Friday, April 11, 2014

THE IMPLICIT HYPOCRACY OF THE MEDIA AND POLITICAL LEADERS WHEN IT COMES TO THE ABUSE OF CHILDREN


On the very day, Friday of Passiontide, that Pope Francis apologizes and takes responsibility for the sexual abuse of children by priests, he also speaks of another scourge that is far broader and even more endemic in society as a whole and that is the slaughter of the innocent unborn promoted by many in society especially political leaders pandering to voters.

Does the hypocritical media bother to see a connection between the abuse of children in whatever form and their slaughter as a right of the mother to deny their child an actual fundamental right, the right to life?

President Barack Obama and his administration have done more to promote the killing of innocent children and without apology but in fact calling God's blessings on Planned Parenthood, than any other administration in the history of the USA.

Hypocrisy is alive and well and so is Satan.

20 comments:

Bill Meyer said...

The media sees these as unrelated issues. But then, they also see the sex scandal in the Church as "pedophilia", and fail to recognize that the homosexual lobby of which they are now so fond subsumes many of the offenders from that scandal.

Not for nothing do I refer to them as useful idiots.

George said...

"President Barack Obama and his administration have done more to promote the killing of innocent children and without apology but in fact calling God's blessings on Planned Parenthood, than any other administration in the history of the USA."

This is unfortunately so true. Anyone doing even a modicum of research prior to the 2008 election would have become aware of his philosophy on the Life issues.
Four times he voted against Illinois' Born Alive Infants Protection Act while state senator. This legislation came about because a nurse, Jill Stanek, while working in a Chicago hospital saw that the hospital policy there was to allow infants that survived induced labor abortions to be left alone in a utility room to die. His support for giving Federal tax money to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States, is also now well known and of course it is no surprise, as is his nomination of judges who share his philosophy. May God have mercy on us.

Elections have consequences and those consequences can extend well beyond the office holder's term.

Anonymous 2 said...

Yes, Father McDonald, I agree that hypocrisy is alive and well. Consider the following American Right to Life profiles of George W. Bush and Mitt Romney in connection with “political leaders pandering to voters”:

http://prolifeprofiles.com/george-w-bush-abortion

http://prolifeprofiles.com/mitt-romney-abortion

And some people on this Blog (well only one, actually, as far as I know) actually propose to ostracize me for voting for Obama instead of Romney after prudent weighing of relevant considerations. Get real, people. Wake up and smell the hypocrisy in this rotten political system. Don’t be fooled. Things are hardly ever as simple as they seem or as “they” would like you to believe.

And, yes, Gene, as you can probably tell, you made me mad. I can’t wait to see you explain this one away (Oh sorry, I forgot, you are not going to waste your time with me any longer, so I guess you won’t be responding after all).

Fr Mark said...

Perhaps the world would take more notice of Francis' words about pre-born children if the church had it's house in order regarding the abuse of children - then it would be more convincing. Regarding the media response, it is also more noteworthy since it is the first time Francis has apologised for abuse committed by clergy, in regard to abortion it's not the first time - so no wonder it is reported more widely. But the media has reported on the pope's abortion comments as well since I read about them.

Gene said...

Anon2, I will waste enough time to ask just what was hypocritical about my considering you (and any others) an enemy of the country and the Church for voting for Obama. It is my opinion stated clearly. There is nothing to explain away.

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene: Do I really have to spell it out for you?

The only real alternative to Obama in the 2012 election was Romney. Based on the analysis of the American Right to Life organization no less, Romney was just as bad, if not worse, than Obama as far as right to life issues are concerned, not to mention health care (and tax funded) socialism (as you would call it), gay marriage, judicial appointees, etc., etc. Indeed, they call him a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

I do not know whom you voted for. But applying your own apparent standards, if I am an enemy of the Church and the country for voting for Obama, then you or anyone else who voted for Romney is also an enemy of the Church and the country. As you would say: Get it?

I doubt that you do get it, of course, because it seems that even when confronted with clear and convincing evidence you, and some others, remain blinded by ideology and/or deluded by the manipulators who pull our ideological strings like puppeteers.

We don’t need ideology, Gene, we need wisdom. As I said before, you and I do not disagree about goals, just means. Take abortion, for example, which is Father’s subject in this thread. We can all agree on the goal and the ideal: There should not be one single abortion in this country (or anywhere). The question is how to best achieve this goal.

I refuse to be a card carrying member of any party and do not see the solution to these issues in our rotten politics. For me the solution is in changing hearts and minds. But you cannot change hearts and minds with hate, war, and other forms of violence but only with love, amity, and peaceful witness in persuasive dialogue. Sometimes, as a very last resort, it may be necessary to resort to prudently deployed sterner measures in domestic policy (such as criminal law) and in foreign policy (such as armed conflict), but only as a last resort.

Moreover, I find it intriguing that serpentine guile was at the root of our Fall from Grace and yet our Redeemer tells Christians to employ serpentine wisdom together with dove-like gentleness when going out among the wolves. The Devil takes many forms and is just as full of guile and wiles as ever. And his favorite thing seems to be to get us to kill one another (including through abortion and war), and it is even more delicious to him when we do it in the name of God or claim that “God is on our side” or call God’s blessings on those doing the killing. I am sure it doesn’t get any better than that in Hell. In fact, I expect they have a special Demon Dance for such occasions.

Pope Francis and all recent Popes have understood this, which is why they warned na├»ve cowboys like George Bush not to be deluded into thinking military means can solve problems like those posed by violent radical Islam. How’s that working out by the way?

Gene said...

If military means are properly used they can very well solve the problem. Ask Napolean, Hitler, or Tojo.

Anonymous 2 said...

We are not dealing with Napoleon, Hitler, or Tojo and so-called “conventional” warfare. We could, of course, obliterate the planet (which is probably what it would take to do it your way). That would solve the problem.

George said...


Anon2:

I am not a registered member of any political party. I tend to vote as much as I can with Church teaching. I for years have regularly receive correspondence from all the major Pro-Life organizations. I don't know of any that endorsed Mr. Obama.
Yes, unfortunately these organizations do end up endorsing the lesser of evils, but that is the reality of the world we live in.
The American Right to Life organization is an outlier in this regard in that it demands "pro-life purity" from candidates.
The reality of that as we know is that such a candidate (unfortunately) would have a difficult if not impossible chance of being
elected President.

Our recent Popes and even our current Holy Father have said that the right to life is pre-eminent above
all other rights. That issue must take precedence over other issues,as important as those others may be.

Mr Romney, during the course of his political career claimed to undergo a pro-life conversion. We'll never know because he was not elected. We do know by his policies and directives that Mr Obama is he most pro-abortion President we have ever had.

Pro-Life endorsements 2012 (aming others)

" Unlike other candidates who only speak to the importance of confronting the major social issues of the day, Governor Romney has a record of action in defending life.”

— Dr. John Willke, Founder & 22 year President, International Right to Life Federation, Co-founder, ten year President of the National Right to Life Committee, etc.

From the Washington Times April 2012:

he Susan B. Anthony List threw its support behind Mr. Romney in a morning news release AND National Right-to-Life, the nation’s oldest and largest pro-life organization, followed suit with a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/12/two-pro-life-groups-endorse-romney/#ixzz2yi67uecE


George said...


One interesting thing I discovered is that since Roe versus Wade, 12 states have outlawed the death penalty(in some states, such as Maine, it was already illegal).
Two of those states have since re-instated the Capital punishment. Of the 10 states that no longer execute convicted felons, all of them have much higher abortion rates than average. (These are also Blue states such as New York, California and Massachusetts)
The Death penalty is an important pro-life issue. The interesting thing to me is that in Illinois for example, a major argument to get rid of it was the possibility that an innocent man could be out to death.
Meanwhile, in all these states innocent human lives are aborted
every day.

Gene said...

No, we would not have to obliterate the planet…only certain sandy parts of it.

Anonymous 2 said...

George:

Thank you for your post.

The issue is not which of the two central choices – voting for Obama or voting for Romney – was the correct one. If you voted for Romney for good, conscientious reasons, I respect that: of course. I just ask for the same courtesy and not to be called an enemy of the Church or an enemy of the country because I voted for Obama. I did so not because of his support for abortion (duh), but in spite of it, weighing all the relevant considerations together (including the likelihood of his being able successfully to nominate pro-choice Justices to the Supreme Court and indeed the fact that, as I have said before, reversing Roe v. Wade would not eliminate abortion anyway).

If you really want to prohibit abortion by law you must pass a Personhood Amendment to the Constitution. There is no other way. To think otherwise is to live in a fairy tale land. All you do is nibble around the edges of the problem.

A Personhood Amendment is not going to happen in my view, although I could be wrong. But if I am right then the only way to end abortion is to do two things:
(1) To find common ground with those who are pro-choice in seeking legitimate ways to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. This includes ensuring social supports for unwed mothers (sorry, that’s just the reality).
(2) To persuade others who do not yet think as we do what is at stake. You say that in all the states you mention “innocent human lives are aborted every day” and that this is in tension with the reluctance to put an innocent person to death. But I hope we all understand the problem here. Those who are pro-choice simply do not accept or believe that there is a human life from the moment of conception or at least certainly not a life on anything like the same order as a grown human being or even a newborn baby. It’s that simple. If they did, do you really believe they would support abortion and weigh that human life as of lesser value than the interests that are used to justify abortion. To think they would is to demonize them and that is of no help at all.

In short, the problem is a metaphysical one and those sorts of problems and disagreements are awfully hard to deal with. I have often wondered how different the conversation would be if women (and men) could actually see into the womb directly and look at the developing life within. I have also wondered whether the conversation would be different if men had the experience of carrying a child to term. It is, alas, an experience you and I will never have. So at one level we speak of things we do not and cannot know. I have also wondered why it is that so few women seem to engage in conversation on this Blog.

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene:

There are 50 majority Muslim countries in the world, and they have a whole lot more than sand. It is a common misconception to think that the Islamic world is confined to the Middle East (and indeed that the Middle East is just sand). In fact, only 20% of Muslims live in the Middle East. But I think you know that already.

Anonymous 2 said...

By the way, George, I am aware of those pro-life endorsements of Romney. Please read the rebuttals in the link I posted.

Gene said...

Anopn 2, I really do not give a damn. They are a blight upon the earth.

George said...

Anon2

Only God can judge and forgive. I only try to persuade others according to what the Church teaches and the Holy father
preaches. Our recent Popes and even our current Holy Father have said that the right to life is pre-eminent above
all other rights. That issue must take precedence over other issues,as important as those others may be.
There can be no "in spite of it" when voting for a candidate who has a extreme view on abortion and other life issues.
Mr. Obama even admitted that he would support the death penalty in certain cases.

I (and I venture to say most pro-lifers) would agree that a Personhood Amendment is not going to happen,as you say.
Pro-lifers by and large take what they can get politically, judicially, and legislatively speaking.. We do not take an all or nothing approach.
You can characterize that as nibbling around the edges, but even small victories can be significant. The Hyde amendment
was not perfect in that it mades exceptions for rape and incest but it was a lot better than nothing. If Mr Obama had not
been elected, we would not have the Sisters of the Poor and other religious groups having to go to court to hopefully keep from having to pay for
and employees sterilization,contraception or abortion.

You say:"I have often wondered how different the conversation would be if women (and men) could actually see into the womb directly and look at
the developing life within. Well, actually they can. Women who have viewed ultrasound images of their unborn child have made the decision not to have
an abortion. This has happened. The Kolbe center is a Crisis pregnancy facility which will soon open in Macon and will eventually (when the funding is there) have
such an ultrasound machine from what I understand. Let's support it.

I don't seek to demonize anyone. I have stood out side an abortion clinic (more than once) and prayed not only that the women there (at least some of them) would
change their mind, but alo prayed for them even if they went ahead with the abortion.

I have the utmost respect for women. Every time I see a woman with a child, whose has carried and given birth to that child, I often think. "You know that woman has done
something which is superior to anything I will ever do."
There are many women I've met who for some reason can't conceive, but their strong desire to impacts me just as strongly.

I do find it disconcerting that the states with the highest abortion rates in this country are unfortunately the ones with the largeset Catholic populations.
Has the Church ever not taught that life begins at conception?

Final note: Mr McCain and Romney were not who I wanted to see nominated those are who we ended up getting.

Anonymous 2 said...

Thank you for your reply, George.

I did not think for one millisecond that you would demonize women or not respect them, and I apologize if my comments in any way conveyed that I might have thought that about you.

Anonymous 2 said...

George: Let me offer a not too unrealistic hypothetical.

There are two candidates for President. One of them_says_he is adamantly opposed to abortion but proposes to invade every Arab nation that causes us problems (and Iran, which of course is not Arab), or at least this is the policy of his advisors. The other one says she supports abortion but prefers diplomacy and surgical strikes aimed at known terrorists.

Which one should the conscientious Catholic vote for? What else do you need to know in order to make your decision?

Does it alter your answer if the first candidate proposes to nuke every one of those countries because it is a simple, cleaner, and quicker solution that will cost the United States less blood and treasure (his middle name is Gene). Why or why not?

You do not need to answer, of course. It is a rhetorical hypothetical intended to make a point. I hope it has.

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene: It is painfully clear that you do not give a “damn.”

Gene said...

Anon 2, Good, then maybe we won't have to have this discussion again.