I have no intention of stopping this blog, much less deleting my posts (it is dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary and to God's Merciful Love), but I think it would be prudent for me to postpone updating it, for now.
As evidenced by the pun in the title of the blog ("pair o' dimes" = paradigms), I began it with a clear idea of what I wanted this blog to be about: philosophy rooted in Catholic Christianity.
Lately I'm less certain of exactly what it's to be about. While I believe I'm called to the priesthood, at present I am not a priest--and while we need proper catechesis, I don't know exactly what is my place at present, as a layman. I want to be clear on the mission of this blog before I continue it again--otherwise, I might as well not have it up. And for that I need to pray and discern.
Indeed, now is the time when I really want to discern in more earnest than ever before. In a little over a month will come the soonest that I might enter candidacy for the Secular Franciscan Order, and (while this need not be incompatible therewith) I have felt a strong calling to the priesthood for just over three months now. I want to rely more on Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother, because the fog hasn't completely cleared from my mind and heart, and I only have so much time left--I cannot afford to waste it.
Please pray for me in this regard, and I will continue to pray for you.
Until then, thank you for being with me. God bless you.
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Friday, January 18, 2019
Margaret Sanger
In light of the March for Life going on today, in anticipation of the anniversary of Roe v. Wade on Tuesday, January 22, I've decided to mention something that happened to me a few days ago (I don't remember the exact date).
In the past, I did a bio on this blog about Norma McCorvey, the real-life "Jane Roe"--just after she died on February 18, 2017. I felt it was only just to point out who the real woman was, lest she be reduced to a mere talking point in the abortion debate--which is death to the possibility of arguing that one is "pro-life" and supports "personhood".
After Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey (the nominal plaintiff of that Supreme Court decision) became a pro-life Catholic Christian--and even went so far as to try to use what clout she had as "Jane Roe" to have Roe v. Wade overturned. But they wouldn't do it. Not even for Jane Roe herself would they overturn Roe v. Wade. This goes to show that the decision had nothing to do with justice for Norma McCorvey and everything to do with using the woman in order to get abortion supported by a Supreme Court decision.
As disgusting as it is, however, even worse (as near as I can tell) is the oversimplification of Roe v. Wade and the abortion issue, by those who identify as "pro-life", leading to a refusal to see "Jane Roe" as anyone other than "the enemy", as the plaintiff in the Supreme Court decision that welcomed abortion. Norma McCorvey suffered enough in her life without a refusal to recognize her conversion--and I certainly hope she is in heaven now.
A few days ago, I think partly influenced by my learning about her, I decided to look up the wikipedia bio of Margaret Sanger, the founder of the institution now called "Planned Parenthood". In so doing, I was forced to eat humble pie, because I had listened to what other people said about the woman rather than look into the truth for myself. I am ashamed of myself for that, and I am sorry--and I want to set the record straight.
Like far too many pro-lifers, I made the mistake of reducing Margaret Sanger to a mere talking point in the abortion debate, rather than the human being she actually was. And in the process, I accepted fully the oversimplified view of her that I saw depicted by these people: I believed not only that she was pro-abortion but that she was a racist, a white supremacist favoring eugenics on that basis (preventing "undesirable" races from reproducing). And I used this as an argument to point out that we embrace what we called evil when the Nazis did the same thing.
That is to my discredit. Margaret Sanger denied being racist, and the Christian thing to do is to be charitable and assume the best possible of someone given the evidence. Therefore I will not judge her as a racist or "white supremacist", and I will not risk calumniating a dead woman who cannot defend herself just to win talking points in the abortion debate. It's grossly immoral (calumny is against the Eighth Commandment against bearing false witness), and it's hypocritical because it's dehumanizing, just as treating unborn babies as less than human is dehumanizing. And dehumanizing is the seed of the worst evils.
But what surprised me even more, and what I especially need to set the record straight on is this: Margaret Sanger was ANTI-abortion. You read that right: Margaret Sanger, the founder of the organization now called Planned Parenthood, which many pro-lifers have called "Worse than Murder, Inc.", was OPPOSED to abortion.
Was she pro-contraception? Yes, no doubt about that. She admitted it. The trouble is that, like far too many, she mistakenly thought that allowing contraception would lead to fewer abortions rather than more--she failed to see the connection between contraception and abortion. She thought that contraception would simply lead to fewer unwanted babies being conceived, and therefore that there would be fewer unwanted babies to abort in the first place. She failed to recognize that unnatural blocking of the natural workings of the human body, when acting on its natural appetites, is very much related to the unnatural taking of a life already conceived. This remains true despite the fact that abortion is far worse than contraception, as contraception does not involve taking a life. (Indeed, I've read online that contraception prevents the conception of something like five times more babies than are killed by abortion.)
But her mistake notwithstanding, the fact remains that Margaret Sanger was against abortion. That means that the abortion mill that Planned Parenthood has become originates from a different quarter than Margaret Sanger--similarly to how Roe v. Wade originates from a different quarter than the real-life "Jane Roe". In other words, a pro-abortion faction essentially infiltrated and hijacked Planned Parenthood, to transform it into something that its founder never intended and was categorically against. Whatever mistakes Margaret Sanger made in supporting contraception and founding the organization in the first place, it is not her fault that these people did this.
And again, it is dehumanizing and therefore against the pro-life movement (and so hypocritical) to reduce the woman to a mere talking point against abortion, even stooping to smearing her with falsehoods like claiming that she was a racist white supremacist, or that she was pro-abortion herself. It's grossly evil and it does nothing to help the pro-life movement or its victims, born or unborn.
I thank the Lord for inspiring me to familiarize myself with Margaret Sanger. My original intent was simply to acknowledge that we cannot fight the enemy without knowing the enemy, and in the process I learned that--while she wasn't a friend--she was not the specific kind of enemy that I thought she was.
********
To end on a more pleasant note: this is speculation only, so please don't take it for more than it is. But after a conversation with my friend Eric my mind was brought to a possibility which, if true, would greatly be to God's glory--and which seems to me to at least have a chance of being true.
First: December 28 is the Feast of the Holy Innocents. This refers to the babies slaughtered at the command of Herod in a vain attempt to kill the Christ Child. The fact that they have a feast day in the liturgical calendar suggests that these babies are in heaven.
Second: the Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes not only ordinary baptisms (by water), but also two extraordinary baptisms (by desire and by blood). If a catechumen tragically dies before receiving a water baptism, then the fact that he desired to receive a water baptism--and would have received one had he not been prevented by death--is regarded as his having received the grace of the sacrament despite not receiving the matter and ritual of the sacrament. In other words, the late catechumen was baptized by desire--and is regarded as having gone to heaven, just as much as if he'd died just after receiving a water baptism. As for baptism by blood, this has to do with being martyred for Christ--even one who hasn't received a water baptism can be martyred for Christ, and can be regarded as having gone to heaven, baptized by blood. (Also, infant baptism by water counts--I was baptized as a baby.)
Putting the two together: while the Holy Innocents were too young to have accepted Jesus or to have been morally responsible for their actions (they were no older than two, and some were younger), this suggests that the position of the Church is that the Holy Innocents were baptized by blood, martyred for Christ--hence why they have a feast day acknowledging them as being in heaven. And the fact that infants can receive a water baptism suggests that baptism by blood can apply even to babies for whom baptism by desire is impossible.
In short, the point is this: even if a baby is killed without being baptized by water, if he was killed in martyrdom for Jesus Christ he can still go to heaven just as much as if he had received a water baptism.
If you've already figured out where I'm going with this, a caveat is in order: unborn babies are too young to receive a water baptism. You cannot be "born again" without having been born the first time. I have no doubt that this is why Satan targets the unborn, to prevent them from receiving the sacrament. And given this, it would seem to make sense that the unborn are also too young to be baptized by blood. (Even if not, all infanticides aren't equal--only martyrdom for Christ makes it a baptism by blood.)
But one thing is for sure: just as contraception and abortion are linked despite being categorically different, so too is infanticide (murder of born babies) linked to abortion. I have read many times about babies who were born being killed anyway, on the grounds that they were meant to be aborted, but the abortion was botched. To put it in a more truthful and loving way, these were abortion survivors, surviving abortion to be born, and were punished for their survival by being victims of outright infanticide--not abortion, not "feticide", but infanticide by any definition. In other words, categorically the exact same thing that Herod ordered.
I don't know exactly what qualifies as martyrdom for Christ when the martyr is too young to choose martyrdom--the most I have to go by is that Herod's order was meant to ensure that the Christ Child Himself die, and the Holy Innocents were "collateral damage" as far as he was concerned, and this counted. But I don't know if every abortion survivor who is then killed in infancy counts as a martyr for Christ. The most that I can think of is this: pro-abortionists have what I can only describe as a religious zeal to continue to allow abortions, and to have the law recognize them, which strongly suggests that they are literal human sacrifices.
I don't know enough about the faith to know if this counts as martyrdom for Christ. But at least I think that, without more knowledge, there is room for interpretation (but ask someone in the clergy, versed in the faith, rather than me). And IF any of these babies killed in the name of abortion are indeed being martyred for Christ--baptized by blood--then they are going straight to heaven. And if that's so, this is greatly to God's glory.
The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. Already because of what's happened in the last 100+ years of history, there are significantly more martyrs in heaven than there were before World War I, and so the Church's flourishing has been catalyzed by the shedding of their blood, as it began with the shedding of the Blood of Christ on the Cross. And so if infant victims of abortion are in heaven, martyred for Christ, then this only helps the Church as they can intercede on behalf of us on earth and in Purgatory. In other words, even out of this terrible evil that cries out to God for justice, God can derive a great good. That's how powerful and how loving God is.
But again, the point is that abortion is still a sin against the Fifth Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." Even if any victims are being sent straight to heaven, the act itself is gravely sinful, as is the desire to commit the act, whatever the intention in doing so. And therefore those who commit abortion are endangering their souls, as well as those who tolerate abortion being legal and people making money off the blood of babies, born and unborn. God tolerates it so that He can derive a greater good from it; He absolutely does not will it. I just think that it would be a great irony to His glory if these victims are able to go to heaven and join the communion of saints, interceding for us on earth and in Purgatory. Certainly such intercession would help this abortion mill to end more quickly.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, Empress of the Americas and Protectress of the Unborn, pray for us!
********
Thank you for being with me. God bless you.
In the past, I did a bio on this blog about Norma McCorvey, the real-life "Jane Roe"--just after she died on February 18, 2017. I felt it was only just to point out who the real woman was, lest she be reduced to a mere talking point in the abortion debate--which is death to the possibility of arguing that one is "pro-life" and supports "personhood".
After Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey (the nominal plaintiff of that Supreme Court decision) became a pro-life Catholic Christian--and even went so far as to try to use what clout she had as "Jane Roe" to have Roe v. Wade overturned. But they wouldn't do it. Not even for Jane Roe herself would they overturn Roe v. Wade. This goes to show that the decision had nothing to do with justice for Norma McCorvey and everything to do with using the woman in order to get abortion supported by a Supreme Court decision.
As disgusting as it is, however, even worse (as near as I can tell) is the oversimplification of Roe v. Wade and the abortion issue, by those who identify as "pro-life", leading to a refusal to see "Jane Roe" as anyone other than "the enemy", as the plaintiff in the Supreme Court decision that welcomed abortion. Norma McCorvey suffered enough in her life without a refusal to recognize her conversion--and I certainly hope she is in heaven now.
A few days ago, I think partly influenced by my learning about her, I decided to look up the wikipedia bio of Margaret Sanger, the founder of the institution now called "Planned Parenthood". In so doing, I was forced to eat humble pie, because I had listened to what other people said about the woman rather than look into the truth for myself. I am ashamed of myself for that, and I am sorry--and I want to set the record straight.
