'Jane Roe' a Catholic?

Yes, it's true, 'Jane Roe' of Roe v. Wade is indeed Catholic. I'm not sure if the name she goes by now Norma McCorvey is a changed name or a married name, but she was baptized into an Evangelical church in 1995 and joined the Catholic Church in 1998 and is fervently Pro-Life.

She has written a book, 'Won by Love' and has a website www.roenomore.org.

Am I just in the dark here and everyone else already knew this or is this a surprise to others?

kencraw on 05.07.04 @ 05:27 PM PST [link]

Pro-Choice sticking point

I'm definitely a pro-life person (just ask my Mom and brother, both pro-choice) and I stand behind those who try to overturn Roe v. Wade. But there's been one pro-life argument lately that I've been struggling with: Can someone be pro-choice but personally opposed to abortion? The general thought is that if you believe the fetus is a life, how can you turn your back on that life? To use an parallel, it doesn't matter if someone is pro-slavery, they shouldn't have the "choice" to have slaves because we believe that every person deserves freedom from slavery.

My sticking point is this: Can we say with assuredness, outside of our religious beliefs (and this is key), that life begins at conception? I'm not so sure we can. Most of the arguments for that belief are religiously based. So, while I believe that life does begin at conception, am I going to far by forcing that belief on others? Am I forcing my religion on them?

While I don't make this argument (as I said, I'm pro-life), I can see how someone could in good conscience make this argument. On the other hand, the thought of this being a reasonable argument troubles me to the core. It just feels SO wrong.

Anyone have any guidance? Is there a good non-religious argument for conception being the ONLY possible moment that a life begins? There are three times that different people suggest life begins: conception, when sustaining life outside the womb is viable, birth. Why must conception be, from a non-religious perspective, be the only possible moment life begins?


Where this all comes from is that I think we as Catholics must be VERY careful when it comes to religious freedom. We're on top of the list of faiths that various groups are trying to legislate away. The current California debacle regarding Catholics Charities being forced to provide birth control to employees is an example of this.

To illustrate the point a different way, what would you choose if given the following choice:

-Choice 1: Roe v. Wade stands as is but full religious freedom is kept in tact.
-Choice 2: A coin flip determines whether abortion is legal or not but if it is legal every employer must pay for them (if they want it for birth control, it's only a matter of time...).

I'd be very tempted to take choice #1. Religious freedom is by far the MOST important constitutional right we have. We should be willing to make a LOT of legislative compromises that we don't like to ensure that this fundamental right is preserved. This is particularly true when we consider that history has proven that morality can't be legislated. As long as our Catholic faith can legally be practiced without government interference, we can continue to evangelize people and help them to NOT choose the wrong, but legal, choice. On the other hand the minute we're force to compromise our faith because of the legal ramifications, we left with trying to legislate morality, which as previously stated, doesn't work. We MUST maintain the legal right to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matt 28:19-20) I can't stress enough that his is THE most important right we have.

So to finally come full circle, as tempting as it is to make what seems like a very obvious distinction about when life begins, we must be confident that it is indeed NOT a religious distinction. We must be vigilant in ensuring that the government is never allowed to make a religious decision, even if it is one in our favor.

So I return to my original question: does someone have a good argument, that is in no way based upon religion, that definitely demonstrates that life begins at conception? Answering this question puts to an end the "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but believe in the right to choose" argument.

Or, if you'd like to take a different route: Is there are good argument why religious freedom should be ignored (since when life begins is one if we can't get a good answer for the previous question) for the abortion issue?

Or to sum up the entire entry in one word: HELP!?!

kencraw on 05.07.04 @ 02:44 PM PST [link]

Quote of the Day

"You either accept the whole thing or don’t accept it at all."

-Mel Gibson speaking of the Bible in his interview with Diane Saywer before the release of "The Passion"

kencraw on 05.07.04 @ 11:17 AM PST [link]

Pledge drives and "matching" pledges

Our local Catholic radio station is having a pledge drive right now, which is a good thing. But they're using a technique that I've never liked and am doubly peeved because a local Parish is using the same technique to raise money for their also worthy Parish Center.

The technique is the "matching" pledge. I'm sure you all know it. Some one has made a pledge for some large amount, but it requires that everyone else collaboratively pitch in a "matching" pledge. Usually for a hard-sell, they also put a time limit on it.

It just feels WAY too dishonest. Does this person actually plan to NOT pledge the money if there isn't the "matching" pledge? If so, what the heck is with that? Isn't it a part of our faith that we shouldn't be acting based on how others are living up to Christ's commands? Shouldn't they be giving even if no on else is willing to donate?

If on the other hand, the money is going to be given irrelevant of any "matching" donations, shouldn't the organizing entity avoid lying about it trying to sucker someone of their money? Even if the money is going to a good cause, aren't the means by which the money is raised important too?

