A Caller to My Radio Show Asks Why I Kicked Him Off My Facebook Page
December 29, 2009 by Patrick Madrid
Filed under Patrick's Blog
This audio clip is from a recent show in which a caller wanted (I think) to publicly put me on the spot over why I “de-friended” him on Facebook. As you’ll hear, the reason was because of some things he said to some of the women there about their having had an abortion.
The problem was that he branded such women as “murderers” because 1) abortion is murder and 2) they had aborted one or more of their children. His logic is correct, at least in a sense, because abortion is murder. But the way he put that logic into practice was, in my view, wrong-headed and counterproductive, and in this audio clip, I explain why. Take a listen . . .
What do you think?
Also, for any woman reading this blog post who may be struggling with feelings of grief, self-hatred, and remorse (to name a few common emotional reactions women feel after having had an abortion), I would like to encourage you to get in touch with the following welcoming and very helpful organizations:
I think I might've accidentally sent a post that I didn't mean to hit "post comment" on. Sometimes the enter button messes me up.
I hoped it wouldn't show up here, so Patrick, if you get a somewhat helpful but mostly annoying post from me here, please delete it for me.
Thanks,
Cori
Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.
Oh. Brother.
Patrick was right in what he did. Lankester brought it all to the public. If he is offended by being called out, then that is what it is. This is what happens when one tries to humiliate someone in public.
Dutch, are you kidding me? Have you not read these posts? Are you a murderer with words? Please do us all a favor and stay away from the abortion mills. You are helping the other side and in my opinion, Satan.
The damage you do is incredible. Words do matter, folks. Don't bother saying to me, "God bless you all and I hope you can reconcile." Your words are empty. If you are going to call me a murderer without knowing the facts, without knowing that there was no intent nor understanding, then you fail as a Christian. Go line yourself up with Lankester and his buddies.
I am a strong Catholic. I have been there, done that and suffered because of it.
I am no murderer. I, along with my child, suffered.
Words do matter, folks. I don't know how I'm going to do it but I have to figure out some way to forgive you. Because either you don't know what you do or…you're just heartless and need prayers.
Dutch, if you want to talk about your anger about abortion you may email me at corihyland@sbcglobal.net
I have gotten some great spiritual direction about this problem from close friends who have been active in the Pro-life movement for decades.
Actually, anyone who wants to email me about this…I can find someone for you to talk to if I am busy. It's important that we all get help through these tough times so we can be helpful to the next person in need.
Sorry I don't have my real name here. This account was set up a long time ago and I'll have to figure out how to change my name on it.
Let's face the new year with fresh eyes.
Thanks so much for opening this back up, Patrick. And thanks everyone for being troopers, tripping through this difficult topic. Abortion is war on humanity. War is hell.
-Cori Hyland
Dutch, a correction. A person who commits murder is a murderer; yes, you are right. In Christ, we believe that people can be truly reformed and transformed, renewed and remade – that they can put on Christ, the New Man (Gal 3:27). Let me use a less charged example. A man may lie profligately and thus be a liar. But can he never repent, lay down his sin, and at some point – in Christ – become honest and cease to be a liar? Must we always remember his sin against him when the Psalmist hopes that our sins will be remembered no more (Ps 51)?
I do not believe this is the case. St. Peter, who abandoned our Lord out of cowardice did not die a traitor and a coward, but a man redeemed in Christ and heroic for Christ's sake. Thus, people who have murdered are not necessarily still murderers, but can be new men remade in Christ, given a new lease on life – still legally responsible for their past acts and still obliged to justice – but no longer need be bound by the past's constraints upon their soul. Continuing to hold someone's sin up to their face after they have repented does not recognize the purpose of speaking the truth, nor does it recognize the redemption worked by Christ.
It strikes me as pertinent to our conversation that Jesus, while they cast lots for his clothing, prayed to the Father to forgive his murderers, even making excuses for them (Lk 23:34). It also strikes me as pertinent that meanings "accuser, prosecutor, slanderer," are all bundled together in the Hebrew and Greek words "satanas" and "diabolos."
I know whose advocate I'd rather be.
Abortion is murder plain and simple. People who commit murder are murderers. There are different levels of moral culpability for different situations.
I hope and pray that when a mother who had an abortion goes home to Holy God, her unborn child will be the first to greet her into eternity.
God Bless you all and I hope you can reconcile.
It's me Tina Machado…and I figured out how to post in here…whew this techy stuff is tricky…. đ
I remember the original post….I was one of the women who was offended by his "abortion is murder comment" and I called him on it…told him to WHOA his attitude. There was no love, charity, and humiltiy in his post. And he too was offended because I called him on it.
He was stating facts and quoting the CCC. …
We know the facts….
Living with love and humility is the hardest part of life. Thats what we each need to practice.
I often think of Mother Cabrini and ask for her intercession…how she lived her life…looking at Jesus in each person she encountered. That is my prayer for me. Love needs to begin with me.
Your sister in Christ,
Tina
Brothers and Sisters,
Like many other situaions I have seen get way out of hand on FB, or blogs, trying to convey things from behind a keyboard, can be very limiting. It is hard, at times, to discern what one is saying due to the fact that you can not "hear" the tone, or emotion, or personality that is behind the "text"! Try as we may, things can sometmes be taken out of context. Other times, it is clear as day
"Lankester said, "IDIOT! No one called her a murderer! What dupes!"
It really would have been wise to refrain from responding in a public format in this manner! How is this helping to resolve anything?!
Sooner or later it was apparent that emotions were going to run high and both of you were going to trip over yourself! This is good for neither one, the community here, and seems to be leading people to "side" now with the "person" instead of staying on the real issue!
.
My Brother Patrick, I have a great deal of respect for you as many have. I am surprised at one thing here though.
"Thank you, Lankester. I had a hunch that if I said nothing, just waited for a little while, and gave you enough rope, you would eventually let slip and demonstrate what the problem really was on FB and what it really was that prompted me to end your participation there.That hunch paid off. Thank you."
It would have been better to still remain silent, in my humble opinon, as you seem to have layed in wait, for the opportunity to attack!
Gentlemen, are we not all trying to serve the Lord here? And are we all not prone to harsh words and error? I beg of you both, to please…resolve the issue that has now become personal. On that, you are both wrong! Agree to disagree, but you are both fighting the same enemy, who has now trip you into fighting each other.
Now, what a witness it would be if you all could have a cup of coffee, very simply get back to the original issue, and come out as team players again, so to speak.
What many of us are trying to do is fight a battle against the "principlaites and powers of darknes"… and take a close look at who is winning here! The evil one has dupped us all into arguing amongest ourselves! Has he not?
Lord, I pray for all who read this, to in the end come together, in a Spirit of unity, so that we may serve You, Lord and be the witness's You have called us to be. To be the "brothers and sisters" You have called us to be. Lord, if I have angered anyone here I ask forgiveness. I pray for a great outpouriingof Your Holy Spirit on each one so that as we fight the fights that are ahead for us in this new year, we can be one, like You and the Father are One!
In Jesus Name..Amen
Your Brother In Christ,
Jerry Kohlbrand
Bro Jer
Wow!
First, my dear Pat let me say, it's your facebook page/blog, add the friends you wish, delete the friends you wish. As long as I've known you I have supported your ministry and I am thrilled that for a short time I was actually a part of it. No one defends the faith with more God given grace and charity than you do. I for one am glad you have a microphone, a magazine, a blog, etc. You have my love, my support, my prayers, and my appreciation for all that you do.
