Washington D.C., Jun 23, 2019 / 04:12 pm (CNA).- This Sunday, in Catholic parishes across the country, one in four women sitting in the pews will have experienced severe physical violence in their own homes from their spouses or partners – including burns, choking, beating, or the use of a weapon against them. One in nine men will have experienced the same.
According to one priest who is an expert in the subject, priests in the U.S. are still not doing enough to address the issue.
“The Church has been complicit in this because we haven’t talked about it enough,” said Fr. Charles Dahm, a priest of the Chicago Archdiocese who leads its domestic violence outreach program.
Dahm was a priest at a large parish with a majority-Hispanic population near downtown Chicago for 21 years. During his time there, after hiring a counselor on his staff, he learned that many of his parishioners were victims of domestic abuse, he told CNA. He asked his counselor to train him in recognizing and responding to abuse, and he started to talk about domestic violence in his homilies.
“And the more I spoke about it, the more victims came to me,” he said. Word of Dahm’s parish ministry spread, as parishioners referred their relatives, neighbors and friends. Around the year 2000, the parish office was receiving an average of one victim of domestic violence every day, he said.
Today, he coordinates the Church’s response to domestic abuse at the Archdiocese of Chicago, educating and training priests and other Church leaders on how to prevent and respond to instances of domestic abuse. He travels to give homilies and workshops on the topic, and while he’s been to many parishes throughout his own archdiocese, Dahm said it has been difficult to get other dioceses to respond to his offers of help.
The clergy of the U.S., including the bishops, are largely ignorant about the existence of domestic violence, Dahm said.
“The studies show it’s rampant in the United States. Every pastor who stands up on Sunday looking out on his congregation – he is facing dozens if not scores of victims in his congregation in front of him, and he does not know how to speak to them.”
The ignorance surrounding domestic abuse has a variety of causes, Dahm noted. Priests have not been educated on domestic violence in the seminary, and so they do not expect to encounter it in the priesthood. If a priest does not talk about domestic violence, victims may not approach him about it, and he can therefore have a false sense that it does not exist in his parish. Priests are also overstretched and overworked, and can be weary about taking on new ministries, he added.
“It’s a real travesty that…the clergy is resistant to this topic,” he said.
Misunderstanding abuse as a Catholic
There can also be misunderstandings among Catholics – lay people and clergy alike – about the prevalence of domestic violence and how to respond to it within the context of a Christian marriage.
For example, Dahm said, it is a mistake to think that because couples are religious and going to church, they are less likely to experience or perpetrate abuse.
A 2019 study from the Institute for Family Studies and the Wheatley Institution of Brigham Young University found that while religion offers many benefits to couples, it unfortunately does not positively impact their rates of domestic violence.
“When it comes to domestic violence, religious couples in heterosexual relationships do not have an advantage over secular couples or less/mixed religious couples. Measures of intimate partner violence (IPV)—which includes physical abuse, as well as sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and controlling behaviors—do not differ in a statistically significant way by religiosity,” the study noted.
Other misunderstandings about how to respond to domestic violence come from an incomplete understanding of the Catholic teaching about the permanence of marriage, or the role of suffering in the life of a Christian.
Sharon O’Brien is the director of Catholics For Family Peace, an education and research initiative that is part of the National Catholic School of Social Service’s Consortium for Catholic Social Teaching at the Catholic University of America.
O’Brien told CNA that while marriage is meant to be a sacrament that lasts until the end of a person’s or their partner’s life, domestic violence can be a valid justification for a Catholic to seek at least physical separation from their spouse.
“Catholics I think are challenged to understand that abuse in a marriage is unacceptable,” O’Brien said. “But it’s sinful and it’s usually criminal.”
Greg Pope is the assistant general secretary for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, which recently held their annual Day for Life, a day set aside for raising awareness of various pro-life issues. This year, they chose domestic violence as the theme of the day.
Pope told CNA that domestic violence “fundamentally undermines the Church’s teaching on the inherent dignity of the human person and the complementarity of couples within a marriage.”
