Author Archives: Ed Pluchar

Existence of God – 10

Existence of God – 10


Last time, I introduced the analogy of God being related to his creation like an author is related to her story. Since we have dealt primarily with the attribute of God being all-powerful, I raised one of the classic challenges to God’s omnipotence, and proposed that we address it with our analogy.

The challenge is this: Can God make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? As we saw, if God cannot make a stone that large, then there is something he cannot do, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Likewise, if he can make the stone, but can’t lift it, there again is something he cannot do, and therefore he is not omnipotent.

How does the theist escape this?

I think I have one vague way leading to one clear way.

Let us first suppose an author, whose abilities within the context of her story will (hopefully) help us see the way out. She is, for all intents and purposes, presumed to be all-powerful in the context of her story.

So let’s ask the question a different way: Can an author create a rock, within the context of her story, which is too big for her to lift?

The vague answer is this: The question makes no sense. We see, clearly, that she can create and destroy galaxies, entire Universes, with mere words. Can she not create a rock any size she likes? What does it matter if she can “lift” it? Can’t she always lift it, no matter how big she has created it? Are we to suppose, in the context of her story, that she will ever strain against the weight of any rock, or that she will ever strain against the effort of building a still larger rock?

And this leads to our clearer answer, which harkens back to the posts on infinity.

Let’s say she sets out to create that rock (in the context of her story), a rock so big that she cannot lift it. She builds a rather large rock – a boulder, let’s say. She then describes herself picking it up and lifting it. She’ll need a bigger rock.

So she builds a rock the size of a mountain. Again, she can lift it without effort.

She builds a rock the size of a continent. She lifts it.

She builds a rock the size of a planet. She lifts it.

She goes on, building them to the size of a solar system, a galaxy, a supercluster of galaxies, increasing the order of magnitude of this rock by hundreds and thousands at a time. At no point does she ever strain to create the rock, and at no point does she ever strain to lift it.

Soon, compared with the original rock, she is building rocks beyond description, except by numbers. She builds a rock that is 1 x 10^100, then the 1,000th power, then the 10,000th power, then 1 x 10^10^123, which is actually beyond human comprehension of any kind except that we know how to read numbers. Still, there is no difficultly either in creating it, or lifting it.

In effect, I would venture, the answer to the question is – well, she is infinitely powerful in the context of her story. There is no finite end to this challenge. I see no point at which she could no longer create bigger rocks, nor any point when she could not lift the rock she has created. The question pertains to infinity, and so the answer is neither “yes” nor “no.” It is better to say, perhaps, that it is not applicable.

Or, if it is not enough to equate “infinitely powerful” to “all-powerful,” I don’t know what anyone can be looking for when they say “all-powerful.”


2 thoughts on “Existence of God – 10

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Existence of God – 10.1 (an aside)

Existence of God – 10.1 (an aside)


This is a brief addendum to the last post, which I hope was easy enough to follow for anyone still reading the series. I’m sure I don’t always make it easy, and I’m hoping by the exercise of writing these things out that I will become better at articulating them.

Moreover, the subject of infinity is challenging enough, and I find myself in a peculiar position of understanding somewhat more than I used to, and yet not very much at all. There are things like “infinite set theory” that are beyond the scope of anything I have studied, though I hope to approach such things in the future.

But what can be said now about infinity as it relates to God and the large stone?

In the last post, I am essentially describing a “potential infinity,” a series of ever larger numbers that can be supposed to go on forever. One never reaches the number “infinity,” because it is impossible to count to infinity, but the fact that the series can go on forever is what makes it “potentially” infinite. For all we know, there is no end to the series, just as, for all we know, there is no end to the future.

To ask whether, in the end, God was either unable to make the rock or unable to lift it is like asking whether the last number you count before infinity is even or odd.  There’s no answer to the question – we might say the question is the “wrong” question.

