important something that in itself is of little or no importance, while it mocks religion and degrades people who believe in God.

And, like everything that America’s Culture of Garbage finds “holy” (sex, sports, celebrity, and money) it corrupts. It has corrupted those not directly involved, like Chalker, a Protestant minister who laughs at the degradation of that to which he has dedicated his life.
And it corrupts those directly involved.
Like LeBron James.

< < < Q U O T E > > >

James said all marketing ideas that use his name must receive his approval, and he was comfortable with the Nike campaign - even though it used the polarizing issue of religion.

"We didn't cross the line of going too far into religion," he said. "I know when it goes too far. That wasn't the case here. If it's not comfortable, I don't do it. I don't put my name on anything that's not comfortable for me and for my family, anything that might disrespect anyone."

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

It’s reassuring to know that James is comfortable with the appropriation and degradation of religious ideas, and that he is convinced that it all hasn’t gone too far. But you have to wonder: does the fact that he is making millions of dollars off the advertising campaign have anything to do with his judgment?

Copyright 2007 James F. Csank
All Rights Reserved

In Christianity, there is the concept of “sins against the Holy Ghost,” the “sins that will not be forgiven.” This is not meant in the sense that any particular sin is so horrible that, once committed, God will not forgive it (assuming the sinner recognizes the act was sinful, has repentance for committing it, and has a sincere and firm purpose to avoid committing its again.) What is meant is that some sin, perhaps committed only once but more likely committed over and over, will so harden the sinner’s mind and heart as to render him incapable of feeling contrition and of asking for forgiveness.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

According to the various interpretations of the sin against the Holy Ghost, there are various ways in which it may be said that it cannot be forgiven. For if by the sin against the Holy Ghost we understand final impenitence, it is said to be unpardonable, since in no way is it pardoned: because the mortal sin wherein a man perseveres until death will not be forgiven in the life to come, since it was not remitted by repentance in this life.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3014.htm

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

The sins of “obstinacy” and of “final impenitence” are two of the sins against the Holy Ghost:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

(5) Obstinacy in sin,
(Clarification: To be "obstinate" means to resist the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, to be stubborn, to persist in sin, to be unyielding.)

(6) Final impenitence.

(Clarification: "Impenitence" means to be uncontrite, unrepentant, hardened, unconverted, to be without regret, shame or remorse.)
http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu42.htm

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Those who have adopted the active homosexual lifestyle---they tell us they do so proudly, but, really, whom are they trying to kid?---run the spiritual risk of committing the sins of obstinacy and final impenitence.
A similar obstinacy is evident in the attitude of many who are not homosexuals but who support the “gay” agenda. Like homosexuals, these supporters have adopted a pro-“gay” attitude and refuse to consider the possibility that their advocacy of sodomy and lesbianism is wrong. Both groups ignore the truth because the truth will interfere, in the one case, with what they want to do, and in the other, with what they want to believe.

Eric Zorn is a reporter and columnist for the Chicago Tribune. He also moderates (if that’s the right word) a blog site for the paper. (Change of Subject: A Chicago Tribune Web log. http://www.answers.com/topic/eric-zorn)

A couple of months ago, Zorn posted an essay on the blog site setting forth what he called his “responses” to “the top 7 arguments (supporting) the position of Gen. Peter Pace…” who has become famous for stating his belief that “homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral.” (As of early April, I could no longer find the essay. The blog site warns us: “Links will tend to expire, so seize the day.”)
The essay was a revealing example of how liberals think. But it was more: it was a prime example of intellectual and moral obtuseness, and of spiritual obstinacy, on the controversial issue of the status of homosexuals in Western culture.
Zorn’s essay epitomized the “dedicated” homosexual mindset. Zorn admitted that he either agreed with or did not dispute the evidence behind five of the seven arguments supporting Pace. He admitted also that, regardless of the evidence and the logic, he would remain a true believer.

Let’s look at his performance. (The numbered sentences are Zorn’s phrasing of the reasons given to support the claim that homosexuality is immoral.)

1. Homosexual acts are abnormal.

Zorn’s Response:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

While this is certainly true, statistically -- homosexuality is not the norm – we don’t traditionally or otherwise equate “normal” behavior with morality. Indeed one of the cornerstones of moral thought is that it differentiates between popular opinion and behavior, and what is the right thing to do.

