"Live Baby Good, Dead Baby Bad", J. Folger/U of P and homosexuality

Dear All, I had the pleasure of attending each of the college talks given by Janet Folger. A couple of insights, before you experience the events through the eyes of expert observers and writers in their fields: two adults and two students. I admire the students in attendance. Their questions showed what they're dealing with in their respective universities and the Culture of Death in particular. Questions to Janet included, the typical "Why do you eat meat and are against abortion?" to the more disturbing "How can you tell if something is human?" Kudos to the Freethinkers of Reed College who are challenging their administrators by asking non-politcally correct speakers to their gatherings. We thank Sara Thompson and Fr. Ron Wasowski for their faithfulness to Life at the University of Portland, and prayers and thanks go to the two new pro-life groups at PSU and OSU. These young people are modern martyrs and great examples to the older generation. Here's a virtual thermometer on the Culture of Life our children/grandchildren/children we love, are experiencing. LIFE IN OREGON Sunday, February 12, 2006 David Reinhard The Oregonian "Live Baby Good, Dead Baby Bad." Oh, this was going to be good. Not only was Janet Folger coming to Oregon, but America's liveliest pro-life champion would be at college campuses in a state that uniquely embraces the culture of death from pre-cradle to pre-grave, with its wide-open abortion laws and doctor-assisted suicide. I'd seen the then-legislative director of Ohio Right to Life in front of a friendly crowd years ago. She was the spunky life of the pro-life movement. But the crowd wouldn't be any too friendly at Reed College, Oregon State University, Portland State University and the University of Portland. There was a chance for real fireworks. Yes, this would be good. And it was -- but not in the way I expected. I caught her last week at Reed and PSU. She was everything I recalled -- fast-talking, well-informed, passionate -- and more. The president of Faith2Action and author -- "True to Life," "What's a Girl to Do?" -- is still a great storyteller and public-policy comedienne. She tells of being at a table with a fetal model and being harangued by an abortion-rights advocate over her use of the term "unborn" baby. While the woman was telling her "fetus" would be a better term and Folger was noting it means "unborn child" or "young one," the woman's 3-year-old ran up and said, "Look, Mommy, babies." No word on how long it took the abortion-rights mom to "re-educate" the child, Folger noted. She told of one legislator who recognized a model 8-week-old fetus sucking its thumb from an ultra-sound but felt we should get "government out of the issue." On the legislator's desk was a framed Jefferson quotation that read, "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government." Folger believes human life begins at conception. She challenges the students to go to their libraries and find embryology textbooks that say otherwise. It's a baby. She reads statements of abortion-rights fans who now acknowledge this (they just don't care, says Folger) on her way to setting out her mantra: "Live baby, good. Dead baby, bad." Folger has a gift for making the pro-life position at once accessible and compelling. Aren't there more important issues? Isn't it out of whack to be a single-issue pro-life advocate so with many other issues around? Folger asked the PSU audience to list those many issues on one side of a chart and the right to life on the other. She, then brought up contestants for a "Let's Make a Deal" game show. Contestants could select their dream desires from the first column -- a Harvard education, a million-dollar annual income, a lifetime of unlimited health-care -- but they would forfeit their right to life. Her point: "Life is a prerequisite to every issue we have. It's a fundamental basic right." And she doesn't discriminate based on the age or address (womb or nursery) of that life. They all deserve protection. She makes this point with a mock trial of man who's murdered his 3-year-old. His defense lawyer, Folger, offers up a litany of mitigating circumstances that abortion-rights advocates give for women having abortions. It's devastating. I had seen this Janet Folger before. What was new, for me at least, was the Janet Folger who engaged the abortion-rights champions, young and old, in the audience. She was unbending, often confronting, but took up their often edgy challenges with a charming, even loving, directness. In the end, the only fireworks were the fire of her pro-life witness. Also striking were the students themselves. At Reed and PSU -- and, I'm told, the other campuses -- they were respectful and interested. Folger appealed to their sense of tolerance, and they responded. They listened, often quietly, as she described the often unknown facts of fetal development and the brutality of abortion. They laughed at her stage capers and wisecracks. Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised. Folger likely had something to do with this. But maybe it also has something to do with the fact that longitudinal polls now show young people have become more pro-life over the last decades. Maybe they'll be able to answer the question she thinks future generations will one day ask parents and grandparents in revulsion -- a question Folger has answered for herself and is helping more folks to answer: "Where were you when they were killing babies?" David Reinhard, associate editor, can be reached at 503-221-8152 or davidreinhard@news.oregonian.com. ©2006 The Oregonian -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Janet Folger: Passionate, Powerful & Fearless At Reed February 7, 2006 If you ever wanted to see and hear someone who was sold out to Jesus Christ, His purpose and message on the earth, and fearless...like Stephen in the Book of Acts, you need to attend a presentation by Janet Folger of Faith2Action! Profile in Courage One of America's premier pro-life, pro-family Christians and March 3-4 Restoring Northwest America Conference Speakers, Janet spoke in Portland and Corvallis, Oregon yesterday at both Oregon State University and Reed College. Having experienced attempts on her life in the past because of her pro-life and biblical commitment to follow and honor Christ, several of us attended her presentation at Reed last night to provide support. In an effort to bring balance to the college where President George Bush and Secretary of State Condolezza Rice have been called 'fascists' by members of the faculty, Janet was invited by the Reed College Freethinkers . In a standing room only meeting hall, Miss Folger courageously and fearlessly presented irrefutable evidence and proof of the humanity of the child in the womb and the gross inhumanity of taking innocent human life while in the mother's womb. She argued without refutation the necessity of reversing Roe v. Wade and protecting our right to speak out as Christians on the important issues of our day. While not rude, the question and answer session which followed was scintillating, and clearly demonstrated our young are torn between the liberal bent of their teachers and professors (who didn't have the courage to show up) and existing facts about partial birth and late term abortion as well as proof that human life begins at conception. Miss Folger, who will speak at the Restoring Northwest America Conference in Tualatin, Oregon both Friday, March 3rd and Saturday, March 4th, speaks twice again today at the following locations in Portland: Portland State University Tues., Feb. 7th, 12:00 pm Smith Bldg. Rm. 329 Info: 503-705-0938 Sponsored by: PSU Students for Life University of Portland Tues., Feb. 7th, 7:30 pm Buckley Center Rm. 163 Info: 503-285-1150 Sponsored by: UP Voice for Life Janet has debated Planned Parenthood president, Gloria Feldt, National Organization of Women (NOW) president, Kim Gandy, former NOW president, Patricia Ireland, Jack Kevorkian, as well as spokespeople from the ACLU, The Human Rights Campaign, NARAL, GLSEN, and Atheist Organizations. She has appeared on 20/20, Hannity and Colmes, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Inside Politics, Nightline, CBS This Morning, Hard Copy, and Extra. David Crowe Executive Director The Restoring Northwest America Conference, March 3-4, 2006 in Portland, Oregon, is the most important Conference of its kind in Oregon history. Copyright © 2005, Restore America. All Rights Reserved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- email: dcrowe@restoreamerica.org http://www.restoreamerica.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY - VANGUARD Anti-abortion student group emerges on campus New group Students for Life jumpstarts membership by inviting noted Christian speaker By Christie Toth February 09, 2006 A new anti-abortion student group has formed at Portland State, and though it is small, it is also active. Although Students for Life has only held two meetings so far, they have already brought a high-profile anti-abortion speaker to campus in conjunction with the College Republicans. Groups supporting abortion rights such as Voices for Planned Parenthood (VOX) have been active on Portland State’s campus for several years, but until now an organized anti-abortion group has not been a major presence at PSU. Not surprising for a group addressing one of the most politically charged debates in the country, though not all students have reacted positively to the new group’s appearance. “We’ve encountered a lot of support, but some hostility,” said Nathan Sheets the group’s founder and president. “Most people who don’t agree with us don’t say anything, they just give his disapproving glances. Someone crumpled up a flyer and through it in my face once.” Students for Life sponsored the appearance of Janet Folger, a national Christian radio celebrity, “family values” activist and one of the major forces behind Ohio’s partial-birth abortion ban, which led to the national restrictions on partial-birth abortion in 2003. A highly controversial national political figure, Folger has been alternately described as “the adrenaline in the body of Christ” (Craig Roberts, KFAX San Francisco) and a “hate-mongering homophobic Christian