[Bumped] Dean of Episcopal “Divinity” School: Abortion a Blessing, Abortion “Doctors” saints….
Sickening. We’ve published a number of posts recording Dean Ragsdale’s love for Black Genocide. But it is one thing to read about it, it’s another to see and hear a bloated pasty white seminary dean gloating over the mass murder of primarily minority babies.
The earlier speech to which she refers and which she defends in her remarks caught on tape above was removed from her website but you can still read it on the NARAL site. Here’s an excerpt:
- Finally, the last sign I want to identify relates to my fellow clergy. Too often even those who support us can be heard talking about abortion as a tragedy. Let’s be very clear about this:
When a woman finds herself pregnant due to violence and chooses an abortion, it is the violence that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.
When a woman finds that the fetus she is carrying has anomalies incompatible with life, that it will not live and that she requires an abortion – often a late-term abortion – to protect her life, her health, or her fertility, it is the shattering of her hopes and dreams for that pregnancy that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.
When a woman wants a child but can’t afford one because she hasn’t the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.
And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight—only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.
These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
I want to thank all of you who protect this blessing – who do this work every day: the health care providers, doctors, nurses, technicians, receptionists, who put your lives on the line to care for others (you are heroes—in my eyes, you are saints); the escorts and the activists; the lobbyists and the clinic defenders; all of you. You’re engaged in holy work.
Thank you for allowing me to join you in that work for a few days here in Alabama. God bless you all.
Compare and contrast: This guy glorified mass murder too, but at least he acknowledged the horror.
I want to mention another very difficult matter here before you in all frankness. Among ourselves, it ought to be spoken of quite openly for once; yet we shall never speak of it in public. Just as little as we hesitated to do our duty as ordered on 30 June 1934, and place comrades who had failed against the wall and shoot them, just as little did we ever speak of it, and we shall never speak of it. It was a matter of course, of tact, for us, thank God, never to speak of it, never to talk of it. It made everybody shudder; yet everyone was clear in his mind that he would do it again if ordered to do so, and if it was necessary.
I am thinking now of the evacuation of the Jews, the extirpation of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that’s easy to say: “The Jewish people will be extirpated”, says every Party comrade, “that’s quite clear, it’s in our program: elimination of the Jews, extirpation; that’s what we’re doing.” And then they all come along, these 80 million good Germans, and every one of them has his decent Jew. Of course, it’s quite clear that the others are pigs, but this one is one first-class Jew. Of all those who speak this way, not one has looked on; not one has lived through it. Most of you know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when 500 lie there, or if 1,000 lie there. To have gone through this, and at the same time, apart from exceptions caused by human weaknesses, to have remained decent, that has made us hard. This is a chapter of glory in our history which has never been written, and which never shall be written; since we know how hard it would be for us if we still had the Jews, as secret saboteurs, agitators, and slander-mongers, among us now, in every city—during the bombing raids, with the suffering and deprivations of the war. We would probably already be in the same situation as in 1916/17 if we still had the Jews in the body of the German people.
The riches they had, we’ve taken away from them. I have given a strict order, which SS Group Leader Pohl has carried out, that these riches shall, of course, be diverted to the Reich without exception. We have taken none of it. Individuals who failed were punished according to an order given by me at the beginning, which threatened: he who takes even one mark of it, that’s his death. A number of SS men—not very many—have violated that order, and that will be their death, without mercy. We had the moral right, we had the duty to our own people, to kill this people which wanted to kill us. But we don’t have the right to enrich ourselves even with one fur, one watch, one mark, one cigarette, or anything else. Just because we eradicated a bacillus, after all, doesn’t mean we want to be infected by the bacillus and die. I will never permit even one little spot of corruption to arise or become established here. Wherever it may form, we shall burn it out together. In general, however, we can say that we have carried out this most difficult task out of love for our own people. And we have suffered no harm to our inner self, our soul, our character in so doing.
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
72 comments
It’s the clapping and cheering of the audience that I find so chilling. And I believe that no one can think as Ms. Ragsdale does without some deep issue and history that calls for our prayers - for her, for those who think she is speaking as a Christian and so believe what she says, and for all of us who participate in a culture that murders its most innocent.
[1] Posted by Branford on 7-10-2010 at 10:47 PM · [top]
I know that I may be in violation of the comment rules to say this but I got vivid reminders in this speech and the audience reaction of Nazi occupation minuets where the horrible acts of cruelty inflicted upon human beings are trivialized to the point of laughter and derision by the perpetrators. This person is NOT a Christian. Intercessor
[2] Posted by Intercessor on 7-11-2010 at 12:10 AM · [top]
These people are absurd, pathetic, and quite literally obscene… ie without any socially redeeming value.
[3] Posted by A Senior Priest on 7-11-2010 at 12:13 AM · [top]
May God have mercy on her soul, and bring her to repentance.
May He also convict those who let her come to the communion table.
What ever see she ‘serves’ in is vacant.
[4] Posted by Bo on 7-11-2010 at 12:25 AM · [top]
Next time a partial-birth abortion is performed in this country, Ragsdale and all the clappers in the audience need to be present so they can see what it is they’re actually supporting. Abortion is one of those things that’s easy to endorse from afar. How about a stand-in-the-room reality check?