Slavery was once “normal.” Gender oppression. Religious persecution. That didn’t make them moral.

Many beliefs, hobbies, tastes and behaviors are decidedly,
even strikingly unusual. That doesn’t make them immoral.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Zorn believes that: (A) being normal does not per se mean being moral; and therefore (B) being abnormal does not per se mean being immoral.
As to (A): Even though “normal,” Zorn tells us, the Big Three No-Nos (slavery, gender persecution, and religious persecution) were immoral. Why? Because they did not conform to a standard of right and wrong that went beyond just asking whether a certain practice was acceptable to the members of a social group. Each was wrong because it was not “the right thing to do.”
When it suits them, liberals apply a moral standard to what is “normal” and use that standard to condemn what they do not like.
But when it doesn’t suit them, liberals ignore any standard other than whether a practice is “normal.” (“Normal” in this context means, “practiced by more than two people.”) This is especially true in matters related to sex: promiscuity, pre-marital and extra-marital sex, pornography, abortion, sodomy, etc. No standard will be allowed, because, if applied, a standard might discourage or forbid the action. And one will then be faced with the inconvenience of either obeying the standard and not doing what he wants to do, or ignoring the standard and risking feelings of guilt.
As to (B): Zorn’s conclusion that an “unusual” practice is not immoral follows from the refusal to apply a moral standard to it.

2. Homosexual acts are unnatural.

Zorn says this statement “takes two tacks.” The first is that “animals don’t exhibit homosexual behavior.” But, says Zorn, “They do.”
That’s a powerful response, isn’t it? He gives us no details and no examples. We are to accept his word. But even if he is right, what is the relevance? Are we to judge the behavior of rational humans by the behavior of irrational animals? Are we to establish societies and promote cultures based on the practices of animal groups? Apparently Zorn would answer, “Yes” to both these questions, because animals don’t apply moral standards and look how free and happy they are!

Zorn writes that a second meaning of this argument “says, correctly, that homosexuality involves using body parts in ways that nature clearly didn’t intend.”

Well, says Zorn in his “response”: So What?

< < < Q U O T E > > >

One could say the same for kissing (the mouth and lips were not designed for such an activity), smoking (nature recoils insidiously at the regular, deliberate inhalation of smoke) and, of course, oral sex.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

The thinking here is …well, laughable. It is embarrassing to reply to such nonsense, but not as embarrassing as having written the nonsense in the first place. The mouth and lips were not designed for kissing? (Better be careful, Mr. Zorn. The ACLU is watching. “Design” implies intelligence in a designer.) The mouth and the lips are essential to the life of each of us; through them passes our food and drink. They are essential to our social relations; through them we speak to others. That the mouth and the lips be used to kiss, to express our love, respect, honor, and desire for others, is as natural and as normal as using the lips to smile and the mouth to laugh.
“…nature (I’m surprised Zorn didn’t capitalize it, as most secularists do, since it takes the place of God) recoils insidiously (Insidiously? The word means: “treacherously; deceitfully; with malicious artifice;” surely that’s an inept characterization of the body’s reaction.) at the inhalation of smoke? For the first day, maybe, but not thereafter. The body adapts and accepts. In the long run, it’s not good for smokers that it does---but it does.
As to oral sex---well, de gustibus non disputandem!
Zorn overlooked some other powerful arguments: Were earlobes designed to have jewelry hung from them? Doesn’t “nature” recoil (insidiously or otherwise) when earlobes are pierced? Was the hand made to hold a pencil? And how about those place-kickers and those soccer players, misusing the leg and foot so horribly?

“Furthermore,” says Zorn, “as vegetarians are happy to inform us, nature didn’t intend for human beings to eat meat.” How’s that for an argument? My response to his response: meat dealers and cattle ranchers “are happy to inform us, nature did intend for human beings to eat meat.”

“Further,” says Zorn, “we don’t consistently look to nature for our moral principles. In nature, the sick and the feeble are consigned to die. In nature, the strong take freely and without consequence from the weak.” There goes Zorn, selectively applying a moral standard again!
See how consistently inconsistent the liberals are? A few paragraphs earlier, Zorn was telling us that the behavior of some animals is homosexual and therefore homosexuality is not abnormal, implying that human homosexuality is natural. Now he tells us we should rise above nature’s dog-eat-dog cruelties.

