Denver Newsroom, Nov 8, 2020 / 04:18 pm (CNA).- No phones, no Facebook, no Amazon, no Netflix.
When Fr. Josh Mayer entered St. John Vianney’s Seminary in Denver, his first year looked a little more monk-like than what some might expect.
“It had to do with getting weaned off of the damaging effects of media, and then being able to see them for what they are when you come out on the other side of that,” Mayer told CNA.
Besides fasting from their phones and the internet, the seminarians also went on a commerce fast, where they were not allowed to make purchases. The only day the men did not observe these fasts was Saturday, when they could call friends and family or buy things they needed.
The year was also peppered with spiritual direction and counseling, as well as spiritual retreats, culminating with a 30-day Ignatian retreat. There were classes, but no grades. Book assignments, but no reports.
In January, after Christmas break, the men were sent out two-by-two for 30 days, with about $80 and a backpack, heading to unbeknownst-to-them mission destinations, for what is known as a poverty immersion. Mayer can’t say where he went, so as not to ruin the surprise for other seminarians, “but I can tell you that it was awesome.”
These experiences were some of the key parts of Spirituality Year – the introductory year of the seminary program at St. John Vianney in Denver that is designed to give men a break from academics for a more intense focus on their spiritual and human formation.
“They call it a year of the heart,” Mayer said. “So a year to focus on your relationship with the Lord and to engage in deeper prayer than probably anybody who’s in spirituality year has ever engaged in before.”
When Mayer entered his spirituality year 10 years ago, the Denver seminary was one of the only ones in the United States with such a program. Today, more seminaries throughout the country are looking to St. Vianney’s program as a model for their own “propaedeutic,” or preparatory years.
The authority in the Church that governs the formation of seminarians is the Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy, which provides its guidance for formation in the Ratio Fundamentalis Instituionis Sacerdotalis (or “Ratio”).
Following this “Ratio,” each country’s bishops’ conference then prepares their own “Ratio Nationalis.” In the U.S, this document is entitled “The Program of Priestly Formation.” The current edition of this document suggests a “propaedeutic period” for seminaries, but the U.S. bishops’ conference told CNA that the document is being updated, and such a period will become the norm in U.S. seminaries with the new edition.
According to the Vatican’s 2016 Ratio, the purpose of such a period “is to provide a solid basis for the spiritual life and to nurture a greater self-awareness for personal growth.”
“It must always be a real time of vocational discernment, undertaken within community life, and a ‘start’ to the following stages of initial formation,” the Ratio states.
Pope John Paul II wrote in the 1992 document “Pastores Dabo Vobis” (I Will Give You Shepherds) of the growing need for propaedeutic years for seminarians, due to the rapidly changing cultural, technological and ideological landscapes of the modern world.
“[T]here is spreading in every part of the world a sort of practical and existential atheism,” he wrote, in which “the Individual, ‘all bound up in himself, this man who makes himself the center of his every interest’…even as a wide availability of material goods and resources deceives him about his own self-sufficiency.”
Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver noted in a recent document, “New Men in Christ,” that it was such an observation that motivated St. John Vianney Seminary to provide a spirituality year for the past 20 years.
“Coming from an environment of that promotes self-centeredness, our young men are given the daunting task of hearing and responding to their vocational call. In many cases, they receive and respond to their call with decidedly marginal resources – having an underdeveloped knowledge of themselves and their relationship with Christ,” Aquila wrote.
“Like the apostles, prior to entering the intellectual and pastoral formation stages of seminary, our young men need a time for their hearts to be formed by Jesus. This human and spiritual formation allows them to live with Jesus through prayer, away from the
cacophony of the voices of the world,” he added.
Fr. John Kartje is the rector of Mundelein Seminary in the Archdiocese of Chicago, which just started its second year of a spirituality program.
Kartje said while the program took a lot of its inspiration from Denver, including the media fast, one of the ways in which it differs is that it is “housed deliberately not on the seminary site.”
“It really is in the nature of the year itself, that you’re sort of stepping away. You’re stepping outside of that busy-ness of the life you’ve been living,” he said.
Furthermore, he said, it disengages the men from some of the “dramas” of seminary and Church life, and allows them to dive deeply into community life with one another.
“It allows the men to disengage a little bit from, for lack of a better word, the drama that sometimes can go on in the Church today,” Kartje said. “‘Bishop X said this.’ Or, ‘Did you see what was in that blog post?’ Dialogue is important, but there’s a toxicity in the Church today – by no means is it pervasive, but it’s there. And for someone who’s just exploring a vocation, the evil one can really take advantage of those kinds of things and just completely take us off focus.”
The men live together in a house with one full-time priest, and other priests who come for spiritual direction or to give talks. The men are fully in charge of the house’s day-to-day duties like cooking and cleaning, Kartje said, which gives them an opportunity to grow.
“It’s the men living together in community, which is much more than getting along with your roommate or something like that. It really is having that common bond as a disciple of Christ, as a man who is discerning this vocation and learning what it means to be the body of Christ in the truest sense of the word,” he said.