Second, isn't it amazing how much discourse we can have between people who have essentially the same beliefs? Why do you think that is? Now it is true that Jesus came to divide the wheat from the shaft, the lambs from the goats, but did he come to divide the wheat from the wheat or the lambs from the lambs? In my opinion this discourse is not of Jesus' making. If it isn't of Jesus, then where does it come from?
Are women who have had abortions murderers? Does knowing the answer to this question change the reality? One day we will all have to stand naked before God. On that day each of us will have a list of sins and what will not matter is whether our neighbor called us murderer, thief, adulterer, stealer, blasphemer, liar, etc… What will matter is the manner in which we committed our sins, and the degree to which we have made satisfaction (repentance) for those sins.
My husband and I home school our 5 children including Religion/Catechism. Often my kids will ask me "Mom, if x,y,or z happens under this circumstance or that, is it a sin?" The other day I told them this.
âKids, you have a âproblemâ. See Mom and Dad have given you the gift of faith. Within the guidelines of that faith we are bringing you up with an understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Our efforts are not flawless, but the faith itself is. You now have the tremendous âproblemâ of now having to make decisions for your lives based on that upbringing. When you die, and you all will die someday, God will judge you based on what you knew, what you had opportunity to learn and what you then did with your life. To those to whom much has been given, much will be expected."
Pat. You keep on doing exactly what you're doing. I love you for it my dear friend.
Lankester, it was not Patrick who lied. Shame on you.
Susan, don't worry about it.
Lankester, have you been hurt by abortion? If so, would you like someone to talk to about it.
-Cori
Was able to read it by copy/paste of the link provided. The live link doesn't work for me.
Thanks, Patrick. Well said.
Liar.
Can I make one last clarification? When I spoke of how certain posters don't have the integrity to address issues the way they should…I was not speaking of Cori. I realized afterwards that it looked wrong. (Sorry, Cori.)
I normally don't take the time to respond at great length to things like this, but I've made an exception in this case. Unfortunately, the Blogger software has a character limit on comments, and mine exceeded that, so here is a link to the entire response to Lankester, James, and hcsknight:
My response.
http://www.patrickmadrid.com/response_to_certain_comments.htm
Cori, Patrick did nothing wrong here. Lankester made it public by going on the radio. He has not once said anything about taking this to private emails. (I know you mentioned this). These guys went after Patrick. He never said who this guy was. Lankester did that himself.
Now, having been shown where he has not been entirely truthful (and that's putting it mildly) nor charitable, Lankester and his buddies are swarming here to build up lots of strawmen.
Let's call it for what it is, ok?
Diane, if I don't get another chance to say this…I think you did a fine job of posting.
It's been very interesting watching how this has played out. And how certain posters don't have the integrity to address the issues the way they should.
Ohhhhhkay, after that "IDIOT" comment and subsequent comments by the same party, I've changed my mind completely. The caller seemed inoffensive enough over the phone, which was why I urged rapprochement. But OTOH the caller's combox comments here…well, the level of vituperation has steadily escalated, let's just put it that way.
No one has to put up with verbal abuse and personal insults. If someone verbally abuses and insults you on Facebook or anywhere else, then you have every right to show that person the door.
I've unfriended only one person on FB. That person became abusive and insulting, which actually provided me with the perfect pretext for unfriending him. I had been wanting to unfriend him earlier, but I hadn't wanted to hurt his feelings. He was a rabid anti-semite and conspiracy theorist who posted all this anti-semitic vitriol, and it embarrassed and disturbed me to log on and encounter all these crazy anti-semitic rants. However, I'd been too woossy to unfriend him. Then he insulted me, and, as Eliza Bennet would say, he thereby spared me the pain I might have felt [in unfriending him] had he behaved in a more gentleman-like manner. đ
After I unfriended him, he sent me a vicious little private message informing me that I didn't know what I was talking about because Jews aren't really Jews or some such crazy thing. As Patrick says, if you wait long enough, the true colors do begin to show.
Come on, y'all! Does everyone just feel fat right now? We all need to take a nice brisk walk and eat some carrots.
The relatives will be leaving soon and we can get back to feeling like ourselves again, so let's cut each other some slack today.
I'm really leaving this time….maybe.
-Cori
@hcsknight: Good heavens – I think you opened at least a half-dozen, unrelated rabbit holes, not to mention judged intent (wrongly) once again in several areas.
I'm not going to head down any of those rabbit holes.
Have a blessed and peace-filled New Year. May the Mother of God guide us all.
Boys, we're all friends here, right? If it was some girls fighting, we'd hug and give each other bath products, but in your case, maybe power tools would work.
Just sayin'…there is a LOT of testosterone here (I love men).
Look, Lankester, just ask Patrick if you can be allowed back on and "mind your p's a q's" when he allows you back on.
Patrick, maybe go on one of your long walks and find a bad dog to kick. Ruff ruff.
Seriously, that was below the belt to go on Patrick's call-in show with this. Patrick, maybe you'll see your screener instead of a bad dog!
You are both fine people who can do better than this. Can we give it another try? Pleeeeeeeeeeeease.
I love happy endings and if either of you ever want to fight, ask my hubby if he thinks I have time and we'll argue until the cows come home.
So…friends?
{continued}
Diane,
{Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said…}
Diane, What I see, as I "drive along", going on are some unfortunate effects of mis-interpretations and applications of Vatican II; in short the "cult of personality/protestantization" of the Catholic Church that is taking place; the tremendous increase in confusion that is taking place through personal "apologetics"; the tremendous increase in lay people "making a living" off of being Catholic; and most concerning and dangerous of all the replacement of humilty, reverence, contritness and supplication regarding the Faith – which is most dramatically seen in the way The Bloodless Sacrafice of the Mass is now approached.
This has reached the point where heretical celebration is now the part of a very prominent liturgical music book used in many many Catholic Parishes, "Breaking Bread" published by OCP http://cdn.ocp.org/shared/pdf/preview/22080z4.pdf
"I myself am the bread of life. You and I are the bread of life, taken and blessed, broken and shared by Christ that the world might live."
This was the Eucharistic Communion song during the Mass I attended on Sunday.
Diane, so tell me, why is it not okay for me to question intents of those who very very publically hold themselves out to the public, and preach, and teach, and claim to be defending the Catholic Faith, to be calling others to the Catholic Faith… but you are allowed to question my intent? Are you now going to fall back onto that old saw of "he started it" or "Im only giving it the way it was given"?…
What I see is more fish claimed to be a part of the school by increasing the variety of classes and ideologies taught.
Not by pointing toward the One True Church, it's Magisterium, or the deposit of Faith affirmed by a dogmas and teachings of more than a millenium.
Again, where through such blogs, and "twitters", and other things are Charity and Faith being increased? Where is unity increased and the confusion decreased?
Did not Christ himself walk into the temple and throw over the tables and take a whip to the "animals"?
Arianism enjoyed well over a century of rather strong support by many Catholic Bishops and priests, in fact at one time a majority.
Maybe the reason my words sound like a "drive by" has more to do with your iching ears than what I have said.
Diane,
{Diane M. Korzeniewski, OCDS said…}
Re: "The charity shown for this woman, was to cut-off stone-throwers who wanted to "remind others of her sin".