3. Homosexual acts, like homosexual relationships, have no biological purpose because they can’t result in the birth of children.

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Again this is true (Zorn admits) but again it relies on a supposed principle that we don’t otherwise follow. We bless, celebrate and sanction the marriages of men and women who are unable to have children for any number of reasons including advanced age. When couples decide not to have children or discover they can’t have children, we don’t annul their unions and condemn their sexual activity as immoral.”
< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Zorn doesn’t say what the “supposed” principle is, because he doesn’t want to draw attention to it. The principle is that heterosexual acts do have a biological purpose because they can result in the birth of children. And this fact means that heterosexual acts are both normal and natural. Those acts do not lose their normalcy and naturalness even though in most cases they do not result in children.

Zorn thinks he has scored a point, so he continues:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Why? (That is, why don’t we annul childless marriages?) Because we intuitively recognize that there’s far more to sex, love and marriage than attempting to satisfy nature’s biological imperative. These things have a very, very important social purpose that involves intimacy, companionship, security and other forms of happiness that nearly everyone strives for.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

The unspoken assumption here is that homosexual relationships provide the companionship, security, intimacy, etc. that heterosexual relationships do. Some of them do, as some heterosexual relationships do not. But let us not forget that most homosexual relationships (I realize it is a no-no to say it) are fleeting and anonymous, seeking only temporary gratification.
But even when a particular homosexual relationship is stable and lasting, it has none of the “very, very important social purpose” that heterosexual relationships have. That social purpose is the continuation of the species; not just the bringing forth, but the nurturing, educating, and loving of the young. There is no corresponding significance even to a lasting intimate relationship between two homosexual men or between two lesbians. Any significance a relationship between homosexuals has is only on the personal level, and is only temporary.

Some homosexual couples engage in desperate attempts to build an artificial family which will be a substitute for the natural family that arises from the union of committed heterosexuals. Thus their demand that they be allowed to adopt children; thus a lesbian couple will impregnate one member with sperm from some anonymous “donor” and demand that they both be recognized as the child’s parents.

4. If everyone were homosexual, the human race would die out.

This argument in support of Pace (remember, we are reading Zorn’s version of those arguments) is merely a repetition of the preceding argument. And so is Zorn’s response.


< < < Q U O T E > > >

I consider the “what if everyone did it?” argument to be the absolute nadir of grade school moral thought, especially in this instance when there is not even the faintest suggestion that this is a threat.

If everyone chose to remain celibate or chose not to have children, the species would die out, too. I have yet to hear anyone condemn the childless as immoral.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

5. Homosexuality is dangerous and positively linked with a number of social pathologies.

Zorn doesn’t argue with this, he simply doesn’t like its being true:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Without challenging the data behind this assertion, I’d note that society condones any number of dangerous behaviors or behaviors positively linked with social pathologies. Smoking. Drinking alcohol. Boxing. General aviation. Heck, about 40,000 people a year die in U.S. traffic accidents every year.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

This is nothing more than: Since there are dangerous things in the world, we should not try to eliminate or avoid other dangerous things.

< < < Q U O T E > > >

One way to diminish whatever special risks there are to homosexuals would be to encourage stability and permanence in their relationships by allowing them to marry or at least form civil unions. Greater acceptance of gay youth would surely cut the suicide rate.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

As an expression of Zorn’s belief, this is admirable. But homosexuals don’t need the sociological status of being married in order to be stable and permanent. If two sodomites want to be faithful to each other, they will be; they always could have been. Are we supposed to believe that, if society recognizes “gay marriage,” the spread of AIDS will decrease? “Greater acceptance of gay youth would surely cut the suicide rate?” Maybe. And the suicide rate will decrease if we outlaw the activities of NAMBLA and discourage the recruitment of teenage boys into the ranks of sodomites.