bigot” (skeptictank.org). Folger addressed an audience of more than 60 people at Portland State on Tuesday, many of them from the larger community. “We had one or two challenging questions, but the PSU audience was pretty friendly. The audience was much more hostile at Reed,” Sheets said. Sheets, 20, has been a pro-life activist since he was 16. He is well-known in online activist communities for several blogs that he maintains, which deal primarily with his Christian faith, anti-abortion activism, and experiences as a self-described “ex-gay follower of Yeshua.” According to its mission statement, the group “exists to educate Portland State students about abortion, support women who are pregnant and promote diversity in the pro-life movement.” In order to reach out to the student body, has been tabling in Smith Center and posting flyers about campus. “We’ve gotten a good response from the flyers,” Sheets said, “The pro-life people are showing up. At our first meeting, I was surprised at the number of people who showed up.” The fledgling organization currently has 15 members, and is officially nonpartisan. “Not all of are members are Republican,” Sheets said, “and we don’t want them to be ... part of our mission is to break the stereotypes that people have about pro-life activists.” One of Students for Life’s major objectives on campus is to create an alternative to the Women’s Resource Center. “We’d really like to get a pregnancy resource center on campus. We have the Women’s Resource Center, but the literature I found there is very pro-abortion,” said Sheets. “We want women to be presented with all the options, because we feel that women will choose life ... there are many resources in the community for those who have just given birth. We want to hook students up with those resources.” Aimee Shattuck, coordinator for the Women’s Resource Center, disagreed with Sheets’ characterization of the WRC. “The Women's Resource Center has a wide range of resources and options to share with students, including adoption services, health care, childcare and parent groups,” Shattuck said. “We believe in access to health care, resources and options for pregnant women and mothers; and that given options, they will make the decisions that are best for them. A large number of the staff and volunteers are mothers, and the coordinator will be giving birth soon, neither of which we suspect [Sheets] will be doing in the near future.” “Bridge Gorrow, the coordinator of the returning women students program, went to midwifery school, and we have two volunteers who coordinate peer support for student parents,” Shattuck explained. “For these reasons, we feel that we are in a great position to go over resources and referrals with a student and would respect their beliefs and decisions regarding their bodies.” According to Sheets, he was “yelled out of the office” of Josh Gross, editor of the leftist alternative student monthly, The Rearguard. “We handed him a flyer for Janet Folger's lecture in case he would be interested in coming to the event. The flyers say ‘“Choice” is a Euphemism for “Abortion,”’ at which point he proceeded to yell at that ‘Life is a euphemism for ignorance.’ It was disappointing that, while we showed him respect he couldn't show it to us. I thought it was rather unprofessional.” Gross remembered the encounter somewhat differently. “I didn't yell at him in the slightest. He, and another girl that was with him wanted me to advertise for their ‘choice is a euphemism for abortion’ speaker, and I laughed at them. And then I think I said something to the effect of ‘Life is a euphemism for you're an asshole.’” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNIVERSITY OF PORTLAND - THE BEACON Pro-life speaker inspires, divides with views by Jana Jorgensen Thursday, February 09, 2006 Despite many challenges and much intense opposition, Roe v. Wade has stood the test of time for over 30 years. As one of the most controversial decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court, the abortion issue remains at the forefront of every political debate since 1973. Every cause has its warriors, and Janet Folger is at the head of the pro-life’s defense. Folger, a nationally renowned author and radio-show host, lectured at the University of Portland Tuesday night, drawing a very energetic and divisive crowd of 75 to 80 students, faculty and community members. Brought to UP by the Voice for Life group, headed by senior Sarah Thompson, Folger gave a two-hour speech filled with a mock game show, trial and a question-and-answer session. The center of her discussion focused on the validating principles behind the pro-life agenda and on her contention that the pro-choice agenda is immoral and murderous. “We are going to win because we have the truth,” Folger said. “The other side is beginning to realize that, and we are going to win.” As the author of Criminalizing Christianity and the host of the daily radio show “Faith to Action,” Folger lobbied for the nation’s first partial-birth abortion ban and helped to remove funding for abortions in Ohio. Folger engaged her audience with stories of how she snuck into