– So why was that not done and left at that? Why did Patrick not in private address the issue with the person he felt offended him and the woman?
Regardless, your "answers" fail to address two central questions; why was the discussion taking place in the first place and why is Patrick continuing the matter on this blog? Why continue it on his blog if the goal was to end the effects of others who wanted to "remind others of her sin"?
Diane, Why would you "LOVE [my emphasis added] to see the original, full dialogue for analysis". And what makes you so sure you would have a "pretty good idea of what I [you] would see"?…. Really, you would love to see the original sin in action? And just how does this differ than other voyeurs of sin?
Re: Is Patrick exploiting the case? No. He is a an apologist…
– Really? I see references to humility and service, but I see a LOT of sales links… Does the money go to the Church or charities? Why do I not see links to the Vatican's web site, it's Catechism, Cannon, etc.?
Re: So, what is your excuse for engaging in the dialogue? Has God given you a special grace to discern each of our motives (and Patrick's) for discussing this topic?
– I need no excuse. And engaging a crowd to point out the mobs error is far far different than starting the crowd. As for motive, it should be clear to one whose focus is Christ Crucified… as opposed to "being right".
Re: I'm sorry to say that your drive-by swipe reminds me of those who have Catholic bumper stickers on the back of their car, then "salute" someone who might be driving a little too slow as they zoom past.
– Ahhhh the self-centered old "dont point a finger at me if you're not perfect" argument… Next you'll be quoting scripture about a how there must be a log in my eye.
You never wanted the truth you wanted the outcome of your own desire. Shameful Manipulation and Moral Cowardice, and the most important part you still don't have the truth.
Lankester said, "IDIOT! No one called her a murderer! What dupes!"
Thank you, Lankester. I had a hunch that if I said nothing, just waited for a little while, and gave you enough rope, you would eventually let slip and demonstrate what the problem really was on FB and what it really was that prompted me to end your participation there.
That hunch paid off. Thank you.
"Your defriending him seems to have resulted in his being fairly upset. Perhaps you could have offered him the gentleness you expected of him in his conversation with the woman. If you simply de-friended him without explanation, I would think that would put you in need of your own very good advice."
Oh good grief, are we all just cry babies anymore? This is what we call analysis paralysis and it is of Satan because it wastes precious time. Patrick is fine. He's not perfect like some people expect him to be, so go find a rock and throw it somewhere. Maybe you'll feel better.
Do we not have more to have hurt feelings about than THIS? They are WORDS!! No one is taking your food or pillaging your homes. If they are, get off the computer and get your gun.
Women who abort and have remorse probably shouldn't "go public" until they are fully recovered from the hopelessness of it….and perhaps even then, only in certain circumstances. If they aren't actively helping other women to recover from the hopeless feelings of abortion, they might discover that it helps them a great deal more than anything else does….(12 step programs agree with this idea).
Bottom line is that the last thing anyone wants from Patrick' sites is the "Oprah effect," where we all pat each other on the back and say, "I am so sorry you had to go through that," while the real story that we humans create most of our own problems gets swept under the rug for yet another generation.
So, perhaps we can address the sin and help direct the action to enable healing from self-hatred from now on. But, we have to recognize that it is ultimately the individuals problem and they are going to have to find their own solution. It is their spiritual work to do, not ours. That's why we get so personal about it. We want to fix pain. There is no fixing another's emotional pain. It has to be worked through by the pained one.
So, we can suffer with the pained by helping them get to the place where they want to do something about it, but entertaining this drive-by thing isn't something we (Patrick or anyone else) has to put up with for any length of time. This isn't Jerry Springer's Blog or FB page. If it was, none of us would be here.
While Grumpies need love, they can't be allowed to dominate in an online forum. It's public, like being at a big private party at the Bronco Bowl in Dallas…sort of private, but mostly public….meaning you can't go naked without getting arrested. Gosh, now I've really gone off track! Nevermind.
Anyway, it isn't like Lankester is going to be spending every other Saturday helping women at the CPC or anything, out of remorse because people on here called him a big meanie. It would be his deal to figure out in private.
Look Lankester, you seem like you're a little grumpy lately. May I suggest you look at Danielle Bean's blog and pick something from her list of "things to do rather than eating the next piece of pie" to avoid doing the next grumpy thing? If you are thin, maybe you can go ahead and eat the pie, but for now my solution is to run when I am in a bad mood.
It's taken a long time for me to find this "happy place" but my husband and kids know by looking at me if I need to go run. I am guessing that is exactly what I am about to do. Time to bundle the kids up and go to the gym.
Hope everyone has a great New Year!
-Cori
You have again allowed the whole conversation to be published out of context pieced it together by your own words and manipulated the truth. The fact that you do not publish my posts as they are presented shows you have been manuipulating us from the beginning. I can't wait until the day when the real truth is revealed.
Lankester, you write: "She stated it, none of us did!"
James writes: "Abortion is murder and those who committ this act are murderers. Period."
Practically the whole comment was about women being murderers. And he is a close friend of yours, second to be de-friended.
He also says (in a much earlier post)that the caller (you, Mr. Lankester) simply pointed out that anyone who has an abortion is a murderer. The backlash came as a result of this statement from other posters.
The truth does indeed seem to be lost but not on us.
There has been some focus on how Patrick might have taken a different path. However, I want to point out that there was another approach available to Lankester.
First, I would have privately contacted Patrick via one of the public emails he has listed and asked him to help me to understand what might have prompted the "unfriending". Private communication in such cases is prudent.
I don't think it was prudent to blindside Patrick by calling into the show for an answer about an incident that happened some weeks or months ago. Perhaps the caller tried several times and only now got through, but I have found Patrick very accessible the few times I have sent email.
Further, when communication breaks down and things heat up, it is really necessary to seek an answer with an open mind and with humility.
This means, we have to be prepared to accept the fact that perhaps something we said came across differently than we intended. Or, that we were not prudent in the way our point was made, or used an improper tone. This takes even more humility. And, it is how we grow in communication.
It's possible that through private conversation, Lankester could have worked through the issue, and been friended once again (or not if he couldn't seem to understand how his choice of words, tone, or lack of prudence was hurtful of others).
This is a chorus all singing a different tune. No one wants the truth of the matter, they only want to be heard. This is why I am no longer on Facebook and no longer responding to this travesty of justice and charity. The fact that Mr. Madrid doesnt respond or dialogue speaks volumes. My final post. Shame on you Patrick.
ok, Patrick, I'm with you. I, too, am on Facebook and I, too, have "Unfriended" people because I didn't like their rhetoric. Facebook is a social community and as such you, and I, have every "right" to "unfriend" anyone we want for any reason we want. It is your page, you get to control who or what you will see. Good for you for not allowing the taunts that I see to often on Facebook.
I agree with Lisa Gras here, but would throw out one more thought for consideration.
As I pointed out earlier, it is sometimes a balancing act. If Patrick felt the behavior and words were coming across in a way that could be harmful to the woman's reconciliation process, I don't think Facebook allows you to simply suspend someone temporarily while you sort it out.
I work closely with the Helpers of God's Precious Infants here in Michigan and I have come across well meaning Catholics whose anger was so great over abortion, that they do more damage and win fewer conversions than those who temper that anger in order to do what is needed.
Let's face it, when dealing with a woman who is about to step into a clinic, or with a post-abortive woman, you have to set aside any anger and show compassion when it is most difficult. This compassion is only possible through God's grace and it is that love which wins them over.