In this way, I offer that the theist has escaped the riddle. But, then, what about an actual infinity? Couldn’t the skeptic say, “Well, God, create a rock that is actually infinite in size – then, can you lift that rock?”

In the post on Hilbert’s Hotel, I give a well-known argument against actual infinities. The argument stands on the basis that an actual infinity leads to logically absurd conclusions. Rather than accept those conclusions, we instead reject that an actual infinity could exist.

So, our author (and God) might reject outright the challenge to build an actually infinite rock. The existence of such a rock would lead to logical absurdities which are not useful to the telling of a story.

They might, of course, be useful to the telling of a particular kind of story – science fiction, for a start – and that’s an interesting subject to explore. Again, we are not saying that an actually infinitely sized rock is logically impossible, or that the conclusions are logically contradictory. Rather, we are saying that the conclusions are absurd, not seeming to have any relation to the world we find ourselves in.

If it is possible to create a rock of actually infinite size (residing, as it surely must, in a Universe of actually infinite size), then the answer whether it can be lifted is probably only known to an all-knowing creator (he says with sheepish grin). I do suspect that such a Universe is only a possible one, and not necessarily one God has or would actually create; at least, it seems not to be possible in this Universe, and just as well, since the story of that Universe is probably far less useful to God’s purposes.

In any event, even with this caveat, it would seem that a consideration of actual infinities renders the riddle absurd, and therefore it does not fare better here than it does with potential infinities.  Even if we have to retreat to the notion that God only do one thing or the other, this simply means there is one less thing that any one can do, and God can still do all things that can be done.







Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



 

Episode 5 with Eric and Colleen Fitts from Bethlehem Farm

Episode 5 with Eric and Colleen Fitts from Bethlehem Farm


Eric and Colleen Fitts stopped by the show for Episode 5 to tell us about Bethlehem Farm.  Bethlehem Farm is a Catholic community doing great work in the Appalachian region of West Virginia.  The married couple (with a baby on the way!) discuss the mission of their ministry and what it’s like living a simple life of Discipleship.  Check it on out by clicking play below!

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.







Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



 

Dogs, Heaven

Dogs, Heaven


About 9 years ago, Marcy and I adopted a dog which had been found wandering the streets of Rainelle, WV.  We were set on adopting a lab, and we preferred a younger dog to an older one.

Two dogs grabbed our attention, and so we took each one for a walk and spent some time in a room playing with them.  Russ may remember:  I was actually inclined toward the 8 month old female lab, which earned a sweet name that I have now forgotten.  She was more affectionate, more pleased to see us.

The 4 month old male dog was a bit aloof, if you ask me.  He seemed to be about his own business, and it was incidental that anyone else was in the room with him.  On our walk, he held his head up in an almost regal pose, perhaps wondering how he would ever return to his kingdom in Rainelle.

But Marcy preferred the male dog, and when we returned for a second visit (and to make a decision), the female dog revealed herself to be irritable, bordering on lashing out.  We planned on having kids (HA!) so this was simply unacceptable.  That’s how it happened that we adopted Daniel Thomas, better known as Danny.

From hours of reading and research, I learned that puppies – and adopted dogs – can suffer emotional anxiety in a new home.  It was recommended that the new dog sleep at the owners’ bedside, and so I leashed Danny to the foot of our bed and held my hand down to comfort him through the night.

In fact, Danny went with us everywhere.  I was already in construction then, so I did what many contractors do, and brought him along to the work site.  My day job was amenable to having him in the office – a converted home, anyway – and so he came along there, too.  This made pretty quick work of housetraining him, though he was a smart dog anyway.  He also caught on to sitting, laying, and heeling, which in total was about all we needed from him.

Not that he always listened.  It was, to the very end of his life, impossible to get him to sit still when guests arrived.  Each person was an enemy at the gate, until the gate opened – then they were long lost members of the pack, finally come home.

There’s also a reason the stereotype exists of a contractor bringing his dog everywhere – they make excellent company.  A dog is always on the lookout for food and danger, and a man can’t help appreciating that.  When neither is afoot, a dog is always ready to play, and men are especially suited for playing with dogs.