various pro-choice events and disrupted a filming of former Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, and mocked the words of her opposition in detest. Though most cheered during these “war” stories few around the room sat with blank faces or looks of disgust. “Folger cannot be reasoned with- her position on abortion is cut and dried- absolutely no abortions,” junior political science major Eric Zimmerman said. For her interactive bit, the pro-life lobbyist played her version of “You Bet Your Life” by drawing a line down the center of a flip chart and labeling the two sides curtain number one or curtain number two. Behind curtain number one was the right to life. Behind curtain number two were various other rights protected in the Constitution. Along with curtain number two, Folger threw in a trip to Hawaii, free U.S. health care and a car for good measure. As she asked the audience to vote on which curtain they chose, she informed them that those who had chosen curtain number two would then have to be killed. “Life is a prerequisite to all these other issues, what good is health care if you’re dead?” Folger asked. After the game show, the tone continued on its comical note as she put one of the audience members on trial for the murder of his three-year-old girl. Though no reasons were given for the murder of the three-year old, Folger had the rest of the audience list some reasons why women choose abortions such as age, financial circumstances, failure of birth control, and disability. Folger skirted the issues of rape, incest and the threatening of the physical health of the mother but promised to return to the issue later in speech. After listing off these issues she then refuted these claims and had the audience vote guilty or not guilty, the audience voted guilty. Despite declaring that she has no party affiliation, there were a number of obvious ties to the Republican Party in her speech, such as her support of George H.W. Bush in 1988 and her disgust with President Clinton. She stated that the democratic party is not open to diverse views. Folger named Clinton the “most pro-abortion president ever and the reason why Justice Ginsberg and Justice Breyer are on the Supreme Court.” This, according to her, explains Roe v. Wade’s continued existence. Throughout the speech Folger spoke to her opposition, stating that pro-choice supporters care do not care about women, only about abortions and that “pro-aborts” hate life. Her most basic argument for the imminent success of the pro-life agenda based on the fact of numbers. Because pro-life supporters are not engaging in abortion they will always have more support on their side. “Blue states kill their babies and Red states have their babies,” Folger said. Folger then turned the discussion to religion, citing Psalm 139 as part of her foundation for her pro-life view. Pslam 139 states that God has a plan exceedingly and abundantly greater than anyone could dream of and a result we as humans should not interfere with God’s plan. “I see my life as a movie – God is the producer and the director of my life, he has also written the script.” Folger said. Folger was met with tough questions b y both pro-cvhoice and pro-life supporters. “I was excited to hear her talk because I’m pro-life,” said Morgan Harkins, a sophomore Spanish and political science major. “But due to her hypocrisy, I was disappointed. She wasn’t open to any other viewpoint.” While Folger’s subject is a sensitive one, it is an important one and one that will continue to be debated in the foreseeable future. Being the bearer of hope for some and an ominous vision of the future for others, Folger is committed to her faith and as long as there is a war like abortion there will always be warriors like Janet Folger. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At two of the campuses, Reed and U of P, questions of homosexuality arose. It is becoming clear that there is a definite pro-abortion / pro-homosexual alliance that was evident at these two schools. Case in point, Metro-Pro Life was unable to get a pro-life ad in The Beacon until the administration got involved. We are spending approximately one million dollars a month in lawyers fees from the bankruptcy due to homosexuality issues and our only "Catholic" university has homosexual propaganda on bulletin boards and homosexual lifestyle newpapers in the cafeteria lobby. The adults in control at U of P are failing in their job to protect their students and Catholic Church teachings removing this from the school.. Parents of University students should see what their money is going to promote. We have to believe that the U of P is indeed a homosexual friendly place as posted on the www.catholiclesbian.org website. Where are the truly caring priests and administrators? This seems to be just the tip of the iceberg. Posted on bulletin board at Buckley Hall. The University of Portland GLBTQ Confidential Group A safe group for students who are Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, or Questioning. We are a confidential group that supports students who are exploring or living alternative sexual identities. We are dedicated to celebrating individuality and personal growth within a safe community Why are we confidential? We in no way wish to convey a sense of shame around issues of alternative sexual identity. We recognize that in our current societal climate, many do not feel safe being open to all about alternative sexual feelings. We are not an advocacy 9rouP. We recognize the need for advocacy and education in the wider university community. Advocacy can compromise confidentiality, so we see it as an activity separate from this group. How is confidentiality preserved? Prospective group members must first meet with one of the faculty/staff group coordinators before membership to the group can be granted. How is community created? Meetings are generally held in places where the atmosphere is fun and conducive to conversation and getting to know one another. We want to provide an alternative to the bar scene and provide the opportunity for students to mentor one another. What kinds of activities do we do? First and foremost, we have fun. Examples of past activities include: .:·Movies ·:·Dinner .:.Barbeques ·:·Coffee ·:·PSU Queer Week (lectures, etc.) ·:·Networking with GLBTQ groups on other Portland campuses ·:·Confidential online campus chat room and calendar What do GLBTQ students have to say about participatina in the 9roup? "The group has been a safe place to visit and meet people who face similar issues ... everyone in the group is considerate and respectful of people's level of openness. If you are looking to meet people without the risks of losing confidentiality this is the place to do it." --Student member Faculty/Staff Coordinators Anissa Rogers: Anissa teaches in the Social Work Program; one of her main interests is in promoting a more welcoming and equitable world for GLBTQ and other minority groups. rogers@up.edu 943-7304 Tim Crump: Tim is a Nurse Practitioner at the University Health Center. He enjoys being part of the GLBTQ group for the student contact that it allows. He hopes for a world for his children where they will not be afraid to be the person they feel inside of them. crump@up.edu 943-7134 Resources http://www.hrc.org (anti-Church propaganda) http://www.pflag.org/ (homosexual "marriage") http://www.binetusa.org (Bi sexual) http://www.hrc.org/local/ port land/ supporthrc.asp http://www.iustout.com/ www.pridefoundation.org Pride Foundation connects, inspires and strengthens the Pacific Northwest Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community in pursuit of equality. We accomplish this in rural and urban areas by awarding grants and scholarships and cultivating leaders. http://www.glaad.ora/ "Always our children: A pastoral message to parents of homosexual chi Idren and suggestions for pastoral ministers." (1997). A statement of the Bishops' Committee on Marriage and Family, National Conference of Catholic Bishops. 1-800-235-8722 or www.nc:cbusc:c.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also at the University of Portland, a student spoke of a Jesus that we would not recognize. This "passive, fearful to offend" Christ, is unrecognizable. This e-letter from Bishop Vasa was too timely not to use. For those who would like to get his e-letters, to go vasa-ecolumn@sentinel.org Bishop Robert F. Vasa February 17th. CHRIST IS REASSURING AND HUMBLE, AS WELL AS POWERFUL, MIGHTY BEND -- We live in an age which places a very strong emphasis on tolerance, mutuality, and acceptance. I have heard repeatedly over the years that "Jesus never judged, condemned or excluded anyone." I wonder if Peter would agree as the words of Jesus, "Get behind me you Satan," rang in his ears. I wonder if the Scribes and the Pharisees would agree as they rankled at being called whitened sepulchers or broods of vipers. I wonder if those who heard Jesus say, "Whoever leads one of these little ones astray, it would be better if he had a millstone tied around his neck and be cast into the sea," nodded approval and said, "He is so tolerant and accepting." This verse is included, virtually verbatim, in each of the three Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. I certainly have no qualms about the image of Jesus as kind and gentle, or with Jesus' own description of Himself as "meek and humble of heart." I see and appreciate the great appeal of one of the most recent devotions fostered so powerfully by our late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, that of Divine Mercy. Each of these attractive and reassuring aspects of Jesus needs to be remembered. These are aspects of Jesus that we cannot afford to forget and to which we can and must cling. At the same time we do well not to forget that the Lord is also a "God of power and might." Jesus stood up to the guards who came to arrest him in the Garden of Gethsemane. He stood courageously before Pilate. He bore His cross with noble, unflinching determination. He is not a God of weakness. He is strong and He defends His people. This accounts for the strong language used when the "little ones" of His flock are put at risk. In our "compromising age" we are loath to name something too strongly. If we do, we are accused of