She and her kind truly disgust me.
[5] Posted by Anti-Harridan on 7-11-2010 at 01:32 AM · [top]
Her speech would be depraved and disgusting enough if it were coming from anyone who purports to follow Christ and his teachings. Coming from not only a clergyman(excuse me - clergyperson) but a bishop, it is even more sickening. What is shocking - literally - is that she was made a leader in a church that calls itself Christian, and that she not only feels safe in speaking like this, but is very pleased with herself for her position. My husband has always said that for the pro-abortion people, abortion is their sacrament. To them, it’s a positive thing in itself - as she says, a blessing. How perverted! How sick! I fully agree that if people could see an abortion, particularly a partial birth abortion, being performed, many would change their position. I worked with a man long ago on Long Island (right around the time of Roe v. Wade)who was an anti-abortion campaigner. He brought pictures to work once, and the other women thought he was crazy. I don’t think so; I think he knew that people had to see the truth to understnad what abortion is. The pro-choice people talk about inconvenience, about a woman’s rights, about the violence of rape, etc.; they don’t mention the violence of tearing apart a human baby limb from limb, or sucking his brains out thorugh his skull.
[6] Posted by Nellie on 7-11-2010 at 06:36 AM · [top]
A psychoanalyst could spend a career figuring out how a human being could think and say such things. One would speculate that it’s related to the fact that she’s a self-avowed, practicing, and unrepentant homosexual. Then, it becomes clear (at least to this mystic) how a human being could do all that: those actions are not of God.
May God watch over and protect the students and faculty of Episcopal Divinity School. May God watch over and protect the souls of innocent babies, and their parents, murdered by those encouraged by her words.
And, may God reveal Himself to her in such a way that she will repent of her sins, be forgiven, and become a Christian.
[7] Posted by Ralph on 7-11-2010 at 06:43 AM · [top]
Dr. Ragsdale’s position and statements on the subject:
—Reprehensible
—Unconscionable
—Heartless
—Careless
—Reckless
—Wanton
—Beastly
—Cursed
—Unholy
—Disgraceful
—Anathema
—EVIL
#7, Ralph, concur with your last wholeheartedly.
Kyrie eleison! Christe eleison! Kyrie eleison!
[8] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 7-11-2010 at 07:14 AM · [top]
Ragsdale and her type have something else in common with Himmler. They have successfully de-humanized the victims of their crime. In this case, it’s a baby. Once that is done, the crime can continue unabated because it is then seen as no worse than ridding yourself of a troublesome wart. Disgusting. She desperately needs our prayers for conversion.
[9] Posted by rbatts on 7-11-2010 at 07:30 AM · [top]
#8 Athanasius Returns after your post there is really nothing more that I or anyone could really add. Spot On!
And #9rbatts you are also correct. As I was reading this and getting to my stomach Hitler came to mind.
[10] Posted by TLDillon on 7-11-2010 at 08:57 AM · [top]
I don’t see this ending well for her.
[11] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 7-11-2010 at 09:15 AM · [top]
This woman makes me sick…
[12] Posted by Tom Dennis on 7-11-2010 at 09:40 AM · [top]
It seems ironic to me that KR would be unanimously elected as Dean of EDS yet I believe her outrageous statements would have gotten her paper screened as an applicant to a similar position in a secular university. Where was the outcry from the students when she was selected? There is a culture of death in TEC. They are not breeding, they are openly advocating for abortion on demand and they will be strong advocates for “right to die” for the elderly. “Be fruitful and multiply” part is counter to what TEC stands for.
[13] Posted by Fr. Dale on 7-11-2010 at 10:48 AM · [top]
I was blessed Friday night by going to a lecture by Father Euteneur who is the president of Human Life International. He did not hesitate to remind people that abortion is demonic.
But we need to remember that abortion did not gain acceptance in so many Christian denominations overnight. Like all assaults by the demonic first a toe hold had to be gained. (Father refers to this as the first step. The others are foothold and stronghold.) So ask yourselves what toehold was used by Satan to make the churches accept abortion (oh and also homosexual behavior)?
I won’t give my opinion but I think Matt can give a very good answer.
[14] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 7-11-2010 at 12:45 PM · [top]
Unfortunately, Katherine Ragsdale represents the thinking of some powerful leaders of The Episcopal Church, which has quietly enrolled the TEC as a member with the RCRC (Religious Coallition for Reproductive Choice (a lobby organization supporting Abortion).
The RCRC is apparently well funded and I can’t help but wonder how much money the Episcopal church donates and how many Episcopal Priests donate time and money to the RCRC Lobbying organization.
It must have taken a lot of money for RCRC lawyers to plead their case for partial birth abortion before the United States Supreme Court (Gonzalez v. Cathart, 4/18/07) when the Supreme Court wisely rejected their argument and upheld the “Partial-Birth Abortion Ban act of 2003”. I hope that TEC money did not help fund this.
After reading an account of the Partial Birth Abortion procedure of holding the fetus inside the birth canal so that it will stay there long enough for the doctor to puncture and destroy the baby’s brain and kill it before it actually is delivered, I had to agree with the Supreme Court’s wise decision that this procedure of pushing the baby back into the birth canal can not be considered necessary to the health of any woman.