6. Homosexuality is deviant, perverted, disgusting and just plain wrong.

“This argument is circular,” says Zorn. “It begs the question, to use that expression correctly.” (Zorn couldn’t resist the opportunity to show us how smart he is.)
But he’s not as smart as he thinks. This “argument” in support of Pace begs the question, but only in part.
Three-fourths of the argument is redundant to what has gone before. (“Homosexuality is unnatural, abnormal, etc.”) Only the last three words beg the question. (Homosexuality is immoral because it is just plain wrong.)
Zorn’s misunderstanding of his own statement is not important except for its revelation of his sloppy thinking. And there’s more of that.

< < < Q U O T E > > >

These are merely rough synonyms for "immoral," and
awfully close to the assertion, "Smoking marijuana should
be against the law because it's illegal!

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Pity the poor liberals! They really don’t know how to think. What is that “should be” doing in Zorn’s counter-punch? The correct analogy to: Homosexuality is immoral because it is just plain wrong,” is: “Smoking marijuana is against the law because it is illegal.” (Better: “Smoking marijuana is illegal because it is against the law.”)

7. Homosexuality is condemned as sinful in the Bible, both New Testament and Old Testament.

“Believe it or not,” says Zorn in his “response,” “I consider this… a completely relevant and virtually unassailable basis on which to believe that homosexual acts are immoral.” Nevertheless, he will not accept it.

Why not?

< < < Q U O T E > > >

It’s been my experience that those who employ scriptural arguments tend to choose teachings and admonitions that fit their predisposition and either ignore the rest or wave them away with brash sophistry.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Well may you ask: does Zorn cite any Biblical “teachings and admonitions” that (a) argue that homosexuality is moral and that (b) the supporters of Pace ignore or wave away?
Of course not!
But, continues Zorn, “…not every Christian reads his Bible the same way.” And the problem is, “…the citation of Biblical authority tends to end a conversation before it begins.”
Why is that, do you think? It’s because liberals like Zorn won’t even consider an argument based on the Bible. They have shut their minds to it for years. And now they want to shut everyone else’s mind to it, too, by outlawing any teaching of or reference to it, and condemning as hate speech anything that seems to be derived from the Bible.

But give Zorn his due. He frankly admits he has a closed mind and simply will not listen to you:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Fine. No one says the answer that satisfies you has
to satisfy me.

And no one says, in the case of homosexuality, that
you have to explore roots and purposes and patterns
in moral thought and search for consistency, themes
and underlying reasons in God's law as you read it.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Zorn concludes with his own version of declaring Biblical authority and those who cite it “out of court:”

< < < Q U O T E > > >

But I will say that public policy debates tend to run right onto the rocks when one or both sides starts quoting scriptural authority. This is just another reason I’m so staunch about maintaining a separation between church and state and why I pressed some of those who quoted the Bible to also come up with reasons that would be more persuasive to those with other beliefs.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Zorn’s responses are not answers to the Pace position in the sense of being counter-arguments. Zorn agrees with, or accepts as true, five of the seven arguments supporting General Pace. He simply will not accept the arguments or their implications. He wants to believe in the “gay” agenda, therefore he does.

And after some shallow thinking, he has found rationalizations that allow him to ignore the arguments supporting Pace.

The sad part is that Zorn really thinks he has refuted the arguments supporting the immorality of homosexuality.

Copyright 2007 James F. Csank
All Rights Reserved

This essay first appeared on www.michnews.com.

Part I

Just before Christmas last year, Bill Press, syndicated columnist, liberal pundit, philosopher extraordinaire, and theologian par excellence, wrote a column about the pregnancy of Mary Cheney, a lesbian in good standing and a daughter of the Vice-President. (Just how Ms. Cheney became pregnant is, mercifully, being withheld.) Mr. Press pointed out (what he considered to be) the hypocrisy and the inconsistency shown by Republicans, who, on the one hand, smile warmly and wish the happy couple (Mary and her significant other, named Heather) all happiness, etc., etc., etc; but who, on the other hand, work tirelessly to deny people like Mary and Heather the privileges of marriage and adoption.

(Oh, excuse me. I meant, of course, the “rights” of marriage and adoption.)
It’s a valid point of view, and Press is entitled to it. But he wasn’t content with a plain statement of the facts (which would have required---oh, I don’t know, maybe four sentences.) Mr. Press thought something more was needed.
This is how he reported the situation, following which he made his polemical point:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

God sent the angel Gabriel to Alexandria, a town in Virginia. To a virgin pledged in partnership to another woman, named Heather. And the virgin’s name was Mary.