Truly, Danny was a dog who belonged in West Virginia.  I can remember his boundless energy, his frustration at being leashed.  Because when you let him loose – the very ground lit up beneath him.  You could almost see the tips of the grass singed by his blazing speed.  I remember taking him into some tall grass one day, and he, by the enormity of his exuberance, bent the reeds and stalks in wide orbits, just cut through it like a howling wind.

We took him on all of our trips and on long walks and everyone came to appreciate the black lab mutt who could run like a deer.

One story especially worth mentioning comes from a day visiting Luke and Keveney and their black lab, Sally.  Danny and Sally were great friends, and one day we were all on the the porch when Sally and Danny started barking at the end of the clearing into the woods.  They were deep barks, meant to scare off whatever they saw in the forest.  So Luke got up to check it out, and as he approached the woods, it became obvious that he couldn’t see any danger.

So he began to creep to the edge of the clearing with exaggerated, high steps, which convinced both dogs to proceed with caution.  Suddenly Luke turned and cried out in a panic, and both dogs bolted like the devil himself was in those woods.  Probably the best laugh I ever had in West Virginia.

I can’t remember for sure, but I think it occurred to me to let Danny stay in WV when we decided to move back to Illinois.  I’ve always thought it was something of a tragedy that he should be crammed into suburban life when he had only known the wild and wonderful lands of Appalachia.  In fact, in the last months of his life, I seriously contemplated bringing him back and letting him loose.  Near certain death, I’m sure, but glorious until the final moments.  And he died anyway.

Nevertheless, he came with us, and there was much to love.  First, like Amelia in WV, he was the first to welcome each of our kids home after their births.  We always made a point to bring home a blanket the child had slept in, and let Danny smell it and get accustomed to it.  The next day, he would recognize the scent when a new baby came home, and it was he welcoming the child, rather than an imposition on him to accept a stranger.

Though no dog could be as patient as Jack, he was nevertheless patient with all kinds of petting, eye gouging, rough handling, and attempted pony rides.  He could often be found kissing the children, especially as babies, and occasionally snuggling with them.  There’s not much cuter than a dog resting his head on a child’s chest.

We went on countless walks and hikes, and the older girls even had turns at the leash…though he did drag Amelia at least a couple of times in pursuit of a squirrel.

But that’s something.  I will forever recommend to any would-be parents that they adopt a dog first.  For better or for worse – for the dog – you can scarcely hope to learn more about yourself, and yourself as a caretaker, than by caring for a puppy.  They are excellent instructors in patience, attitude, and empathy.

In the later years, Danny suffered occasional seizures, which would give him a sense of vertigo and send him tumbling to the ground.  In spite of this, he would scramble to his feet over and over until he found us, when at length we could restrain his panic until he was calm and oriented again.  They were nasty things, those seizures, and he bore them heroically.

Again, it does something to you as a caretaker to enter into that situation.  I want to live smoothly, happily, efficiently; a seizure is somewhere on the opposite end of that spectrum.  It compels empathy, it forces one to come to grips with the imbalances of life.  Even in the suburbs, there is chaos – it’s just framed differently.

Because his knee was going bad, and we didn’t share as many walks, those seizures became the predominant form of bonding.  I would never have wished them upon him, but given that they occurred, I took the opportunity to express compassion for him.

Marcy says she knew the end was near on the last day.  There was something about his demeanor – at one point he seemed to nip at Charlie (probably because he was provoked, but maybe not).  He also carried himself with a certain melancholy, which prompted Marcy to check on him more frequently than usual.  She says he first laid by each of the kids’ rooms, then by her side of the bed, and finally by my side, where he died.

I was at work at the time, but I wish I had been there to reach out my hand to comfort him, like the day we brought him home.

Children would write letters to CS Lewis, mainly because of the Narnia series, and in one of those a child asked about pets going to Heaven.  Lewis pointed out that there was no word on this from Scripture, but that – and I paraphrase – if you’ve ever looked deeply into the eyes of a beloved animal who is taken in as a pet, you feel certain there is something behind those eyes which will live forever.

Stella is still an infant, and the twins don’t really know what happened, but Amelia and Ruth do.  Amelia was deeply moved by Danny’s death, and Ruth was inspired to music-making with her mother as they memorialized Danny.  She did not promise that Danny was in Heaven, but did say that God will do whatever is best for Danny, and that cannot fail to be true.


Dignity

Dignity


When I look at this picture, I see a kid with a huge smile on his face.  I see a teenage kid with his family posing for another family photo.  He could easily think he’s too cool for it, but he wants to get in on the fun. You can sense a closeness in this picture.  A genuine joy.

Almost 40 years after this photo was taken we have the one below, snapped as the news of that same kids’ assassination spread across the globe.

What happened?

How did this kid, smiling with his family on a bright sunny day, become responsible for the blood of 3,000 men, women, and children?  How did this kid become a man who could dream up using a passenger jet as a missile? How did this kid’s death become the cause for chants of “USA! USA! USA!” and waving American flags?

In looking at the contrast between these two photos one thing struck me, Osama Bin Laden was never just a man in the collective consciousness of our culture.  His name was a symbol the moment it first came into our living rooms.  It was a symbol of hate, of murder, of terror. Of evil, embodied.  And so Osama Bin Laden became larger than life, he became more than a man to us. This allowed many to gather and cheer when he was killed.  We held rallies, press conferences, and photo ops.  We all breathed a collective sigh of relief.  Our nation had slayed the boogeyman, we can now lay our heads back on our pillows and finally get some sleep.

And as we lay ourselves down to sleep, deep down inside of us, in that place we don’t like to always talk about, one simple truth remains: Osama Bin Laden was just like us.  He got in fights with his mom and dad, and with his siblings too.  He had to do menial chores like take out the garbage and do the laundry.  He probably tutored his brother in math, and helped tuck his little sister in at night.  No matter what propaganda teaches us, Osama Bin Laden was just a man.

I don’t write this to make Bin Laden a sympathetic character.  We know that this kid would soon become a religious zealot.  He would walk down a dark path of religious fundamentalism.  He would preach his message with the goal of gaining enough followers to unleash a “holy war” on the west. He became bloodthirsty, and eventually would concoct a plan of mass murder that puts him on a short list of human beings who have had their hands in treachery of unthinkable proportions.

We can label him a monster.  We can buy into the symbol of evil incarnate. In doing so, we  may be able to sleep easier at night.  But the truth is deeper.  Osama Bin Laden was a child of God, fearfully and wonderfully created in His image.  His birth was a gift to his parents, and to our world.  He was loved deeply by His creator.  He was a boy.  A teenager.  A man.  Never more, never less.

I still don’t have an answer as to how this happened.  I certainly don’t think I ever will.  But I cannot get over how deeply this picture has touched my heart.

It’s pictures like this that make the beatitudes possible.  Praying for our enemy seems heroic until you whittle it down and realize that our enemies are just like us.  When I see this picture I think to myself, I wish I was there that day, it seems like it was a lot of fun.  I wouldn’t mind meeting this family and that gangly kid with a green shirt and blue bellbottoms.  I think, if given time, we might have been friends.  I might have grown to love him.

If only…


One thought on “Dignity

  1. Good blog – our church’s Sunday night Pastor’s Panel discussed this as well. The apostle Paul killed many Christians for their faith, and then look at what awesome things he did once God worked in his heart. We wouldn’t have much of the New Testament! God used Saul (Paul) for His glory. As for Osama, I think God mourned his deception, separation, and death (separation for eternity) as well. I think the things he did were terrible, but agreed – he was a man. It is a tough topic. The picture made me think. Thanks Adam,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Defunding PP – The layman’s legal case – 3

Defunding PP – The layman’s legal case – 3


Where we’ve been:

Prolegomena

Legal Case – 1

Legal Case – 2

Having seen in #2 that there is ample reason to believe that Planned Parenthood’s leaders are involved in illegal activity, and having acknowledged in #1 that anyone breaking the law must be held accountable, we now take up the question of punishment.  Who should be punished, and how?