[15] Posted by Betty See on 7-11-2010 at 12:54 PM · [top]
In this video she says that abortion is a blessing when it keeps a woman from derailing her education. I had to stop the tape and cry.
Woe to the EDS, woe to the students, woe to their future sheep.
[16] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 7-11-2010 at 01:37 PM · [top]
Folks, if you have not yet watched Maafa 21, you really, really, must, particularly if you are an Episcopalian. TEC prides itself on “not checking our brains at the door.” This film is a meticulously researched 2-hr documentary. To refuse to watch it is to not even make it to the door with your brain. To refuse to watch it is a willful act of cowardice.
[17] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 7-11-2010 at 01:50 PM · [top]
If there are any Christians left among the faculty and student body at the badly-misnamed Episcopal Divinity School, they should run (not walk) to the nearest exits, and never look back.
It might be best not to even stop to pack.
[18] Posted by richard reed on 7-11-2010 at 01:52 PM · [top]
#4 & #6
She is not a bishop, but just as bad, she’s a seminary dean. She now has the opportunity to influence those preparing to enter the church in a leadership position. Equally disgusting. This is vile and evil to its core.
[19] Posted by Anglican Presbyter on 7-11-2010 at 04:01 PM · [top]
I have never in my life heard a more cold-blooded presentation on this subject, not even from Marxists.
Apparently, a view of abortion as being at best a “regrettable necessity” is now a “moderate” position, and a rather outdated one at that. Understanding why it is actually “a blessing” will now once again move us to the forefront of progressive humanity, guided by . . . whatever “spirit” we are to be . . . guided by.
The inspiration for this must indeed come from a very special level of hell, and I fear that this poor woman is bound hand and foot.
Paula Loughlin:
I am going to go out on a limb here
and suggest that it may have started with this. Resolution 15 from the Lambeth Conference of 1930:
Perhaps it is just as well that the “strong condemnation” of unworthy motives found in the last sentence has now become so widely ignored.
This saves Ms. Ragsdale the trouble of having to explain why sexual gratification can never be a matter of “selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience,” and allows her to focus on the important stuff.
Like getting rid of any evidence to the contrary by destroying it in the womb.
[20] Posted by episcopalienated on 7-11-2010 at 04:26 PM · [top]
As Dean of EDS, what faculty will they be hiring? The obvious answer is people like her. Another question to ask is what admission standards will they use for prospective students? The obvious answer is people like her. She not only reflects the current situation on the ground. She represents the future direction of TEC. Additionally, if she says this in public, what does she say privately? The sad part is that this is not challenged, it is rewarded.
[21] Posted by Fr. Dale on 7-11-2010 at 05:18 PM · [top]
I don’t have the words to express my sorrow and horror, so . . .
2 Peter 2
1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
[22] Posted by Linda M on 7-11-2010 at 06:48 PM · [top]
You know what, I’m not even going to read it or watch the video. What a sick excuse for a clergy person. Satan truly dwells among us.
[23] Posted by MassPK on 7-11-2010 at 07:14 PM · [top]
On May 29th, my wife and I received a phone call from her older brother in the Philippines. Their younger brother (‘M’), who drives a motorcycle ‘taxi’ for a living, was missing for about a day, and no one had heard from him. We were in shock for a couple of days. The big thing was, we didn’t know what happened to him. Had he been abducted by one of the militant groups hiding out in the jungle?
We resolved that we’d pray for ‘M’ and hope that one day he’d come back home. Life resumed its normal rhythm for us. We were even able to laugh again.
That was until the evening of June 1, when we learned that M’s body had been found in a ditch. They recognized the body by the height and build. The face however, was unrecognizable, as it had been smashed in with a hammer. He had also been attached with an icepick. We do not know whether the attack from the hammer came first, or the icepick. I hope for the latter. I hope it was over quickly. But I don’t know.
My wife flew over for the wake. The body was wrapped in bandages and plastic. My wife’s sister told me later, in tears, that she had not been to the wake, nor had she been able to look at the body.
At the funeral, most of M’s village showed up. All of the motorcycle taxi drivers came, and gave M their version of a 21 gun salute, sans the guns.
He was loved (really, really loved) by his parents, his family, his town, and by his fiance.
Later, the police were able to locate his motorbike, and witnessed a suspect fleeing into the jungle. Apparently, the suspect works (or had worked, since he is now on the lamb) for a coconut plantation for about a dollar a day. So, it was about the motorbike.
I’m recounting this, because I think it’s important to consider this in light of Ms. Ragsdale’s assertions.
M was poor, after all.
Also, M’s assailant was, arguably, in a work situation where he was not using his God-given talents.
Is it a tragedy that M was murdered, or is it a blessing?
[24] Posted by J Eppinga on 7-11-2010 at 10:46 PM · [top]
[19] Posted by Anglican Presbyter,
There is a ‘bishop’ under whose ‘authority’ she serves. That ‘chair’ is empty, as is obvious by the failure to act…..
[20] Posted by episcopalienated
Please don’t equate non-lethal contraception with elective abortion. Nor assume that those of us who have used non-lethal means of contraception are ‘small family’ folks. I’ve nine children!
