|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 3, 2009 15:49:30 GMT
Thsi link from the WALL STREET JOURNAL may be of interest; a commentator who is liberal, pro-abortion and homosexual nonetheless criticises claims that the "Religious Right" as a whole are (a) responsible for the murder (b) identical to Islamic terrorists. online.wsj.com/article/SB124398690567579389.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 26, 2009 11:21:57 GMT
Here is an interesting discussion (from the American conservative magazine THE WEEKLY STANDARD) about how the most outspoken advocates of killing abortionists derive their views from the sixteenth-century Scottish Calvinist John Knox's advocacy of tyrannicide, and about how the clinic protest movement grew more extreme as it passed from leftist Catholics to conservative Evangelicals. www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/621epoqz.asp
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 26, 2009 11:38:55 GMT
Michael's take I would say goes too far in the other direction. There are times when it may be necessary, or even obligatory, to break unjust civil laws. The points at issue should be - first: proportionality - (a) since the civil power has a certain inherent authority we are obliged to give it the benefit of the doubt and obey it unless it is absolutely necessary to disobey it, not start from the assumption that we can just disobey any law we happen to disagree with (b) The lawbreaking must be proportionate to the good to be accomplished and the evil that must be done, bearing in mined that the wrongdoer has certain God-given rights which cannot be set aside at the behest of private citizens. SECOND There is also the issue of practicality. We are ony to act where the re is a legitimate chance of success or where the good to be achieved may reasonably be expected to outweigh the evil done. If Matin Luther King had tried in the 1920s the tactics which he used in the 1950s and 1960s, he would have been strung up from the first tree branch and achieved only a paragraph in the Northern papers. By the way, I hadn't realised that one of the targets of King's LETTER FROM BIRMINGHAM JAIL was the the Catholic archbishop of Birmingham, Alabama who tried to forbid his priests from openly denouncing segregation on the grounds that thsi would disturb the public peace. Here is a piece from Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog noting the surprising resemblances between AMERICA magazine's condemnations of those who denounce President Obama's abortion policy and wish to strongly assert a Catholic identity, and the stance of the church leaders condemned by King (both take the view that a "radical" or "extreme" position which disturbs the governing consensus must by definition be wrong) wdtprs.com/blog/2009/06/response-to-america-magazines-editorial-community-of-disciples-22-june-2009/ I notice incidentally that the IRISH CATHOLIC, having "plugged in" to the american liberal Catholci network (in the same way that under David Quinn it tended to plug in to what might loosely be called the "neoconservative" tendency in US Catholicism inhabited by people like George Weigel) now regularly reprints articles from AMERICA magazine and the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER, which are the most prominent American liberal/left in politico-theology publications. One of their recent efforts was a piece by an American Jesuit arguing that Latin should be formally abandoned as the official language of the Church and replaced by English on the grounds that this was now the dominant world language. Talk about provincialism! Does the man have any idea how the Mexicans, French, etc would react to such a thing? It would be seen as a complete American takeover of the Church. The assumption that 21st-century liberal Anglophone America is the perfect model of modernity to which all others must conform was never so unselfconsciously displayed.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 6, 2009 13:10:51 GMT
Can the moderator delete the spam merchant?
I was at the Rally for Life in Dublin on Saturday. There was a good turn-out; the parade would have stretched the length of O'Connell Street.
At the mass beforehand in St. Saviour's the priest preached on the importance of love; the need to bear witness to love, to march without hatered for the pro-aborts, and to hope for their conversion, and that it was not a political rally but something more important.
The opposition, a hard-faced bunch - about 50-60 with Choice Ireland and Socialist Workers Party banners, were on the traffic island opposite the GPO shouting at the passing marchers from close range. Along with the usual "Pro-Life that's a lie, they don't care if women die" and "Get your Rosaries of our ovaries" chants, they were also shouting "Remember te Ryan Report - 150,000 children subjected to clerical abuse". Alas, King Herod says something true for once.
The speeches in the Molesworth Street rally were a bit unimpressive; good accounts from Spain and Scotland of the situation there, Fr. Brian McKevitt on the need to take back the media (though he did not say how), Richard Greene delivering an anti-Euro rant (including an attack on the IRISH CATHOLIC without mentioning it by name) and a couple of other speakers. Had I been organising it I would have played down some of the specifically Catholic statements and tried to get a couple of non-Catholic speakers, as in the Stormont rally last October; it's not a specifically Catholic issue, and it's not a nationalist issue either. There was a bit too much self-congratulation on Ireland being "abortion-free"; it's later than we think. A lot of enthusiasm and commitment, but how can this best be harnessed?
The Franciscan Friars of the Renewal from Limerick were in evidence, and I also noticed in the crowd a single weedy individual with a Christian Solidarity Party banner (on a flagstaff bearing the old Catholic Boy Scouts of Ireland emblem of the shamrock on the cross).
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 6, 2009 13:51:45 GMT
Isn't it amazing how the SWP always show up to heckle at events like that, but I don't see what relationship the Ryan Report has to anything - except in the context of the rally being practically Catholic.
What the organisers did in picking a complete failure like Richard Greene to address it is beyond me. But the trouble seems to be the introverted conversation between YD/Cóir and Alive! which would be self-congratulatory. It must hold the line that they were right on the stand they took on the 2002 referendum. They also don't seem to see a repeat of the victory in the Lisbon referendum is unlikely.
It seems to me, as we need editors of Catholic newspapers who live on this planet, we need pro-life leadership that doesn't spend all its time in outer space.
|
|
|
Post by mcallister on Jul 6, 2009 18:24:11 GMT
Had I been organising it I would have played down some of the specifically Catholic statements
I don't believe this kind of thinking is ever a good idea, in fact I thought Bernie Smyth's talk about the power of the Rosary was the best of the lot. If you think in human/poltical terms I can see how you might think it's better to take the focus off Catholicism but the fight against abortion is against the powers of evil and there is no greater weapon than the Rosary.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Jul 7, 2009 10:16:52 GMT
Had I been organising it I would have played down some of the specifically Catholic statements I don't believe this kind of thinking is ever a good idea, in fact I thought Bernie Smyth's talk about the power of the Rosary was the best of the lot. If you think in human/poltical terms I can see how you might think it's better to take the focus off Catholicism but the fight against abortion is against the powers of evil and there is no greater weapon than the Rosary. I might sound like Tevye in 'Fiddler on the Roof' who tells two contradicting men they are right and then when a third says they can't both be right, he answers 'You're right'. There is room for both a political and devotional campaign against abortion. But never get them mixed up. I think this is what Hibernicus is driving at here. I am surprised Hibernicus went on the Rally. When I saw YD listed I automatically stayed away.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 7, 2009 11:01:35 GMT
McAllister should take up his grievance with Bernie Smyth (sorry I forgot to mention her speech) since she organised the Stormont rally last October. By his "logic" this should have been a Rosary rally and the (very impressive) Protestant speakers should not have come.
BTW here's an interesting contrast - the Stormont rally was addressed by Iris Robinson and Jeffrey Donaldson and by SDLP, Independent and Alliance MLAs (and I think by a UUP MLA - Sinn Fein was the only party which didn't send a representative). So far as I am aware, there was not a single elected representative at the Rally for Life in Dublin on Saturday. What does this say about the situation in the two jurisdictions?
In regard to Benedict9's explanation - that was precisely what I meant. I have no objection to devotional campaigns against abortion but they should be kept separate from political lobbying (within reason; church groups will inevitably provide much of the infrastructure for the campaign, there should be no objection to religious attending as citizens, etc). God generally works through intermediate natural causes and we should imitate His example as required. The biggest problem with pro-life campaigners since the X Case has been that so many of them can't tell the difference between a political party and a prayer-group, and regard it as diabolical to suggest that there IS a difference.
Let's take an example. Quite a few of the Evangelical groups which operate in Dublin are strongly anti-abortion; was any attempt made to approach them? An evangelical speaker on the platform would have sent out a clear message that opposition to abortion is not just some mindless Catholic taboo that we take up unthinkingly because the Pope tells us to do so. Admittedly there could be a certain awkwardness since Evangelicals also tend to be zealous proselytisers amongst Catholics, but we should nonetheless come together when possible where the common good requires it.
In relation to Benedict9's question about why I attended - see above. Any regular reader of this board knows that I have a lot of differences with some of the tactics employed by Youth Defence, but I think we should sink these differences, like other differences I mentioned, for the good of the common cause. This was a show of pro-life strength for mutual encouragement and as a warning to our beloved politicians that there will be a political price to pay for any more moves in the wrong direction, so it was important to have as many people out as possible.
Readers of this board will also know that for professional reasons I prefer to keep my identity hidden (perhaps I should call myself Nicodemus) but when so many people were giving up a day and making the effort to turn out, how could I justify staying away? (I should mention that I did not come to Dublin specifically to march, but on other business - I only knew it was on when I saw the posters.) I also felt I was marching for my parents, who were active in the past but are now too old to turn out, and for old colleagues in the 1980s campaigns who have died since (though I am sure they were with us in spirit). Fortunately from my point of view, I don't think any of my professional acquaintances saw me, and as usual the media could be relied upon to ignore the rally.
It was I thought a great show of strength; many of the marchers had clearly made a considerable effort to be there. It's a shame their commitment is let down by the tactical and strategic blunders of certain leaders.
My advocacy of ecumenism on this issue has its limitations. I could bring myself to vote for Richard Greene if circumstances required and even to work with him on issues of common concern, despite my many disagreements with him, but NEVER with Gerry McGeough because of his direct involvement with physical force republicanism, or Emmanuel Sweeney because of his disgraceful statement in the 1995 referendum, or Justin Barrett because he associates with fascists and his book THE NATIONAL WAY FORWARD explicitly advocates the abolition of multiparty parliamentary democracy and the establishment of a plebiscitary dictatorship.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 9, 2009 14:32:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 21, 2009 13:31:59 GMT
IN today's IRISH TIMES it is reported that the Crisis Pregnancy Agency is mounting a campaign against what it calls "rogue" pregnancy counsellign agencies which try to steer women away from abortion. Link and extracts below: www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0721/1224250997240.htmlQUOTE BEGINS ROGUE PREGNANCY counselling agencies who seek to manipulate vulnerable women experiencing a crisis pregnancy are “quite appalling”, Minister for Health Mary Harney has said. She was commenting on the announcement of a new campaign from the Crisis Pregnancy Agency (CPA) highlighting such agencies and giving information to women to avoid them. Director of the Agency Caroline Spillane said between July 2007 and March 2008 its funded service providers had reported 67 cases where women had been been the victims of such “agencies” purporting to be unbiased but which had an agenda to steer women away from abortion. These were just the women, she added, who made it to other agencies and who reported their experiences. “The traits common to these organisations are that they misrepresent their services, they try to delay the appointment, they expose these women to highly upsetting images of late-term abortions or they may give misinformation about health issues. Some have even breached client confidentiality by phoning members of the women’s families.” ... Outdoor advertising sites will be used as part of the campaign featuring a woman being controlled like a puppet, with strings attached to her arms and feet. The caption beside her reads: “Don’t allow yourself to be manipulated. Certain crisis pregnancy counselling information services want to influence your decision.” It then gives advice on how to access free, non-judgemental support. QUOTE ENDS First of all, let me say that some of the practices referred to (such as notifying members of the woman's family without her consent) are unethical by any standard and that I have heard claims that some such agencies have confined themselves to such tactics as showing pictures of aborted babies while bluntly asking "do you want to kill your child" rather than a more tactful approach focussing on such issues as the baby's development etc. Shock tactics under these circumstances IMHO do more harm than good and seem more intended as a form of self-expression for the people who use them. That being said, note that Harney and the CPA seem to imply that ALL counselling which has as its objective to dissuade the woman from aborting her baby is ipso facto unethically "manipulative", that it is a proper use of state funding (remember the CPA is a state body, funded by taxpayers) to warn women against such agencies, and that the ONLY legitimate form of counselling is "non-directive" (i.e. treating abortion as a legitimate option which is not to be discouraged). Surely state policy, and the legal position, is supposed to be that abortion is wrong and ends human life which ought to be preserved? When the Ulster unionist leader Sir Edward Carson was asked whether he really feared laws persecuting Protestants would be passed under Home Rule, he replied that he was not afraid of legislation, but of administration - not the laws but the people who administer them. Our current laws on this matter seem to be administered in a very strange way indeed.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 30, 2009 9:48:32 GMT
As I have mentioned on this board before, I have had depressive episodes in the past and underwent counselling for them. I remember the counsellor telling me that if I told her I had suicidal thoughts she was legally obliged to report this. This of course reflects an overall public ethical judgement that suicide is a bad outcome which ought to be discouraged. (The legal requirement also presumably protects individual counsellors from being sued if things turn out badly.) I can see how this policy could reasonably be questioned (e.g. it could be argued that mandatory reporting harms the relationship between patient and counsellor because it might deter some patients from speaking freely). On the whole, however, the requirement seems to me to be a good way of guarding against suicide. Now let us suppose that the requirement were dropped, and that the government made a point of promoting "non-directive" counselling in which suicide was treated as a legitimate option on which the patient should make the final choice, and subsidised organisations which provided this sort of counselling as "best practice". Let us further suppose that, partly in response to some lamebrains setting up agencies which thought it was a good idea to deter potential suicides by telling them they would go to hell, showing them photos of corpses, lying to them &c, the government denounced all agencies which did not take the "non-directive" approach and went out of its way to warn potential patients against them...
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 30, 2009 9:56:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 3, 2009 12:53:31 GMT
The ultra-traditionalist Ignis Ardens forum, which I would normally only link to to criticise, has some comments on the Dublin March for Life. With the usual distorted sense of priorities, Credo complains it has too much of the Post-Conciliar Church about it. Great; the first step is to drive away everyone not seen as ideologically pure rather than to unite to stem the opposition, and Credo's remark about the Masons' Hall in Molesworth Street promises another wild-goose chase. z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=4178He links to an indymedia thread, which is mainly though not entirely dominated by pro-aborts and is valuable as showing their mindset. One charming detail which I overlooked because I was on the side of the parade way from the traffic-islad, is that the counter-demonstrators pushed condoms at the marchers. When one or two of the crankier ones responded by holding up rosaries or crucifixes they had their photos taken, and this was posted on the web to reinforce the message that pro-lifers are all religious fanatics. They could do with some lessons in self-presentation and how to anticipate your opponents' likely strategies. www.indymedia.ie/article/93038
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 15, 2009 14:21:39 GMT
When the abortionist George Tiller was murdered (see my earlier posts on this crime) the IRISH TIMES and the GUARDIAN covered it in a manner which implied all pro-lifers were responsible for his death. Now a pro-life protester has been murdered (in Michigan last Friday) by a lunatic who disliked his tactics. Will the GUARDIAN and the IRISH TIMES suggest all pro-abortionists are to blame? Will they even mention it? Don't hold your breath. markshea.blogspot.com/2009/09/prolifer-christian-murdered.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 15, 2009 14:26:47 GMT
|
|