He said that Catholic couples experiencing domestic abuse should know that Canon Law, the governing law of the Church, addresses domestic violence, and states: “If either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult, that spouse gives the other a legitimate cause for leaving, either by decree of the local ordinary or even on his or her own authority if there is danger in delay.” (Can. 1153 §1.)
“The Church does not force anyone to remain in an abusive relationship,” Pope reiterated.
Furthermore, O’Brien said, Catholics can have a misunderstanding of the role of suffering in their lives, and some may think that the suffering they experience through domestic violence may be God’s way of “punishing” them for some other sin.
“Yes, suffering exists and yes, we can offer it to the Lord, but we’re not to seek suffering,” O’Brien said, and Catholics should not tolerate abuse in the name of suffering.
“The other big deal with Catholics is understanding that this is not punishment,” she added.
“Yes, maybe you had an abortion, or yes, maybe you all were engaged in relations before marriage…but experiencing domestic abuse is not punishment for some other sin, and you are called to address it, to figure out what to do,” she said.
How the Church responds to domestic abuse
In 1992, the Catholic bishops of the U.S. wrote “When I Call for Help: A Pastoral Response to Domestic Violence Against Women.”
In the document, the bishops clearly state Catholic Church teaching regarding domestic abuse. They also examine why abuse happens, how one can respond to it, and information on where and how abused women and men can seek help.
The document “was cutting edge in 1992 and is still incredibly relevant and appropriate,” said Fr. Dahm. It has since been updated, but only in very minor ways.
“As pastors of the Catholic Church in the United States, we state as clearly and strongly as we can that violence against women, inside or outside the home, is never justified. Violence in any form —physical, sexual, psychological, or verbal —is sinful; often, it is a crime as well. We have called for a moral revolution to replace a culture of violence. We acknowledge that violence has many forms, many causes, and many victims—men as well as women,” the bishops stated in the document’s introduction.
But while the document is excellent, it is still a “really well-kept secret” of the Church, Dahm said, in that many priests and Church leaders do not know that it exists. He said part of his work over the years has been to bring this document to the attention of priests and seminarians during his workshops on domestic violence.
Catholics for Family Peace is another key part of the Church’s response in the United States.
“All the major religions have a national office where clergy and leaders can be trained on domestic abuse, and so we’re it for Catholics,” O’Brien noted.
“We work with dioceses to implement the 20 strategies in the (bishop’s) statement and to create a coordinated, compassionate response to domestic abuse,” she said. They also host several awareness-raising events during the month of October, which is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Lauri Przybysz, co-founder of Catholics For Family Peace, told CNA that their mission extends beyond education and training for clergy and leaders to “education for engaged couples as they prepare for marriage, for them to understand what a healthy relationship means for their marriage, and just facts about domestic violence that a lot of people aren’t aware of.”
“We actually have an education module that we can share with marriage preparation leaders… [that] has a little questionnaire that a couple can take to say, to identify: ‘Is there something in my relationship that could be better?’” she said.
They also educate teens on healthy dating and relationships, and they compile good secular resources that clergy can use too, because many of them do not have anything in them contrary to the Catholic faith, Przybysz said.
O’Brien also said that the archdioceses of both Chicago and Washington, D.C., have modeled some of the best responses to domestic violence.
Laura Yeomans is the program manager for the Parish Partners Program at Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. The website for the program includes a homily on domestic violence, a downloadable packet for pastors responding to domestic violence, definitions and explanations of domestic violence and Church teaching, as well as links to emergency resources for victims, among other things.
Yeomans and her team connect with priests and families at the parish level when they are notified about cases of domestic abuse, she said.
“We go out to the parish setting and we meet individually with families who are suffering domestic abuse,” Yeomans said.
Basic do’s and don’ts of responding to domestic violence
While a natural response for pastors or Catholics who learn about a case of domestic abuse may be to call the police, Przybysz warned against it. If a perpetrator knows they have been found out, their violence could escalate to the point of killing their victim.
“It’s about walking beside someone, giving them information about where they can find safety, when they decide to make the move,” she said.
