Category Archives: Uncategorized

Yes, permaculture.

Category Archives: Permaculture

Yes, permaculture.

July 2, 2014Permaculture, StewardshipEd Pluchar

Last time I introduced the concept of permaculture (assuming some might not already know) and offered a sampling of Catholic teaching which fits neatly – some would say plainly – with the practice of permaculture. Then I said some hopelessly optimistic things about living with Mother Nature.

This time, a start at implementation.

Most of the resources I’ve encountered seem to agree on the principles of permaculture, which are summarized here.

As the Permaculture Association has it, the first principle is “Observe and Interact.” Other permaculture resources say likewise, and some recommend an observation period of at least a year, if not longer.

Ain’t nobody got time for that! No, but seriously, I’m a 21st century American – who thinks I’m going to wait around after I’ve just publicly committed to starting into permaculture? I’ll observe, alright – then immediately act! What, am I supposed to be patient, and restrain my desires?

Almost took up an inverted soapbox there.

Fortunately, I have been observing, and for longer than a year. Every time I’ve mowed the lawn, I thought how I would like to incorporate more garden beds, and how to arrange them. Once we started a garden in the backyard, I noticed how the sun moved across it, how the wind blew, and where things would have room to grow or climb or drain.

According to my foray into permaculture, it was observation by accident; but according to purposes I already had in mind, it was sustained observation.

For example: One technique suggested for implementing permaculture is an herb spiral. There are even videos guiding the curious to herbal glory.

We Pluchars like herbs at the ready, and so I thought of two locations, and Marcy picked one – the more reasonable one, of course. This is just outside our back door:

Now, as to observation: This particular location is on the south side of our property. That white vinyl fence is on the south side of the frame. That particular area – next to the heat pump, with a short concrete sidewalk and two pebbled areas – has always seemed hot to me. This struck me immediately, from before we bought the house, and has been verified repeatedly.

I believe this is because our house and the neighbor’s (relatively close by – maybe 40′, with a fence in the middle) act as a wind block, the heat pump generates heat in the summer, and the sidewalk and pebbles absorb heat on top of that. Even when the “weather” is breezy and tolerable elsewhere on our property, it is stifling in this area.

Furthermore, I believe we will modify the herb spiral, in favor of an herb amphitheater…or and herb-phitheater, if you please.

The reason for this is that any herbs on the north side of a spiral would have precious few hours of sunlight – given the house sandwich. Another drawing?

Therefore – I presume, at any rate – an amphitheater design will be more advantageous.

But where to find the building materials?

Permaculture?

June 19, 2014Permaculture, StewardshipEd Pluchar

WTF is one of the TCG posting on permaculture? ROFL! IMHO, this is BQYE!

Yep, made the last one up.

Welcome to a new category, an informal series, meandering as it will through my family’s adventures in permaculture.

But seriously, permaculture? On a Catholic blog? Let me learn you something.

This comes as little surprise to those who know me, or who have any real understanding of the Catholic faith. For a start, observe the confluence of these two: Bethlehem Farm. I spent a year on the farm, and another three nearby, helping people build and repair their houses and helping establish (what is now) a very impressive garden.

Bethlehem Farm is an explicitly Catholic community, and sustainability is actually one of their philosophical cornerstones. They encourage organic farming, living in harmony with the seasons and one’s local climate and resources, and making every effort to live in a way which promotes giving (to others, to the Earth) over and above taking.

It is in giving, after all, that we receive.

And Bethlehem Farm is not an anomaly, but right in line with Catholic teaching. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, for instance, tells us that “caring for and cultivating the world involves…joyful appreciation for the God-given beauty and wonder of nature…” and “…protection and preservation of the environment, which would be the stewardship of ecological concern.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has it, “[m]an’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.”

Of course, you did not see the term “permaculture” used in either of those passages, nor is it immediately visible (if at all) on the Bethlehem Farm website. Neither will you see the term “The Trinity” in Scripture, but it follows from what is written.