This is why I cannot accept certain anti-abortion methods used by particular groups. They might win someone here and there, but they often do more damage with harsh rhetoric and reminders of murder than those who approach it with love and compassion. One thing that impressed me about the Helpers is that they try hard to counsel women to the crisis pregnancy centers, but they are also there with the Rachel's Vineyard brochures for those women who choose to go through with it after they come out. They do not show anger towards them. And believe me, it is gut wrenching to watch, but in the end, they always "steel-up" and work towards bringing that soul to reconciliation even after the event.
What people lose sight of is that God loves that baby even more than we ever could. God also loves the woman seeking the abortion, the abortionist, clinic workers, and all of those who may be pushing the person into the clinic. We, however, will be judged not just on how much we mourn for the loss of the baby, but on how we work to bring about reconciliation through love and kindness.
None of this diminishes the gravity or pain of abortion. It's simply how we respond to it.
Some just don't get it, and never will.
She stated it, none of us did! Patrick Madrid MIA, its easy to chime in, but the truth is far more difficult in this culture and apparently with this group of people. Publish all my post Patrick, otherwise you are proving my point. The truth seems lost here, the relavist game appears afoot and Mr. Madrid seems to be playing along.
The point missed by Lankester and James is called prudence and it is clearly lacking, again in their responses to my comments.
Look at the contradiction between these two:
Lankester says: "IDIOT! No one called her a murderer! What dupes!".
And just before that, James says: "Just so everyone is clear, there were no 'ad-hominem attacks' from the caller or anyone else toward the woman who had the abortion. It was stated that she was a murderer…"
She wasn't called a murderer, but she was.
Once again, if this is any indication of what that original conversation was like I can understand why Patrick felt compelled to cut it off.
James said: By Diane's logic, we are to completely forget about the murder of the child as if it never happened.
It's not my logic, it actually comes from the Gospel. Jesus did not go around reminding people in front of the prostitute that prostitution is wrong after he said, "nor do I condemn you, go and sin no more"..
Again, it is not a matter of whether a life is lost in an abortion. It is murder or homicide or however you want to define it. The point of debate is whether it was prudent to remind the woman and others that it was murder in the context of that conversation. Patrick felt it wasn't, people didn't get it, he ended the conversation. Perhaps defriending was the only way to do so.
From all that I am seeing here out of James and Lankester, the dialogue is problematic on several levels.
I've seen enough that I truly don't need to see the original dialogue.
Further, I don't think the taped interview adequately captures the position of Lankester as well as this combox does. James augments it all even better.
Lankester, you add name calling to your list?
This is what James wrote:
It was stated that she was a murderer
IDIOT! No one called her a murderer! What dupes!
I applaud Patrick for de-friending this guy.
Lankester and James do not call the woman a murderer because of the child. No. They call her a murderer because of anger.
I don't need to see what the original dialogue was. James and Lankester have amply demonstrated that in their posts here.
They never addressed what I said about intent. I am a convert. I understand more now than ever why Catholics tell me the reason that they left the Church. It is because of the hurt that is thrown at them instead of mercy.
James and Lankester, I understand the anger that you feel about the children. The devil is working through that anger to pull more people away from the church.
I had an abortion more than 20 years ago. I did not know what I was doing. I was lied to. I was told that it wasn't a child…yet. I was scared (petrified), very very hurt and very very alone. I did not think it through calmly and rationally.
That is not murder. There was no intent on my part to kill anyone. I'm still shaking and crying about it today and I am 47 years old. I cannot begin to tell you of the trauma that I went through.
I have become Catholic and gone to confession through God's mercy and grace.
To have someone call me (by association) a murderer because he wants to point out my sin, is against God's teaching.
You don't have to point out our sin. We are painfully aware of it. Others know that it is a sin, too.
By one sentence, you have taunted us. Yes. I'm shaking over here and crying over one stupid sentence.
In my last hour of breath, I am sure that the devil will be doing the exact same thing. And I am going to be holding on tightly to the Blessed Mother's hand.
There is only the truth (Holy Spirit) side of the issue. Come back to the truth. If this is representative of your listenership then relativists goodbye. My prayers are with you. +
As a woman who has repented of the sin of abortion, I can certainly see the woman's side of this squabble. But, after listening to the audio soundbyte, I must confess I see the caller's side, too. He certainly does not come across as the taunting, badgering type. And it *is* a tad unfair to publicly put him on trial here without providing the original thread. We are, essentially, condemning the guy on someone else's say-so.
With much trepidation, I would implore Patrick to re-friend him. Is it worth it to alienate a fellow Catholic who may well not have meant what we thought he meant?
Oh Patrick, this entire thing is a tragedy and by the time I have arrived here at the bottom of the comments, my heart is heavy. I am in no position to judge the online comments that occurred in Facebook or your decision to remove the friends that you did. But I must say that this has become hurtful to good people, and publicly humiliating to a few and the Catholic online community–as judged by these comments–is angry, upset and polarized, perhaps needlessly so.
I can't see how the posting of this has helped the issue, or the people involved–you, the woman or the friends from Facebook.
You are all in my prayers–I hope all of you can heal the hurt from what are clearly misunderstandings, and momentary lackings of judgment and charity.
Just so everyone is clear, there were no "ad-hominem attacks" from the caller or anyone else toward the woman who had the abortion. It was stated that she was a murderer, and Patrick Madrid de-defriended people and shut the door. As a matter of fact, a woman posted that she was indeed a murderer for her past act, and supported the caller! She understood what she had done, and she wasn't going to deny her past; afterall, young people (especially women) need to understand that this is murder!
There is no Scripture or teaching within the Catechism which contradicts that the woman who snuffed out an innocent life is a murderer. Does this mean she is not forgiven? Of course not. Does this mean that she is any less of a person now? No. Yet, for her own sake, and for the sake of those thinking about having an abortion, a CLEAR message must be sent. Abortion is murder, and those who committ this act are murderers, period. Many of us prefer to deter women from muderering their unborn children. Others prefer to deal with it AFTER the fact and completely forget about the heinous act itself.
Diane, you do a superb job of making the waters muddy when they were crystal clear to begin with. Let's examine your statements :
"Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it. Without having access to the full, original dialogue, it's hard to judge completely."
Nothing was "said." There was a single statement on a FB page which stated the truth : A woman who has an abortion is a murderer.
More jumping to conclusions by Diane :
"Teaching others is important, but it must be done in such a way as to bring them along, with gentleness and mercy, not with a baseball bat, a finger in the face, or holding their past over their head."
Once again it was a single statement : A woman who has an abortion is a murderer. A single statement of truth in no way constitutes bringing someone along "with a baseball bat" or "a finger in the face." You struggle with this fact as many of the people who had knee jerk reactions did on the FB page without accepting the truth.
Let's continue :
"We are exhorted to be patient with those whose faith is weak. Many poorly catechized people, and especially post-abortive women can be at such a delicate state of faith, that how we deal with them has everything to do with whether they come along or run the other way. It is a grace and an art to know how to teach the truth with love."
Who said anything about this woman's faith being weak? Where are you getting this, Diane? I happen to know many individuals who are complete atheists who understand that murder is wrong. Does "weak faith" justify MURDER? I think not.