Yeomans seconded this advice. “When you’re talking with family suffering, domestic abuse, it’s very important that we not go in with an agenda,” she said.
The first thing to do is listen, Yeomans said, and to say: “I believe you.” Next, she said, ask: “What can I do? How can I help you? What step would you like to take?”
“It’s very important not to say, ‘You should forgive him,’” she said, because this gives the victim the false impression that they must continue enduring the abuse in the meantime. Forgiveness may come eventually, Yeomans said, but the first priority is the safety of the victim.
“Forgiveness is not permitting the abuse to continue,” she said. “It is not allowing yourself and your children to be in danger.”
Spreading awareness of domestic violence, and of the resources available, is one of the best things priests can do for their parishioners, Fr. Dahm said, because then they will know where to turn for help. He said he found it especially true among Hispanics and Latinos, especially those who had recently come to the United States and prefer going to the Church for help.
“It is absolutely true that Hispanics prefer to go to their parish,” he said. “They feel more welcome, they feel safer, that was why in our parish we were so successful – people came to us from all over. I think that had a lot to do with the fact that people wanted to go to a place they trusted.”
Yeomans said that besides speaking about domestic violence at Mass, priests should find out what resources are available to them locally. Once they know what domestic violence hotlines and resources are available, they can print flyers with information and hang them in parish bathrooms, and put informative inserts in their parish bulletins.
Another thing that Yeomans has seen priests do is to raise the question about domestic violence and healthy relationships during times like baptism class, when couples are already at Church to receive some education and information.
Pope said that in the UK, the bishops’ goals for having domestic violence as the theme for their Day for Life was to raise awareness of the issue, to raise additional funds for resources, and to make domestic violence culturally unacceptable.
Fr. Dahm added that he is willing to travel throughout the United States to preach and give workshops on domestic violence in parishes.
“If there are bishops in dioceses who are interested, just tell me, and I will go there,” he said.
By focusing on domestic violence, among other issues, as important pro-life issues, Pope said the bishops hope to help their people follow God’s call in the Gospel of John more closely: “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”
If you or a loved one are experiencing domestic violence, call the national domestic violence hotline at: 800-799-SAFE (7233) or 800-787-3224 (TTY). For more information, go to www.thehotline.org.
Domestic violence resources through the Archdiocese of Chicago are available at: https://pvm.archchicago.org/human-dignity-solidarity/domestic-violence-outreach
Domestic violence resources, including the pastoral response packet, are available through Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. at: https://www.catholiccharitiesdc.org/familypeace/
Catholics can also visit Catholics for Family Peace or For Your Marriage for additional information.
[…]
Yesterdays judgement on abortion drugs shows quite clearly that Sen. Finkelstein was wrong, the dogma DOES NOT live loudly in E.C. Barrett! Like the supposed red wall myth, the prolife leanings of her and Cavanagh are just that: A MYTH! she should reflect on her decision before Sunday, or did the fear of the mob get to her? A shame and pox on them all, the exception being judges Alito and of course, the great Clarence!
Horrific as it sounds but I think there is such a thing as abortion fatigue.Here in Ireland there is a movement to further liberalize abortion law. Many good people who believe abortion to be evil have given up the fight and it is easy to see why. Abortion was legalised by the will of the people. All msm is pro choice the church threw the towel in and the battle and war appear won. It is not right but I do think many now think it is down to conscience and God will have the final word.
Hi Alice I am Irish & somewhat agree with you. But late term abortions need to be banned & the fight must continue. Many people support this so-called right to choose, but forget about a females right to be born. Females suffer horrible deaths in the womb. And its so-called womens organisations who support/advocate & demand their deaths through abortion. Quite hypocritical.
Has his position actually evolved? Return of the abortion rights issue to the States was, when he assumed the presidency, his, as well as Supreme Court Justice Alito’s position, the jurist who wrote the majority Opinion. As well as the realistic opinion of most lettered Catholics, Republicans.
