It's bad when Christians not only fail to live up to the teachings of the Bible, but give a testimony in opposition to that teaching. It's even worse when such decayed theology comes from a leader in the Christian community.
LifeSiteNews features a commentary by Judie Brown concerning a letter written by a nun to the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
According to the article, God is apparently pro-abortion:
GOD IS PRO-CHOICE
"Even though Catholic bishops are already pressing President-elect Barack Obama on the issue of abortion, it is time they begin to realize that 54% of Catholics who voted for him do not agree with the bishops telling people how to vote.
"Obama may be pro-choice, but so is God. God gave everyone a free will and he does not pressure people into using that free will to do what is right. Obama promised to do what he can to prevent abortion. What more need he do when so many other pressures to make changes are upon him?
"Yes, abortion is the killing of an innocent life. So is war and violent killing on the street. I have often seen many starving babies in hospitals in Honduras and witnessed their pain. In these cases, abortion might have been the lesser of two evils, and even the most merciful alternative.
"I challenge our bishops to dwell more on unjust economic issues that both create and perpetuate the need for children to die of starvation, and for women to choose abortion. It would be better to aim at eliminating poverty rather than focus only on abortion. Poverty in our country and the world at large is a disgrace that cries to heaven for vengeance.
"Sr. Arlene Welding, SSSF; Campellsport, WI"
I have a few questions for Sister Welding:
1. You said: "Even though Catholic bishops are already pressing President-elect Barack Obama on the issue of abortion, it is time they begin to realize that 54% of Catholics who voted for him do not agree with the bishops telling people how to vote." When did the morality of an issue suddenly become determined by majority vote?
2. You said: "Obama may be pro-choice, but so is God. God gave everyone a free will and he does not pressure people into using that free will to do what is right." God does indeed graciously give us a choice of whether to choose right or wrong. However, where do you find ANYWHERE in the Bible that God (a) doesn't care which we choose, or (b) that making the choice for evil is free from negative consequence--ostensibly something everyone would want to avoid?
3. You said: "Yes, abortion is the killing of an innocent life. So is war and violent killing on the street." By this logic, if war and violent killing on the street make abortion morally acceptable, couldn't we just as easily take that logic to mean that, if we accept abortion to be morally acceptable, then violent killing on the street is also morally acceptable?
4. You said: "I have often seen many starving babies in hospitals in Honduras and witnessed their pain. In these cases, abortion might have been the lesser of two evils" Though forced starvation is morally reprehensible, how do you reason that starvation (where human life remains) is more less morally acceptable than murder (where human life does NOT remain)? Also, how do you reason that death (where there is no possible remedy) is superior to starvation (where there are possible remedies)?
5. You said: "It would be better to aim at eliminating poverty rather than focus only on abortion." This is a disingenuous statement, as both Catholic and Protestant forces are well known for fighting poverty and hunger around the world; they are not focusing only on abortion. Further, why do you assume one must be done at the expense of the other?
This nun is obviously possessed--at best--of a fundamental lack of common sense. She is also dangerously bereft of moral discernment. It's hard to imagine how she managed to get through her religious training to become a nun with such a severe lack of moral compass.
Perhaps the more likely explanation for her moral bankruptcy is one common to many Christians--even Christian leaders: rather than following Christ's admonition to be "in the world, but not of the world," she has allowed her thinking to become conformed to the dark and twisted wisdom of a fallen world.
Each of us will be held accountable for the things we laud and promote. But those in positions of authority where others look to them for guidance will be held to an even higher standard.
If this nun doesn't get right with her God before it's too late, it won't be pretty. Promotion of or even ambivalence toward the taking of innocent human life is no small matter.
10 comments:
Sister Welding wrote "Yes, abortion is the killing of an innocent life. So is war and violent killing on the street."
This is a false analogy in that abortion is the intentional taking of an innocent life. In war and street violence most casualties are not innocent bystanders, and when innocent life is taken in what is called euphamistically "collateral damage" that is unintentional. There are distinct moral differences between the two situations.
Poverty and starvation are the results of dictatorial governments in this modern world. There is more than enough food produced to feed the world, but political forces prevent the equitable distribution. Those who care about these evils should work for increased freedom, democracy and capitalism in the world. These have been shown historically to be the only solutions to such problems. It is no coincidence that these solutions are also supported in God's Word, the Bible.