There's more :
"I am assuming is a cradle Catholic (Lankester), who has perhaps never committed anything as grave as murder or homicide is complaining that greater charity is being extended to one who is allegedly not a "fellow Catholic" or at least the same kind of "fellow Catholic" as is he. "
The problem is, you've ASSUMED a lot Diane. If the caller had committed a murder, he would be called A MURDERER. If I committed a murder, then I would be called the same. Your desperate attempt to portray the caller as someone who is out to persecute the woman is baseless. He spoke the Truth.
Diane continues in misguided thought :
"Now, on with the quote above: First, there is an understanding that the woman is recovering from sin, or in the process of doing so. In the next breath, there is an acknowledgment that the intent behind calling her a "murderer" was to remind people of her sin. This makes no sense and it is contrary to the gospel. And, quite frankly, it lacks tact to throw such language into someone's face if they are already repentant."
By Diane's logic, we are to completely forget about the murder of the child as if it never happened. The caller who made the statement is by no means acting contrary to the Gospel or the Catechism. Once again, the "throwing of such language into someone's face" was a simple statement… and I'll repeat it for you : A woman who has an abortion is a murderer. You allusion to John 8:7-11 is completely irrelevant. No one was "throwing stones." Once again, it was a simple statement of TRUTH.
Let's wrap up :
"I would love to see the original, full dialogue for analysis and I have a pretty good idea of what I would see based on what has been stated already by Lankester and James."
You have no idea, Diane, and that's your problem. Your inability to draw sensible conclusions based on facts is evident.
To SJW: From yesterday's reading: "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. And you know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in himself." – 1 John 3:15 See: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and most importantly Revelation 22:15.
Abortion is murder. Patrick said it himself and this is all I ever said despite all of the misguided rhetoric and false witness here. It shows me that being online is worthless to the truth. Goodbye.
Diane appears to be another person who speaks without dialogue and is intent on painting others as "cradle" Catholics who disagree with her. She couldn't be more wrong. The most glaring point that is continually overlooked in all of this pontificating is that the accused was never the accused. Patrick has engaged us by continually attempting and apparently succeeding in some cases (by what could be called bearing false witness) by misleading his regulars that he was without fault when really it appears that it was his pride that was hurt. No one here has the context, and the true context was an open and honest discussion about abortion, where someone came out of left field who wasn't even part of the discussion prior, and starts making widespread accusations that someone is calling her a murderer, when in fact it was stated several times that the actual statement was, "Abortion is murder." Patrick regularly says this on his show, then when someone else, like myself makes the same statement, it is painted out of context by both the woman and Patrick who then deletes friends, then without trying to get past the inhumanity of the medium, decides instead to give a public Mea Culpa on a blog, again out of context, further damaging the dialogue and the relationship. I am not "just" a listener or a Facebook friend, I am someone who takes my faith very seriously, didn't come back to the faith late in life, and practices what he preaches, and anyone who takes this much offense to something that was offered in charity, both on Facebook, on the Air, and on this Blog, then I really have to wonder about the spiritual state of the person and whether we are all being duped. Diane is not the only Carmelite here, again showing perhaps all of this is nothing more than self-promotion on all fronts. Our Lady of Mount Carmel knows that this woman was not being badgered and so do I. Patrick, you might spend a little more time getting to know those who post on Facebook and on your Blog, because deleting people without explanation shows that you dont know your friends, and you don't really care to. We apparently are just "fans" to you.
Hi, Patrick. I was not privy to the initial discussion, however I did listen to the radio exchange. I'm a former crisis pregnancy counselor who has worked closely with people from Project Rachel. I understand and agree with your comments on the radio show. At the same time, I was asking myself, if you had explained things so well to him on Facebook as you did on the radio show, would he have understood better and could the de-friending have been avoided? The advice you were giving to him on the radio could have been employed by you personally in the way you dealt with him initially on Facebook. We must feed milk, not solid food. Your defriending him seems to have resulted in his being fairly upset. Perhaps you could have offered him the gentleness you expected of him in his conversation with the woman. If you simply de-friended him without explanation, I would think that would put you in need of your own very good advice.
Blessings.
hcsknight said, Really, where is your Charity for this woman's sin, or the man you feel slighted by? How does the way you are exploiting this subject REALLY increase Charity in the world?
The charity shown for this woman, was to cut-off stone-throwers who wanted to "remind others of her sin".
Is Patrick exploiting the case? No. He is a an apologist, as well as a teacher, and there are many lessons in these kinds of things. I continue to maintain that it is one of the areas we need to continue to discuss online – how we communicate and represent ourselves as Catholics.
I would love to see the original, full dialogue for analysis and I have a pretty good idea of what I would see based on what has been stated already by Lankester and James.
I would encourage both of them to look back and to ponder the prudence of reminding others that the post-abortive woman was a "murderer". I've never been pregnant, let alone had an abortion, but I cannot imagine the trauma that women (and men) live with the rest of their life when God's grace enlightens them.
What I see, are a bunch of people who are more interested in talking about themselves and their opinions than Charity living Through Him, With Him and In Him.
So, what is your excuse for engaging in the dialogue? Has God given you a special grace to discern each of our motives (and Patricks) for discussing this topic?
I'm sorry to say that your drive-by swipe reminds me of those who have Catholic bumper stickers on the back of their car, then "salute" someone who might be driving a little too slow as they zoom past.
James said, Patrick's post was to celebrate a woman's recovery from sin, yet when the caller simply reminded everyone on Patrick's page that the woman is a murderer, the backlash started against the caller. Patrick's discussion diminished the sin, and the caller simply reminded everyone about the sin / sinner as a lesson not to forget
First, I'm going to qualify what I believe "recovery from sin" means. This to me, means that someone has already repented of their sin. For Catholics, hopefully this means that someone has used Sacramental Confession, or is working to that end after having interiorly recognizing the sin.
Now, on with the quote above: First, there is an understanding that the woman is recovering from sin, or in the process of doing so. In the next breath, there is an acknowledgment that the intent behind calling her a "murderer" was to remind people of her sin. This makes no sense and it is contrary to the gospel. And, quite frankly, it lacks tact to throw such language into someone's face if they are already repentant.
Let's go back to Scripture:
John 8:7-11
But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him. Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She replied, "No one, sir." Then Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more."
Wow. There are some real opportunities for learning here.
Once again, if the two quotes I have captured in my comments within this thread (one from Lankester and one from James) is indicative of what set Patrick off, I can understand it. If people weren't comprehending why their dialogue was problematic (on several levels), then I can also understand why he cut people off to end it.
The potential for damage to the conversion of souls who are seeking truth and healing can be great. The process for some people is highly delicate and those souls are reading along, obviously searching for answers.
It has been my experience that some commenters in social networks (be it blogger or FB), don't understand where they are going wrong with their communication. It sometimes becomes necessary to cut it (or them) off in order to avoid scandal or damage to the conversion process of others. I had to go to comment moderation not only because of the inappropriate ads people were trying to place, but because I did not want my blog becoming an avenue for calumny and detraction (it's unbelievable what Catholics feel they have a right to say online, and these are the same people always quoting the CCC). Others may have their doctrines straight, but they miss the point of charity and become the proverbial clanging gong.
I have long believed that we need to begin analysis of Catholic blogging/networking, comparing and contrasting the way we communicate with the virtues and contrary virtues. We need to come up with a very solid, well-rounded "examination of conscience" for social networking and blogging.
I like Archbishop Vigneron's 10 Rules for Handling Disagreement like a Christian and think we need something similar for blogging and social networking.