harshness, judgmentalism, perhaps arrogance, certainly intolerance and possibly pharisaism. While it is always necessary to speak the truth with love, the Church also believes and teaches that it is also necessary to speak the truth with strength. It is necessary to defend truth and not be too quick to rationalize, justify or excuse misleading teachings or teachers. There is a point at which passive "tolerance" allows misleading teachings to be spread and propagated, thus confusing or even misleading the faithful about the truths of the Church. There is a very strong word, which still exists in our Church, which most of us are too "gentle" to use. The word is "heresy." We perhaps think that heresy is a thing of the past. We think perhaps of the Arian heresy or the Pelagian heresy or the Manichaen heresy. We might even maintain that there are no longer any heretics because that conjures up images of inquisitions and burnings at the stake. I do not, in any way, seek to validate or justify any kind of "vigilante" theology, but we do need strong words to combat erroneous and fallacious teaching. As a point of information, the present Code of Canon Law does include a couple of canons on heresy. Canon 751 defines heresy as "the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt, after the reception of baptism, of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith. . . ." There are a number of teachings of the Church that must "be believed by divine and Catholic faith." We must believe, for instance, that Jesus is true God and true man. To deny or doubt this, with obstinacy, is heresy. We must believe the God exists in Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We must believe that Jesus rose from the dead. We must believe that He ascended into heaven. These phrases will all be familiar because they constitute the Creed that we recite each Sunday. It may come as a bit of a shock, but there are a number of Catholic theologians who now seriously call into question these basic teachings, these Creedal tenets. There are also moral teachings that constitute a part of the deposit of faith that must be accepted and adhered to, "firmly embraced and retained." Canon 750 concludes: "therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church." It is certainly necessary to exercise a great deal of caution and care in arriving at a founded conclusion that someone accepts or teaches heresy. There is something terribly harsh about calling a person a heretic. This is not something that is ever done lightly or capriciously. Nevertheless, there are those of the household of Faith who obstinately deny some truth that is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith. There is some question, for instance, about whether those who openly profess to be "pro-choice" are, in fact, holding to a heretical position. The teaching of the Church in the area of life is clear and unequivocal. Human life must be respected and protected from conception to natural death. Those who maintain that any and all decisions about the disposition of pre-born human beings are exclusively the right of the mother or the parents, at least implicitly, reject the clear and consistent teaching of the Church. The truth is that God charges each of us with the duty to protect and defend innocent human life. This is clearly stated in the Fifth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill. In our society, this attempt to protect innocent human life is done through legal legislative processes and is accomplished, or fails to be accomplished, by those whom we elect. It would not be proper to imply that anyone who votes for an anti-life politician is denying some truth of divine and Catholic faith. Yet, if that candidate receives the vote precisely because he maintains that he has no duty to protect or defend innocent human life in the womb, then a vote cast for him is a type of declaration that the teaching of the Church, indeed the validity of the Fifth Commandment itself, is rejected. One brave soul has termed this present rejection of responsibility for one's pre-born brother or sister the right-to-murder heresy. When our Lord said it was time for Him to go to Jerusalem, there to suffer and die, Peter contended with Him quite strongly and rejected this intention of his Lord. For this Peter incurred the blunt and definitive, "Get behind me, you Satan. You are thinking as man thinks and not as God thinks." Our kind and gentle Lord will certainly receive us and help us when we cry out to Him for He is "meek and humble of heart," but I suspect he will likewise not mince words with those who reject His Way and His Truth. ************* May we have the courage to persevere, all for the Love of God. God Bless you and yours, Carolyn "What I do you cannot do; but what you do, I cannot do. The needs are great, and none of us, including me, ever do great things. But we can all do small things, with great love, and together we can do something wonderful." - Mother Teresa- VOCAL Voice of Catholics Advocating Life PO Box 458 Sublimity, OR 97385 Member of Catholic Media Coalition - "Inline with the Church, online with the world"

Starfish Story / Children +++ He would have died for even one.

Dear Friends,

When does pro-life become pro-abortion? That was the subject line of my last letter. The comparision was to point out that, in some cases, being scrupulous could be a matter of life and death. It's like the starfish story.

*****

It needed to be pointed out that Mary Starrett, no matter how well meaning and pro-life she is, testified against good pro-life bills with pro-choice arguments. The pro-aborts don't want any movement away from their "no compromise, no excuses" view on abortion either. BOTH KEEP THE STATUE QUO in Oregon and still more unborn children will die.

It also needed to be pointed out that Ron Saxton does have pro-life values and is being misrepresented by the opposition. I'm sure that politics did play a part of him looking into our world. He changed his heart and mind not just with talk, but with action. To say he is being untruthful is an unfair judgement call.


When I was grappling with the question if I could vote someone not 100% pro-life, I asked Bishop Robert Vasa. He suggested reading #8 of Father Pavone's new booklet "Ten Steps to Voting with A Clear Conscience." It reads in part: "In this context, the question also arises as to whether one is required to vote for a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position. The answer is, no, you are not required to vote for this candidate. The reason is that your vote is not a canonization of a candidate. It is a transfer of power. You have to look concretely at where the power is really going to be transferred, and use your vote not to make a statement but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances."

The entire booklet can be downloaded or you can order copies (see attachment) http://www.priestsforlife.org/vote/votingwithclearconscience.htm#choosing copy or cut and paste.

Voting for a candidate is a prudential judgment and as Catholics we make our decisions with an informed conscience. I would only ask those who feel that by voting for a third party candidate it would send a message to a political party, etc. To THINK again. Think of the babies lives they are gambling with.

Christ is coming back. Will we stand before Him and say, "well, I thought it would work". Will we see the faces of the children whose lives were lost because of the gamble of our vote or not voting at all?

By the Grace of God, abortion rates are dropping in Oregon. Hearts and minds are softening and lives are being saved. It will many years to get back to the point where "Catholic" was synonymous with "pro-life". (That's what I thought when we joined the Church in 1984) But, to paraphrase a wise Bishop, "Incrementally evil was added in and incrementally it is being removed." In our Church and State.
________________________________________
The Starfish Story
The old man awoke just before sunrise, as he often did, to walk by the ocean's
edge and greet the new day. As he moved through the morning dawn, he focused on a faint, far away motion.

He saw a youth, bending and reaching and flailing arms, dancing on the beach, no doubt in celebration of the perfect day soon to begin. As he approached, he realized that the youth was not dancing to the bay, but rather bending to sift through the debris left by the night's tide, stopping now and then to pick up starfish and then standing, to heave it back into the sea.


He asked the youth the purpose of the effort. "The tide has washed the starfish onto the beach and they cannot return to the sea by themselves," the youth replied. "When the sun rises, they will die, unless I throw them back into the sea."

As the youth explained, the old man surveyed the vast expanse of beach, stretching in both directions beyond eyesight. Starfish littered the shore in numbers beyond calculation. The hopelessness of the youth's plan became clear and the old man countered, "But there are more starfish on this beach than you can ever save before the sun is up. Surely you cannot expect to make a difference."
The youth paused briefly to consider my words, bent to pick up a starfish and threw it as far as possible. Turning to the old man, he said,
"I made a difference to that one."

God Bless you and yours

"He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name" (Psa. 147:4)
"and even the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matt. 10:30)