Certainly, it would be best if abortion were prohibited altogether. Although the striking down of Roe is a realistic beginning with the prospect of changing the majority mindset of a nation. As well intended as Marjorie Dannenfelser is, it isn’t prudent to attack the person responsible for overturning Roe, and hopefully beginning the process of changing minds and hearts.
Father, with all due respect I must take issue with your position, “Certainly, it would be best if abortion were prohibited altogether.” Of course we pray that all abortions are unnecessary. However, I would consider medical conditions as the exception… emotional/physical reasons for an abortion. If my innocent 10 year old daughter were raped, I would not abandon her by forcing her to carry the fetus of the rapist. I would support a families decision with their doctor’s for a woman whose life is threatened by an ectopic pregnancy, or intrauterine infections that happen from infections that start in the vagina and travel to the uterus.
Catholics must reject all frivolous abortion. Given the use of abortion as woman’s health does not state any exceptions. The Church has been reticent to vocally allow for medical and emotional exceptions.
We pray that one day the word abortion will no longer be a part of our vocabulary.
“Catholics must reject all frivolous abortion.”
Please define “frivolous.”
And read some of the many secular publications (print and online) and listen to the many liberal TV/radio broadcasts featuring pro-choice activists. (Have a barf bag and your Maalox ready, as well as your Rosary and Kleenex to cry into.)
You will learn that many women in the U.S. consider ALL of their reasons, including their education, their career, their current relationship with a man, their weight, their salary, their home, their city or town, their plans for a big trip, their retirement plan, etc. as SERIOUS reasons not to have a baby just now.
Most “woke” women today and the many organizations and online sites that shape their opinions, believe that there is no such thing as a “frivolous” reason to avoid an abortion.
ALL reasons, including “I don’t want to gain weight” are considered legitimate and serious reasons to choose abortion. ANY attempt to deprive women of this “CHOICE” is a dangerous act, and those who advocate limiting access to abortion are extremists who must be “stopped,” or even criminals who must be imprisoned.
Don’t kid yourself and don’t give any ground, not even the “rape exception”, over to the “pro-choice” crowd. ALL abortions kill a human being. There are people today who were “rape babies” who denounce abortion because they like being alive and are grateful that their mother chose to let them live.
Dear Mrs. Whitlock. Your response leaves me aghast. Your well thought out position on the subject reflects a depth I will not challenge. However, my grasp of English may help US with the following definition…
Webster: ADJECTIVE, frivolous, not having any serious purpose or value for life. I may have used “abortion on demand” or “woman’s total disregard for the fetus”.
Thank you.
Well-stated, Mrs. Whitlock. The Church’s teaching on abortion is crystal clear and supremely compassionate, but many Catholics wrongly believe that they can ignore the Church’s moral teaching and substitute their misguided self-righteous immoral rationale for permitting direct abortions in certain circumstances.
As indeed the Church rightly teaches, there is absolutely no legitimate moral reason that would permit any direct abortion. The oft-cited circumstances of pregnancy via rape or incest, as hideous as these are, do not rise to the level of permitting the murder of the innocent child in the womb. Interestingly, morally compromised people who support such exceptions invariably resort to the bogus “burden” and/or “unfairness” arguments to try to justify murder of the innocent child in the womb, and they always wrongly present their views as morally superior in their hideous advocacy of murder.
Thankfully the Church has remained steadfast in its teaching. Part of this teaching involves the moral reasoning known as double effect, and this can also confuse people who do not learn the basic elements of the approach while preferring their own ignorance over clear Church teaching. Under this principle, a mother’s serious life-threatening medical condition can be treated with the understanding that such treatment will likely result in a most unfortunate and most regrettable side effect of the fetus not surviving the procedure, but in no way, shape, or form is the fetus to be directly killed (direct abortion) in the process, and the good effect of the treatment of the mother must not come about from or through the death of the fetus.
Because of such circumstances wherein the child is indirectly killed, unthinking people wrongly accuse the Church of hypocrisy in “permitting direct abortion in some circumstances but not others,” but an honest review of the Church’s teaching and application of the teaching also clearly demonstrates why the teaching is morally sound, and no direct abortion is ever involved.