Permaculture, of course, is not the only …I beg your pardon. Perhaps you are as unfamiliar as I was with permaculture, only a few sunrises ago! Here you go!

As I was saying, permaculture is not the only way to carry out God’s command to “take dominion” over the Earth, but it seems to be at least one possible means. Moreover, it seems to be a challenge given a suburban setting, which only motivates this writer.

And, it seems…romantic, to me.

In college, I was introduced to the idea that a good garden is the way man “perfects” nature. Nature by itself, this view held, is wild and chaotic, and not particularly conducive to human needs. In order to make the greatest use of the Earth, humans would need to cultivate it.

But traditional gardens – even suburban lawns! – seem almost comical to me. I remember spending five weeks in the woods as a camp counselor, then returning to my suburban home, and laughing – heartily, without effort – for a minute or so when I first laid eyes on the clean and well-defined borders given to plant life.

There’s no doubt gardens can be beautiful – I simply find most of them amusing, like a dog wearing a sweater.

But to cultivate nature within one’s humble lot, to welcome her genius and offer a home to her lovely and untamed essence, and to barter with her evenly, as much as possible – now that awakens the soul, doesn’t it?

Defunding PP – The layman’s legal case – 3

Category Archives: Planned Parenthood

Defunding PP – The layman’s legal case – 3

August 28, 2015Planned ParenthoodEd Pluchar

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.

Defunding PP – The layman’s legal case – 2

August 28, 2015Planned ParenthoodEd Pluchar

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.

Defunding PP – The layman’s legal case – 1

August 28, 2015Planned ParenthoodEd Pluchar

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.

The Moral Case to Defund Planned Parenthood

August 24, 2015Planned ParenthoodEd Pluchar

(Even if you are pro-choice)

I speak from the uncountable number of arguments and apologies I have encountered from pro-choice people. If I am somehow neglecting your argument, feel free to introduce it.

I doubt, however, that any pro-choice argument can be reduced past this: You are pro-choice because you believe in a woman’s right to choose. That is, you believe in rights.

Bear in mind, first of all, that “rights” in general must be more basic than “the right to choose.” The set of all rights bestowed on human beings includes such things – in the pro-choice rendering – as the “right to choose,” but it also includes – in the general American rendering – the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Very well.

Now, the right to life is pre-eminent. Without the right to life, you could not have a right to liberty. Enjoying liberty entails being alive. Likewise with the pursuit of happiness, or equal treatment under the law, or whatever.

(Be patient with me. I am not sneaking in a pro-life argument. We are simply understanding that upon which we already agree.)

So one who is human and alive has a right to life; and we agree, at least, that a human is alive when she is born. Thus, even when the child is born prematurely, we make every effort to help her survive.

**PAGE BREAK**

The first moral case is that Planned Parenthood allegedly permitted fetuses to be born alive – which makes them infants, for whom we agree the right to life is secure.

Then, they harvested organs.

Now, let me throw out the first offer, and make myself vulnerable in this discussion: If this story is false, then the claim is invalid. The story rests on the testimony of an eyewitness. Eyewitnesses are notoriously imperfect.

And yet, their testimony is still accepted as evidence. (Or do you not accept the testimony of rape victims?) It is reliable enough that we consider it true, unless there is reason to believe it is false.

It is valid enough that an investigation is warranted, as it would be in a case of rape, or even a case of petty theft.

But if the testimony is true, what do you say?

If you are a person of integrity, you will say that Planned Parenthood has therefore committed an atrocity, murdering an infant in cold blood for the purpose of harvesting its organs. Indeed – as we saw with the first two videos – for the purpose of making a profit.

You do not need to be pro-life to find this morally reprehensible. You can be pro-choice and be every bit as disgusted and outraged (not petty outrage – real outrage) as anyone else. You do not need to compromise on a woman’s right to choose in this instance.

If you are morally and logically consistent, you will want criminals to be held accountable. There is a legal and moral law prohibiting the killing of infants, and it should be enforced.

We can stand together on infanticide. If they are guilty, Planned Parenthood should be defunded and prosecuted.

NB – A possible objection is that, even so, the baby delivered in this instance was clinically dead, and one cannot kill what is already dead. The beating of the heart is something like stored electrical energy, which was released, but this is not the same thing as being alive.

I answer that,

This is in the context of the accusation that Planned Parenthood makes efforts to deliver fetuses “fully in tact,” which is essentially the definition of partial-birth abortion (illegal) and sounds perilously close to delivering born alive infants (resulting in infanticide).
Even so, as my wife the PICU nurse said, every effort would be made to preserve and resuscitate the infant if it showed signs of life. This certainly would have been true at the moment of delivery, even if, minutes later, the signs of life were incidental at best. (She also notes that the rate of survival is not good in these cases, though neither is it zero).

The Case for Defunding Planned Parenthood – Prolegomena*

August 17, 2015Planned ParenthoodEd Pluchar

As you may or may not know – but you probably know – there is a developing push to defund Planned Parenthood. You might also know – but perhaps not – what exactly that means, or why it is being pushed. In the following posts, I hope to bring you up to speed.

A few disclosures are required:

– At this point, I agree with the push to defund Planned Parenthood (PP). Readers may assume a bias, but I don’t think it disqualifies me to inform you.

– Moreover, I will attempt to engage what the PP apologists are saying.

– You are your own judge and jury. I will assume you are of fair and sound mind, even if you are inclined one way or another.

– While I will try to make the best, most complete case possible, I am not a full-time journalist, and furthermore, it is possible that I will make some errors. Factual errors will gladly be corrected.

– I am pro-life. What you read is a greatly subdued tone, in order to make a dispassionate case to the as yet uninformed and undecided. If you are committed either way, I encourage you to keep your peace, or write your own blog posts.

Here is my outline:

1. The layman’s legal case to defund PP.

2. The moral case to defund PP, even if you are pro-choice.

3. My on-going case to protect the lives of the unborn.

See you next time.

Twocatholicguys.com

Fathers and Daughters

By Ed Pluchar, on April 10th, 2013%

I encountered this list of 20 things every father should tell his daughter on Facebook. As with all things Facebook, it’s about 47-53% of the way toward real wisdom.

1) Pay attention to the way a man loves his mother. That is the way he will love you.

2) You can do anything a man can do, including organic chemistry, unclogging toilets and assembling IKEA furniture. 3) Older women wear makeup so THEY can look like YOU. Less is more. A lot less is a lot more. 4) People will judge you by the way you look. It isn’t fair, but it’s the way the world works. Keep that in mind as you pick your outfit in the morning. 5) Never let anyone do your thinking for you. There are far too many people with far too much invested in you believing what they believe. 6) Liberal arts grow your mind. Science and business keep you fed. You will need both. 7) Nothing is more attractive than intelligence. 8) Learn to drive a stick-shift. 9) Get comfortable with power tools. 10) You don’t have to enjoy them, but have a working knowledge of the rules for football and baseball. . . . → Read More: Fathers and Daughters

The great balcony in the sky

By Adam Fischer, on April 4th, 2013%

I, like many Americans, was very saddened to hear of the passing of Roger Ebert today. No matter what my feelings were with the quality of his reviews (I feel like, later in his life, he could often be very inaccurate on basic plot tenants when providing a summary) I still felt like his reviews MEANT something. As a kid, when a movie had TWO THUMBS UP that was always a sign that the movie was going to be good. What I think I admired most about Ebert was his ability to appreciate movies as art, but to keep his reviews in line with his midwestern sensibilities, which could be counted on by the mainstream movie goer. He loved great films, high concept films, indie films and the like, but also did not punish films that were meant to be popcorn fare and would still give them the approval of the worlds most famous and influential thumb since the Roman empire.

Many of the comments on social media speak of Mr. Ebert going to that great balcony in the sky, where he will pick his argument back up with his long time sparring partner Gene Siskel , who passed away . . . → Read More: The great balcony in the sky

Born.

By Ed Pluchar, on April 2nd, 2013%

This is a letter I wrote to our youngest children, recently born. I was not sure whether to “share” it, but a few friends have spoken from time to time that I should be willing to share such things, and so I will.

Charlie and Therese,

Welcome to the world. It is my firm and deepest belief that you are not new to life, but new to the world. I have been your father in practice for nearly 9 months (and in anticipation for many years), and have tried to carry out my responsibilities with that in mind.

First things – your sisters have elicited much more detailed “birth stories” than you both have. Furthermore, theirs were individual, whereas you are being lumped here.

As for the first point – this is simply because there was almost no drama in your birth. We were blessed in that way. Whereas Amelia was our first child born, and had a bit of drama in the story; and whereas Ruth had a lot more drama in hers, in the way it unfolded; yours was simply a very good birth. Your mother proved her courage and her strength, and . . . → Read More: Born.

A Jealous God

January 6, 2017UncategorizedEd Pluchar

It is good to remember, from the outset, that attributes applied to men are fundamentally transformed when they are applied to God.

You may call a man “holy,” and get a picture of a radiant presence, even a halo. You might imagine him self-possessed, patient and long-suffering, with a peaceful magnetism.

When we call God “holy,” we mean a furnace of holiness, a star going supernova, a light so bright it puts out your eyes. It is a blast unrelenting, rendering all else to dust and incinerating even the dust, so all that remains is the perfect purity of His Spirit.

One is the vessel, the other is the source. One is derived, the other is the original.

Holiness is a fitting introduction to jealousy. The holiness of God dictates that nothing else could exist, unless He permitted it to be so. And His holiness requires that there be very good reasons for anything else to exist.

What could those reasons be?

We advance: The Christian faith teaches that these reasons are rooted in God’s great love. The creation of the Universe, the creation of man, the endurance of sin, the suffering and redeeming work of the Savior – these are all effects of the cause, that God is a loving God.

Now when is it that a man becomes jealous? It is when he desires something very much, to the extent of claiming possession.

My wife.

My son.

My daughters.

My friends.

My faith.

This should not be reduced to contractual ownership, the way I might own a car (which I might also desire very much). That is an economic relationship. We are discussing covenantal relationships, which include a spiritual dimension, something real but non-material.

You could not pay me enough to possess me as a husband, there is no material consideration great enough to earn you – from any man – the limitless gift-of-self required.

Likewise for he who is the bridegroom of the Church. Could you have paid Jesus Christ any consideration for his passion and death which would have adequately compensated him? What sum would represent an equal exchange?

It is absurd to ask. Likewise for the husband and wife. (This is truly why prostitution is regarded as sinful – it infinitely devalues a person’s worth, manifest in her body).

Now, that which is possessed – what if it is threatened, stolen, or seduced away?

We see this in Hosea, where the prophet is compelled to marry a prostitute, who subsequently commits adultery. Predictable, but no less painful.

God selects this as the metaphor for His relationship to Israel, and there is no compulsion except for His own will. He is compelled, in fact, by His love.

What does love have to do with it?

He made them. He conceived and created them from nothing. They were something much less and much more than a flight of fancy, so little did He require their existence and so much did He desire it.

And He saw His image in them, and said it was very good.

Then, over and over, Israel His bride was unfaithful to Him, worshipping other gods and disobeying his laws. Their desire to be fulfilled – which would find ultimate satisfaction in God alone – was gorged with vapid, vulgar imitations. They were seduced, deceived, and led astray.

There is a touching sequence in certain stories of a husband who goes astray, and finds himself in ruin until his wife comes to rescue him. She will often be forced to defy his “friends,” those who have participated in his downfall and desire for the party to continue. She rightly sees that what he wanted was not good for him, and she quite literally fights to protect him from it. There is sometimes a parental thread within the fabric of a marriage.