Mr. Orwell,
Why does your headline say, "Nun Claims God is Pro-Abortion" when the article you posted has her saying that God is pro-choice? Do these words mean the same thing in Oceania?
As for whether God is pro-abortion, you should re-read the Old Testament. His commands to "dash the little ones on the rocks" and "rip the pregnant women open" don't exactly reek of pro-life sentiment, do they?
And Dr. Theo, would you at least agree that if Christians hadn't blindly and literally followed God's command to "be fruitful and multiply," these dictatorial governments would not have such a hard time getting people the food they need? And is spreading freedom, democracy, and capitalism really the solution? America is the epitome of all three of these virtues, yet we consume more resources than any other country in the world. While people die of starvation in Africa, people eat themselves to death here. God bless America!
I wouldn't be so hard on Catholics. Along with their official position that evolution does not contradict the Bible, this statement by Sister Welding is just another example of how an entity with as much power and influence as the Catholic Church must adapt and modernize itself to stay relevant, or risk looking outtdated and out of touch. "Be in the world but not of the world" is a romantic idea to be sure, but unfortunately not conducive to maintaining one's mind-controlling authority over the ignorant masses.
I don't see any reference to a Mr. Orwell here, Anonymous 9:54 (or is it Alex?). However, it might be considered Orwellian to support the legalization of a practice while claiming not to support that practice.
How's that for approving of immoral acts by others while intimating one disapproves of those same immoral acts?
Duplicity anyone? Hypocrisy anyone? Anyone?
And Alex, I think we've already exhaustively gone through the Old Testament discussion of God's judgment against a thoroughly immoral civilization that embraced open sexual immorality, child sacrifice, burying children alive in the walls of a new home to "bless" it, and sacrificing children on a burning altar. We don't need to rehash that again, since it didn't sink in the first time.
You know, when I was pro-abortion, I at least had the intellectual honest to admit I supported the practice. Why is that so rare among pro-abortionists? Does it provide a salve for the conscience of those who approve of killing innocent children? Does it make one feel less morally culpable to say, "Oh, I don't approve of it myself, but I think others should be able to do it"?
I'll let Dr. Theo answer the foolishness you directed at him. You really can't get enough of embarrassing yourself with silly questions and premises, can you?
Anonymous 10:09, it's sad that the Catholic Church has compromised truth in order to get with the herd on evolution theory; a lot of Protestants have also made that compromise.
Truth doesn't change with trendy ideas and poll numbers. Killing innocent human beings is just as wrong now as it was when the Bible was written.
"Being in the world but not of the world" isn't just a "romantic idea;" it's a command from from God himself.
If one isn't willing to "be in the world but not of the world," then one has not only forfeited their aspirations toward truth, but is questionable in their commitment to Christ.
The nun, of course, speaks for herself -- not the Catholic church.
Mr. Ellis
I sense you're painting with strokes that are broader than necessary, so I think I need you to explain just what you mean by "pro-abortion." Back when you called yourself this, did you support the practice universally, or just in certain cases such as incest, rape, and when the mother's life is threatened? Because that's a very important difference, one that you don't seem to acknowledge whenever you lump people into the categories of either "pro-life" or "pro-abortion."
Personally, I think abortion for any reason other than when the mother's life is in danger should be illegal. I think the practice is always sad and gruesome, but it's not always wrong. In rare cases like ectopic pregnancy, pre-eclampsia, etc., where the mother will most likely die unless her baby is killed in utero by a doctor, I think abortion is absolutely permissible, and I certainly would not judge a mother or couple who has to make that unimaginable choice, nor would I ask the state to charge them with murder. If the situation comes to that end, I think women should have the choice of dying (and by extension letting their baby die with them) or aborting the baby so that they may continue living and perhaps try getting pregnant again. It's thoughtless and stupid (and decidedly NOT pro-life) to let two people die when you can save one, especially when at least one of them will die anyway.
Imagine that your wife is lying in a hospital bed near the end of her pregnancy. She is suffering from a condition called pre-eclampsia, where the baby in her womb is putting so much stress on your wife's body and immune system that it's essentially killing her. In fact, she's getting dangerously close to suffering a cerebral hemorrhage. Her obstetrician pulls you aside and says that unless your baby is aborted, your wife will most likely die. If I were you, I'd want an abortion before the doctor even finished his sentence. Sure, doctors can be wrong, but is that a chance you're willing to take? Would that be any consolation as you are picking out flowers for two funerals instead of just one? If you rule out an abortion, will the knowledge that you stood by your principles be enough to comfort you when you realize that both your wife AND your baby are now dead?
If I or someone I know were in such a tragic situation, I would be pro-abortion. Now, this does not mean that I would make the decision lightly or that I would relish in killing an innocent human life, nor does it mean that abortion is universally permissible. But since you see the world as a series of boxes, I suppose you would group me with all the other "pro-abortionists," regardless of whether their views align with my own, simply because I am not what you would define as "pro-life." To you, when someone says that they're pro-choice, do you think that all they want is to kill babies? Or does it mean that they want women to have the option to make that choice if it's absolutely necessary? From the way you twisted Sister Welding's words to say something that she clearly did not say, you obviously think it's the former.
When I was pro-abortion, I thought abortion should be legal and available universally, as retroactive birth control and the whole nine yards. Since taking a look for myself (and not blindly swallowing the pop-culture pap), I learned that scientifically we're dealing with human life in the womb, and also of the Biblical condemnation of the taking of innocent human life--including that in the womb.
As I've said before, I believe the procedure should be available in situations where the woman's life is threatened. In fact, almost every pro-life person I know or have ever heard of agrees with that. Though some women do elect to go ahead with the pregnancy even when their life is jeopardized (and I respect such a decision--it's almost universally recognized as a noble act to risk your life for someone else), I don't think there is anything morally wrong with an abortion where the life of the mother is clearly threatened, and neither do almost all pro-lifers. The right to protect ones own life is both Biblically and universally recognized. And, for the record, the last two attempts at an abortion ban in South Dakota had "life of the mother" exceptions in them. I don't think there's any significant disagreement here.
Something I think you fail to realize here is that when people talk about abortion, 9.9 times out of 10 they're talking about elective abortions, ones where the mother's life or health are NOT involved.
There is nothing whatsoever in Sister Welding's letter to indicate she is talking about medically-necessary abortions, but rather abortion in general. She also clearly sought to excuse abortion by comparing it to war (the doctrine of just warfare has been recognized for nearly 2,000 years if not more) and street killings (as if street killings are moral, or anyone thinks they are), and by comparing reparable hunger to irreparable murder. I think it's pretty clear that Sister Welding's was broken a long time ago had has never been fixed.
South Dakota's latest abortion statistics just came out yesterday and I did an article on them. I strongly urge you to read it and read the report from the Dept. of Health. It will likely prove an eye-opener for you. More than 80% of South Dakota abortions were done because "The mother did not desire to have the child." She just didn't want it! In other words, retroactive birth control. "Health of the mother" abortions made up 1.7% of the total number of abortions (and there is currently no legal requirement--as their was in our proposed ban--that such medical necessity be based on standard medical practice and be documented, so we don't know how this reason might have been abused and thus inflated the already-low number). "Life of the mother" abortions doesn't show up on the report. However, Sanford Health, South Dakota's biggest health care provider, recently stated they do about 6 of these a year, which is less than 1% of the total.
To summarize my main points: (a) the overwhelming majority of abortions are elective, not necessary; (b) almost no one disagrees with abortions necessary to save the life of the mother; (c) the abortion debate centers around elective, not medically necessary abortions; and (d) nothing in Sister Welding's indicates she was talking about medically necessary abortions instead of abortion in general.
I hope this clarifies exactly what I mean when I say "pro-abortion."
Thanks for explaining. It's a shame that our culture gets so hung up on political labels.
Still, you did put words in Sister Welding's mouth. She did not claim that God is pro-abortion as your headline misleadingly reads; she claimed he is pro-choice. However you *interpret* those terms is irrelevant. Journalism is what someone actually said, not what you think they said.
But at least we can agree that the rest of her statements are pretty stupid.
Well, I thought I was clear...but apparently not.
If she supports abortion in general, she's pro-abortion. Which she apparently is, according to her own words.
The term "pro-choice" is a politically correct term used to attempt to escape from moral culpability for approving of the murder of innocent unborn children.
Sorry, I'm just not into excusing murder or the avoidance of moral culpability.
Post a Comment