Below is the letter to the editor that I sent to the Wall Street Journal regarding the article found at this website http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704681904576315350526209130.html?mod=ITP_pageone_1
Good Morning
I read with great interested the article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on 11 May 2011 on page A4 entitled Texas Legislation Adds Conditions on Abortion.
I was most struck by the comments by Ms Kelly Rosati from the group Focus on the Family on how an ultrasound is capable of having a woman connect "with that child inside her".
It is interesting how she and others on the religious and political right are so anxious for a woman to connect with her unborn child but are not willing to devote the necessary resources so that relationship can grow and develope once the child is born. Ms Rosati and Focus on the Family are prime examples of the attitude that tells women we will do everything possible for you to keep your child, but once it is born, you are on your own.
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Monday, May 25, 2009
How do we "suit up" for the game.
I read with interest the article by William McGurn that appeared in the WSJ on 19 May 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124269063343832561.html.
Mr McGurn is right on target when he says " When Notre Dame doesn't dress for the game, the field is left to those like Randall Terry who create a spectacle and declare their contempt for civil and respectful witness". The question becomes how do we as thoughtful Catholics suit up?
I am convinced that the Priests for Life crowd or even my brother knights in the Knights of Columbus have grasped that you not only have to give a prohibition to abortion but to give pregnant women better options and that frankly, will take money. I would love to get Fr. Frank Pavone and Randall Terry in one room and say "OK.....let's say abortion gets prohibited like you want...then what? What are people in the pro life movement willing to give up so that women won't abort their babies. I want to know in dollars and cents how much they are willing to pay in terms of taxes for public services, health care, education and reliable day care to ensure that those babies who are not aborted will grow to their full potential.
I hear scant little from the pro life quarter on these issues. They are quite ready to say no to abortions but what are they going to do about it when abortion is no longer legal.
These sentiments are not only applicable to the pro life crowd but to institutions like Notre Dame. They are absolutely tone deaf on this issue. They talk a good game about honoring church teaching but what do the DO about it. Are they really willing to have an open dialog about abortion or devote resources to this cause?
Sometimes, it seems that the Catholic centers of higher education want it both ways. They want to seem as progressive and acceptable to the great population but still want a veneer of Catholicity.
Mr McGurn is right on target when he says " When Notre Dame doesn't dress for the game, the field is left to those like Randall Terry who create a spectacle and declare their contempt for civil and respectful witness". The question becomes how do we as thoughtful Catholics suit up?
I am convinced that the Priests for Life crowd or even my brother knights in the Knights of Columbus have grasped that you not only have to give a prohibition to abortion but to give pregnant women better options and that frankly, will take money. I would love to get Fr. Frank Pavone and Randall Terry in one room and say "OK.....let's say abortion gets prohibited like you want...then what? What are people in the pro life movement willing to give up so that women won't abort their babies. I want to know in dollars and cents how much they are willing to pay in terms of taxes for public services, health care, education and reliable day care to ensure that those babies who are not aborted will grow to their full potential.
I hear scant little from the pro life quarter on these issues. They are quite ready to say no to abortions but what are they going to do about it when abortion is no longer legal.
These sentiments are not only applicable to the pro life crowd but to institutions like Notre Dame. They are absolutely tone deaf on this issue. They talk a good game about honoring church teaching but what do the DO about it. Are they really willing to have an open dialog about abortion or devote resources to this cause?
Sometimes, it seems that the Catholic centers of higher education want it both ways. They want to seem as progressive and acceptable to the great population but still want a veneer of Catholicity.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
A New Discourse
Below is a letter I sent to the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus regarding abortion and gay marraige.
Mr. Carl Anderson
Supreme Knight
Knights of Columbus
One Columbus Plaza
New Haven, CT 06510
Worthy Supreme Knight:
I am a Past Grand Knight and former District Deputy from Illinois and I have wanted to write you for a long time in regard to the issues of abortion, gay marriage and the recent presidential elections.
Please understand that I am not advocating any nuance in our stand on the issues of abortion and gay marriage. What I think that the Knights of Columbus should be doing is helping transform the discourse on these issues.
First of all, I would like to address the evil of abortion. I believe in the church’s teaching that life begins at conception and ends with natural death but I have become convinced that the road to ending abortion does not go through the direct political process. The Knights of Columbus need to be at the forefront of championing both attitudes and policies that make it more desirable for a woman to keep her child rather than to abort it. That means that the knights need to be advocating things like accessible day care, education reform and health care reform. If women have the right support network they will be less likely to chose abortion. The problem as I see it is that the advocacy that the knights have engaged in so far seems to stop with ending abortion. I have not seen any other issue command so much rhetoric both at the local council and Supreme Council level as abortion does. We as knights need to really understand what it means to be “pro life”. I further believe that without a true change of heart and priorities in public spending, any legal protections given to the unborn will not guarantee an end to abortion. Affluent women will still be able to travel to foreign countries for abortions as they did before Roe v. Wade and there will arise a network of doctors will continue to perform clandestine abortions.
I have no illusions that the changes in day care, health care and education will be expensive but if we want women not to abort their babies we are going to have find a way to pay for it. Too often, people outside of the pro life movement have the perception, whether rightly or wrongly, that once a child is born, the woman is on their own. We knights need to change that perception. That change won’t happen with the rhetoric that you engaged in with your open letter to Senator Joseph Biden. I feel that while it was doctrinally correct, it was a tactical misstep because it hardened opposition to the pro life movement and your own background, having worked in Ronald Regan’s administration, blunted the efficacy of the message because you have been perceived as just another Republican voice. My point is that if you were to use the resources of the Knights of Columbus to advocate for broader changes in the priorities in terms of government spending, our stand on life issues would have a great deal more credibility.
Now, I would like to address myself to issue of gay marriage. I think what the knights need to do is expand what we advocate in terms of marriage. More and more, Catholic marriages are ending up in divorce. My first marriage ended that way and I was fortunate to get an annulment. We need to spend more time extolling and helping to develop the sacramental theology around marriage than trying to decide who can and cannot get a marriage license. In my professional life, I have come into contact with a number of gay couples who have been able to build a life together without a marriage license. Deciding who can and who cannot get a marriage license will not change that.
I have often heard the statement that gay marriage is a danger to the institution of marriage. I would submit to you that there are dangers to marriage that are more close at hand. I look at my own experience in that my wife and I experienced prolonged periods of unemployment while trying to take care of my wife’s mother in our home while her dementia continued to rob her of mental faculties. These things were far more dangerous in terms of putting our marriage at risk than whether or not two gay individuals can get a marriage license. Again, the knights need to be strong advocates for those priorities in government spending that will demonstrate our true commitment to family life. Without those policies in place, it won’t make a difference who can get a marriage license
I truly believe that we first must evangelize the Catholic community as to what marriage truly means and that is a union of a man and woman that makes manifest in the world Christ’s love for the church. Frankly, if it were up to me, I would tell all Roman Catholic priests and deacons that they were to no longer sign marriage certificates issues by a civil authority. I think we would be better off moving to more of a European model and process like my parents went through when they got married in England in 1954. They had a full nuptial mass and then had to go to the marriage registry office to have their marriage recognized by the civil authority. If we had a model like this in the United States, we could advocate for marriage as we as Catholics understand it regardless of what the civil authorities say.
The essence of what I want to convey to you is that many of us are tired of the same old culture wars and think that a new approach is needed. This approach does not require us to nuance or water down what church doctrine is but does require us to look at it from the larger perspective of bringing about a greater good for more people while staying true to the Gospel of Life.
Sincerely yours,
Eugene Michael Giudice
Mr. Carl Anderson
Supreme Knight
Knights of Columbus
One Columbus Plaza
New Haven, CT 06510
Worthy Supreme Knight:
I am a Past Grand Knight and former District Deputy from Illinois and I have wanted to write you for a long time in regard to the issues of abortion, gay marriage and the recent presidential elections.
Please understand that I am not advocating any nuance in our stand on the issues of abortion and gay marriage. What I think that the Knights of Columbus should be doing is helping transform the discourse on these issues.
First of all, I would like to address the evil of abortion. I believe in the church’s teaching that life begins at conception and ends with natural death but I have become convinced that the road to ending abortion does not go through the direct political process. The Knights of Columbus need to be at the forefront of championing both attitudes and policies that make it more desirable for a woman to keep her child rather than to abort it. That means that the knights need to be advocating things like accessible day care, education reform and health care reform. If women have the right support network they will be less likely to chose abortion. The problem as I see it is that the advocacy that the knights have engaged in so far seems to stop with ending abortion. I have not seen any other issue command so much rhetoric both at the local council and Supreme Council level as abortion does. We as knights need to really understand what it means to be “pro life”. I further believe that without a true change of heart and priorities in public spending, any legal protections given to the unborn will not guarantee an end to abortion. Affluent women will still be able to travel to foreign countries for abortions as they did before Roe v. Wade and there will arise a network of doctors will continue to perform clandestine abortions.
I have no illusions that the changes in day care, health care and education will be expensive but if we want women not to abort their babies we are going to have find a way to pay for it. Too often, people outside of the pro life movement have the perception, whether rightly or wrongly, that once a child is born, the woman is on their own. We knights need to change that perception. That change won’t happen with the rhetoric that you engaged in with your open letter to Senator Joseph Biden. I feel that while it was doctrinally correct, it was a tactical misstep because it hardened opposition to the pro life movement and your own background, having worked in Ronald Regan’s administration, blunted the efficacy of the message because you have been perceived as just another Republican voice. My point is that if you were to use the resources of the Knights of Columbus to advocate for broader changes in the priorities in terms of government spending, our stand on life issues would have a great deal more credibility.
Now, I would like to address myself to issue of gay marriage. I think what the knights need to do is expand what we advocate in terms of marriage. More and more, Catholic marriages are ending up in divorce. My first marriage ended that way and I was fortunate to get an annulment. We need to spend more time extolling and helping to develop the sacramental theology around marriage than trying to decide who can and cannot get a marriage license. In my professional life, I have come into contact with a number of gay couples who have been able to build a life together without a marriage license. Deciding who can and who cannot get a marriage license will not change that.
I have often heard the statement that gay marriage is a danger to the institution of marriage. I would submit to you that there are dangers to marriage that are more close at hand. I look at my own experience in that my wife and I experienced prolonged periods of unemployment while trying to take care of my wife’s mother in our home while her dementia continued to rob her of mental faculties. These things were far more dangerous in terms of putting our marriage at risk than whether or not two gay individuals can get a marriage license. Again, the knights need to be strong advocates for those priorities in government spending that will demonstrate our true commitment to family life. Without those policies in place, it won’t make a difference who can get a marriage license
I truly believe that we first must evangelize the Catholic community as to what marriage truly means and that is a union of a man and woman that makes manifest in the world Christ’s love for the church. Frankly, if it were up to me, I would tell all Roman Catholic priests and deacons that they were to no longer sign marriage certificates issues by a civil authority. I think we would be better off moving to more of a European model and process like my parents went through when they got married in England in 1954. They had a full nuptial mass and then had to go to the marriage registry office to have their marriage recognized by the civil authority. If we had a model like this in the United States, we could advocate for marriage as we as Catholics understand it regardless of what the civil authorities say.
The essence of what I want to convey to you is that many of us are tired of the same old culture wars and think that a new approach is needed. This approach does not require us to nuance or water down what church doctrine is but does require us to look at it from the larger perspective of bringing about a greater good for more people while staying true to the Gospel of Life.
Sincerely yours,
Eugene Michael Giudice
Monday, June 11, 2007
Separation of Church and State - When Its Convenient
I saw this article in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, June 8 2007 and thought it was an extremely interesting piece.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010184
It's a sad commentary when the very same action can be lauded in one case and decried in another based soley on what is politically expedient.
There will always be people who malign the church because of its attempts to be faithful to the message of the gospel and not to the message of one political party or another. Maybe its a sign of the church's vitality that it can manage to "anger" both the politicians and the pundits on the left and the right.
Just some food for thought and grist for the mill
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010184
It's a sad commentary when the very same action can be lauded in one case and decried in another based soley on what is politically expedient.
There will always be people who malign the church because of its attempts to be faithful to the message of the gospel and not to the message of one political party or another. Maybe its a sign of the church's vitality that it can manage to "anger" both the politicians and the pundits on the left and the right.
Just some food for thought and grist for the mill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