Well-stated, Mrs. Whitlock. The Church’s teaching on abortion is crystal clear and supremely compassionate, but many Catholics wrongly believe that they can ignore the Church’s moral teaching and substitute their misguided self-righteous immoral rationale for permitting direct abortions in certain circumstances.
As indeed the Church rightly teaches, there is absolutely no legitimate moral reason that would permit any direct abortion. The oft-cited circumstances of pregnancy via rape or incest, as hideous as these are, do not rise to the level of permitting the murder of the innocent child in the womb. Interestingly, morally compromised people who support such exceptions invariably resort to the bogus “burden” and/or “unfairness” arguments to try to justify murder of the innocent child in the womb, and they always wrongly present their views as morally superior in their hideous advocacy of murder.
Thankfully the Church has remained steadfast in its teaching. Part of this teaching involves the moral reasoning known as double effect, and this can also confuse people who do not learn the basic elements of the approach while preferring their own ignorance over clear Church teaching. Under this principle, a mother’s serious life-threatening medical condition can be treated with the understanding that such treatment will likely result in a most unfortunate and most regrettable side effect of the fetus not surviving the procedure, but in no way, shape, or form is the fetus to be directly killed (direct abortion) in the process, and the good effect of the treatment of the mother must not come about from or through the death of the fetus.
Because of such circumstances wherein the child is indirectly killed, unthinking people wrongly accuse the Church of hypocrisy in “permitting direct abortion in some circumstances but not others.” However, an honest review of the Church’s teaching and its application also clearly demonstrates why the teaching is morally sound, and no direct abortion is ever involved.
Although your judgment may be understandable, it is nonetheless emotionally-based and logically indefensible. It’s not the baby’s fault how he/she was conceived. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
With all respect the emotional let out is a piece of string. A spot on the face of an ordinary person is annoying but to a supermodel it is devastating. Abortion is the head of a rotten plant who’s roots need a thorough root and branch clear out. All of us hold some guilt for a society where a ten year old could be raped. It goes back to acceptance of wide spread filth, societies who hold a two tier morality for men and women, neglect of children, diminished respect for life, the list goes on. Abortion will never disappear until a truly Christian society is at least seriously attempted. I understand your perspective, but even contemplating such a fate for a ten year old should make all of us double down on attempts to clean up our own backyard at least
Sorry morgand your analysis is wrong..you state that all abortions should be illegal and then hive reason to not do that…ectopic pregnancy has always been treated as a serious condition even before 1973 to terminate results in that the doctor has 2 patients to care for and unfortunately on life is sacrificed for the life of the othet…that is not abortion…also emotional distress is not a reason to murder an innocent life..the same for rape…however I would make an exception but encourage the victim to choose life by praising her decision thanking her for her sacrifice and choosing adoption as an end good…we should always protect life….period
Ronald:
Just a bit of a clarification is needed. The death of a fetus during a procedure to help the mother must only come about indirectly to coincide with Catholic Moral teaching. As such, regarding the ectopic pregnancy example you mention, if you say the child is sacrificed, an assumption can easily arise that the child is directly killed in the process in order to save the mother. This is not the case. The child’s death is a regrettable side effect of treating the mother. The Principle of Double Effect is what the Church employs in such situations, but always keep in mind that the direct killing of the child to save the life of the mother is never approved by the Church as it would be an immoral act.
There are also no exceptions for rape, incest, or anything else. Exceptions excuse murder for the benefit of another, and they cannot be approved. Thankfully, the Church is crystal clear on this teaching even though many Catholics are unfamiliar with significant parts of this teaching, and other Catholics have wrongly convinced themselves that some exceptions are morally acceptable when they are actually quite despicable and flat out wrong.
Agreed, Father!
Thank you for being a clear voice in the discussion. No one but Trump got Dobbs done; it was due to his Supreme Court appointments. Seems like some who have commented are unaware of the facts: all optional abortions are prohibited by Church law. You want this to apply nationally? Then get busy at the state level and make it happen.
Trump is right, in a sense.