[25] Posted by Bo on 7-11-2010 at 11:29 PM · [top]
I know that as Christians, we’re supposed to pray for our enemies. Lately I find myself praying that Ms. Ragsdale will very soon meet all those babies in heaven.
Then again, perhaps that assumes too much about where she’s headed.
[26] Posted by Greg Griffith on 7-12-2010 at 12:05 AM · [top]
I’m sorry….I know I’m supposed to pray for people such as this woman, but as a parent and a grandfather, I cannot hate her, but I feel nothing but loathing for what she says. The deliberate killing of an unborn infant for whatever reason aside from the probability of physical danger to the mother of that child is premeditated homicide in my view. Even the child who is prenatally diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome or some other condition has the right to life.
[27] Posted by Cennydd10 on 7-12-2010 at 12:42 AM · [top]
How about 1) an imprecatory prayer against the institution (EDS) and 2) a prayer for the repentence and salvation of the person (Katie Ragsdale)? Here’s my attempt:
1) Paraphrased from Jeremiah 9:11:
2) Paraphrased from Isaiah 45:22:
[28] Posted by Doug Stein on 7-12-2010 at 12:47 AM · [top]
Greg - God or the devil will take her at the appointed time. Unlike some, I do believe that grace can be resisted.
Strict Calvinism might be interpreted as implying that one needn’t bother to pray for her.
Uncle Screwtape would be proud. Misanthrope is as misanthrope does. This lady is sicko.
[29] Posted by Ralph on 7-12-2010 at 06:21 AM · [top]
Christopher West, in his Theology of the Body lecture has some insightful comments concerning the 1930 decision to approve contraception (for the first time in Christian history) by the Episcopal Church - “When Margaret Sanger and her followers started pushing contraception in the early 1900’s, wise men and women – and certainly not just Catholics – predicted that severing sex from procreation would eventually lead to sexual and societal chaos. Today’s culture of adultery, divorce, premarital sex, STD’s, out-of-wedlock births, abortion, fatherless children, homosexuality, poverty, crime, drugs, and violence was all foreseen.”
http://www.christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=95
It was billed as a merciful accommodation, but the effect of changing sex to pleasure only rather than baby-making, at least potentially, changed everything.
[30] Posted by Linda M on 7-12-2010 at 07:34 AM · [top]
Thanks Bo, I didn’t catch that. It sounded like folks were confusing her as being a bishop.
Also, how appropriate that she and the PB have the same first name. Coincidence, I think not. Apologies to those Katherine’s out there who actually are Christian and share that name.
[31] Posted by Anglican Presbyter on 7-12-2010 at 07:37 AM · [top]
“Strict Calvinism might be interpreted as implying that one needn’t bother to pray for her.’
That is…only by those who have no idea at all what Calvin wrote or what Calvinists believe.
[32] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 7-12-2010 at 07:48 AM · [top]
Exactly, Matt. That’s why I think she’s worth praying for. After all, miracles do happen.
(Hypercalvinists make me nervous.)
May God heal her before the devil takes her.
[33] Posted by Ralph on 7-12-2010 at 08:24 AM · [top]
Of course we must pray for her. Why? Because she still matters. Her sins are sins that Jesus went to the Cross for. Her soul and all our souls is why Satan rages. He knows the war is lost but the battle remains. And we are the victory he lusts after. Our salvation is the only thing that truly matters in the end. Maybe she has gone completely over to the enemy and has scorned Grace? How can we know? But maybe like so many others in this sick world she has been so corrupted by the world, the flesh and the devil that she does not even know how ill her soul truly is. Don’t we believe that our prayers can aid her? That the Holy Spirit can reach through to the teeniest part of her that is still longing for God?
I will not mock the Cross by believing that Satan has won this battle. So I will pray for her repentence and the turn of her heart.
[34] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 7-12-2010 at 08:38 AM · [top]
May the Almighty have mercy on her benighted, pitch-covered soul.
[35] Posted by aterry on 7-12-2010 at 09:37 AM · [top]
She is deceived. Jesus I pray her eyes would be opened to your truth - that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life in all cases.
[36] Posted by B. Hunter on 7-12-2010 at 11:21 AM · [top]
Bo:
Well . . . so far I’ve done neither, but if I am ever tempted in that direction, hopefully your words of wise counsel will come to mind and I’ll be brought to my senses.
In the meantime, you can always pick your next fight somewhere else.
[37] Posted by episcopalienated on 7-12-2010 at 01:15 PM · [top]
Greg Griffith:
Under present circumstances, heaven itself would be infinitely worse than the fiercest of hells for the unfortunate Ms. Ragsdale and she could not bear it.
That is why a just and merciful God will spare her that fate.
We must pray, rather, that she will receive the graces necessary for repentance and conversion, thereby making heaven a place where she would actually wish to be.
What a powerful witness for the Christian faith she could provide if that happened!
It always pleases me to think of the worst of heretics and apostates being transformed by the power of the gospel into the greatest of saints. But I would not wish to see them made more miserable than they already are.
Either way, in her case heaven can wait - and, may it please God, become worth waiting for.
[38] Posted by episcopalienated on 7-12-2010 at 01:45 PM · [top]
Evil, one of thy names is Katherine Ragsdale. Evil, evil, evil.
