Yes, keep Catholicism weird! This is a win for humanity, not for republicans or democrats. And yes, the hard work begins now. Today I’m praising God, and I am praying for peace.
While today’s decision does not specifically overturn other related laws, it does open the door to make the same argument in doing so. Also, for those women, like me, who earlier in my life suffered miscarriages requiring surgical intervention, there very likely could be a scarcity of OB-GYNs willing to do a D&C for fear of prosecution. I know of at least one who predicted same.
Nevertheless now is the time to financially support women now forced to go forward, including providing healthcare, day care, housing and educational opportunities so she can raise this child(ren). I’m talking to YOU. Finally, every one of these children has a father. Time to require them stepping up and assuming their parental responsibilities.
Definitely. I was taught as a child that 5% of my income was to go to the Church and 5% to works of charity. I can't think of anything more important than providing for women with small children. That's where my 5% has been going for a while.
Yes Fathers should look after their children. But first and foremost it rests on the women. If you do not want babies, don't engage in acts that result in a baby. And that begins with the woman. The only time that changes is in instances of rape.
But as we have seen, women who have been raped do not want their rapists to have anything to do with the child and rightly so.
One should not believe, and should not propagate, the familiar "big lie" that we are pro birth but do nothing after a child is born (as big lies go, it is a pretty good one and I admire its sheer audacity, whoever originally came up with it); but, yes, it would be a fine time to redouble one's efforts to give alms. Some people have probably already re-examined their charitable donation budgets when prompted to do so by the pandemic, or by Ukraine, or by recent runaway inflation, or other crisis that highlights an increased need, but I think a re-examination is always fruitful, and when reluctant or hesitant (beyond the simple question of prudence and the duty to support one's household) we should remember that God *will not* be outdone in generosity.
That second paragraph is one of the more egregious and stupid arguments of the pro-murder movement.
It's like saying that if I am not willing to help you raise your child then I should allow you to kill them.
Firstly, you should not have been having sex anyway if you are not prepared for the natural outcome of sex: a human being.
Secondly, you can always give up the baby for adoption.
Thirdly, yes everyone of these children has a father. But if you had not been engaging in sex with the father, then there would not be a baby. Unless you are crying rape but that is taken cared of by my point second point.
The problem with the sexually permissive is that we are being asked to be responsible for the outcomes of their sexual permissiveness.
First half of the second paragraph is straight from the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, when did we see you naked or hungry? babies are generally naked and hungry.
Second half is in line with what this site says (I don't have data myself) i.e. when you bring the dad into the picture they will more often choose life
I am sure that many fathers would choose life if given the chance. But there are also very many who do not want the responsibility and will tell the mother to "get rid of it".
My point is that whether the father is consulted or not, there is only one choice - life. The mother cannot say say I did it because he wouldn't take responsibility. I did it because I can't afford to clothe and feed the child. That is just pure nonsense. We conform ourselves to truth not because truth is easy but simply because it is true.
Yes we must help those who struggle but the fact that they will struggle cannot be used as an excuse to kill.
Bridget, can you name another group that provides more assistance to women and children than the Catholic Church? Granted, you did not mention government programs but your comments are consistent with pro-aborts who calumniate pro-lifers by claiming that they don't care about the woman or the child. What, exactly, does Planned Parenthood or any other pro-abort group (including large corporations) do for women after payment for abortion? Moreover, we cannot fulfill our Christian obligations by merely supporting federal or even state government programs. Matthew 25 does not say "Lord, Lord, I did see you but I voted for somebody who supported federal government programs to relieve me of my responsibility." The corollary is that claiming someone who objects to federal government programs is a poor Christian is a sequitur.
From my understanding, 5 justices (Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh) signed on to Alito's majority opinion. Roberts concurred (thus the 6th vote), but in his concurrence, he wrote that he favored the 15 week ban, but believed that the majority opinion went too far and that overturning Roe and Casey were too big a shock to the legal system.
If Justice Thomas' concurring opinion is being accurately portrayed, the claim that this decision will not affect other issues (e.g., contraception, so-call gay marriage) seems perhaps incorrect.
"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in Friday's ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, arguing the court should "correct the error" of rulings that protect same-sex marriage and contraception access."
