President Obama, Notre Dame & Abortion
Do not judge, so that you; may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? . . . You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye (Matthew 7 1-5)
The country, especially the campus of Notre Dame and the Catholic church, are in an uproar that President Obama is going to South Bend, Indiana to deliver the commencement address. Some of the conservative wing of the Republican Party and so-called conservative Christians are outraged that President Obama was invited to give this address knowing his position that supports abortion rights. Lord, help us today. This is going to shock many; to a large degree I am in agreement, although I have some differences. Let me explain and make my position clear.
I do not support killing unborn babies. I do not support killing babies after they are born. In other words, I do not support the death penalty. I do not support abusing anyone, let alone male children by Catholic priests. However, I do support President Obama being invited, and his acceptance to address the graduates of Notre Dame. For me, in this whole debacle, my mind raises a number of questions. Those who are adamantly against abortions are they also adamantly against babies living a life of poverty just because they were born? If the parents do not want to bring life into the world, but the pro life advocates want it to be law, that the child must be born, does the child that is not wanted be made, by law, to stay with parents that do not want the child? If, by law, the child is not mandated to stay with parents that don’t want it are the pro choice advocates willing to provide tax money for the gainful well being of the child? These are questions that have to be also answered by the Catholic Church since it is against abortion. Who is going to take care of the child? Is the ultimate decision to what happens to a woman, her body, and what’s in her body, hers, or is it the decision of the state? Again, be clear, I am against abortions. I have more questions.
The Catholic Church is consistent with its support against abortion and its support to abolish the death penalty. However, some of these same political conservatives are adamantly for the killing of people after they are born and against the Catholic Church’s position. This contradiction causes me to ask the question of whether these conservatives are trying to do what’s right, or trying to do what is politically expedient. Are they truly protesting in the interests of children or are they trying to find an issue that can be used to persuade the masses of Americans to put them back into the White House? They want the child to live, but they want to be able to kill the child after the child is born. If they are pro life, then under all circumstances, except for the immediate protection of life, all people born should not be killed by the state or anyone else. If death does not occur in the protection of one’s life then death should not intentionally occur after the fact. That is truly a pro life stance not based on politics, but based on one’s concern for life. There is no telling how many innocent people have been killed by the state under the guise of being guilty. The justice system was so fraught with error in Illinois that Governor Ryan suspended the sentence of all that were on death row in that state. And statistics show that justice is harsher for Blacks than others when it is time for the state to kill. Stop it!! Just stop it!! Still I have more questions.
The Catholic Church, through its priestly leaders, in my opinion, has been on the right side of both issues of abortion and the death penalty. But how do they square the issue of sanctioning priests molesting little boys? There has been example after example of where a catholic priest has molested a child and the solution implemented by leaders of the Catholic Church was to move the priest to another parish where he exhibited the same behavior. Let’s look at a Bishop who is opposed to President Obama speaking at Notre Dame. This account is according to the Boston Globe:
Bishop John M. D'Arcy, who in private letters to other church officials as early as 1978 questioned the reassignment of priests accused of sexual misconduct, said yesterday that the church must improve its screening process for accepting seminarians and that homosexuals should be prohibited from being ordained as priests.
During yesterday's 10 a.m. Mass, D'Arcy, now bishop of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese in Indiana, said the church must look for men whom children can respect -- ''men who would be good husbands, men who would be good fathers," he said.
In an interview after the service, D'Arcy acknowledged that his reference to ''good husbands . . . good fathers" conveyed his belief that only heterosexual men should be allowed to become priests. He said men in the priesthood must embrace celibacy.
Now I got questions for Bishop D’Arcy. How can priest be good husbands or good fathers and embrace celibacy? Could it be the vow of celibacy is the reason that priests seek homosexual release? Bishop you know as well as I know Church history. Initially Catholic priests were not required to take an oath of celibacy. The Catholic Church became very wealthy because people upon death, left their property to the church. At that time, priests were required to take an oath of poverty, because the church could provide food clothing and shelter, etc. The Catholic Church provided shelter for the Priest and his family. However, the Catholic Church was put in a precarious situation when the priest died, because it had to have the home that the dead priest’s family was living in so the next assigned priest and his family could have shelter. Because the dead priest had taken a vow of poverty, quite often his family had no place to go upon his death. Therefore, the church was in essence making the priest’s family homeless. To do such a cruel thing did not look good for the church. The Church’s solution was to begin to make priests take a vow of celibacy so eventually the Church would not find itself in this situation. This is one of the reasons why Martin Luther started the Reformation which brought about the birth of Protestant Christianity. It was a protest against the Catholic Church’s so-called godly position which went counter to nature, and also scripture, I might add. Therefore, the vow of celibacy was really an economic decision and not a decision based on sound theology. Look how this economic decision is causing the unnatural behavior of priests and the victimization of the babies. For a man not to have intimate relations with a woman is not what God charged. God said go out and multiply. The Catholic Church needs to get at one with God.
Lastly, although I do not support President Obama’s position on abortion however, I do support his speaking at Notre Dame. A university is a place where we educate our future. Education is not based on agreement. Some of the best learning in the world takes place when there is disagreement in the classroom. Disagreement means that more than one person is thinking. Through disagreement one begins to clearly understand where one stands on the lesson. If the university does not allow for disagreement then there is no education, but instead indoctrination. We must educate our children so that they have all the tools and chance in the world to be all that they can be. We must be careful in calling out the speck in other’s eye while ignoring the log that is in our own eye. We all fall short, even this writer. Thank you for listening to AjabuSpeaks.