Under the Constitution, each State can decide whether a live birth of the victim is required if causation of death can lawfully be proved, or whether the clearance of an earlier life stage is sufficient. At common law, a child in the womb cannot (save under statute) be a victim of a crime of violence – but if injured in the womb, and afterwards born alive, then the defendant is guilty of murder if the child subsequently dies.
Only a State can legislate to the effect that the death of a child in utero can be a criminal homicide and that causation of the death in utero admits of lawful proof. It is not within the power of the Congress of the United States to remove such legislation or prohibit its application in court.
The fact that causation of death is not proved (or cannot lawfully be proved) does not assist a defendant arraigned of attempted murder – this is a crime under Federal law as well as under the law of several States.
Feinstein. More to the point, we are still trying to pretend that Donald Trump is some sort of savior when the reality is that his candidacy has been a narcissistic farce from the beginning. If we still want a two party system the Republicans need to repair once again to the little white schoolhouse in Racine.
Ann, you are right about the savior, Trump. Seems that he conveniently switched to Pro-life when he decided to run for the Presidency. It was then that we Catholics were duped. We ignored his continued prolific lying, narcissism, power hungriness, insurrectionist with the insanity of denying Biden’s fair election by enticing the invasion of our US Capitol. Today, Trump has entered the 2024 run for his disgraced former tenure.
Moreover, Trump’s recent statement that he would support the states assumption of abortion. That would cause a “patchwork” of control.
Excerpts: “It was the abortion issue, poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on no exceptions, even in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother, that lost large numbers of voters,”. It was my understanding that our Church supported the exceptions of rape, incest and the mental and physical health of the mother.
“It was my understanding that our Church supported the exceptions of rape, incest and the mental and physical health of the mother.” As for rape, incest and mental health of the mother–NOT true! As for the physical health, the church’s teaching is a bit more complicated, and I hope I’m doing it justice–but it boils down to abortion being excusable (although not justifiable) if it is the UNintended result of treatment for the mother’s medical condition. But it can never, under any circumstances, be the intended result of any treatment, even for a serious maternal medical condition.
Funny how no one listened to this back in 2016. I guess he got it done and sadly to many liberals his position is still horrid but it should be to truly pro life people too, but sadly in America it seems that rather than wanting abortion gone Trump and co just want it far away from them. What sucks is much like his fellow candidates in 2016, he’s just like them. Also, I think he used us like they have for years. Maybe we need to vote with our feet and either go to another party or actually create a real culture of life and not just one where the minimum becomes the maximum.
I think it’s time we moved past Trump. He was never more than a populist. He supported pro-life people when he thought it was politically advantageous and he’ll abandon us the moment he thinks it will help him somehow. It’s time conservatives rallied behind a dependable candidate with less baggage who can win comfortably in 2024 instead of maybe squeaking in 49% to 48%. We thank him for his service and for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, but it’s time to upgrade to a better candidate.
I m hoping he and DeSand run together so we can knock back Biden, UNMASKED NEWSTONED, and Whitmer, amongst others
Trump and DeSantis cannot run together, P and VP from the same state are not allowed.
Mark: Actually, there is no constitutional provision against a presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate coming from the same state. There is, however, a funky situation involving how the electoral college operates, and it could cause a rare but significant problem in a very close election involving the total electoral votes. This is also where the ongoing myth of “there cannot be a presidential and vice presidential candidate from the same state” originated. In fine, the Constitution prevents the electors from voting for both candidates from the same state as the electors, so it only impacts one state. All of the electors from the other 49 states are free to vote for both candidates, but in the state where both candidates on the same ticket are residents of that state, each elector can vote for either the prez candidate to be the president, or they can vote for the vp candidate to be vice president, but not for both.
Again, in a very close election, this rule could cause a serious problem, and so to avoid the rare possibility, it is prudent to have a ticket of candidates from different states. Of course, if it is assumed that having candidates from the same state will lead to a blow-out where splitting the electoral votes between the VP and Prez candidate in their home state will not alter the final outcome, then that would be considered a reasonable risk to take.
All that being said, it is highly unlikely that Trump would select DeSantis or anyone else from Florida as his running mate, so this issue will not be in play.
Sorry, I am a Republican and want to win in 2024. However, many GOPers do not support Trump. They feel, as I do, that he lost us the race in 2022. The Teflon Donald With the court calendar, he carries to much potential criminal baggage.
Andrew, agree with you with one minor exception, i.e., “squeaking in with 49%.” Trump probably can win some Republican primaries due to their “winner take all” rule even if the winner gets far less than 50% on the vote. But he can’t win in the general election. Couldn’t get anywhere near 49% of the vote. But apart from that nitpick, you’re absolutely right. Time for the Republican Party to move and stop losing election after election.
In earlier notes I insisted on challenging the 15-week assumption and other assumptions and that there should be no giving in or wrong cooperation!
US pro-life has always been the vanguard for no exceptions. Why I have so admired you! The 15-week compromise, propositional or temporary, is not that; and I am standing in solidarity instead, with what I know the truth to be. Integralism handicaps the topic philosophically and thus politically; and makes it so much easier for other topics to get carried off, such as we see now with the abortion pill.
But integralism also misapprehends the meaning of abortion in legal circles and in doing that is giving the judges the free pass all over again.
Listen! I must reprimand my friend!
Listen! Listen outside the box.
Listen! Apprehend!
Abortion is crime of murder: intention to eliminate a known pregnancy. The stage is irrelevant, what matters is evidential knowledge.
THAT is law.
But law also recognizes criminal negligence not just murder. So that if a child is born deformed as a result of the pill, the people are liable both in tortious negligence and in criminal grievious bodily harm (“GBH”) notwithstanding that at the time of prescribing and taking the pill there was no conception or knowledge of any particular conception. If the infant then dies, manslaughter. THAT is law.
THAT is law. The rest is gibberish killing and maiming.
This is about JURIDICAL RESPONSIBILITY or integrity. It was the problem with Roe and it remains the problem with Dobbs. The JURISTIC BASES are still very wrongly being rooted up/flouted/bypassed/de-structured/carved up and left as -somehow- “unknown”; not responsibly acknowledged and effected as JUSTICIAL DUTY.
So that now the Supreme Court is in effect saying JURIDICALLY that there can be no such thing as tortious negligence and/or GBH in the use of the pill. Which is just absurd and stupid. Rubbish!
AND that abortion is for the States (Dobbs) but the abortion pill is for the Supreme Court (Danco). Which is self-cancelling or meaningless.
In its own way this description of things proves how Trump can not lead the charge. But is pro-life America going to let us down too?
No! No! No! No! No! NOT MY FRIENDS! NO!
US pro-life can not / may not negotiate abortion. Do not do it. Bargaining over babies lives and for their flesh is the work of the Devil who needs to establish his position in every related dimension including inside pro-life milieu.
Satan is the Big Snake in the Garden of Redemption. “What did God say? Did God really say that?”
“Of course you may bargain about the babies, it is all to the good. Yes? Good lord in the morning, God knows your eyes will be opened and you will avoid being an ideologue. You will be able to study Dante and Peguy in peace and allow the atheists like Scalfari enough time to interview the Pope and eventually repent with no-one getting flustered. Babies have nothing to do with that. Or do you want to be a temptation to the Pope for him to rebuke you as the gattopardo with the diaper? It will all be all your fault.”
Kudos to Marjorie D. for being willing to start criticizing Trump. If he gets the nomination he would lose to Biden again and likely drag Senate and House candidates down to defeat with him, resulting in one party, Democrat, control of the entire US government. DeSantis could beat Biden, Haley could beat Biden, Tim Scott could beat Biden, Chris Christie could beat Biden. But the Bozo Base says it wants Trump again. Somehow the party of Lincoln needs to be wrested back from this suicide pact with the most self-centered man ever to head a major party, and from his ignorant fan base (not the millions who voted for him because, duh, he was better than Hillary and Joe) who can sway many primaries but appear politically clueless about the end result. Pro-lifers are a major force and can be key if they back DeSantis or some other candidate who could win the general election and ask their supporters to leave Donald behind in the dust of history.