Chief Justice Roberts incrementalism makes for a pathetic and really appalling "concurrence" on his part. Imagine the opprobrium that would have been (rightly) heaped upon a justice who admitted Dred Scott was wrongly decided but still wanted to keep slavery on the books, even in a curtailed way, e.g. slaves who escaped could only go free if they made it past the 45th parallel. Maybe at a later date, the court could push it south to the 40th parallel because, after all, slaveholders were accustomed to holding slaves. It was a recognized Constitutional right!!! Most sane people would recognize that as insane but that seems to be similar to Robert's position. Save for President Trump's success, we'd have Roberts occupying the George Soros/Anthony Kennedy Memorial Coward & Incompetent Philosopher Chair on the Supreme Court.
You don't have to be a Catholic to oppose abortion.. After all ,murdering a human being is a crime. I have known Catholics with 16 years of Catholic schooling who are pro choice and see nothing
wrong with killing babies. They are teachers and democrats so they have to be pro choice. I found it impossible to penetrate their thinking on this. All I can do is pray for their souls as they have died.
I beg to differ slightly. Heinous as it is because it is a taking of human life, I think LGBTQ is far worse and that is why it appears later in the agenda - the escalation of iniquty. LGBTQ is a deconstruction of creation, a kind of un-creation so is far more evil.
Abortion is a question of the unjustness of the killing because it is a taking away of the most innocent of lives, but killing itself is not always unjust that is why capital punishment is permissible. Then there's the fact that we all will die in whatever manner. Death is a fact of our existence.
But with the LGBTQ agenda, there is nothing (no matter how you twist, turn, gyrate) in the depravity that can even remotely be classified as just. Everything about it is an abomination.
An intrinsically evil act has both an intent and an object. Your example of capital punishment misses the object, although some NNL dispute this. Your example of the universality of death misses the intent.
As far as the LGBTQ agenda, that's such a broad term I'm not sure what to say. I think some of it is asking for compassion, and as Catholics, we certainly should offer that.
I think you are the one missing the point. I am not saying that abortion is not evil in object and intent. I am merely comparing abortion to the utter sickness of the whole LGBTQI ethos which is worse than the evil of killing an innocent human being. The homosexual / transgender paradigm is a complete upending of creation. This is why it comes later in the the evolution of this clenched fist against God - an ever increasing descent into worse depravities.
Yes we should have compassion, but don't read that as toleration and affirmation. These days whenever someone speaks of compassion and dialogue it is usually a plea to accept the evil. Charity cannot be divorced from truth.
It is important to point out that abortion is the intentional taking of human life and intrinsically evil. This is the moral framework that was laid out by JPII/Benedict and a whole host of natural lawyers that laid the philosophical groundwork for the Dobbs decision. Your example of killing and death obfuscated abortion as an intrinsic evil.
As far as the question of the LGBTQI agenda being worse than abortion. I don't know what you mean by the LGBTQI ethos. Dante does consider consider sodomy worse than murder. That's pretty interesting. At the same time, we've had 61 million unborn children killed and their blood cries out for justice. There are also some statements by Popes that the right to life is a foundational right.
That abortion is an intrinsic evil is not in question. If you read what I wrote, you'd get that.
61 million babies killed.
I was in a discussion with an atheist once and he said that if the death of babies in the womb is so bad, then why does God allow this death without human agency? As he pointed out, there are probably far more spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) than there are willed abortions. So why did God not allow those children to go full term? Are we to say that God is an abortionist? More to the point why are there babies who die because of disease, accident or some other reason than abortion if life on earth is so important?
And he has a very, very valid point. Abortion is intrinsically evil not because babies die but because we do not have the right to wilfully kill them. It is not the fact that babies die, but the fact that they are murdered. It is intrinsically evil because we do not have the right to take away human life. Death itself is not the issue because we all die in the end.
Abortion is not about death. Abortion is about murder. But even the pro-life lobby does not want to call the mothers what they are - murderers.
This is why I don't say I am pro-life. I say am anti-abortion. If I am pro-life, then I will have to approve of that other horrible evil called IVF.
In an abortion, human life already exists but snuffed out prematurely. Though that baby may not have had a chance to taste life here on earth, that soul is now with God and lives on.
But if we are to allow the abomination that is LGBT to play out, then there would not even be babies to speak of - killed or not. This is why contraception is evil. It is a refusal to let God be God.
What undergirds the LGBT agenda is not just a killing of a creation already created but an upending of the entire creation, the debasement and corruption of what it means to be human. And we are seeing that abomination in play now and getting worse. THAT is far more evil.
Is calling them "freaks" really the most charitable thing to say about those who have undergone transitioning? I'm not saying it's an okay thing to do, but these are people in need of help, and they're desperate enough to do that to their bodies. They're not freaks, they're children of God in need of His love and help.
I used the term as an objective truth, to emphasise the end result of mutilating these people. I took a chance that none of them was likely to read the article. I firmly believe that only Christ can heal and console them. What a tragedy.
Christ indeed is the only one that can heal them. But the objective truth is that they've been mutilated. "Freak" is an insult and is thus neither objective nor truthful.
Roe has been aborted! Praise God!
After the last few years, people needed a win, and Jesus came through in a big way!
Keep Catholicism weird 😂
Solemnity of the Sacred heart, Nativity of John the Baptist, Roe v. Wade overturned today.
Coincidence?? I THINK NOT!! 🎉
Totally not a coincidence.
I was getting worried when it was getting late in June and still no ruling then I open the news and there it was.
Te Deum Laudamus!
So now it's back in the hands of the states. I hope Indiana moves quickly to make it illegal here.
Yes, keep Catholicism weird! This is a win for humanity, not for republicans or democrats. And yes, the hard work begins now. Today I’m praising God, and I am praying for peace.
While today’s decision does not specifically overturn other related laws, it does open the door to make the same argument in doing so. Also, for those women, like me, who earlier in my life suffered miscarriages requiring surgical intervention, there very likely could be a scarcity of OB-GYNs willing to do a D&C for fear of prosecution. I know of at least one who predicted same.
Nevertheless now is the time to financially support women now forced to go forward, including providing healthcare, day care, housing and educational opportunities so she can raise this child(ren). I’m talking to YOU. Finally, every one of these children has a father. Time to require them stepping up and assuming their parental responsibilities.
There are real women behind your rejoicing.
Definitely. I was taught as a child that 5% of my income was to go to the Church and 5% to works of charity. I can't think of anything more important than providing for women with small children. That's where my 5% has been going for a while.
That duty to support should start with the fathers.
yep
Yes and No.
Yes Fathers should look after their children. But first and foremost it rests on the women. If you do not want babies, don't engage in acts that result in a baby. And that begins with the woman. The only time that changes is in instances of rape.
But as we have seen, women who have been raped do not want their rapists to have anything to do with the child and rightly so.
One should not believe, and should not propagate, the familiar "big lie" that we are pro birth but do nothing after a child is born (as big lies go, it is a pretty good one and I admire its sheer audacity, whoever originally came up with it); but, yes, it would be a fine time to redouble one's efforts to give alms. Some people have probably already re-examined their charitable donation budgets when prompted to do so by the pandemic, or by Ukraine, or by recent runaway inflation, or other crisis that highlights an increased need, but I think a re-examination is always fruitful, and when reluctant or hesitant (beyond the simple question of prudence and the duty to support one's household) we should remember that God *will not* be outdone in generosity.
That second paragraph is one of the more egregious and stupid arguments of the pro-murder movement.
It's like saying that if I am not willing to help you raise your child then I should allow you to kill them.
Firstly, you should not have been having sex anyway if you are not prepared for the natural outcome of sex: a human being.
Secondly, you can always give up the baby for adoption.
Thirdly, yes everyone of these children has a father. But if you had not been engaging in sex with the father, then there would not be a baby. Unless you are crying rape but that is taken cared of by my point second point.
The problem with the sexually permissive is that we are being asked to be responsible for the outcomes of their sexual permissiveness.
First half of the second paragraph is straight from the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, when did we see you naked or hungry? babies are generally naked and hungry.
Second half is in line with what this site says (I don't have data myself) i.e. when you bring the dad into the picture they will more often choose life
https://mypregnancycenter.org/2020/03/march-2020-letter-a-fathers-story/
I am sure that many fathers would choose life if given the chance. But there are also very many who do not want the responsibility and will tell the mother to "get rid of it".
My point is that whether the father is consulted or not, there is only one choice - life. The mother cannot say say I did it because he wouldn't take responsibility. I did it because I can't afford to clothe and feed the child. That is just pure nonsense. We conform ourselves to truth not because truth is easy but simply because it is true.
Yes we must help those who struggle but the fact that they will struggle cannot be used as an excuse to kill.
Bridget, can you name another group that provides more assistance to women and children than the Catholic Church? Granted, you did not mention government programs but your comments are consistent with pro-aborts who calumniate pro-lifers by claiming that they don't care about the woman or the child. What, exactly, does Planned Parenthood or any other pro-abort group (including large corporations) do for women after payment for abortion? Moreover, we cannot fulfill our Christian obligations by merely supporting federal or even state government programs. Matthew 25 does not say "Lord, Lord, I did see you but I voted for somebody who supported federal government programs to relieve me of my responsibility." The corollary is that claiming someone who objects to federal government programs is a poor Christian is a sequitur.
Wasn’t it a 5-4 decision?
From my understanding, 5 justices (Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh) signed on to Alito's majority opinion. Roberts concurred (thus the 6th vote), but in his concurrence, he wrote that he favored the 15 week ban, but believed that the majority opinion went too far and that overturning Roe and Casey were too big a shock to the legal system.
So he voted against. So it is 5-4.
Officially from the Supreme Court the vote to uphold the Mississippi law was 6-3. The vote to overturn Roe was 5-4. There were two issues at stake.
If Justice Thomas' concurring opinion is being accurately portrayed, the claim that this decision will not affect other issues (e.g., contraception, so-call gay marriage) seems perhaps incorrect.
"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in Friday's ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, arguing the court should "correct the error" of rulings that protect same-sex marriage and contraception access."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/thomas-reconsider-protecting-contraception-same-sex-marriage
A concurring opinion does not change the majority opinion. Contraception will remain legal until someone challenges it, which seems highly unlikely.
Same-sex "marriage" will remain legal until it too is challenged. I'm not sure of a scenario that would make it to court, much less the Supreme Court.
We never thought the ruling last Friday would come either.
God is spectacular!
It was a 5-4 decision to overturn, not 6-3. It was 6-3 to uphold the Mississippi law. EDIT: Actually, it was more of a 5-1-3 decision.
Chief Justice Roberts incrementalism makes for a pathetic and really appalling "concurrence" on his part. Imagine the opprobrium that would have been (rightly) heaped upon a justice who admitted Dred Scott was wrongly decided but still wanted to keep slavery on the books, even in a curtailed way, e.g. slaves who escaped could only go free if they made it past the 45th parallel. Maybe at a later date, the court could push it south to the 40th parallel because, after all, slaveholders were accustomed to holding slaves. It was a recognized Constitutional right!!! Most sane people would recognize that as insane but that seems to be similar to Robert's position. Save for President Trump's success, we'd have Roberts occupying the George Soros/Anthony Kennedy Memorial Coward & Incompetent Philosopher Chair on the Supreme Court.
You don't have to be a Catholic to oppose abortion.. After all ,murdering a human being is a crime. I have known Catholics with 16 years of Catholic schooling who are pro choice and see nothing
wrong with killing babies. They are teachers and democrats so they have to be pro choice. I found it impossible to penetrate their thinking on this. All I can do is pray for their souls as they have died.
tomlee
Sadly that is so true. Take our "Catholic" President who is murderous with rage. Take Pelosi.
I think its about time excommunications happen.
Reaction #1: gratitude for this decision
Reaction #2: advocate and bring about concrete ways for "walking with moms in need"
Reaction #3: continue to prioritize reading anything written by Mr. Camosy
3. Chastity.
If that were put first then we would not be having this discussion and there would not be a need for ruling to be overturned.
Precisely.
I actually just read my first book by Mr. Camosy (“Resisting Throwaway Culture”). It was wonderful!
Abortion is the preeminent moral issue of our time and this is just the beginning.
I beg to differ slightly. Heinous as it is because it is a taking of human life, I think LGBTQ is far worse and that is why it appears later in the agenda - the escalation of iniquty. LGBTQ is a deconstruction of creation, a kind of un-creation so is far more evil.
Abortion is a question of the unjustness of the killing because it is a taking away of the most innocent of lives, but killing itself is not always unjust that is why capital punishment is permissible. Then there's the fact that we all will die in whatever manner. Death is a fact of our existence.
But with the LGBTQ agenda, there is nothing (no matter how you twist, turn, gyrate) in the depravity that can even remotely be classified as just. Everything about it is an abomination.
An intrinsically evil act has both an intent and an object. Your example of capital punishment misses the object, although some NNL dispute this. Your example of the universality of death misses the intent.
As far as the LGBTQ agenda, that's such a broad term I'm not sure what to say. I think some of it is asking for compassion, and as Catholics, we certainly should offer that.
https://www.ncbcenter.org/messages-from-presidents/evil
I think you are the one missing the point. I am not saying that abortion is not evil in object and intent. I am merely comparing abortion to the utter sickness of the whole LGBTQI ethos which is worse than the evil of killing an innocent human being. The homosexual / transgender paradigm is a complete upending of creation. This is why it comes later in the the evolution of this clenched fist against God - an ever increasing descent into worse depravities.
Yes we should have compassion, but don't read that as toleration and affirmation. These days whenever someone speaks of compassion and dialogue it is usually a plea to accept the evil. Charity cannot be divorced from truth.
It is important to point out that abortion is the intentional taking of human life and intrinsically evil. This is the moral framework that was laid out by JPII/Benedict and a whole host of natural lawyers that laid the philosophical groundwork for the Dobbs decision. Your example of killing and death obfuscated abortion as an intrinsic evil.
As far as the question of the LGBTQI agenda being worse than abortion. I don't know what you mean by the LGBTQI ethos. Dante does consider consider sodomy worse than murder. That's pretty interesting. At the same time, we've had 61 million unborn children killed and their blood cries out for justice. There are also some statements by Popes that the right to life is a foundational right.
https://www.newoxfordreview.org/documents/why-does-dante-consider-sodomy-worse-than-homicide-suicide/https://www.newoxfordreview.org/documents/why-does-dante-consider-sodomy-worse-than-homicide-suicide/
That abortion is an intrinsic evil is not in question. If you read what I wrote, you'd get that.
61 million babies killed.
I was in a discussion with an atheist once and he said that if the death of babies in the womb is so bad, then why does God allow this death without human agency? As he pointed out, there are probably far more spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) than there are willed abortions. So why did God not allow those children to go full term? Are we to say that God is an abortionist? More to the point why are there babies who die because of disease, accident or some other reason than abortion if life on earth is so important?
And he has a very, very valid point. Abortion is intrinsically evil not because babies die but because we do not have the right to wilfully kill them. It is not the fact that babies die, but the fact that they are murdered. It is intrinsically evil because we do not have the right to take away human life. Death itself is not the issue because we all die in the end.
Abortion is not about death. Abortion is about murder. But even the pro-life lobby does not want to call the mothers what they are - murderers.
This is why I don't say I am pro-life. I say am anti-abortion. If I am pro-life, then I will have to approve of that other horrible evil called IVF.
In an abortion, human life already exists but snuffed out prematurely. Though that baby may not have had a chance to taste life here on earth, that soul is now with God and lives on.
But if we are to allow the abomination that is LGBT to play out, then there would not even be babies to speak of - killed or not. This is why contraception is evil. It is a refusal to let God be God.
What undergirds the LGBT agenda is not just a killing of a creation already created but an upending of the entire creation, the debasement and corruption of what it means to be human. And we are seeing that abomination in play now and getting worse. THAT is far more evil.
I agree. It has now led to the abomination of transgendering. How can you help someone recover from that?
Especially now with the mutilation of young people into lifelong freaks..brought to you by your friendly Planned Parenthood business.
Is calling them "freaks" really the most charitable thing to say about those who have undergone transitioning? I'm not saying it's an okay thing to do, but these are people in need of help, and they're desperate enough to do that to their bodies. They're not freaks, they're children of God in need of His love and help.
I used the term as an objective truth, to emphasise the end result of mutilating these people. I took a chance that none of them was likely to read the article. I firmly believe that only Christ can heal and console them. What a tragedy.
Christ indeed is the only one that can heal them. But the objective truth is that they've been mutilated. "Freak" is an insult and is thus neither objective nor truthful.
https://twitter.com/PontAcadLife/status/1540373646786678784?
No mention in the Vatican's statement on Dobbs that abortion is the taking of innocent life, an intrinsic evil, and a grave sin against God.
Did we really expect anything better from this bankrupt Papacy? If there was we might have choked on our breakfast.
God works slowly but surely
The vote was 5-4 not 6-3.
Whatever else people say about Trump, this was possible because the Lord used him to appoint good judges