“But also, it does mean to take responsibility for your share of the work, to collaborate. Men in a presbyterate are not best friends primarily. They may have a good friend, who’s a priest in the presbyterate. But how do we all get along? How do we respect each other? How do we handle fraternal correction? All those kinds of things.”
Echoing the sentiments of Pope John Paul II as well as the Ratio, Kartje said that men who enter seminary are often coming from environments that are antithetical not only to prayer and the Christian life, but to any kind of quiet in their lives, which is another thing the spirituality year aims to provide.
“Nevermind having a deep Catholic experience or identity,” Kartje said, often the men lack deep experiences with “even just introspection.”
Spirituality year allows them “to unplug from the frenetic pace of our culture and really learn what it means to spend time in quiet with the Lord,” he said.
Mayer added that in his experience, the time to step back from academics was an important part of the spiritual year, because otherwise, it could be easy to view the seminary as just another academic track, with homework to study and tests to pass.
“For instance, if you have a candidate who’s coming right out of high school or right out of college and going into seminary, you’ve spent most of your life in class. And…you tend to have an expectation of seminary as more classes. Then you get to seminary and most of your time is actually spent on academics,” Mayer said.
“So it’s very possible to just see your preparation for the priesthood as being primarily a mental exercise, something that you’re still competing with others for the best grade. The seminary just becomes in the stream of everything else you’ve done, which is primarily, for Americans, school.”
Mayer said men in spirituality year still take classes on things like the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and they read some spiritual classics, like “Story of a Soul” by St. Therese of Lisieux and “Confessions” by St. Augustine.
“You’re going to have some classes, but they’re actually just for you, they’re just for your sake, for the sake of your flock,” he said.
Another important goal of the spirituality year is to help men with their human formation by providing ample opportunities to meet with psychological counselors, and to examine their own weaknesses and shortcomings.
“There’s a surprising amount of human formation issues that a spiritual bandaid cannot fix,” said Fr. Brady Wagner, who serves as the director of the spirituality year for St. John Vianney in Denver.
“I think doing a Spirituality Year or a propadeutic year gives men opportunities to really seriously consider their history, their life, their own experiences in light of Christ and find some freedom,” he said. “And if a guy is not free, then he’s able to see that, okay, this is probably not going to be a good fit.”
Wagner added that most men throughout the course of the year take advantage of the psychological counselors that are available to them, and even if they don’t engage in formal therapy, almost all of them receive some kind of growth counseling.
“It really is…having to get foundation in a life of prayer and having done some good work in terms of healing. Maybe there’s some things that I’ve suffered in my life, in my past experiences. (Seminarians can) have them healed and integrated into their lives according to God’s providence,” he said.
It helps seminarians come to a deeper recognition that God has “been with me my whole life, and I know what it means to walk with him.”
This spiritual and psychological work allows men to enter into the rest of the seminary with as free of a heart as possible, Wagner said, or to discern that their call is elsewhere – either somewhere else in religious life, such as the monastery, or to marriage.
“There is a heavy emphasis on vocational discernment, but only after having sensed the truth of my baptismal dignity and identity,” he said, which “naturally opens up vocation becoming clear. And so I think a lot of guys really have a sense of clarity by the end of the 30-day spiritual exercises. They have some clarity about their vocational discernment because the exercises themselves really have an orientation towards making an election to a state of life.”
Because spirituality year has a heavy emphasis on discernment, there are often men who choose to leave seminary during that year, Wagner added.
“It’s not uncommon, where guys leave throughout the year. We just had a guy after his three-day retreat, he had a deep sense of confirmation that the priesthood is not his call, and a lot of joy and a lot of freedom around that. So he just left recently and, and that’s actually a good sign. A lot of guys go through that.”
Mayer said spirituality year serves as a good “check” on men’s motives and expectations for entering seminary.
“I’ve seen a lot of really beautiful things happen in spirituality year in both directions, from men deciding that this is not the call, but they’re grateful for the time they were able to have, or men really hunkering down and realizing that this is where the Lord’s leading them. Spirituality year is also really good for revealing deeper issues and wounds that we have,” he said.
Mayer said he learned lessons during his spirituality year that he continues to carry with him in his priesthood.
“I think having nine months of being really privileged to live like that certainly helps us analyze the way that we live our lives, and helps us make choices to preserve those things that are most important, like prayer and relationship – relationship with God and relationship with other people,” he said.
“Something like spirituality year, where you have an intensity of prayer and relationship and intensity of focus, you don’t have all the distractions that you normally have to blame your issues on,” he said.
This can sometimes bring up deeper issues that men may have been avoiding or that went unrecognized before entering seminary, Mayer added, like anxiety issues or other psychological problems.
“It’s good for them to show up and reveal themselves and how deep they go, in a safe context and safe environment, rather than 15 years later at a parish, when you have a nervous breakdown or something,” he said.
Overall, he said, he thinks things like a spirituality year or a propaedeutic experience lays a strong foundation for seminarians for further discernment.
“A lot of things are revealed when you spend a lot of time in prayer and sinking down into your heart.”
[…]
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.