Mark, Trump has a maniacal MAGA base and illegal dark money support. In the first week of announcement for 2024 he raised more than $150K. He continues to be the GOP gold-standard. But, the GOP has many more drags on its integrity. McCarthy sold his soul to the extreme and dangerous volatile right for the Speakership. After a round of kisses the toxic rebels, Marjorie Taylor Green, Paul Gosar, Laure Bobert and Jim Jordan, etc. emerged to take powerful committee assignments. DeSantis, with his blatant autocratic control of Florida could be even more radical.
We can’t let 2020 happen again. We must seek a voice that encourages American unity by getting past Trump and his past .
Let’s get this straight.
Roe was about The Constitution. It goes like this “Congress has certain and enumerated rights ….” Nowhere in The Constitution is there a right to abortion. There is, however a right to life. in Roe the Warren Court in 71, I think it was, found some clause about privacy and created a right to abortion. Not unlike Dreed back before the Civil War, where the head judge found that you could own a human being via private property.
So, don’t try to blame this on Trump. When he says it’s a matter for states (or in fact Congress) the point is that Congress and the states make the laws of the land. They can of cause make an amendment to The Constitution. No one in the GOP or DNC dare touch the abortion issue. It goes back to early progressivism and Mageret Singer. And their idea was that it was a violation of the woman’s right to deny her the right to kill her baby. “My body my choice”
Now, that is of cause a disgusting idea. And they are overlooking a dilemma about the right to life of the unborn child. But femminism has taken this in as some kind of women’s rights.
Trump is not perfect. He’s done a lot of things and said even more. He’s come a long way, and if it wasn’t for Trump’s nomination of constitutionalists to the Supreme Court, Roe and quite a few other creative findings in The Constitution would still be in place.
Btw. Joe didn’t win the election of 2020. They cheated and got Joe on the podium to take the oath of office. Likewise in 2022 they cheated and only lost The House by a narrow margin and gained one vote in The Senate. In both elections, Trump and the GOP won in a landslide.
So the USA is run by an illegitimate government, a regime. With the help of God and his Son, Jesus Christ, all these crimes and many more will be exposed and Trump will be reelected for a third time in 2024.
SBA is proposing a federal law allowing abortion up to the 15 week mark? This is a pro-life position? This is more pro-life than Trump’s leave it up to the states position?
We have abortion not because of anything the POTUS or SCOTUS did or didn’t do, but because we are an unchaste society that barely tolerates babies but very much tolerates fornication, contraception, porn, IVF and the like.
I don’t think the 501c3 pro-life groups are really able to come to grips with that in any meaning way, since they likely get a large percentage of their monies from people who favor contraception and sterilization (and IVF).
.
I am guessing Protestants no longer have the theological foundation to condemn contraception or the other sexual sins. Rome and the bishops seem to be disinterested in that fight as well–indeed, they seem to be doing all they can to join with the Protestants in overturning nearly 2,000 of condemning the various sexual sins to lead us into the child sacrificing culture in which we find ourselves.
I supported Trump with my money, my mouth, and my vote twice; he was clearly better than either of the ghouls who opposed him. But let’s be clear, he is far, far from perfect and there are very legitimate reasons to oppose his politics. To enumerate just a few: [1] he often hangs around with disreputable scoundrels like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo and then compounds this error by appointing these people to offices of great power; [2] his thinking about both abortion and sodomy is muddled at best, a reflection of political calculation rather than solid principles; [3] try as he may (and he’s never really tried at all), he cannot escape responsibility for Operation Warp Speed, one of the greatest blunders, perhaps even one of the greatest crimes, in human history. Excepting his SCOTUS appointments — and they too can be questioned to some degree — Trump’s political history is rather shabby at best and was mostly erased in one day by strokes of the pen of the fake Catholic fake president who followed him into the Oval Office. Knowing all this sorely tempts me to close my wallet, my mouth, and my front door on voting day for the 2024 campaign.