No one in heaven will be a murderer, fornicator, theif, adultress….God forgives AND forgets ….We leave our sins at the confessional, forgiven sins dont follow us around or brand us , we let them go …I doubt Christ referred to Mary Magdeline as "the adulterer" after her conversion. It is not easy for a woman to admit she had an abortion…and keep in mind, many become the greatest of prolife activists and save many lives by exposing such a personal statement, making themselves vulnerable and at risk of being branded.
Treat sinners not with judgement, but with love.
I doubt Jesus would ever say in public the lady who had an abortion is a "murderer". As he so often did, realizing the lady is contrite, he would lovingly acknowledge the wrong and teach the right. He would focus on the glory of her unhardened heart. Stop dwelling on the negative and allowing evil to enjoy itself. Start sowing Godly seeds. Help Him turn evil into good.
I think what is being misunderstood is prudence, lack of, not logic necessarily.
Although some things may be true, what would the prudent thing be? And prudence is a virtue we sorely need. Sometimes you do not need to say anything other than "Bless you".
I see both sides and I am glad I do not have a FaceBook account. There are many people who get very upset over the "friend" and "de friend" ing thing. Just my input.
I have to add to my last comment, referencing the same quote by Lankester….
That particular statement reminds of the story of the prodigal son, but with a twist. Someone I am assuming is a cradle Catholic (Lankester), who has perhaps never committed anything as grave as murder or homicide is complaining that greater charity is being extended to one who is allegedly not a "fellow Catholic" or at least the same kind of "fellow Catholic" as is he.
Even an abortionist, who has repented properly and changed his ways can get into heaven, even ahead of those who may be touched with self-righteousness.
Lankester said: It would seem that you had more charity for this woman (who was probably a rabble-rouser to begin with) than your fellow Catholics who teach the truth, thereby in the process alienating the faithful.
Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it. Without having access to the full, original dialogue, it's hard to judge completely.
However, if that part of Lankester's comment I quoted above is any indication of what the rhetoric was like in that FB thread prompting the call-in and this post, then Patrick's decision is understandable. This is especially true if continued dialogue wasn't comprehending the lack of virtue in such language.
Teaching others is important, but it must be done in such a way as to bring them along, with gentleness and mercy, not with a baseball bat, a finger in the face, or holding their past over their head. Furhter assuming that the person was "probably a rabble rouser" smacks of rash judgment (ccc 2478)
We are exhorted to be patient with those whose faith is weak. Many poorly catechized people, and especially post-abortive women can be at such a delicate state of faith, that how we deal with them has everything to do with whether they come along or run the other way. It is a grace and an art to know how to teach the truth with love.
Teach truth – absolutely. But always teach it with love, gentleness and ever mindful of the dignity of the other person.
Patrick, I think your question says far more about your focus on yourself and your desire to be an "important" Christian than anything else.
Your "This Blog Is Under the Patronage
of the Blessed Virgin Mary", and it's image of a Miraculous Medal…. Do you really see it that way? What I see is a person whose name and image is portrayed much, much, much more prominently across this blog than anything else…
Really, where is your Charity for this woman's sin, or the man you feel slighted by? How does the way you are exploiting this subject REALLY increase Charity in the world?
What I see, are a bunch of people who are more interested in talking about themselves and their opinions than Charity living Through Him, With Him and In Him.
âJust another guy with a blog. No big whoop.â
False self-deprecation or the truth?
James and Lankester, you have no idea of what you speak.
Let me ask you something.
Are you calling these women murderers because they had full knowledge of what they were doing?
Did they knowingly set out to kill human life with the facts set out before them?
Or are you calling them murderers because you are mad?
Murder connotes intent like a previous commenter said. Are you using that word because you believe that was their intent?
Or is the devil using you to inflict more harm?
What I just said will probably get you mad but that is the truth as I see it. And you both want to speak the truth. Right?
When we step in and start trying to brand the person, we make another person's sin about us. That doesn't sound like fun to me.
I'd rather facilitate a process in another person in order for them to establish a relationship with God that will be there long after I am gone.
If I've never dealt with their particular sin then I am likely to suggest that they talk to someone who knows personally what they're dealing with.
As far as I know, helping others with something I've struggled with is the best remedy for regretting my own past. If I use my past experiences to console another person, it helps me more than it helps them.
Perhaps it is the same for those who are post-abortive. I don't want to assume anything, you know what they say about assuming…
-Cori
I am a close friend of the person who called into the show, and I am also the 2nd person Patrick Madrid de-friended on facebook over the abortion discussion / exchange.
There is very disturbing content from the comments posted in reaction to this thread.
At no time, did the caller ever attack or "badger" the woman on Patrick Madrid's FB page. This is completely untrue. The caller simply pointed out that anyone who has an abortion is a murderer. The backlash came as a result of this statement from other posters, who were "offended" by the fact that someone could possibly call another person a murderer – a person who took the life of an innocent human being.
The caller was cool, calm, and responded to all posts in a very professional manner, only to have Patrick remove him from his FB friend list.
I find very basic flaws in Patrick's "logic." Read Patrick's statement below :
"His logic is correct, at least in a sense, because abortion is murder. But the way he put that logic into practice was, in my view, wrong-headed and counterproductive"
Logic is not deemed correct "in a sense." It is either Logical, or Illogical. The lady on the FB who had an abortion is a murderer. Taking the life of innocent human beings is murder. At no time did the caller ever suggest that she wasn't forgiven for her sins or she wasn't sorry for her sins.
I believe that Patrick and others are more concerned with the feelings of the woman, which diminishes the sin. Patrick felt the need to address this issue by posting it on his blogspot because when he felt challenged on his own FB page. Patrick's post was to celebrate a woman's recovery from sin, yet when the caller simply reminded everyone on Patrick's page that the woman is a murderer, the backlash started against the caller. Patrick's discussion diminished the sin, and the caller simply reminded everyone about the sin / sinner as a lesson not to forget.
Patrick has thousands of friends on FB. Odd how someone would go to the trouble to remove 2 staunch Catholics from his friend list and feel the need to address it on his blogspot over a simple post of truth.
I think this is about to get way out of hand. Lankester, your input, if correct puts things in perspective, but you want Patrick to forgive and recognize the error in his ways, but you must see that you too, should forgive and see that you are about to walk away from a good Catholic as well, because of a possible misunderstanding. Otherwise, why would Patrick choose to defriend you for no reason? One of us must be the bigger person here and let it go. As Catholics we must stand strong and together. Lets not let anything un Godly come between our family. Unfair acusations about Patrick wont solve anything , just make worse.If Patrick misunderstood he'll do his part and correct, i'm sure. If not, we love anyway. What would Jesus do here? As Patrick said in the radio show…something like, if we don't speak face to face- the computer talk could be misunderstood or mis read in a good or bad way. Patrick means well. Now I see you both mean well. Lemme help you both get back on the Jesus band wagon…;)(If you will.)
By His Grace, we LOVE.
In support of a point made by several posters, I have found the word "homicide" to be both more precise and less inflammatory than "murder" when discussing abortion.
Even the word "killing" seems, to me, to be less judgmental of an individual's culpability in an action.
Words like "murderer" and "killer" invite leaps to accusations of intent and culpability, and move discussions away from abstract principle and into personal judgment.
Abortion may be an intrinsically evil act, but no human being is an intrinsically evil person, no matter what they ever do. If it is morally allowable to think that even Hitler may not have done evil under the guise of evil, surely it is more than allowable, and required in charity, to respect the image of God in every woman who aborts a child.
Patrick, I am the person you speak of in this article. First, I wish that the actual statements could be read so that the true story could be told. Second, you deleted several Facebook friends as a result of this event without just cause and without any real dialogue, including several Facebook members who actually agreed with you and me in the same Facebook thread (who are actual leaders in the Pro-Life movement). I was quite surprised that you jumped to such conclusions so quickly by deleting us and our comments, and many of us even thought maybe it was a staff member behind the scenes and not you. In my opinion, this woman was manipulating you and us by accusing us of calling her a âmurdererâ when no such dialogue ever took place. Most importantly, nobody "badgered" or "taunted" this woman, it was actually quite the opposite, the Facebook members who were simply quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the churchâs teaching, were being incessantly taunted by her, and the odd part in this thread was that you never even commented on what was being said, you just deleted us.
It would seem that you had more charity for this woman (who was probably a rabble-rouser to begin with) than your fellow Catholics who teach the truth, thereby in the process alienating the faithful. Patrick, you shouldn't jump to conclusions and be a bit more charitable yourself, just because you are on the radio doesnât make you infallible. I was a daily listener of your program and a friend of yours on Facebook for a few years, and I think it was you that misinterpreted the event; you embarrassed me, and embarrassed several of your Facebook friends and radio listeners who are loyal and practicing Catholics, and who will now tune in elsewhere. I think this blog entry is as thoughtless as your comments were on the air, where you once again presumed to know all without dialogue. I urge you to focus a little more on what is actually being said in context and worry a little less about self-promotion. As your colleague Patrick Hoffman said this week, there is only one truth, and if you canât speak that truth even if it offends others, then what is the point?
Oh, Patrick, I think you missed the boat on this one. From your exchange on radio, it's not clear whether the woman was overly defensive, or the man was overly aggressive in his condemnation. He said that he merely stated the teachings of the church–and used the word "murder" in that context. If true, I'm wondering why the woman would become upset. She certainly must understand that her act of aborting was killing life because she went to Confession and repented of it. What did she repent of? Killing human life without cause: murder. Did she think an act of murder could take place without there being a murderer?
When the man involved called your program, you took the opportunity to teach about post-abortion repentance and explain why his name had been taken off Facebook. You should [In my opinion] have used the event on Facebook to offer this information, without kicking anyone off. Seems to me you slapped a friend in the face without just cause. You ended up taking sides when there was no need for you to do so. And in the process offended a few people who agreed with you on the issue.
The terms murder/murderer, in popular usage, may encompass everything from abortion to a death caused by drunk driving to a killing in the heat of passion to deliberate, premeditated murder. They are not exactly the same thing. I do not equate the woman who has had an abortion with the person who takes another's life during an armed robbery. The use of the words murder/murderer, in popular usage, is not precise.
Repentance must require truth. And in truth, not all women who get abortions are murderers.
In my mind, only the rich woman avoiding shame and the cost of raising a child or raising a disabled child is a murderer.
In the case of life of the mother emergency abortions, it's the Doctor who is performing triage- just as he would at an accident site or on a battlefield- and the moral doctor will show this by performing a cesarean birth rather than an abortion (and of course, if the child is in the first trimester, and sometimes the second, it will die, but the doctor is saving the patient most able to survive).
In the case of health of the mother, this is negligent manslaughter- there should be a better way, but there isn't.
In the cases of rape or incest, it's a murder outright- but the mother isn't the morally culpable one, the MAN committing the rape or incest that resulted in pregnancy and abortion is also guilty of the murder of the child.
In the case of economic abortion for the poor given the choice between a $400 abortion and a $6000 live birth due to our capitalist economic system, that is a murder, but it's a murder caused by the secondary sin of greed on the part of the other 299,999,999 human beings in the United States who saw our sister in distress and failed in charity to mitigate our own personal property rights in duty to the poor. This last is the most avoidable abortion of all- give the poor their due and this category will go away entirely.
And as always- ANY sin, save blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, can be repented of and forgiven as if it had never occurred. To say that it cannot, is in fact the very definition of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Charity in truth, truth in charity. That's what Patrick followed when he kicked the guy out.
Patrick,
Thank you for this post. This man had the letter of the law down but not the spirit of it. As a post-abortive woman who has received healing through Rachel's Vineyard and the sacraments, I know what I did is technically murder. I also agree with Adoro- what is done cannot be undone- trust me I live with that every single day. However, praise God for his mercy and love. If this man and others like him understood the true spirit of God's law, he would realize that God forgives us, who are any of us not to.
As to Chimakuni's comment about Rachel's Vineyard "sadly" being world wide, while I understand what she means, I thank God for Dr Theresa Burke and her husband Kevin for answering God's call to found this ministry and take to wherever it is needed. It's just another way we see how God can make great good out of something that is not.
Thanks again for the post, your compassion and the lively discussion.
God Bless!
Would we not be better off calling the doctors who perform the abortion murderers? They are, after all, the ones actually doing the killing. The woman is a victim, whether of society's lies, government's lies, a demanding partner or even parents/family. She is in need of our prayers and we need to tell her the truth of God's love, as other posters have said. Only when all people know God's love can we ever hope to end abortion.
God is a forgiving God when someone asks for forgiveness the slate is wiped clean
"Though your sins be as scarlet, They shall be as white as snow"
God never condemened the adultress woman and does not condem us so long as we return to him with true repentance
Yet even now, says the LORD,
return to me with all your heart…
Return to the LORD, your God,
for he is gracious and merciful,
slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love,
and relents from punishing.
Yes abortion is wrong but thanks be to God for his abounding and steadfast love
The issue isn't whether abortion is murder or not. That's a given: yes.
The issue is whether, in the context of a discussion, this truth is the paramount one in the hierarchy of truths. The Code of Canon Law, which is an invaluable resource for instruction about the heart and mind of the Church, gives us an interesting clue on this point. The very last canon, which deals with the transfer of pastors, says this:
"In cases of transfer, the prescripts of can. 1747 are to be applied, canonical equity is to be observed, and the salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law of the Church, is to be kept before one's eyes," (CIC 1752).
The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church, and if I might add, its primary mission. In fact, I need not, because the Catechism says it better (CCC 849-51). Salvation, and thus missionary work, must be grounded in truth. The fundamental truth of all human affairs is that God's great love for us wills to save all men, and we must order our presentation of subordinate truths in a manner that will make them most credible. Missionary work, our proactive, evangelical share in this saving plan, requires patience, the Catechism tells us (CCC 854). That is because people are all coming from different places and experiences and will respond to different individual true statements in different ways; this also largely depends upon the person by whom they hear the truth proclaimed.
When dealing with someone on an issue, particularly a thorny one, I ask myself a few questions, since the salvation of souls – and not the simple proclamation of truth – is the highest law of the Church. The questions include: "Will this person listen to me? I am a 32 year old man with such-and-such a personality, this sort of relationship to the person, and this sort of reasons and experience to fall back on. Will he listen to me? Can I express the truth clearly and charitably? Are my motivations pure – that is, about my love for this person – or are my motivations tainted by anger, spiritual ambition, or what have you? Is it a truth that I need to proclaim? Can the person wait to hear it, or must it be spoken now, with dire consequences otherwise? Am I well disposed to help the person cope with any emotional fallout that might arise, to really care about the PERSON and not just the argument?"