Likewise, Hosea loves Gomer for what she is, and it is not good for her to be a prostitute. When she reverts to that darker life, he goes after her. It is a cause for shame, it is humiliating and painful – but it is virtuous and true. Here in Hosea 3:3, we begin to see how love and jealousy lose their distinction:

“You must dwell as mine for many days. You shall not play the whore, or belong to another man; so will I also be to you.”

Which is this? Love? Jealousy? Love expressed as Jealousy?

Far from competing, this jealousy – jealous for the good of the other, jealous in protecting from evil – is the manifestation of love. If Hosea wasn’t jealous, we would have to wonder if he loved Gomer at all.

It is much harder, deeper, and sheerer with God. To be unfaithful to Him is to invite destruction into your life. To love Him in return is to embrace everlasting life.

If those are the stakes, no wonder God would be jealous for us. If He did not thunder from Heaven and flood the Earth and punish sins, we would have to wonder if He loved us at all.

Abortion: Debate, Ministry

June 24, 2012FaithEd Pluchar

There came a time a few years ago when I began to reflect deeply on the reasons a person might have for being pro-choice. Reflexively – instinctively? – I had always believed it was a misunderstanding, maybe a case of callousness which simply needed a proper, heart-rending appeal in order to spark a conversion. If only I could find the right words, the definitive and undeniable perspective which would change everything, then the debate would disappear.

It’s tough to deal with perpetual failure like that. A few years ago, I began to wonder why such an approach was doomed to fail, even with people whom I believed were intelligent and compassionate.

The closest I’ve gotten, by the way, is something like this: Abortion must be the most terrible fate a person can face. In your most vulnerable state, with nerve endings as fresh as they’ll ever be, in the place which is supposed to be the safest in all the world, in come the brutally dispassionate instruments of death. You have committed no crime, been given no defense. You will endure, arguably, the most intense pain possible, and you can’t even scream. Does anyone deserve this? Of all the very serious reasons people give for not wanting a child, can any justify this action?

Plenty of people – some reading this, perhaps – could respond that there are reasons, that it’s not as bad as I’m making it, that I’ve conflated the suffering of the fetus. (Please, don’t come near me with that truly stupid argument that we are only talking about a bunch of cells clumped together).

My breakthrough came when I doubted a quality intrinsic to the question, “How can good people justify abortion?”

In other words, since abortion does not seem justifiable – in that it is tantamount to murder – it must be that good people don’t justify it.

There’s a lot to get angry about there, and before you do, let me pull the pressure valve on one point: There is no one good who opposes abortion, either, except for God. We all, on both sides of this and every debate, are fallen and sinful. That sinfulness is manifest, for some, in a pro-choice stance.

This will not solve the debate, I understand. I’m just trying to understand it. There is a whole other angle, a set of people who does not believe in God who may or may not acknowledge the personhood of the fetus, and yet they defer to the woman and her opportunity to abort. Such people might be as likely to say that we still, as part of the social contract, must protect life at all stages.

Perhaps – and I’m beginning to believe this more and more – a debate is not the proper field for this competition of values and fundamental beliefs. At least not in an academic sense, which might ultimately produce a consensus among the enlightened which trickles down to common folk. Rather, since we are talking about real persons who will live or die based on decisions made in a real human mind, according to quite specific circumstances, efforts ought to be focused on those minds, and on amending those circumstances.

If one life can be saved in this way, it must be better than perpetual failure in the grand debate.

One thought on “Abortion: Debate, Ministry”

mom says:

August 3, 2012 at 5:27 pm

Yes!

Reply

Twocatholicguys.com

The Heavens are telling of the Glory of God

By Ed Pluchar, on February 24th, 2013%

I’ve seen the advertisements featuring the Sky Survey app, but didn’t learn much else about it until I found this article from Wired.com.

Really impressive stuff.

I downloaded the app, and it’s absolutely mind-blowing. Hard to believe it exists.

Then, it’s hard to believe that what it portrays really exists. Much harder, and yet it does.

How hard is it to hack the Papal election?

By Adam Fischer, on February 22nd, 2013%

I’m a bit of a geek, which is a surprise to no one. I happy to follow a security blogger by the name of Bruce Schneier. He wrote a very interesting post recently about how easy or hard it might be to hack the papal election. Definitely worth a read!

Hacking the Papal Election

Twocatholicguys.com

The motions

By Ed Pluchar, on May 30th, 2011%

My daughter Amelia is about to turn 2, and she is such a delightful human being. She is at an age when she loves to see what Mama and Papa are doing, and she does her best to imitate. This includes baking, putting on deodorant, nursing babies (she nurses her doll), reading stories (again, she’ll read to her doll), and even exercising. All of this is taken up with wonder and exuberance.

This will tie in, in a moment.

From the first donation, I have been fascinated with the whole process of giving blood. Naturally, there are the very good, altruistic reasons for doing it – you can help save or improve the lives of those who are critically injured or ill. In fact, it is an almost completely altruistic act. The only thing one concretely gets from it is a snack and some juice. Less concretely may be a sense of moral superiority, but we’ll leave that aside for now.

The fascination has to do with actually giving away, in a real sense, a part of one’s very life. It is admittedly a modest part, and one that is not very sacrificial beyond giving up some time and a . . . → Read More: The motions

Rapturegate Redux

By Adam Fischer, on May 21st, 2011%

I’ve received some feedback for my first Ratpuregate post so I wanted to clarify my thinking on this issue. I also learned an important lesson: you should try to avoid heavier topics when looking out over San Francisco Bay from your executive suite at the Hilton – sometimes there is a time and a place for deeper thought. : )

Before I clarify my point it’s important to point something out. First – Mr. Camping should be pitied and also feared for his ability to mobilize the campaign he did. Pitied because he has squandered quite a bit of his fortune on such a foolish pursuit; feared because he was able to take so many other people with him, many of whom risked much more than he did.

The point I wanted to drive home which, upon further reading, I missed the mark on is this: why was the whole world so fascinated with this? Facebook, Twitter, Google News, TV news, print news have been frenzied over this prediction. Why?

There are some who think it was like watching a train wreck with Mr. Camping and his followers being the ill-fated train. Others who think this was a way for . . . → Read More: Rapturegate Redux

Rapturegate

By Adam Fischer, on May 21st, 2011%

The only thing more fascinating than someone spending $100 million on a campaign advocating a bunk prophecy is how much play this has gotten in the press. Flipping through the channels in my hotel room last night, talk about Harold Camping’s bold (and now, utterly false) prediction was inescapable. Now I know atheists are planning post rapture days on Sunday and those who utterly despise religion are using this to show the foolishness of the entire faith enterprise, but I think this points to an all together wonderful and escapable truth – we are created for God.

A recent study by a professor of psychology from Bristol Univrsity has put forth a proposal that our brains are literally hard wired for God. While I don’t propose to know the science behind this, I, for one, believe it. And I think this entire rapturegate (I hope I’m the first one to throw “gate” at the end of the word rapture in the history of media) is a fascinating case study in the inescapable metaphysical reality of God.

We are created by God, for God. It’s in the deepest parts of us. St. Paul teaches us that the whole of creation . . . → Read More: Rapturegate

Fire-breathing Catholics – St. Henry Morse

By Ed Pluchar, on May 12th, 2011%

About to be martyred:

“Come, my sweetest Jesus, that I may now be inseparably united to thee in time and eternity: welcome ropes, hurdles, gibbets, knives and butchery, welcome for the love of Jesus, my saviour.”

St. Morse’s story is almost absurd in its repetition. Well, that’s one Jesuit who made the list…

Thanks to Quotable Saints, compiled by Ronda De Sola Chervin.

Dignity

By Adam Fischer, on May 6th, 2011%

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. . . . → Read More: Dignity

Sign of the Cross

By Ed Pluchar, on May 1st, 2011%

Arriving at, during, and departing from Mass, Marcy and I will make the sign of the cross on ourselves, and then on our girls. Amelia (almost 2) is particularly interested in the holy water, and will sometimes bless her baby doll as well. Or, you know, whatever that gesture can mean to a little child.

In the process of all of this, onlookers will sometimes watch steadily, and some will smile approvingly. When Amelia wants to rush into the baptismal font at St. Julie, this usually draws laughter.

This of course, is all fitting. It can be…hmm…adorable, or even “cute” to watch children doing as their parents do, to see the faith tangibly being passed along. Those serious observers, too, may be on to something.

This sign is not like a sticker you get at the doctor’s office, or learning manners when you greet someone, or even something idiosyncratic that the child mimics after watching her parents do it a dozen times or so. It is cute to see your daughter talking to her uncle on the phone, and walking around the house because that’s what her parents do when they’re on the phone.

We are, in fact, marking them . . . → Read More: Sign of the Cross

Twocatholicguys.com

Banner of “Love”

By Ed Pluchar, on July 26th, 2011%

On our return trip from Starved Rock to New Lenox, Marcy and I passed through Ottawa, IL to be refreshed by a local coffee shop with an inspiring story – Jeremiah Joe Coffee. Ottawa reminded me a great deal of Charleston, WV, which is a great comparison for the Illinois town.

As we drove on, we passed a church with their marquee – “What’s the best vitamin for a Christian? B1.” – and a banner. The banner got me worked up a bit, and maybe you will see why. It read, “Jesus didn’t reject anyone. Neither do we.”

In response, I plainly said aloud, “Yes, He did.” Marcy looked up to see what I was talking about, and I explained what I saw and what I was saying.

“The Scribes and the Pharisees,” I said, “He called them vipers.“ (See Matthew 12:34, 23:32-34)

Now, the spirit of the banner is one thing, and to love one’s neighbor in spite of any shortcomings or differences is a great thing. Of course we are all in need of this kind of love.

But the “love” that says anything goes, that permits any behavior as long as it is not immediately painful to . . . → Read More: Banner of “Love”

Napoleon

By Ed Pluchar, on July 18th, 2011%

I’ve seen the first sentence of this quote, but not the rest. Very interesting, especially the last line. What a stark thing for such a man to say.

“I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creation of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him.”

Twocatholicguys.com

Alone in the World

By Ed Pluchar, on December 17th, 2011%

I guess this is kinda my blog now…

www.acatholicguy.com – still available.

There some ridiculous company, by the way, that owns www.restfortheweary.com. I have the .net version of that, because they decided to take the .com and occupy it like Wall Street. And they’re very gracious about it – every couple of months I get a form e-mail saying the site is available at a discount. Instead of $2,000 or some ridiculous price, they’ve brought it down to a very reasonable $1,750.

I sent them an e-mail suggesting that they were motherless and enjoying their freedom at the cost of several thousand dollars. I may have also offered them a discount on www.gotohell.com.

Or, I may have politely declined their offer, but thought about doing those things.

Twocatholicguys.com

Catechism #1256

By Ed Pluchar, on January 5th, 2012%

A friend has had some questions about the Catholic faith, and one of them centered on Baptism. How is it, she very reasonably asked, that we started with John baptizing Jesus and Jesus commissioning his disciples to baptize in the name of the Trinity and now have priests sprinkling infants with water, while no one else may baptize?

You playing at home probably know, as I did, that baptism is not the purview of priests alone, but also bishops – and under fairly ordinary circumstances, deacons can baptize. You probably also knew that any believer could baptize under extraordinary circumstances – say, a death bed conversion.

But here’s your extra credit question: Did you know that non-believers can baptize people into the Catholic Church? It’s true, as long as they follow the form and formula, and carry the same intent as the Church does whenever she baptizes.

Maybe I’m alone in this – that, to me, is astounding. It actually puts me in awe. The Church is so caught up in the salvation of souls – desperate even, in a certain way – that we allow anyone to baptize (under particular, reasonable circumstances). Richard Dawkins could baptize.

That’s called grace.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

One thought on “Abortion: Debate, Ministry”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply