The Deacon's Bench

The Deacon's Bench


George W. Bush: why I’m pro-life

posted by jmcgee

The former president is back in the public eye again, with a new book and a headline-making interview with Matt Lauer that includes, among other things, some personal insight into his political beliefs:

The most startling anecdote he shared was the story of his mother’s miscarriage during his teenage years, when he says he drove Barbara to the hospital while she held her unborn fetus in a jar.

Bush says he included the story “to show how my mom and I developed a relationship,” but admits the jarring experience had a lifelong impact on his political beliefs.

“She says to her teenage kid, ‘Here’s a fetus,’” the pro-life President recounted to Lauer. “No question it – that affected me – my philosophy that we should respect life…There was a human life, a little brother or sister.”

Read more.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(43)
post a comment
Steve

posted November 9, 2010 at 11:27 am


That’s an interesting anecdote, and I’ll take Bush at his word that the experience, the sight of the lost baby, affected him. I’m not going to get cynical about that.
Nevertheless, this experience of Bush’s leads me to wonder whether Bush & Cheney would have been so eager to start a war of choice (Iraq) if each of them had ended up on the battlefield in Vietnam and seen carnage all around them. My hunch is that they would not experienced such wanton blood lust while in office if they’d had that experience. (Not that I would wish the Vietnam-era draft on anyone, but it is ironic that Bush, who sought out safe duty at home, and Cheney, who sought out and received five deferments, were so willing to send other young people to die or get maimed in Iraq, even hurrying up the start of the war as the weapons inspectors were trying to do their jobs. Would first-hand experiences in war have caused them to hesitate, one wonders.)



report abuse
 

Klaire

posted November 9, 2010 at 11:56 am


Maybe so Steve, but by the same standards, why are abortion pictures boycotted by TV stations every time some pro lifer wants to show them? (Exception was a recent DC politican who got hers on owing to the fact that they could not refuse a political ad).
After all, if abotion is so “not a big deal”, “only a bunch of cells”, so much so that in some cases, school girls are taken for abortions without parental consent, then what’s the big deal with showing the pictures of the ‘cells and tissue?’
The reason is the same thing that happend to George Bush. It’s pretty hard to look at a dead feuts with tiny fingers and hands and still think is’t not human life.
Abortion would decrease at least by 90% if picutures of aborted fetuses were easily seen by all in this country.



report abuse
 

Matt

posted November 9, 2010 at 2:22 pm


Pro-life my a**. War, torture, capital punishment, rape of the environment – none of these things square with being pro-life. Bush perpetrated all of the above. Being anti-abortion is necessary to be pro-life, but not sufficient.



report abuse
 

Klaire

posted November 9, 2010 at 3:35 pm


Scoff all you like Matt, that “pro-life” presidency is resulting in major gains in adult stem cell cures and advances. Just this past week artificial human blood for cancer and bone marrow patients was successful made from the skin cells of the patients, eliminating all possibility of residual tumor cells. This is HUGH for cancer patients, but of course, not mentioned by the MSM. No one in the know can deny that GW Bush was very much responsible for the push on adult stem cell research, of which he approved 2 billion in funding.
And BTW, Obama STOPPED that funding (canceld Bush’s EO immediately upon entering office) and increased it for ESC research, which continues to kill embryo after embryo, without even a hope of cure, albeit many diasters.
Another FYI, the entire amount killed in Iraq is equal to ONE DAY of abortion killings in this country. Try telling that to the greenie tree huggers, global warmers, and communists who try to bamboozle us with their “authenic” social justice while promoting abortions. Take about fraud and phonies! SJ is impossible when life isn’t respected in the womb.
I certainly don’t think Bush was perfect, but he wasn’t a phoney, and will always be deserving of the gains he made to the pro life movement.