It is clear, for example, that any doctor caught altering the abortion procedure for the purpose of preserving organs should be held accountable; likewise, any particular individual selling fetal organs at a profit must be made to pay the penalty.

But the argument being made by the Center for Medical Progress, and such Senators as Joni Ernst and such Representatives as Diane Black, is that this is a systemic problem.  That is, Dr. Nucatola and Dr. Gatter are not simply admitting what they are, personally, willing to do.

They speak for Planned Parenthood, in a leadership capacity.  They speak for the way things are, organization-wide.

Consider also, that Planned Parenthood has not denounced the words or actions of either of these leaders, but has only apologized for their “tone.”  PP’s President, Cecile Richards, says they would take swift action over any wrongdoing, but there have been no reported repercussions for the relatively straightforward admissions of illegal activity.

Therefore, if Planned Parenthood does not discipline its own employees, and if the problem appears to be systemic, it is only fitting that the organization, as a whole, is punished.

The bills that have been proposed as a result of the CMP videos act to withdraw federal (taxpayer) funding from Planned Parenthood.  They do not actually shut down PP, nor dry up all of their funding, nor prohibit them from continuing to do abortions, nor prohibit anyone else from doing abortions.

Rather, if an organization is to be held accountable for violating federal law, it seems reasonable to deny them federal support.  One does not pay the mugger for the privilege of being mugged.

This is, as far as I can tell, straightforward and fair.  After all, any taxpayers who are especially supportive of PP’s mission can always donate more money to the organization.  There would not be any restriction on this.

Moreover, the bills introduced by Rep. Black and Sen. Ernst would redirect the $500+ million to other, (one presumes) equally worthy women’s health centers.  So, taxpayer money would continue to support women’s health at exactly the same rate as now.  The only difference is that different health centers would benefit from that money, rather than the single health center that enjoys it all now.

In summary, one large women’s health organization, which we have reason to believe is engaged in illegal activity, would be denied taxpayer funding; 9,000 other women’s health organizations, which we have reason to believe are providing legal services to women, would benefit from a collective windfall of $528 million.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Defunding PP – The layman’s legal case – 2

Defunding PP – The layman’s legal case – 2


See the first two posts – Prolegomena and #1 – for an introduction to this series.

The first video released by the Center for Medical Progress depicts Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood, meeting with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics firm.  (Note:  There is a video edited for length and content, and a full, unedited video below the fold).

Recall from the first post that it is illegal to change the abortion procedure in any way for the purpose of preserving fetal organs and tissue.  Now:

2:54 – Dr. Nucatola notes that livers are in demand, and that they will use ultrasound guidance to “crush” the right parts of the fetus, in order to preserve certain organs.

3:53 – Dr. Nucatola explains how the abortion provider will sometimes change the “presentation” of the fetus for the purpose of preserving certain organs.  In medical terms, she explains that if the baby is presenting head-first, then they will have to crush the head; but if they can turn the baby around to feet-first, then the head will probably be able to come through without damage.  There is no mention of the safety of the mother.  The motivation is entirely the preservation of fetal tissue.

5:57 – Dr. Nucatola, on hearing that her buyers are interested in certain tissues, explains that she can “maintain dialogue” with the abortion providers, and they can make changes to the process to increase the success of preserving tissue.

 

Recall also that it is illegal to profit from the sale of fetal tissue.

7:13 – Dr. Nucatola advises that the legal arm of PP said they needed to steer away from the idea that PP is a middleman, because it could look like they are selling tissues.  She goes on to reiterate that their pricing is “per specimen,” which belies the fact that they are not simply recovering their costs.  That is, a liver from one abortion might be more costly than a liver from another abortion – but they will charge a standard price, rather than charging for the actual costs of the procurement.