[39] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 7-12-2010 at 11:31 PM · [top]
[37] Posted by episcopalienated,
I do not mean to ‘pick a fight’, and readily admit to being rather sensitive on the issue.
When I read your ‘limb statement’ that that Lambeth 15 (from 1930) was perhaps the ‘beginning of this’ - and following the quotation of Lambet 15 with
I thought you were equating the two. I gather now that you’re only positing a ‘slipper slope’ relationship between them. Is that a correct understanding?
[40] Posted by Bo on 7-12-2010 at 11:36 PM · [top]
I wonder whether she thinks of herself as somehow having skipped over that particular stage of human development. It reminds me of what Lincoln said about slavery—the only good thing that no one wants the good of for himself.
[41] Posted by johnoconnor on 7-13-2010 at 07:55 PM · [top]
Make no mistake, the pro-abortion position at the end of the day, is that one human being can own another human being.
[42] Posted by PerryRobinson on 7-13-2010 at 08:11 PM · [top]
Bo, your kind of situation is just the kind of situation that Lambeth 1930 had in mind, and your choice is understandable.
But there has been, at the very least, a slippery slope relationship between the acceptance of contraception in wider and wider contexts, and the ‘need’ for abortion.
I think this is because the intrinsic meaning of contraception is that sexual love, or sexual intercourse, is separate from procreation, and that this intrinsic meaning is a lie and a distortion of the act. In the beginning, a very tiny angle of distortion does not take you far from the truth, so you are not walking far from a true path, but as the lines are drawn out in society, they diverge greatly.
I really admire your steadfastness in your life and the honesty of your mind in your posts here, and that is why I feel that you deserve what in my mind is a charitable truth, rather than quasi-charitable silence or faux agreement.
Susan Peterson
[43] Posted by eulogos on 7-13-2010 at 09:26 PM · [top]
Eulogos,
Please continue, the blows of a friend are more to be desired than the kisses of an enemy.
I don’t ‘buy’ that sexual love (or even sexual intercourse) can’t be separated from reproduction, (obviously, that is one its functions, but not its only), and as both I and my wife grow older, that become more true!
I readily see the ‘slipperiness’ of the slope. If I and my wife can ‘avoid children’, and the duties thereunto, then why can not the unmarried? And if the ‘avoid’ fails then why can not ‘other means’ be used to ‘dodge the responsibility’.
The ‘safeties’ are: to teach mutual responsibility in marriage, to teach that fornication is sin, to teach that with conception comes life, and to teach duty before honour.
[44] Posted by Bo on 7-13-2010 at 10:18 PM · [top]
Regarding Susan, Bo, et al’s discussion: Mary Eberstadt wrote a very good piece on all this two years ago for the anniversary of Paul the VI’s Humanae Vitae. It appeared in First Things magazine. I will admit it helped change my mind about becoming Catholic. I’d encourage everyone to read it, whether or not you agree with Rome about other things. Dave
[45] Posted by DavidSh on 7-13-2010 at 10:22 PM · [top]
RE: “But there has been, at the very least, a slippery slope relationship between the acceptance of contraception in wider and wider contexts, and the ‘need’ for abortion.”
Unless one is going to go ahead and claim a “slippery slope” for all actions—because all things are connected in the universe—then I have to disagree entirely. Otherwise, we’ve so watered down the “slippery slope” definition that we may as well say that the Christian influence on the notion of courtly love in mediaeval times, which led inexorably to the ghastly slippery slope of women and men marrying for love—or better yet, the Christian influence on honoring the female, which stemmed in part from the honoring of Mary which led inexorably to the ghastly slippery slope of courtly love and chivalry . . . led to increasing sexual interest and satisfaction, which led inevitably to the scientific discoveries post-enlightenment, to birth control. Another option for a perfidious slippery slope was Bacon’s publication of Of the Proficience and Advancement of Learning, Divine and Human and Novum Organum which laid the foundation for the scientific method, a part of the enlightenment and the scientific revolution which led to the astounding scientific innovation of the 18th and 19th centuries, which led to the medical advancements of the 20th century, which led to the perfidious “artificial” [sic] contraception.
But at the end of the day, one must first judge objectively if the actual activity is *intrinsically immoral*. Then—after one has determined if something is intrinsically immoral, one can speculate about whether it is the start or the mid-point or the end of the slippery slope.
Obviously, numerous Christians have determined that the control of pregnancy through means other than the rhythm method is not intrinsically immoral. I would be one of them. Of course, the fact that numerous Christians have determined this does not make the determination truthful or correct.
But in any case, if the basis of a slippery slope is not determined objectively to be intrinsically immoral beforehand, then pretty much all activities and choices are the start or the mid-point or the ending of a slippery slope of evil.
. . . Which sounds . . . rather Calvinist to me . . . [scuttling away hurriedly] . . .
[46] Posted by Sarah on 7-13-2010 at 10:57 PM · [top]
Calvinist Sarah,
Of course, all slopes are slippery. It is part of our nature to seek our lowest level. It is only Grace that keeps up from the ditches.