report abuse
 

Mafu

posted November 9, 2010 at 3:45 pm


I wonder if GWB’s visit with the Pope might also have a lot to do with it. GWB is a Christian.
Making tough decisions is a President’s job and the results of those decisions are never known at the outset. GWB would not bring harm to anyone as a person, being a world leader is however, another hand of cards he had to play – you can only play the hand that was dealt to you, however popular or unpopular the results may be.
Much will be said of GWB in later years, but being indecisive will not be a fault laid at his threshold.



report abuse
 

Lauren

posted November 9, 2010 at 4:08 pm


Abortion would decrease at least by 90% if picutures of aborted fetuses were easily seen by all in this country.
Klaire,
I respectfully disagree… I think abortion will decrease when we start eliminating the causes/issues that make women seek an abortion. Graphic pictures may shock people, but they do absolutely nothing for helping people…especially as many abortions are either medical or induced very early in the pregnancy…which isn’t reflected in those pictures.
Matt,
100% agreed.



report abuse
 

kenneth

posted November 9, 2010 at 5:08 pm


Bush was pro-life, unless we’re talking about brown people who are already born. Then human life was valued at roughly half the going rate of peat moss. I think a man responsible for the deaths of more than 600,000 human beings who calls himself “pro-life” is going to have a real interesting trial on judgement day…..



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted November 9, 2010 at 5:14 pm


“I think a man responsible for the deaths of more than 600,000 human beings who calls himself “pro-life” is going to have a real interesting trial on judgement day…..”
As will each of us have an interesting judgement day including you. Also anyone who has cooperated in even one abortion and has not repented.



report abuse
 

RCIAD

posted November 9, 2010 at 6:21 pm


Last night, Bush himself was quick to clarify that he shared his experience with his mother’s miscarriage to illustrate his relationship with his mother, and how that particular experience was sort of an eye-opener for him — his mother trusted him, a teenaged kid.
I don’t think his intention was for the pro-life community to disrespect that particularly intimate moment in his life, one he shared for the first time only after getting permission from his mother, by usurping it for their purposes.
It’s a telling anecdote, one that reveals his mother’s no-nonsense, practical personality and one that reveals a teen-aged boy’s awe that his parents see him as a responsible person. Let’s not turn it into an advertisement for the Pro-Life Movement(TM). That’s sleazy.
RomCath — you worry about your Judgment Day. Other people’s Judgment Day is not your concern. You’ve got plenty on your own plate to repent for. Clean up your own house first, eh?



report abuse
 

RCIAD

posted November 9, 2010 at 6:27 pm


@Klaire:
Not all environmentalists, or those concerned with climate change issues, or even all liberals are pro-choice. This isn’t environmentalism v. pro-life activism. It’s not an either/or. To imply that all those concerned with environmental issues are automatically pro-abortion and anti-life is ridiclously ignorant and does nothing to address the reasons why people choose abortion. Actually, that kind of dehumanzing diatribe is often the very reason some people feel abortion is the only option.



report abuse
 

Matt

posted November 9, 2010 at 6:52 pm


Klaire,
I don’t disagree in the least with Bush’s support of adult stem cell research and the gains it has made. I am glad he didn’t fund embryonic stem cell “research,” unlike Obama.
However, neither am I a utilitarian. While we should take heed of the numbers of abortions (staggering and horrendous as they most certainly are), that doesn’t mean we are okay to give Bush a break on Iraq. If you want to pursue other reasoning for elevating abortion over war, fine – but we ought to avoid the numbers game. If it were, the opposite, that thousands and thousands died each day in Iraq, and a few hundred or thousand per year via abortion, would we do well to lament and fight war and basically ignore abortion? I think not.
Secondly, I disagree that Bush made ‘gains’ in the pro-life movement. Bush embodies the b.s. of politics insofar as the Repubs – supposed pro-lifers – controlled all three branches of government for a time during his administration, yet for all their talk did quite little toward ending legalized abortion, whether legislatively or judicially. If they really wanted to change the country, they would’ve. But abortion-rhetoric as a platform has become too valuable to them for them to actually solve the problem. If you want to say Bush made gains or positive moves in the domain of stem-cell research, go for it. But Bush did not make gains in the pro-life movement: not if he pursued obviously unjust war and endorsed capital punishment.
“Conception until natural death” does not include killing on a battlefield, nor in an execution chamber.