 

The second video features a conversation with Dr. Mary Gatter, PP’s President of Medical Directors’ Council.  (The edited and unedited videos are, again, both presented).

Clips pertaining to selling fetal tissue at a profit:

0:22 – Actor posing as buyer asks what price Dr. Gatter is expecting.  Dr. Gatter responds with a negotiation tactic (as she later admits) – why don’t you tell me what you’re used to paying?

1:21 – Dr. Gatter refers to “our volume” – the number of abortions – from which the supply of organs will come.  This is indicative of her view that she is trading in a commodity, rather than simply offering donated tissue as it happens to become available.

1:48 – Dr. Gatter explains that, in some cases, there was essentially nothing for PP to do in order to provide tissues to a buyer; but compensation was still expected and exchanged.

2:22 – Buyer asks what sort of compensation is usually offered for “in tact” fetal tissue.  Dr. Gatter responds, “Why don’t you tell me what you are used to paying?”  But if PP was only recovering their costs, this would be irrelevant.

A little later, Dr. Gatter explains that, “You know, in negotiations whoever throws out the figure first is at a loss, right?”  The buyer pushes further, and Gatter responds with $75 per specimen.

The buyer responds that this is too low – she would be willing to pay more – and Dr. Gatter admits she was willing to pay $50 per specimen.  Again, negotiation would be irrelevant if PP was simply recovering costs.

6:49 – She conditionally accepts the $75 per specimen, but says she will go and find out what other affiliates are getting.  Of course, it should not matter what other affiliates are getting – she only has to know what it costs Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley Planned Parenthoods in order to procure the tissues in question.

 

Once more, recall that altering the abortion procedure in any way, for the purpose of preserving tissues, is illegal.  Note:

4:38 – Buyers ask about getting second trimester specimens, and Dr. Gatter explains that there is a little bit of a problem with this.

Ordinarily, they use one technique, but if they want to preserve the specimen, they have to use a technique that applies less force by suction.  She admits that this is a violation of protocol, which both PP and the patient have signed and agreed to.

However, she personally finds the argument against changing the procedure to be specious, and she will consult with the legal arm of PP to see what they can do.

And she admits, a second time, that the consent says there’s to be no change in procedure, in accordance with the law cited.

6:11 – If the business relationship with the buyers goes forward, Dr. Gatter will follow-up on the legality of using a “less crunchy” technique to procure the tissues requested.

 

By my estimation, there is enough reason here, in just these two videos, to suggest that systemic illegal activity is at work within Planned Parenthood.

Systemic, because these are leaders within the organization, and not dismissible as rogue agents.  In fact, at the end of the first video, Dr. Nucatola is explicitly lauded as “amazing” by Cecile Richards, President of PPFA.

Illegal, as demonstrated above.

There are more videos, and I will note the evidence of illegal activity in further posts.  However, the main thrust of the legal case will continue in the next post.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Defunding PP – The layman’s legal case – 1

Defunding PP – The layman’s legal case – 1


To date, six undercover videos have been released by The Center for Medical Progress (CMP), and it is these videos which have touched off the current push to defund Planned Parenthood.

In the context of the videos and in the surrounding debate, it is alleged that Planned Parenthood has violated two laws:

 

1.   Purchase of Tissue

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.

(Related)  The term valuable consideration’ does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.’.

and

2.  Informed Consent of Donor 

No alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue.

 

In brief:  1) You can’t sell fetal tissue at a profit, you can only recover your costs, and 2) You have to do the abortion the typical way, you can’t change the way you’re doing the abortion in an attempt to obtain tissues.

What CMP and their allies claim is that Planned Parenthood breaks both of these laws, and the videos prove it.  We will return to this claim.

Since they believe the claim is self-evidently true, they are seeking to defund PP.  But what does that mean?