Other Sarah,
The ‘safeties’ are at the point where the actions become ‘objectively immoral’ (in my subjective opinion) based on text, or science…. I see the slope, I know it is slippery, and I suggest the appropriate guard-rails…
3 and half point Bo.
[47] Posted by Bo on 7-13-2010 at 11:06 PM · [top]
RE: “Of course, all slopes are slippery.”
But are all actions “slopes”?
That is what we make of them, if we decide that things that are not intrinsically immoral objectively are “the start of the slipper slope”.
[48] Posted by Sarah on 7-13-2010 at 11:15 PM · [top]
Not all actions are slopes (red or green chillies for example), but others are, or can be, or can be seen to be.
In the present case, I don’t think my choice leads me ‘down a slope’, but I can see how others who wish to take the next action on my ‘projected slope’ could attempt to use my action to justify theirs, or advance an argument in favour of the legitimacy of the next step. Hence my ‘safeties….
[49] Posted by Bo on 7-13-2010 at 11:27 PM · [top]
I know this was meant as a lighthearted driveby, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that your apt observation about the intrisic goodness of actions, tracks perfectly with the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Of course, we need to render out the issue of merit, lest we conflate the Divine’s view of merit and their view of goodness. They are not one in the same, though both are discussed in the same context. Basically, the goodness of an act to the Westminister Divines, is established by how the act conforms to the Law of God. Per XVI:VII, the unbeliever who protects his neighbor’s property is doing something good (”..of good use both to themselves and others..”) and the unbeliever who isn’t, is not.
Bringing this back to the issue of the intrinsic goodness of the slippery slope - I do not get the sense from WCF:XVI that there are three proposed moral categories - in bounds, out-of-bounds, and gradient towards out-of-bounds; just only in-bounds, and out-of-bounds.
[Moot, plopping down next to the rocking-chair, but not quite ready for another round of “Metronome”]
[50] Posted by J Eppinga on 7-14-2010 at 12:16 AM · [top]
wow, this woman is just plain scary.
The word “ichabod” gets overused. Not in this case.
[51] Posted by David Ould on 7-14-2010 at 01:12 AM · [top]
Interestingly enough, if you can get to the end of video you hear her very accurately point out the locus of the debate.
If we call the “fertilised egg” a “baby”, that’s that where abortionists will start to lose the debate.
Note, she moves past the term “zygote” to “fertilised egg”.
Friends, this is in part, then, a battle of rhetoric. Don’t speak of zygotes or feotuses - speak of unborn babies.
[52] Posted by David Ould on 7-14-2010 at 01:14 AM · [top]
And when they cry that ‘baby’ isn’t accurate, as it marks a place on in the developmental time-line not yet reached, ‘compromise’ to ‘distinct human organism’. It isn’t mama’s body parts that are at stake, but those of a distinct (though tiny and immature) human.
[53] Posted by Bo on 7-14-2010 at 01:22 AM · [top]
I was uncomfortable with the idea that contraception might itself be wrong - I don’t want more children and have always used contraception. (Basically, it would be very inconvenient for me to give it up.) However, I do admit the connection caused by removing procreation from intercourse. Quoting Christopher West again:
“What’s the connection with contraception? While today’s societal chaos is certainly complex, the following demonstrates the “inner logic” of contraception’s contribution. People are often tempted to do things they shouldn’t do. Deterrents within nature itself and within society help to curb these temptations and maintain order. For example, what would happen to the crime rate in a given society if jail terms suddenly ceased?
Apply the same logic to sex. People throughout history have been tempted to commit adultery. It’s nothing new. However, one of the main deterrents from succumbing to the temptation has been the fear of pregnancy. What would happen if this natural deterrent were taken away? As history demonstrates, rates of adultery would skyrocket. What’s one of the main causes of divorce? Adultery. Apply the same logic to pre-marital sex. Such behavior has, indeed, skyrocketed. Premarital sex, as a kind of “adultery in advance,” is also a prime indicator of future marital breakdown.
It gets worse. Since no method of contraception is 100% effective, an increase in adultery and pre-marital sex will inevitably lead to an increase in “unwanted pregnancies.” What’s next? So many people think contraception is the solution to the abortion problem. Take a deeper look and you’ll see that that’s like throwing gasoline on a fire to try to put it out. In the final analysis, there is only one reason we have abortion – because men and women are having sex without being “open to life.” If this mentality is at the root of abortion, contraception does nothing but foster and afford this mentality.
Not everyone will resort to abortion of course. Some will choose adoption. Other mothers (most) will raise these children by themselves. Hence the number of children who grow up without a father (which has already been increased by the rise in divorce) will be compounded. And a culture of “fatherless” children inevitably becomes a culture of poverty, crime, drugs, and violence. All of these social ills compound exponentially from generation to generation since “fatherless” children are also much more likely to have out-of-wedlock births and, if they marry at all, divorce.
What about homosexuality? Our culture is impotent to resist the “gay agenda” because we have already accepted its basic premise with contraception – the reduction of sex to the exchange of pleasure. When openness to life is no longer an intrinsic part of the sexual equation, why does sexual behavior have to be with the opposite sex?
Forty years after the release of Humanae Vitae, many people are beginning to see that the Church might not be crazy after all.”
[54] Posted by Linda M on 7-14-2010 at 07:45 AM · [top]
Of course, one might use the same “logic” with the advocation of women being required by law to wear veils, too.
“People are often tempted to do things they shouldn’t do. Deterrents within nature itself and within society help to curb these temptations and maintain order. . . .
Apply the same logic to sex. People throughout history have been tempted to commit adultery. It’s nothing new. However, one of the main deterrents from succumbing to the temptation has been the [lack of visual stimuli].”
And so on and so on down the slippery path slope.
[55] Posted by Sarah on 7-14-2010 at 08:03 AM · [top]
Contraception ( attempting by non lethal means to avoid more children) isn’t bad of itself, even Rome is OK with ‘NFP’.
If the slope exists, they first downward step is there, not with ‘artificial means’, but in the denial of due benevolence for selfish reasons. That method would deny the solace of full intimacy for a cause other than the one reason for such denial of each other permitted by Scripture. In the same manner, though more pronounced, elective abortion dies life for selfish reasons.
Sarah, the veil is a down slope position from the ‘modestly attired’ one given in scripture. If modesty, and covered heads while praying or prophesying are ‘good’, is not more ‘good’ even better’? Would you not see a connection in the logic and ends desired if someone where to attempt to force the head-covering (counter to Paul’s position) as mandatory between the them?
[56] Posted by Bo on 7-14-2010 at 08:27 AM · [top]
Friends,
As interested as i am in the topic of birth control…birth control is not the topic at hand. Before you take up your trusty laptop to explain exactly how birth control IS on topic, let me say again…it is off topic. The topic is love of abortion in the Episcopal Church and the dean’s horrific speech celebrating the murder of babies.
[57] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 7-14-2010 at 11:09 AM · [top]
Bo:
I would like to apologize to you for the sharpness of my remarks at #37.
I was quite taken aback by your previous comment to which that one was a reply, but I now realize that a milder response was in order and I am truly sorry for the one I chose to make instead.
May God continue to bless you and all those who have children, one, few, or many, as He offers other consolations to those of us who have none.
[58] Posted by episcopalienated on 7-14-2010 at 12:38 PM · [top]
Thanks. I was the one who over-reacted. The fault mine. I’m sorry that I reacted instead of asking.
You are a Barnabas, your story one of Faith and Power. May He continue to bless you, and us through you.
[59] Posted by Bo on 7-14-2010 at 03:28 PM · [top]
Celebration is right. And right now the celebraters couch it all in terms about personal choice. But if it is a personal good as a personal choice. Can’t we use the reasons for it being a personal good to make it a societal good? And if we can do that, can we not make it be a social choice for a societal good? Which I believe must lead to certain woman being told they must abort because the choice is a good one for society.
I mean there can be nothing UnChristian about compelling a person to do good for society at large even at the risk of personal pain.
[60] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 7-14-2010 at 04:37 PM · [top]
Paula, I believe that the Chinese Communists already use that kind of reasoning when they force mothers to have abortions if they conceive more than one child.
[61] Posted by Betty See on 7-14-2010 at 05:35 PM · [top]
Ragsdale a heretic. And going to hell.
[62] Posted by Anglican Paplist on 7-14-2010 at 06:23 PM · [top]
Some thoughts, my simplistic thoughts, on this subject:
1. God created Adam and Eve, man and woman.
2. God provided sex as the means of propagation, perpetuation of his people. He made it pleasurable for the same reason.
3. The scriptures proscribe sex outside marriage.
4. The scriptures define marriage as between one man and one woman.
5. The scriptures proscribe killing.
6. The scriptures attribute the beginning of life to conception.
7. Killing babies is therefore a sin.
8. We are not on a slippery slope; we are at a precipice. At the bottom of that precipice is hell, eternal separation from the presence of God.
9. Having sex is a personal choice. Killing an unborn baby is a personal choice. All decisions to sin or not to sin are personal choices.
God bless.
[63] Posted by Ol' Bob on 7-14-2010 at 07:03 PM · [top]
I think if a woman wants to choose not to have a baby, that’s fine; but, as a sign I saw at a pro-life march said, “Choice begins in the bedroom” - or the back of a car, or wherever. As Baretta used to say on TV, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.” After anohter life is conceived, she has no right to choose to end it. My husband and I were just talking about the ultrasounds of the 4 grandchildren who have been born and are going to be born this year (already had 3); we were saying that our Marine son’s little girl looks so relaxed in her mother’s womb in the last pic we saw (at 5 months). She looks like what she is - a human baby. She has her little arm bent so that her hand is on her cheek. Our son’s twins - in a very early pic - already have the general appearance of babies. No woman has a right to choose to end the life of one of these vulnerable human beings. The life in her womb isn’t her life - it’s a separate life. It’s no longer a question of her body; this is a separate body. She has no more right to choose to kill that baby than she does to choose to kill a recalcitrant teenager who is inconvenient to have around. I really wish that all the states would require that women be shown an ultrasound before deciding ot abort.
[64] Posted by Nellie on 7-20-2010 at 05:34 PM · [top]
I am convinced that one of the reasons that the younger folks are more anti-abortion than their parents is that many of them have as their ‘first baby picture’ one of those ultrasound pictures (that sonogram that is ‘them’ while they were still unborn makes that ‘lump of tissue argument fade away).
[65] Posted by Bo on 7-20-2010 at 06:19 PM · [top]
Apparently, the paper has been pulled from the NARAL site too.
[66] Posted by ToAllTheWorld on 9-2-2010 at 11:17 PM · [top]
I was drawn back to this thread by the recent comment and did some rereading. I abandoned the thread quickly at Matt’s warning, back in July.
I know he believes that delayed obedience is disobedience and applies that here as well as at home with his kids!
(Galileo, muttered, But it still moves….)
However, upon rereading Sarah’s comment which seemed to regard the influence of Bacon’s ‘The New Organon’ as only positive, I wanted to say something about that. I don’t regard its influence as primarily positive at all.
Yes, I appreciate the comforts brought by “modern science.” But what Bacon did to philosophy and eventually to the world view of the ordinary man was most pernicious. (I wrote a paper about this in college, somewhere around 1970…) Bacon said that a whole list of Aristotelian notions are ‘fantastical and ill defined’, including that of substance. Substance, or substantia, is the Latin translation of ousia, the Greek word for “being.” When you change the understanding of ‘being’ you change everything. Consider that some of the main doctrines of Christianity use this word. The son is “of one being” or “one in being” or homousian, or in Latin, consubstantial, with the Father. In fact all the persons of the trinity are consubstantial with each other. So what happens when the very notion of ‘substance’ is attacked?
Bacon said that “Nothing in nature really exists except individual particles acting according to fixed laws.” That is the fundamental notion of reality which holds even now in the understanding of the common man. It is what they teach in science, from elementary school , and through the undergraduate level for most people. (Einsteinian physics hasn’t really made much headway in the common understanding of the world.) My advanced biology textbook said in its preface, “All phenomena are biological-chemical-physical phenomena, including all human phenomena. ” Love, hate, even faith, all human phenomena, all to be explained by particles acting according to fixed laws. And if there is nothing but particles, if they are all that has being, what could God be? Where could God be? How this tormented me at the age of 13, when I so much wanted to believe in God, when He seemed real to me, but I knew that He could not be, because being could only be attributed to that which was made of particles, which had to be in a place, and there was no place for God. I was unable even to consider belief until I first encountered, and stretched my mind over, the idea of non-material being in Plato and Aristotle.
Yes, Bacon probably gave us flush toilets and penicillin. He also gave us the unbelief rampant in the world around us.
Susan Peterson
[67] Posted by eulogos on 9-3-2010 at 07:25 AM · [top]
1968. Humanae Vitae issued by Pope Paul VI. Much displeasure expressed by liberal Catholics and even moderates, as it had been expected by all that artificial contraception for married couples would be finally permitted by the Church.
How prophetic does the likes of this sound now, what with the forced sterilisation programmes in India during the 70s, the one-child policy in China, and the current American administration’s healthcare policy?
“Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.”
[68] Posted by Martha on 2-14-2012 at 12:11 PM · [top]
Bo, there is a huge difference between Contraception and NFP. They are not the same. To say they are the same is not only to display a misunderstanding of NFP, but of contraception as well.
Contraception, by definition, interferes in the sexual act to keep the natural end of sex, namely babies from happening. This either is done with a barrier method, or with some kind of medication which makes a woman hostile to the implantation of an embryo.
NFP is based in observation of nature. It observes that a woman is only fertile at one time during a cycle, and acting accordingly. It is that simple. No messing with nature.
Natural law, by the way, is the reason contraception is immoral and NFP acceptable. Natural law has two main principles. The first is that all natural bodies and acts have natural ends. The second is that actions and situations can be judged based upon their effect upon these natural ends. For instance, a rose bush has as its natural end the blooming of roses. When you give it sunlight, proper soil, and water, it will bring forth roses. If you shut it up in a closet, it will wither and die. If you don’t water it, it will die. That is not to say that there is anything wrong with a rose bush if it doesn’t give forth roses in the winter, in fact it is quite the opposite. Within its yearly cycle, winter is a time when it is not fertile. The same is true with sex. If I act to contracept the natural end of sex, namely procreation, it is immoral. But, women simply cannot conceive during non-fertile times. There is nothing immoral about that at all. It is the way that they have been created.
The last argument I would give is that if Contraception and NFP were the same, people would use NFP. As opposed to contraception, NFP is virtually free, effective, and couples who use it have about a 1% divorce rate. Your argument is invalid.
[69] Posted by fatherlee on 2-14-2012 at 04:52 PM · [top]
BTW, I will defend this as completely on topic, because it is precisely and demonstrably the widespread acceptance of contraception which led to an abortive culture of death.
[70] Posted by fatherlee on 2-14-2012 at 04:55 PM · [top]
Well, no, Father Lee—it’s precisely and demonstrably the advent of Courtly Love that led to an abortive culture of death.
That being said, this thread is not about the evils of chemical contraception and further discussion of that is off-topic on these and all other-related threads.
[71] Posted by Sarah on 2-14-2012 at 05:48 PM · [top]
Possibly, but I think a ruling has been made on that one already. Might be more sensible not to pursue the matter.
[72] Posted by David Ould on 2-14-2012 at 06:29 PM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.