report abuse
 

Klaire

posted November 9, 2010 at 7:00 pm


RCIAD that’s not what I wrote, or else I wrote it very badly. My point, that I have often made on this blog, is that one cannot be pro choice, and “authentically” pro “social justice”, regardless of how much money and food one gives to the poor. Pope Benedict even writes in his encyclical that even evironmentalists are phony (I’m paraphrasing of course) if they accept abortion while at the same time, being overly concerned with the environment. It’s simply incompatible to be pro abortion, which denies the basic human right to life, consequently, think that it really matters “to save the earth, or feed the hungry.” If life isn’t respected in its most vulnerable state, clearly, life isn’t respected, period, despite the theatrics to make it appear so.
You can take it to the bank that anyone who is pro abortion is a phony when it comes to all other social justice issues. I guarantee you there is a self serving agenda behind their ‘altruism’.
All said, we should all be good and reasonable stewarts of the earth, feed the poor, and cloth the hungry, in addition to protecting every human life, from the womb to the petri dish.
Lauren, I still hold fast that seeing abortions would make a big difference. One of the big reasons abortion is so accepted today is absolutely owed to the fact that we’ve been programmed to believe it’s all just a meaningless blob of tissue, unless of course, it’s a “wanted child”, then it’s a baby. Why do you think the left fights so hard against laws requiring all women scheduled for abortions to have sonograms? The rhetoric works as long as we never “see.”



report abuse
 

Klaire

posted November 9, 2010 at 7:12 pm


Matt you most certainly make reasonable comments, however I still have to disagree with you on regards to one major thing, at least in accordance with Catholicism, that you are overlooking.
Your quote:
But Bush did not make gains in the pro-life movement: not if he pursued obviously unjust war and endorsed capital punishment
Both war (just of course) and capital punishment are NOT intrinsic evils, unlike abortion, which ALWAYS is. Only God can judge GW Bush on if to the best of his ability, he did what he thought was best at the time and entered into a “just” war. I sure wasn’t a fan of it, neither am I a fan of captial punishment, but the more activist judges we get on the benches, I’m starting to have second thoughts for the ones who truly would be a great risk to society if given a light sentence.
As someone wrote earlier, which I totally agree with, Bush would intentionally hurt anyone. Even though I don’t agree with a lot of what he did, I suspect history in time will be kind to him, as he was certainly a president of conviction and courage.



report abuse
 

Tim H

posted November 9, 2010 at 7:48 pm


Bush also had a four year old a sister who died of leukemia when he was ten.
==
With regard to abortion, it will never end until contraception does. Catholics need to examine themselves
-Tim-



report abuse
 

Pam

posted November 9, 2010 at 8:44 pm


QUOTE: ” It would be completely false and illusory to defend, political, economic or social rights which do not comprehend a vigorous defense of the right to life from conception to natural end. When it comes to defending the weakest, who is more defenseless than an unborn child or a patient in a vegetative or comatose state? ” UNQUOTE – Pope Benedict
Back in 1995 the Republican controlled congress passed a law banning partial birth abortion. If you remember, it was fought tooth and nail by the Clinton Admin and the Democrat Party.
You might remember that there were a number of states that were controlled by Republicans that passed ant-abortion laws.
The Terri Schiavo case in 2005 came down to Republicans stating she has a right to live while the Democrat Party insisted that she die. Pres Bush gave an executive order to defund abortions WHILE Obama reinstated the funds for abortion. The Republicans have been very active against the Death Culture.
The Dems took over the House & Senate in Jan 2007, and unfortunately it has been down hill since then. This is due to Dems promoting bad candidates during their primaries or State Conventions. It is up to the Dems to make an improvement.



report abuse
 

HMS

posted November 9, 2010 at 8:48 pm


Matt:
I agree with much of what you say. As for me, I am becoming progressively skeptical of the pro-life stance of the Republican Party. It seems to me that it is becoming another party slogan like low taxes, small government. Moreover, it is very obvious to me that the U.S. Catholic Church is allowing itself to be in the pocket of the Republican Party. You can get an inkling of this in the attitude among some Catholics that a “real” Catholic must vote only for Republican candidates. (Thus, if I were living in New York State, I suppose that I would have had to vote for a Republican candidate for governor whose credentials and temperament I find repugnant and ludicrous – strong words, I know – or not vote at all.
Oops, but there was a woman candidate, who did not make a point of saying what her pro-life stance was. Maybe, I could have voted for her.)



report abuse
 

Steve

posted November 10, 2010 at 12:31 am


Klaire, you wrote that we must be concerned with “protecting every human life, from the womb to the petri dish.” I hope that was just a quickly written sentence, a typo, not a real statement of all that you believe a genuine “pro-life” movement should encompass.
Yes, unborn human life must be protected. But God also wants people not to be attacked (shock and awe) by an imperialist leader who desperately wanted to be a “war president” (which is what Bush proudly said he was in an interview with Tim Russert in 2004). Nor, I’m sure, does God want the state (in your name and mine) to stop a beating heart through the death penalty when we have (at least in the West) civilized ways to keep killers safely in prison. I’m guessing, in all sincerity, that you did not mean to suggest that only the unborn should be of concern to pro-lifers. (The problem is, though, that many in the pro-life movement do take that approach. They ignore victims of war, execution, and the handgun and assault weapons industry. GWB seems to be a poster child for that version of the pro-life movement.)



report abuse
 

Klaire

posted November 10, 2010 at 4:28 am


Steve thanks for the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, I do tend to type quickly and often with uncorrected typos. Had I taken more time to write, I would have said, “from the womb, to the petri dish, to natural death, including the comotose/vegatative and even those who suffer greatly as in end state cancer.
I already addressed this point of debate with Matt. Most certainly, an unjust war is tragic, as well as an execution of an innocent prisoner. None of us at this point in time have any evidence that Bush either entered into an unjust war (knowingly), or executed the innocent, both of which would NOT, unlike abortion, be intrinsic evils. Abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia are always intrinsic evils, and disregard for the weak and most vulnerable among us, unlike a criminal or even a soilder who volunteered to enter the military, knowing the risk and accepting the fact that in some cases, he or she could lose their life.
Even if history proves Bush to have been wrong, I among many will never believe that he intentionally risked the lives of Americans and allies (despite FREEING 25 million lives). On that same note, it’s most likely a given that many women, especially younger ones, have abortions without the slightest clue that it’s a great evil, just as many ‘infertile’ couples have IVF procedures, not fully realizing that IVF kills more innocent life than it will ever create.
Last but not least, the great paradox is that war is the result of sin, including “sin that isn’t recognized”, with the killing of innocent, defenseless lives leading the way. If we truly respected life at EVERY stage, it would be highly unlikely that we would even be engaged in a discussion about an “unjust” war.
If we want to blame anyone, maybe Bush isn’t the best guy, but all of us who failed to lead the way, (self included), as Catholics who were “given much”, and stayed or continue to stay silent in defense of not only the unborn, but all our collective sins of the culture counter to the teachings of Jesus Christ.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted November 10, 2010 at 7:43 am


“RomCath — you worry about your Judgment Day. Other people’s Judgment Day is not your concern. You’ve got plenty on your own plate to repent for”
RCIAD–I was responding to a judgmental comment if you would take the time to read before writing. And just what is on my plate that I will be judged for? Rather judgmental I would say.



report abuse
 

Ed Schneider

posted November 10, 2010 at 7:53 am


Is an execution a natural death. As Governor or Texas, he never met one he didn’t like.



report abuse
 

RCIAD

posted November 10, 2010 at 10:52 am


@Klaire
Once again, you take your point of view to an extreme. To declare that you can guarantee (prove) that anyone who is pro-choice and who supports a food bank, an environmental cause, or any other social justice cause is doing so for purely self-serving reasons, or is a complete phony undermines YOUR cause.
It also alienates anyone you might want to persuade to your point of view.
Your personal agenda seems to be to point out that YOU yourself are the only authentic, genuine pursuer of social justice and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you 100%, 24/7 on every other issue is a fraud. That’s clearly self-serving on your part.
You write these blanket, overly-generalized declarative statements about other people’s authenticity and sincerity (or lack thereof), yet you can’t prove them. That is, as you point out, very bad writing. If you were writing for publication, your posts would be tossed out on that alone — you can’t make ridiculous, unfounded, unprovable claims about other people and expect your own points to be taken seriously.
Are you really about pro-other-people’s-lives, or are you just pro-my-own-life-for-self-serving-purposes? Because it sure looks like the latter.
@RomCath
Are you claiming you’re sinless? That’s quite a statement.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted November 10, 2010 at 11:27 am


“Are you claiming you’re sinless? That’s quite a statement.”
Once again you should read before you write. Did I say anywhere that I was sinless? You stated that there is a lot on my plate for which I will be judged. Exactly what do you know about my plate? Look at your own.



report abuse
 

RCIAD

posted November 10, 2010 at 11:41 am


I do look at my own, which is why I’m telling YOU to look to YOUR own. You’re quick to judge, you’re quick to condemn, sneer, make snide comments, etc., to anyone with whom you disagree, yet you are oblivious to your own faults. From what I can actually SEE, here, from reading very closely, is that you are an extremely judgmental, uncharitable, unkind person. That, at the very least, is very definitely something on your plate.
Maybe you should cast fewer stones and look to Christ as an example for your behavior rather than the Pharisees.



report abuse
 

Klaire

posted November 10, 2010 at 12:36 pm


RCIAD everything I wrote is from the teaching of the Catholic Chruch, some of it, directly from the Pope (maybe you should start with reading Pope Benedict’s last encyclical).
Of course you don’t have to believe it, but I do remind you that this is a Catholic blog, and much of being Catholic is accepting the teachings of the CC.
It’s also very Catholic to be concerned for others, especially the least among us.



report abuse
 

RCIAD

posted November 10, 2010 at 12:47 pm


@Klaire
No. What you wrote is YOUR very biased and opinionated interpretation of what Pope Benedict wrote. He did not write what you are now claiming he wrote — that he can PROVE (guarantee) that anyone who supports a food bank or another social justice outreach program is doing so for absolutely self-serving reasons if that person is also pro-choice. He did not claim we could “take it to the bank” that all those who are pro-choice are phonies on all other issues.
That’s not paraphrasing, Klaire. That’s putting words in someone else’s mouth to serve YOUR purposes.
That was YOUR claim, not Pope Benedict’s.
If you’re going to begin your message to those whom you wish to convert by calling them self-serving phonies, why exactly would they listen to a word you have to say?
If you care about ALL people, you respect them as individual human beings regardless of their position, and especially if you hope to convert them.
Turning them into a less-than-human “other” in order to puff yourself up is actually anti-life.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted November 10, 2010 at 1:22 pm


“I do look at my own, which is why I’m telling YOU to look to YOUR own.”
I am quick to point out the error of those who disagree with official church teaching. That is what we are supposed to do. I don’t tolerate baloney. If you perceive that as sin, so be it.
What I see on your plate is someone who thinks he is smarter than anyone else including the church, someone who is contentious and pretty judgmental of people like Klaire. Perhaps you should redo the RCIA or is that just a monicker.



report abuse
 

Howard

posted November 10, 2010 at 2:02 pm


It does the pro-life movement no good to receive an endorsement from W in the same book in which he defends waterboarding. NO GOOD AT ALL. There is no single person in the US who say, “I always knew Bush was pro-life in his secret heart of hearts, but I only find that convincing now that I know he also favors ‘harsh interrogation techniques’.”
If, by some chance, someone already respected W but did not know he leaned in the pro-life direction, whose fault could that be? What would that say about Bush’s priorities in office?
So Bush opposes abortion. So, I believe, does Ahmadinejad. I would advise against making much of the support from either of these two men.



report abuse
 

RCIAD

posted November 10, 2010 at 2:42 pm


@RomCath
RCIAD has nothing to do with RCIA
Klaire is in error. I was correcting her. Why is it okay for you to correct those you believe are in error but not for anyone else?
Where have I indicated any disagreement with Church teaching? Pointing out Klaire’s error regarding how she interprets Pope Benedict’s words?
I can read Pope Benedict’s words for myself (and I have) and nowhere does he indicate the condescending attitudes Klaire exhibits. Nowhere. Quite the opposite, actually.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted November 10, 2010 at 2:57 pm


“Why is it okay for you to correct those you believe are in error but not for anyone else?”
RCIA, it is fine to correct when someone is certainly in error. I don’t correct people I BELIEVE are in error but only those who are IN FACT in error according to what the Church teaches and believes. It has nothing to do with opinion and interpretation.



report abuse
 

Klaire

posted November 10, 2010 at 3:14 pm


RCIAD Pam already posted on this thread an excellent quote from Pope Benedict. Allow me to reprint it from Pam’s post:
QUOTE: ” It would be completely false and illusory to defend, political, economic or social rights which do not comprehend a vigorous defense of the right to life from conception to natural end. When it comes to defending the weakest, who is more defenseless than an unborn child or a patient in a vegetative or comatose state? ” UNQUOTE – Pope Benedict
KEY WORDS: “false and illusory”
If you want to do cartwheel semantics, so be it, but “false and illusory” isn’t that far off from phony, if at all.



report abuse
 

RCIAD

posted November 10, 2010 at 3:55 pm


@Klaire
You’re pulling two adjectives out of context.
Benedict is not claiming (or, as YOU say, guaranteeing) that specific individual’s specific motivations regarding their social justice efforts are phony and self-serving if those individuals don’t include pro-life efforts as well.
He is speaking to the fullness of the Catholic position, not slamming individuals as self-serving phonies.
I’m not the one doing “cartwheel semantics”. You are.
Maybe you should read the encyclical, eh? It helps when you read ALL the words, and keep them in context. ;-)



report abuse
 

Tess

posted November 10, 2010 at 5:51 pm


It takes nothing away from a pro life stance because George Bush agrees with torturing prisoners.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, however he won’t have to answer to our God for advocating the killing of the preborn!



report abuse
 

elleblue

posted November 10, 2010 at 6:42 pm


Oh sure he’s pro-life. I guess dropping bombs on civilians in Iraq would point to that conclusion all right.
Americans just don’t get it, you don’t seem to recognize your own ignorance!



report abuse
 

Emily

posted November 10, 2010 at 7:45 pm


Tess- Maybe you don’t think torturing prisoners detracts from a pro-life stance…what about dropping bombs on civilians?
How many civilians have died in Iraq from US or allies? A LOT. Doesn’t seem very pro-life to me…



report abuse
 

Steve

posted November 13, 2010 at 12:34 am


For those who decree the death penalty only when they have proof that an innocent person has been convicted, keep in mind that EVERY execution stops a human being’s beating heart on purpose. That’s the state acting, with tax dollars, in your name and mine, to end a heartbeat (and a life) that God set in motion. You can’t claim to be pro-life when you endorse the deliberate taking of human life. Every execution is anti-life. (George W. Bush, as governor, thought the death penalty was a good thing. Tucker Carlson, himself a conservative, reported years ago on how he witnessed Bush mocking Karla Faye Tucker’s plea for mercy. Bush, during the first or second Bush-Gore debate, proudly talked about how his state executed people. That’s cold; that’s anti-life.)



report abuse
 

Klaire

posted November 13, 2010 at 7:00 am


Steve do honestly believe that the execution of Timothy McVeigh or S Husain was on par with the killing of a baby in the womb (all beating hearts)? From what you wrote one can make the leap that you do. In that case, let’s use Karla Tucker as an example in a scenario that she got out early for good behavior and moved in next to you and your family. Would you be ok with that, even if she had a “bad day” and took revenge on the neighborhood, including your family? Or, would you be the first to sign on the class action suit that the government had an obligation to protect you? How on God’s earth could you equate that with an innocent life in the womb or a disabled comatose “beating heart?”
I’m personally against the death penalty with the exception of extenuating circumstances, and always when there exists a possibility of danger to society, which isn’t very likely except for the now plethora of activist judges who are light on sentences, allowing hardened criminals to go back into society after a slap on the wrist.
For all of you who accuse Bush of his water boarding (LEGAL), torture, which of course is based on pain and suffering, emotional and physical, where is that same outrage for every sentient aborted baby (babies in the womb start to feel pain around 6 months)? If your argument is based on torture, then by the same logic, being burned with chemicals, stabbed in the head with scissors, having brains sucked out, or in some cases, the whole baby suctioned into a waste disposal (all LEGAL), is “at least” on par with water boarding.
Once again, it demonstrates the “false and illusionary” agenda driven self serving argument (in this case anti-Bush and/or pro abortion). If all of you who claim to be horrified at water boarding really cared about torture, you would be horrified at what is happening to about 500-1000 babies a day in America (based on a conservative estimate that most abortions occur before 6 months), compared to THREE total water boarding cases by Bush.
” It would be completely false and illusory to defend, political, economic or social rights which do not comprehend a vigorous defense of the right to life from conception to natural end.”_Pope Benedict XVI
Imagine if only one late term aborted baby a day had the same inalienable rights and human compassion many of you give to a suspected terrorist. For the record, let’s compare the “tortue numbers” , based on 8 years of President Bush.
Water boarding (suspected terrorists) __3 (as in 1, 2, and 3)
Abortions on sentient babies _3 million
And you guys think you aren’t phonies?



report abuse
 

Steve

posted November 14, 2010 at 1:31 am


I wish you hadn’t called Catholics and other Christians who are consistently pro-life phonies, Klaire. I haven’t called you a phony, for what’s worth. I’ve simply questioned the wisdom of a Catholic claiming that Bush is pro-life when he promoted the death penalty, an elective war, assault weapons, etc. (You can credit him with being pro-life in theory when it came to abortion — he talked a good game, though he did say as president that he wouldn’t think of pushing for a constitutional right-to-life amendment until a culture of life already existed. That doesn’t strike me as the definition of leadership. Yes, I’m cynical enough, I’m afraid, to think that Bush and most of the Republican leadership would rather use abortion as a “rally the troops” issue instead of doing much to actually reduce the number of abortions.) On one other issue, though — money for fighting AIDS in Africa — I will give Bush credit for actually walking the walk.
As for McVeigh, yeah, I do get your point. If ever there was a poster boy for the death penalty, he would be it. My church, however, teaches me not to let my outrage at a mass murderer get the better of me. McVeigh’s life should not have been ended — that’s the teaching of the Catholic church to which I belong. Keeping McVeigh in prison for the rest of a presumably long life would have been closer to a just punishment anyway (death was an easy out for him, in a sense, at least in secular, earthly terms). Yet even if killing McVeigh made many people feel better, that did not make it right. Let’s not go out of our way to defend the culture of death. Instead, let us be consistent in valuing life from the womb through old age — not just for some, but for all the human beings whom God has created. That’s what my church has taught me, and that’s what I believe.
Peace and God’s blessings to you.



report abuse
 

Klaire

posted November 15, 2010 at 7:29 am


Steve (I took a quick look at your blog), and admire that fact that you are seeking more understanding in the faith.
For what it’s worth, and from my own personal experience, you will never experience the true faith until you let go of the “cafeteria menu.” It’s when we let go and trust (in the teachings of the church), that the floodgates really open. It’s also the most freeing thing one can every do this side of the veil.
I feel quite sure the reason that you are upset with my reponse is that it’s imcompatible with some of your “cafeteria beliefs.” That’s the problem with cafeteria style, one key item “off the menu”, and the other items no longer look so appealing ! Everything the church teaches is intertwined, built upon the other teachings.
As for you disppointment in me in “calling all pro lifers phonies”, that’s not what I said. My point is that is, to use Pope Benedicts’s words, ” False and illusory” to claim merit in social justice when life isn’t defended in all of it’s states, especially the most vulnerable. Social justice starts in the womb and end with natural death, period.
You can take or leave my advice, but having been much like you, I decided to give obedience a “quick try”, (more so I could prove it wrong). I went to confession, daily mass, and gave up all my “sins” as a “trial” and decided to live as the chuch teaches (only for Lent, then back to the ‘good’ life). It was only meant for Lent, and as an experiment of sorts (nothing I am proud of). Little did I know at the time, that all Jesus every wanted was that first baby step of at least “trying.” He had me in 3 days of the Eucharist, and to this day, still trying best I can to “live the trial Lent.”
Since you dedicate a blog to “cafeterism”, you could influence a lot of people by giving the full menu a try. I suspect like me, you will be overwhelmed at what opens to you, as the Holy Spirit LOVES, and greatly rewards, obedience. It was only then that I had a clue as to who Jesus was, and how much he loves me.
God Bless!



report abuse
 

Terrig

posted December 6, 2010 at 12:08 pm


Klaire, your story sounds like mine. This past Lent I decided to not miss Mass on Sunday. (I also was a cafeteria Catholic.)After Easter, an inner feeling told me that I should just go all the time and not miss Mass anymore. After that came Confession and the Eucharist and I am now in full communion with the Church again all in less than a year. The Power of the Holy Spirit is amazing.



report abuse
 

Klaire

posted December 6, 2010 at 4:37 pm


Terrig thatnks so much for sharing that, that’s great! I am not suprised it happend so quickly, but you make my point. As the old saying goes, “When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.”
And when that teacher happens to be the Holy Spirit, look out; it’s INFUSION.
I hope Steve is reading, because cafeteria style is like table scaps vs the banquet. In reality, it’s simply unadmitted Protestantism. I have more respect for those who DO leave and at least call themselves Protestants, then trying to convince Catholics to “eat the scraps.” I only know it well because I was a caferteria “catholic” for way too many years.



report abuse
 

pc games,movies,games

posted October 7, 2012 at 5:15 am


Wow, marvelous blog format! How lengthy have you ever been running a blog for? you made blogging glance easy. The full glance of your site is fantastic, let alone the content!



report abuse
 

Заработай 2000р. за вечер!

posted December 27, 2012 at 8:24 pm


Fantastic website. Plenty of helpful info here. I am sending it to several buddies ans additionally sharing in delicious. And of course, thank you for your effort!



report abuse
 

anti wrinkle

posted April 28, 2013 at 5:52 am


Thanks for sharing your thoughts on overheard in the rectory.
Regards



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

This blog is no longer active
This blog is no longer being actively updated. Please feel free to browse the archives or: Read our most popular inspiration blog See our most popular inspirational video Take our most popular quiz

posted 10:42:40pm Dec. 12, 2010 | read full post »

One day more
A reminder: "The Deacon's Bench" is closed! Please enjoy the archives!

posted 11:26:20pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Meet Montana's married priest
Earlier this week, I posted an item about Montana getting its first married priest. Now a local TV station has hopped on the bandwagon. Take a look, below.

posted 10:29:55pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Big day in the Big Easy: 10 new deacons
Deacon Mike Talbot has the scoop: 10 men today were ordained as Permanent Deacons for the Archdiocese of New Orleans. This group of men was formally selected on the day the evacuation of New Orleans began as Hurricane Katrina approached. The immediate aftermath of the storm for this class would be

posted 6:55:42pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Gaudete! And let's break out a carol or two...
"Gesu Bambino," anyone? This is one of my favorites, and nobody does it better than these gals: Kathleen Battle and Frederica von Staade. Enjoy.

posted 1:04:10pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.