Like far too many pro-lifers, I made the mistake of reducing Margaret Sanger to a mere talking point in the abortion debate, rather than the human being she actually was. And in the process, I accepted fully the oversimplified view of her that I saw depicted by these people: I believed not only that she was pro-abortion but that she was a racist, a white supremacist favoring eugenics on that basis (preventing "undesirable" races from reproducing). And I used this as an argument to point out that we embrace what we called evil when the Nazis did the same thing.
That is to my discredit. Margaret Sanger denied being racist, and the Christian thing to do is to be charitable and assume the best possible of someone given the evidence. Therefore I will not judge her as a racist or "white supremacist", and I will not risk calumniating a dead woman who cannot defend herself just to win talking points in the abortion debate. It's grossly immoral (calumny is against the Eighth Commandment against bearing false witness), and it's hypocritical because it's dehumanizing, just as treating unborn babies as less than human is dehumanizing. And dehumanizing is the seed of the worst evils.
But what surprised me even more, and what I especially need to set the record straight on is this: Margaret Sanger was ANTI-abortion. You read that right: Margaret Sanger, the founder of the organization now called Planned Parenthood, which many pro-lifers have called "Worse than Murder, Inc.", was OPPOSED to abortion.
Was she pro-contraception? Yes, no doubt about that. She admitted it. The trouble is that, like far too many, she mistakenly thought that allowing contraception would lead to fewer abortions rather than more--she failed to see the connection between contraception and abortion. She thought that contraception would simply lead to fewer unwanted babies being conceived, and therefore that there would be fewer unwanted babies to abort in the first place. She failed to recognize that unnatural blocking of the natural workings of the human body, when acting on its natural appetites, is very much related to the unnatural taking of a life already conceived. This remains true despite the fact that abortion is far worse than contraception, as contraception does not involve taking a life. (Indeed, I've read online that contraception prevents the conception of something like five times more babies than are killed by abortion.)
But her mistake notwithstanding, the fact remains that Margaret Sanger was against abortion. That means that the abortion mill that Planned Parenthood has become originates from a different quarter than Margaret Sanger--similarly to how Roe v. Wade originates from a different quarter than the real-life "Jane Roe". In other words, a pro-abortion faction essentially infiltrated and hijacked Planned Parenthood, to transform it into something that its founder never intended and was categorically against. Whatever mistakes Margaret Sanger made in supporting contraception and founding the organization in the first place, it is not her fault that these people did this.
And again, it is dehumanizing and therefore against the pro-life movement (and so hypocritical) to reduce the woman to a mere talking point against abortion, even stooping to smearing her with falsehoods like claiming that she was a racist white supremacist, or that she was pro-abortion herself. It's grossly evil and it does nothing to help the pro-life movement or its victims, born or unborn.
I thank the Lord for inspiring me to familiarize myself with Margaret Sanger. My original intent was simply to acknowledge that we cannot fight the enemy without knowing the enemy, and in the process I learned that--while she wasn't a friend--she was not the specific kind of enemy that I thought she was.
********
To end on a more pleasant note: this is speculation only, so please don't take it for more than it is. But after a conversation with my friend Eric my mind was brought to a possibility which, if true, would greatly be to God's glory--and which seems to me to at least have a chance of being true.
First: December 28 is the Feast of the Holy Innocents. This refers to the babies slaughtered at the command of Herod in a vain attempt to kill the Christ Child. The fact that they have a feast day in the liturgical calendar suggests that these babies are in heaven.
Second: the Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes not only ordinary baptisms (by water), but also two extraordinary baptisms (by desire and by blood). If a catechumen tragically dies before receiving a water baptism, then the fact that he desired to receive a water baptism--and would have received one had he not been prevented by death--is regarded as his having received the grace of the sacrament despite not receiving the matter and ritual of the sacrament. In other words, the late catechumen was baptized by desire--and is regarded as having gone to heaven, just as much as if he'd died just after receiving a water baptism. As for baptism by blood, this has to do with being martyred for Christ--even one who hasn't received a water baptism can be martyred for Christ, and can be regarded as having gone to heaven, baptized by blood. (Also, infant baptism by water counts--I was baptized as a baby.)
Putting the two together: while the Holy Innocents were too young to have accepted Jesus or to have been morally responsible for their actions (they were no older than two, and some were younger), this suggests that the position of the Church is that the Holy Innocents were baptized by blood, martyred for Christ--hence why they have a feast day acknowledging them as being in heaven. And the fact that infants can receive a water baptism suggests that baptism by blood can apply even to babies for whom baptism by desire is impossible.
In short, the point is this: even if a baby is killed without being baptized by water, if he was killed in martyrdom for Jesus Christ he can still go to heaven just as much as if he had received a water baptism.
If you've already figured out where I'm going with this, a caveat is in order: unborn babies are too young to receive a water baptism. You cannot be "born again" without having been born the first time. I have no doubt that this is why Satan targets the unborn, to prevent them from receiving the sacrament. And given this, it would seem to make sense that the unborn are also too young to be baptized by blood. (Even if not, all infanticides aren't equal--only martyrdom for Christ makes it a baptism by blood.)
But one thing is for sure: just as contraception and abortion are linked despite being categorically different, so too is infanticide (murder of born babies) linked to abortion. I have read many times about babies who were born being killed anyway, on the grounds that they were meant to be aborted, but the abortion was botched. To put it in a more truthful and loving way, these were abortion survivors, surviving abortion to be born, and were punished for their survival by being victims of outright infanticide--not abortion, not "feticide", but infanticide by any definition. In other words, categorically the exact same thing that Herod ordered.
I don't know exactly what qualifies as martyrdom for Christ when the martyr is too young to choose martyrdom--the most I have to go by is that Herod's order was meant to ensure that the Christ Child Himself die, and the Holy Innocents were "collateral damage" as far as he was concerned, and this counted. But I don't know if every abortion survivor who is then killed in infancy counts as a martyr for Christ. The most that I can think of is this: pro-abortionists have what I can only describe as a religious zeal to continue to allow abortions, and to have the law recognize them, which strongly suggests that they are literal human sacrifices.
I don't know enough about the faith to know if this counts as martyrdom for Christ. But at least I think that, without more knowledge, there is room for interpretation (but ask someone in the clergy, versed in the faith, rather than me). And IF any of these babies killed in the name of abortion are indeed being martyred for Christ--baptized by blood--then they are going straight to heaven. And if that's so, this is greatly to God's glory.
The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. Already because of what's happened in the last 100+ years of history, there are significantly more martyrs in heaven than there were before World War I, and so the Church's flourishing has been catalyzed by the shedding of their blood, as it began with the shedding of the Blood of Christ on the Cross. And so if infant victims of abortion are in heaven, martyred for Christ, then this only helps the Church as they can intercede on behalf of us on earth and in Purgatory. In other words, even out of this terrible evil that cries out to God for justice, God can derive a great good. That's how powerful and how loving God is.
But again, the point is that abortion is still a sin against the Fifth Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." Even if any victims are being sent straight to heaven, the act itself is gravely sinful, as is the desire to commit the act, whatever the intention in doing so. And therefore those who commit abortion are endangering their souls, as well as those who tolerate abortion being legal and people making money off the blood of babies, born and unborn. God tolerates it so that He can derive a greater good from it; He absolutely does not will it. I just think that it would be a great irony to His glory if these victims are able to go to heaven and join the communion of saints, interceding for us on earth and in Purgatory. Certainly such intercession would help this abortion mill to end more quickly.
Our Lady of Guadalupe, Empress of the Americas and Protectress of the Unborn, pray for us!
********
Thank you for being with me. God bless you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)