And the angel said to her: “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You shall be with child and give birth to a son. And you shall call his name — Dick!”

And Mary said: “How will this be, since I am a lesbian?” The angel answered: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born to you will be called Little Dick, the grandson of Big Dick, and the son of Unknown Dick. For nothing is impossible with God. Under God, even lesbians can have babies — as long as they’re Republicans.”

So Mary and Heather went from Alexandria in Virginia up to Washington in the District of Columbia, the home of Big Dick. And while they were there, Mary gave birth to Little Dick. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the White House.

And suddenly a host of angels appeared in the heavens, praising God and saying: “Glory to God in the Highest. And on earth, peace to gays and lesbians of good will — as long as they’re Republicans.”
(Mary Had a Baby http://www.billpress.com/columns/122106.html)

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Was Mr. Press just being cute? Or did he need to flesh out his essay to meet a minimum number of words? Whatever the reason, he decided that a little blasphemy was appropriate.
Parodying the Blessed Virgin by replacing her with a lesbian who gets pregnant either by an act of fornication or by an unnatural medical procedure; substituting the name “Dick” for “Jesus;” “little Dick, big Dick, unknown Dick;” his essay is the work of an arrogant and immature mind. It spits in the face of every Christian who takes the faith seriously.

Did mocking the Christmas story add anything to his argument?
Not a bit.
What did the Nativity story have to do with it?
Nothing.
Then what motivated Press?
His essay had a purpose other than scoring some political points; a purpose discerned when you read a few of his other published commentaries back to back, think about them, and see how they fit together.

Part II

Doing so, I was stunned to discover that Press is a Catholic.

When Bush nominated John Roberts, a Catholic, to the Supreme Court, there were already three Catholics on the bench. Press wrote a column in which, from one side of his face, he sanctimoniously disclaimed any intention of saying that another Catholic should not be sitting on the Court, while from the other side he clearly intimated that Roberts’ faith rendered him unfit to serve, because it would interfere with his Americanism. (Holy Mother of God! Republicans are playing the Catholic
card again. http://www.billpress.com/columns/072805.html. Even the titles Press gives to some of his essays are blasphemous.)

< < < Q U O T E > > >

But as a lifelong Catholic myself, a former altar boy and seminarian, I say: Roberts’s Catholicism is fair game. It is absolutely essential to explore Roberts’ religious beliefs as part of the confirmation process.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Not just essential, you understand. Ab-so-LUTE-ly essential!

Press would require Roberts to answer this question:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

If you are called on to decide an issue where your faith tells you one thing and the law tells you another, where is your loyalty? To the Bible or the Constitution?

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Bill wants everyone---EVERYONE--- to answer the question the way Bill’s Hero, the saintly and sainted John F. Kennedy, answered it in Houston in 1960.

< < < Q U O T E > > >

And, of course, the very same question now facing Catholic John Roberts was put to Catholic John F. Kennedy, Democratic candidate for president in 1960. Leading Protestants demanded to know: Where was his first loyalty, to the Constitution or to the Vatican? Kennedy didn’t whine about Catholic-bashing. He set the record straight. He said he was an American first and a Catholic second.
(Holy Mother of God…)

As believers, we are Catholic, Jew, Muslim or Protestant first, and American second. But as citizens, we are Americans first, and Catholics or whatever else second. In church, we embrace the Bible. In politics, we uphold the Constitution.
(Happy Easter - But Don't Let Your Priest or Preacher Tell
You How to Vote - April 08, 2004
http://www.billpress.com/columns/040804.html)

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Press is terrified of the influence of religion on American life. He probably spends sleepless nights worrying about it.
Writes Press:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Any priest or pastor who mixes religion with politics by telling people how to vote or suggesting that all Christians or Catholics must vote the same way is breaking the law. And any church that announces as its goal electing another conservative Republican president should immediately lose its tax-exempt status
(Time to Get Back to Moral Values November 11, 2004
http://www.billpress.com/columns/111104.html)

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

What’s Bill’s concern? I’ll give you one guess.
Bill is worried over abortion, which he supports. He has to. He wouldn’t be a liberal pundit if he were opposed to killing babies. But what about that Roberts guy?

< < < Q U O T E > > >

There are several issues where the official teaching of the Catholic Church is directly opposite the law of the land. Roe vs. Wade, the case most talked about, is also the most obvious. The Constitution gives every American the right of privacy, which includes the right of American women to control what happens to their own bodies. The Church teaches that choosing abortion, even for rape or incest, is wrong and should be illegal. Which authority will Roberts follow? His faith or the law?

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Notice the hidden postulates:
First: A person can’t be both a good citizen and a good Catholic. It’s an Either/Or situation. Press either rejects or is ignorant of the writings of John Courtney Murray, S.J. While Camelot was in bloom, Murray published We Hold These Truths, a compilation of his essays arguing that a good Catholic can be a good citizen. I would be surprised if Press is not familiar with Murray’s writings, because Murray would have been Press’s kind of priest: a Modernist and one who had found favor with the secular establishment. Many of Murray’s pre-Vatican II writings were rejected or ignored by the authorities in Rome. But he was appointed a peritus (expert) at Vatican II, and is credited with writing most of the controversial document Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Freedom).
Second: A Catholic opposed to abortion is so only because his priest or the Pope orders him to oppose it. That is to say, many Catholics---you know, the ones who are opposed to murdering innocent children---are unable to think for themselves and so just blindly follow authority.
Third: In the liberals’ (and in Bill Press’s) scheme of things, the abortion decision is sacrosanct. It cannot be touched. It was all right to change the law of fifty states with the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. But it is forbidden for anyone, especially a Catholic, to believe the law on abortion should be changed and to work to change it. To do so is un-American. And Bill will not allow it.

Bill was sorely disappointed when Cardinal Ratzinger was chosen Pope. He thinks Benedict XVI is too conservative, that he will fail “to bring the Catholic Church itself into the 21st century with badly needed internal reforms.” Even worse, while still a Cardinal, Ratzinger wrote Dominus Jesus,” a document that “rejected the contemporary belief that one religion is as good as another, arguing instead that only Catholics could get to heaven.”
(That, of course, is Press’s interpretation of the document, wearing his theologian’s cap.)

In another column, Press mocked the idea of a war against Christians:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

We’re seeing a war on Christians? Nonsense. We’re seeing nothing but the paranoia of a small band of right-wing Christians with a crucifixion complex, who are never content unless they believe someone is nailing them to the cross.
(The Bogus "War On Christians" March 30, 2006
http://www.billpress.com/columns/033006.html)

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Press is a liberal, Modernist Catholic. And like other liberal, Modernist Catholics,
Press tells us about his altar boy and seminary days only when he wants to position himself to disparage Catholicism, and thus prove that he is free of its influence.

Part III

A lot of conservatives think liberals hate Catholics.
But that’s not true.
Liberals LOVE Catholics, but they have to be the right kind of Catholics.
The Catholics liberals love are---the liberal Catholics.

“Voice of the Faithful” Catholics.
“Call to Action” Catholics.
“National Catholic Reporter” Catholics.
“Catholics for a Free Choice” Catholics.
The kind of Catholics who demand women priests, married priests, and homosexual priests.
The kind of Catholics who deny that homosexuality has anything to do with the sexual abuse of boys by priests.
The kind of Catholics who support the “right” of women to hire abortionists to murder innocent babies.
The kind of Catholics who want the Church to sanctify sodomy by blessing “gay marriage” and by permitting adoption by “gays.”

A number of these Catholics want to be accepted by---they want to become members of---the influential group that Robert Bork called the “ cultural elites:” “those who man the institutions that manufacture, manipulate, and disseminate ideas, attitudes, and symbols---universities, churches, Hollywood, the national press (print and electronic), foundation staffs, the “public interest” organizations…” (Slouching Toward Gomorrah. Regan Books, N.Y. 1996, p. 7)
Some have made it. Some are read and heard nationally, like Press; some only locally, such as Regina Brett who writes for the rabidly anti-Catholic Cleveland Plain Dealer and reminds us of her Catholicism whenever she wants to crusade for married priests, women priests, “gay marriage,” and “women’s reproductive freedom.”
These are the Catholics whose columns get published and who are invited to appear on liberal talk shows. In politics, they are the Catholics who will be supported when they run for office, such as Kerry, Pelosi, and Kennedy.
They are all pro-abortion, of course, but hide behind the “personally opposed but…” excuse the late, unlamented Robert Drinan, S.J. taught them. They all support the “gay agenda.”
They hate the pre-Vatican II Church, and what they see as the stale leftovers of that Church after Vatican II.
These are the CINOs: Catholics in Name Only. They are accepted by the secular and atheist worlds of Hollywood and the media, and they intend to remain acceptable.

What is their common denominator?
They are embarrassed by their Catholicism. It is an albatross that they wish they didn’t have to wear. They want—they need---they crave the approval of the cultural elites. But their Catholicism threatens to get in their way.
So, in kowtowing to the elites, they will do anything to prove, as Press admits, that “ …we are Americans first, and Catholics…second.”
This includes disparaging the Church and belittling the Faith.

Such Catholics will periodically apologize for their Catholicism, because they are required to do so Otherwise, the elites to whom they suck up will cease throwing the crumbs of success and fame their way in payment for services rendered. The elites, strongly Anti-Catholic, love nothing better than having CINOs run down the Church.
One of the best ways to apologize is to show others that you really don’t take Catholicism seriously; even better, to show others that you think no one should take Catholicism seriously. And a good way to do this is to mock, to parody, and to trivialize
Hence, Press’s blasphemy. He was paying his dues, showing that he can be trusted. He was out-Kennedying JFK. He was displaying his liberal credentials, eliciting a few chortles from the supporters of child murder and euthanasia, and paying his dues for the coming year.

Copyright 2007 James F. Csank
All Rights Reserved

This essay first appeared on www.michnews.com.

Blessed are the baby-killers, for they shall be called “heroes”!
Everybody wants---no, everybody needs---to feel good about himself, to feel that he is worthy, that what he does is praiseworthy.
Even “doctors” who spend their days killing unborn children! Even their “nurses” who wipe up the blood, count the body parts, and throw the remains in the incinerator.
When you have completed medical or nursing school, and are interested in surgery, but you don’t want to work real hard, you can become an abortionist or an abortionist’s assistant. It’s not pleasant work, and a lot of people will consider you to be nothing but a butcher---but, what the hell! As a “doctor,” you will earn big bucks; and if you’re a nurse---well, the work isn’t taxing.
Once you get used to it.
That will take a while, because you will have to do a lot of denying; and like any habit, lying to yourself is difficult at first. But eventually your denials will become imbedded in your outlook, and you will really believe that what you do is not killing; you will really believe that what you kill is not human; and you will really believe that what you kill has no right to live, anyway. (This mental attitude is similar to a criminal defendant saying: “I didn’t do it, it wasn’t my fault, and you can’t prove it anyway!”)
But it’s important for your self-esteem that there be positive factors, not just negative; and that others praise you and your efforts.

There are, thankfully, people who understand this need in you. They are there to help. They are the abortion lobby, which includes politicians panting for votes, and the bureaucrats at Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and so-called “Catholics” For Free Choice. These are the Death-Spinners, people who are as good with words as you are with your curette. Their job is to put a “spin” on the legalized murder of children. And they are good at their jobs; if you can put a “spin” on killing a living human being and make it sound noble, you can put a “spin” on any damn thing!
You see the spinners at work nationally and locally.
About ten years ago, pro-abortion activists in the United States proclaimed March 10 every year to be “National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers.” Abortionists, their staffs, their customers, and various cheerleaders eagerly wait for this day to celebrate and honor those who specialize in death.
One of the early participants in this holiday for baby-killers was a group known as Refuse and Resist. What “R and R” refuses and resists is:
< < < Q U O T E > > >
The mean-spirited, openly racist, misogynist, homophobic Christian-fundamentalist demands for "family values" and preparation for Armageddon continue to fester in growing organized network.
To the Reaganites, racists, misogynists, televangelists, would-be Rambos, war planners, and America-firsters, we say the future is not yours. Because we see the potential of a different future, we will Refuse and Resist.
< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

All you really need to know about “R and R” is that its founders included the lovely and talented Abbie Hoffman and the late, unlamented William Kuntsler.
“R and R” passionately believes in abortion. Since 1996 it has sponsored the annual love-in for baby-killers, and suggests the following gestures of love and honor and appreciation:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Praise clinic staff and doctors with cards and letters of appreciation. Let them know they have your support and thanks.
Bring your local clinic staff flowers or a breakfast basket of fruit or muffins.
Organize local appreciation day events.
Organize with others to hold a March 10th dinner with area providers.
Step up to the front lines and be a volunteer clinic escort.
Ask your local provider how you can help.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

In March 2005, to commemorate that year’s “National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers.” the Cleveland Plain Dealer, consistently and rabidly pro-abortion, ran a fawning little piece on abortionist---I mean, “DOCTOR”--- Martin Ruddock, who ran a “Women’s Health Clinic” (that’s a euphemism; read “abortuary.”) in Shaker Heights, Ohio. Here is how the PD described this paragon:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

He wears a bulletproof vest to work. He checks his rearview mirror a lot, especially driving home, where he once discovered a man wearing camouflage and night-vision goggles in the woods behind his house.
He's not a cop. He's a doctor who provides abortions.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

(The PD reporter faithfully repeats the “spin” that baby-killers are simply “doctors who provides abortions.”)
DOCTOR Ruddock is brave and self-sacrificing. And he doesn’t mind telling you so himself. The PD quotes DOCTOR Ruddock: "If I don't do it, who's going to?" (“Do it” is a euphemism, too; it means, “kill babies.”)
DOCTOR Ruddock is no doubt paid well for his work (but of course monetary reward is not mentioned by the PD). But his ego needs sustenance, too. So his customers expressed their love and gratitude by visiting him on March 10, 2005. We are informed that:

< < < Q U O T E > > >
…(abortion) activists….presented a framed certificate of appreciation, a booklet containing more than 150 thank-you letters from women, and homemade cookies to Ruddock and his staff at the Center for Women's Health in Shaker Heights. Office manager Sue Noble placed a hand over her heart and said, "Oh, we need this every once in awhile."

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Can’t you just see the tears in noble Sue’s eyes? She and the others were overwhelmed: not just a bag of Oreos, you understand, but homemade cookies!
Oh, by the way: in September 2006, DOCTOR Ruddock’s Center for Women's Health was closed by the state for numerous health code violations.
This PD article would make anyone laugh were it not about a killer of innocent children.
This year, the National Abortion Federation has posted on its website a petition which it wants readers to sign. It includes some gems which would be hilarious but for the fact that it praises moral (sadly, not legal) murderers:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

I support the health care professionals who make choice a reality for women.
I appreciate abortion providers

The abortion provider community is made up of medical professionals who are both highly skilled and uniquely dedicated to protecting the lives and health of women. Abortion providers in the U.S. and Canada treat patients with respect and provide women with the highest quality of care.

But abortion providers are much more than highly trained medical professionals: they are also heroes.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

That “uniquely dedicated” is uniquely perverse. Literally, it means that someone who kills babies and those who clean up the mess are dedicated to protecting the lives and health of women, while the ob-gyns and the nurses who assist in delivery rooms are not so dedicated. Or at least not quite as dedicated as those “who provide abortions.”
For those readers who may ask, How are they heroes? the baby-killers provide an answer:

< < < Q U O T E > > >
Abortion providers are on the front lines of the critical struggle to ensure that abortion is safe and accessible. They regularly defend women's lives and health against aggressive abortion opponents seeking to deprive women access to safe abortion care. Putting their lives on the line, abortion providers are the ones who make choice a reality for women.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Like DOCTOR Ruddock, all abortion providers are brave:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

In the face of past assassinations and ongoing violence and threats, abortion providers continue to display steadfast bravery and unwavering dedication to preserving women's lives and health.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

And you thought they killed babies for the money!

The NAF petition urges us to:

< < < Q U O T E > > >

Show your support for the men and women who dedicate their lives to providing women with quality abortion care, by letting them know how much you appreciate their commitment to reproductive freedom.

< < < E N D Q U O T E > > >

Don’t forget the cookies!



Copyright 2007 James F. Csank
fka Siger of Brabant
All Rights Reserved

This essay first appeared on www.michnews.com.