Two bills have been introduced in Congress, one in the House and one in the Senate.  The bill in the Senate was recently introduced in a procedural vote, to see if it would garner the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster, and the measure failed 53-46.  Therefore, there has been no federal law passed to defund PP.

The House bill calls for the prohibition of federal funds given to any women’s health agency that provides abortions; the Senate bill is limited to defunding Planned Parenthood.  Both bills provide for the funds to be redistributed to other women’s health agencies; neither bill affects the legal right of women to have an abortion.

PP received $528.4 million in fiscal year 2013-14, according to their own annual report.  This comprises about 41% of their total revenue (see page 20).  Naturally, this would be a significant blow to their budget, and defenders of PP argue it would be unjust.  This objection will be treated in a later post.

Ultimately, it is a matter of fact that if Planned Parenthood has broken the law, they should be held accountable.  No friend of justice will debate this.

In the following posts, I will seek to show, in light of CMP’s videos, that there is reasonable cause to believe that PP has broken the law.  Then, I will argue that nothing short of federal defunding will rectify the situation, until or unless PP should give up providing abortions.


2 thoughts on “Defunding PP – The layman’s legal case – 1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Death by a thousand cuts

Death by a thousand cuts


I came across an online story discussing unsealed documents in the diocese of San Bernadino California regarding sexual abuse by priests.  As a Seminarian I cannot explain to you the overwhelming grief and pain it brings me every time I read a story like this.  There truly are no words to describe the deep pain I feel every time I read of hear of these stories.  There are also no words for the anger that I have for those who were so inept at handling the situation.

When I read stories like this I honestly ask myself and God “How do any of us stay in the Church?”  It literally is by the grace of God that faith can endure in these times.

I’m also sick of the apologetics that come with this situation.  They make me grow tired and weary.  How do we defend something that is so utterly indefensible?  How can we, with straight faces and upright hearts, try to discuss statistics, reasons, psychology, and the like?  And furthermore – how can some people out there actually get angry with the media?  Get angry with those who write and talk about this issue?

Are we being treated fairly?  Certainly not.  But what underlines this?  Why is there this huge rush to jump on the Church?  There are many who will point to the devil, many people will quote this as the everlasting battle of the “gates of Hell” encroaching on the Church.  And maybe some of that is in the midst of this.  But really, when you get right down to it, people intuitively expect so much more – and so much better – from the Church.  People, deep down inside of them, want to know that there is a place of salvation – even if they haven’t quite gotten around to surrendering to that salvation.  People want to know there’s a sense of divinity in this world, a place of God’s true presence, and a place that can still be held up as a model for something that is good, and right in this world.

And we have failed.  There are no other ways to say it.  There are no ways to twist the facts, massage the truth, or cleverly use misdirection.  We have failed miserably – and have destroyed hearts, lives, and faith in the process.  With each and every cover up, each and every secret archive we experience death by a thousand cuts, and each one of them hurts more than the one before.

It’s time for our leadership to do what we should’ve done a long time ago.  Beg, plead, and utterly fall at the feet of God for His mercy.  Anyone who thinks business as usual will work needs to simply be left behind.  The only response that seems logical is one of complete and utter surrender to God to make it right.  To beg Him to send among us prophets in our time to call us to deep repentance and renewal.

Sadly business as usual is still going on.  There are still people out there trying to hold up spinning plates and somehow trying to stitch back together tatters and threads that are torn beyond repair.  It’s madness.  And it needs to stop.

How do we endure in these times of great trial and distress?  The way Saints have for 2,000 years by focusing our minds, hearts, and souls on the Cross of Jesus Christ and ask the Great and Good Shepherd to lead His Church in these days.  May we have a renewed awe and love for Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, and may we be set ablaze by God’s Most Holy and capable Spirit.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Daily Readings – August 17, 2015

Daily Readings – August 17, 2015


Reading 1 Jgs 2:11-19

The children of Israel offended the LORD by serving the Baals.

Abandoning the LORD, the God of their fathers,

who led them out of the land of Egypt,

they followed the other gods of the various nations around them,

and by their worship of these gods provoked the LORD.Because they had thus abandoned him and served Baal and the Ashtaroth,

the anger of the LORD flared up against Israel,

and he delivered them over to plunderers who despoiled them.

He allowed them to fall into the power of their enemies round about

whom they were no longer able to withstand.

Whatever they undertook, the LORD turned into disaster for them,

as in his warning he had sworn he would do,

till they were in great distress.

Even when the LORD raised up judges to deliver them

from the power of their despoilers,

they did not listen to their judges,

but abandoned themselves to the worship of other gods.

They were quick to stray from the way their fathers had taken,

and did not follow their example of obedience

to the commandments of the LORD.

Whenever the LORD raised up judges for them, he would be with the judge

and save them from the power of their enemies

as long as the judge lived;

it was thus the LORD took pity on their distressful cries

of affliction under their oppressors.

But when the judge died,

they would relapse and do worse than their ancestors,

following other gods in service and worship,

relinquishing none of their evil practices or stubborn conduct.

Gospel Mt 19:16-22

A young man approached Jesus and said,

“Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?”

He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good?

There is only One who is good.

If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

He asked him, “Which ones?”

And Jesus replied, “You shall not kill;

you shall not commit adultery;

you shall not steal;

you shall not bear false witness;

honor your father and your mother;

and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.


The young man said to him,

“All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?”

Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go,

sell what you have and give to the poor,

and you will have treasure in heaven.

Then come, follow me.”

When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad,

for he had many possessions.
Reflection:
As usual, one could find many themes to emphasize in readings like these, but I am continually struck by the totality of faith which God requires for salvation.
This is more stark, more carnal, more brutal, more human in the Old Testament, which makes for an interesting psycho-analysis of our modern age.  It is the OT we are quick to discard, or hide behind a large potted plant, or otherwise interpret into metaphors and abstractions, and thus into obscurity.
But the very physicality of it, the raw flesh-and-blood composition of it, continue to demand our attention.
And indeed, we see in our age – perhaps in every age – the same tendency of God’s people, over time, to drift away into other religions, to worship other gods.  We think God was perhaps a bit too exclusionary, a bit too strict – yet time and time again, He is shown to be correct, because the very people whom He has favored and saved always fall into unfaithfulness.
We are reminded, there are no half-measures to salvation.  It is really all or nothing, and that is why the strictures of the Old Testament will always be relevant.
Indeed, we see it with Jesus and the rich man.  And again, while the New Testament is often thought to be gentler and more civilized, it is only the latter and not the former, for civilization is built by ordered thinking and great sacrifices.
The rich man, as we see, has satisfied the conditions of salvation in the Old Testament, and he knows it.  It would be wrong to judge him as inferior, for this really is quite a feat, and he was, in all likelihood, one of the most virtuous men of his generation.  He would not have had such a fine reception from Jesus if he was even the least bit hypocritical, as we see with the Pharisees.
Yet, when pressed, Jesus reveals that the true demand of God is all, everything.  Not because God needs it, but to become perfect like God is put everything it its proper order; and that means that God Himself is above all.  There is no possession, no virtue, no honor, no relationship, which makes a favorable comparison with God.
So we see that there was virtue and honor in this young man – but not that reckless love which God demonstrates through His Son on the Cross.  All of his motions were in order, but his heart was not.
One assumes that he went away sad because he did not want to give away his possessions.  I think this is true, but that there is more.
Namely, he had prepared himself for a moment like this for all his life, and by every measure he could find, he was an excellent man.  But when he was confronted by the totality of God’s demands, it was not only that he would be poor – but he realized he was still spiritually poor, he had failed this test which he had longed to pass.
It turns out that Heaven is impossible for man, and so trust is needed to believe nothing is impossible for God.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *