Links for 02/25/15 | National Catholic Reporter

Links for 02/25/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: The length of the UK document simply shows more agreement among the bishops (there are fewer of them, after all).  Theirs looks like a candidate survey.  In the business of election, no candidate should ever do one of these things unless it is absolutely necessary to please a certain constituency (or show that they are not beholden to the survey generator). Generally, canddates should use their own formats to get their views out, not the Catholic bishops of any jurisdiction.



Sarah Christian at Millenial is correct - there are people who are very much pro-abortion and consider it a right of women to exercise with no restriction whatsoever - indeed, for them it is simply another form of birth control, as well as a way to fight the partriarch.  Everyone who is pro-choice, however, is not pro-abortion.  Pro-choice people believe that the government is not competent to make decisions in this area - especially coercive ones.  That is simply not being pro-abortion.



Of course, there is another option on being pro-abortion - that is the philosophical disagreement with the Church over whether abortion should be direct or indirect in the later trimesters - especially if the child has no prospect of surviving the pregnancy.  Logic dictates that if the child is doomed, ending the pregnancy - by induction of course - should best be accomplished as soon as possible for the health of the mother - but rejecting any form that disects the child either in the womb or in the birth canal (if there is a difficulty in delivery use a C-Section).  Is that against teaching.  Yes, absolutely.  Is it wrong?  Heck no!  Rejecting such methods still fall under the heading of believing God is an Ogre who will send you to Hell for violating His exclusive authority over life and death.  That is a regretable defect in the pro-life movement that is entirely selfish, putting the salvation of one's soul above the Truth - which is essentially cowardice, not faith.



It is ISIL, the second S is for the Levant (although simply calling it IS is what they are doing now - Obama uses ISIL to stress that there are many Islamic States and that ISIL is not one of them).  The current tyranny against Christians is both a question of Martyrdom (last I checked, we celebrated such events) and of asserting both the right to location and the freedom of religion at the same time.  The second view is stupid.  It is time for Christians to leave, protestations of rights to the contrary.  This is not the early centuries of the Church, where the empire was huge and the known world (and Martyrdom was glorified).  Its time to go or grab an AK-47 if you want to defend your right of location.  If Christians don't want to get militant, leaving is morally obligatory, at least as far as your family is concerned.  Anyone who wants to be warrior has taken up the sword and may die by it, regardless of how just the cause is.