To magnify why this bugs me is that there are plenty of techniques to raise money which although corny or "inventive", they don't involve lying. The "goals" technique (our goal is to raise $5K this hour) or the "free gift" technique (If you donate $200, you'll get this unique collectors CD!) or the "guilt trip" technique (think of the children!), or the "comparison" technique (that's only $1.11 a day! (breakdown $400 a year to $33.33 a month to $1.11 a day) combined with the "breakdown" technique (think of how much you spend every day when you buy your coffee and donut!). With all of these techniques and others, do you really have to resort to lying?

One of two things is true: I'm either a lone reed in the wind on this one or just over-reacting, because no one else seems to notice/care. Which is it? Isn't it just rediculous?

kencraw on 05.06.04 @ 07:12 PM PST [link]

Quote of the Day

'Conservative readers ask...

"Why do you pick on conservatives so much?"

Please take a number and get in line behind my liberal readers who want to know why I pick on liberals so much.'

-Mark Shea on his blog

kencraw on 05.06.04 @ 06:15 PM PST [link]

Republican, Catholic and Pro-Abortion = free ride?

This opinion article makes the point that while many conservative Catholics are quick to jump down Democrats throats for their Pro-Abortion stances (like John Kerry), they seem to shy away from Repulbicans in the same boat. He explicitely mentions Arnold Schwarzenegger, New York Governor George Pataki and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

While the tone of the opinion is somewhat biased the other way, I have to agree with his point. There is a little hypocracy going on here. The only thing I can think of that contradicts this issue is that as Republicans, they'll be working with and being checked by lots of other Republicans who are pro-life. If the Pro-Abortion Republican wants to keep his Republican friends, he/she's going to have to carefully watch their step when voting on Abortion related issues. On the other hand, a democrat with the same mindset will have a blank check to continue supporting abortion. I think this is particularly important for the executive branch.

On the other hand, since many of the other issues that the Catholic Church supports are more Democrat friendly, one could argue that Catholics should be willing to give a Pro-Choice democrat a little more breathing room on the Abortion issues.

In any case, I think we all ought to be careful not to be hypocritical and rebuke ALL who stand for the murder of innocent children, whether their political offiliations are Democratic, Republican, Green, or otherwise.

kencraw on 05.04.04 @ 08:21 PM PST [link]

The pinacle of holiness: altar servers

After reading another article about a Catholic politician and their views that contradict Church teaching, I was struck by a trend I've seen in these types of articles, not just recently but as long as I can remember. It seems that everytime the media references a public figure and are trying to 'beef up' their Catholic credentials, it always seems to go something like this: "Mr. X, who takes their faith very seriously and was an alter server growing up..."

What is it with the media thinking that the pinnacle of all holiness being summed up in being an altar server? Of course it is a wonderful way to serve The Church as a child, but I wouldn't want to go to Vegas with someone's holiness based on their service as an altar server. For crying out loud, my stinking Athiest dad was an altar server for years and he talks about it like it was a joke. How many children are altar servers not because they care that much for their faith but because of the guidance of their parents? How many parents talk their kids in to being altar servers not because they are really goaling for holiness but they feel guilty about their lack of faith guidance that they're giving their children? It is probably the most inaccurate measure of someone's faith I can think of. (OK, that's exagerating, but you get my exasperated point!)

Any thoughts? Why does the media think being an altar server is the key sign of holiness?

kencraw on 05.04.04 @ 08:09 PM PST [link]

Quote of the Day

“We must participate in Christ’s suffering to participate in His redemption”

-St. Ignatius of Loyola

kencraw on 05.04.04 @ 08:00 PM PST [link]

Thoughts on today's Gospel reading

Today's Gospel reading is a short one, but so clear. How can it be more simple?: The followers of Jesus hear His voice.

So, do we hear His voice? I think there can be two reasons we might be able to say no and both are troublesome. The first is the most obvious: we don't hear a voice. Or what voices we hear, we don't know. This can be those of us who are searching for God and don't know if we've seen Him. The second is the more troubling: the voice we hear is not Christ's. The sheep of other flocks, follow their shepard just as much as Christ's do.

So for those of us who hear, how can we be sure we're hearing Christ?

I would respond that while there are many indicators, none of them are conclusive of their own right. We could say we follow the scriptures, but many would argue that the scriptures should be interpreted differently or are the wrong scriptures. We could say we belong to Christ's Church, but that only proves that there are fellow people who believe what we believe, whether or not it is what Christ would have us believe.

In the end, it is only our Faith that can tell us we're following Christ, nothing else. I believe that Christ founded the Catholic Church and He continues to guide the Church through the Holy Spirit. By following His Church, I follow Christ, and I hear his voice in the world today.

kencraw on 05.02.04 @ 08:50 AM PST [link]

Quote of the Day

'Jesus said:
"My sheep hear my voice;
I know them, and they follow me.
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.
No one can take them out of my hand.
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all,
and no one can take them out of the Father's hand.
The Father and I are one."'

-John 10:27-30 and today's Gospel reading

kencraw on 05.02.04 @ 08:38 AM PST [link]