If it sounds like I am making a very complicated issue of a simple debate, that's because it's not about an issue, but about souls. The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. For my part, I try to make the supreme law of my conduct to be faith, hope, and charity. These three alleviate the burden of having to win debates, do it myself, and cater to my own interior motivations. I am free – when tuned into these divinely given virtues – to say, "Hey, maybe I don't win this today, but Jesus wins in the end, so I am free just to pray for the person and trust God, if that's all I can do now." BAM! Pressure gone.
It is no lie, if a post-abortive woman asks, "Am I a murderer?" to respond, "You are a beloved daughter of God, who wants you only to know his love, to repent of the sins of your past, and live new life with him – just like everybody else." It is no lie, nor is it an evasion. It is defering one truth in favor of a much more important one.
I have seen similar discussion in several places and it comes down to an understanding of what "murder" is. Murder is the killing of a person and a punishable crime, therefor we come across as calling these women criminals when we are not.
We live in a time when abortion is legal and people from a young age are told that it is a morally acceptable "choice." Not until they are transformed by God do they recognize their sin. By simply telling them they are murderers is like calling them criminals, and though they are recociled with God they may feel that you do not think they are reconciled with society, i.e. that you think they should be punished for their crime.
While we must not euphemize abortion, I also think the word "murder" is problematic because of a punishment connotations. I think even the word "killing," as strong as it is, is a better choice because under some circumstances we are not punished for killing–as women should not be punished today and so long as abortion is legal. This heightens the need to outlaw abortion so that yet another generation is not led astray.
Patrick,
I completely agree with you in respect to taunting. We should not taunt that is uncharitable and it certainly will not convert the soul.
I do understand your points as they were made on the blog and the audio, and your written response makes it more clear to me how this person was involved in ridiculing a repentant person which is something we should never do (that and arguing with the host of the forum…LOL).
Thank you for your charitable response.
Pax tecum.
-Louis-
I have had an abortion. I do not and never have, considered myself a murderer. I reject those who say that I am. Truth be told, most women who have had abortions were (at the time) hormonally challenged, scared and confused. Most women to do not think … "well, I am with child, and I will kill that child."
God is able to sort out what a person's heart and intent is – we are not God.
To say that a woman is a murderer because they have had an abortion injures that woman. It also says quite a bit about the person who makes the statement. IF that person has said that they are religious, it puts a huge barrier between the woman and any healing that she may seek out. Who in the heck would want to seek healing from a religious organization if its followers say that she is a murderer?
Patrick – thank you for putting up Rachel's Vineyard information. They bring Christ to those who are hurting due to an abortion, one weekend at a time and they are, sadly, world wide.
For you to have de-friended this person (and no I did not listen to the audio) Patrick, was in a way, standing up for women, like myself, who are post abortive and do not need one more judgement put upon us.
I would never ask anyone if they thought if a woman who had had an abortion was a murderer – for that only sets that person up to make a judgement that is not theirs to make.
God Bless –
When harsh opinions such as that of the caller and others change, the abortion crisis will begin to change. Women who are considering abortion make the choice to follow through with it because they believe nobody will ever know. Young women, especially, are more afraid of what their parents will say and what their circle of friends and relatives will say. They believe the lie that abortion will solve what they view as a problem.
I continually hear over and over and over again negativities toward women who consider and follow through with abortion. Where is the heartfelt sorrow for the women who say yes to abortion? Are there not TWO lives lost through abortion? And isn't it the soul of the woman who lives on we should be most concerned about as it lives on; severed from God's kingdom until reconciliation is obtained if it is ever obtained? I understand the cries for the babies lost, but where are those same cries for their mothers? Yes, we have Rachael's Vineyard and Bathesda, but where is the support and love from all of us so called pro-lifers outside of those organizations?
It is no where to be found when we see the unwed mother, for instead of being cheered on for giving her child life, she is scorned for her situation. Yes, even in this day and age, we still whisper about the mother with two children from two different fathers or the woman who gave a child up for adoption when we was a teenager….the list goes on. Why do we not give those women medals? They are some of the bravest I know.
Meanwhile, where are our feelings for the mother who aborted? Instead of feeling love and concern for her soul in jepardy, she is scorned for she murdered her baby. We morn the baby, but do we stop to think about the woman or those who stood by; either in aid or those who did nothing to try and stop her from the abortion and the eternal life they may loose?
No, not exactly, Louis. The problem was not with his logic that because abortion is murder those who commit the sin of abortion are, objectively speaking, murderers. If you listen closely to what I said on the show, I make that point as clearly as I was able.
The problem was that a few people were doing what amounted to *taunting* women who had had abortions as being "murderers," when those women had expressed their remorse and forgiveness. After I stepped in twice and asked the problem poster to please exercise charity and not taunt those repentant women, and after he not only ignored my request but then turned on me and accused me of being too weak by not endorsing his rhetoric, that's when I pulled the plug.
The commenter who said intent matters is right. At Common Law, all killing of a human being by another human being is homicide. Whether that homicide then gets tracked into the category of murder, or into the default category of manslaughter, depends on circumstances, including the actor's state of mind.
For this reason, when I'm asked if I think abortion is murder, my prefered answer is, no, I think it's homicide. But that's just me — a lawyer.
Related: in re penance, isn't abortion a sin reserved to the bishop, or even to Rome? Or is that a repealed regulation? Or am I out to lunch completely? (Don't worry, ladies: if you were supposed to do more than you did, whatever priest heard your confession had a duty to tell you so. If he didn't, it's his look-out, not yours.)
So let me get this straight…
A woman questions the man's statement that abortion is murder and draws a parallel that if this is true, is she a murder? The man answers correctly yes and is removed as Facebook buddy. That is a bit skewed.
No matter one's subjective logic it doesn't change the objective reality that an innocent human life was terminated. It is horrible to face that reality, but it is the truth. The baby was not prevented, but terminated.
We should be compassionate to those who have erred in their ways and aborted their offspring; however, one should not be penalized for speaking the truth, especially when the person who procured the abortion is the one initiating it. Why should he temper truth?
She asked if she was a murder? He quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a source. She initiated the line of questioning. Let's be fair about this. If this is all that transpired, he most certainly did not deserve to be penalized.
It is true we should be compassionate and charitable, but let's face it sometimes the to be charitable is to be truthful and the truth can hurt.
To be called a murderer must include intent.
When I was a 20 something, women were lied to (much the same as today) and told that it wasn't life…that it wasn't a child. That means that the woman wasn't "murdering" her child in the sense that she was out to kill him/her. Things were not thought out calmly and rationally. If they were told that it wasn't a child, then their intent was not to murder but to prevent a baby.
The child is killed, that is true but to call that woman a "murderer" is not accurate and is (to my thinking) sinful when used to hurt her further.
As to that call, he had a small laugh just before he questioned you. Was it nervous laughter? Was it a little glee in what he was about to do? Hard to say. If it was glee, then may God have mercy on that man's soul.
Patrick,
The way the audio came across, it sounded like the guy or his son (1) said that abortion was murder, (2) was then asked — by a woman who had had an abortion — whether that meant that she is a murderer, and (3) then he said yes.
If that is the correct sequence, then it doesn't sound like the man was out of line. When asked that question, his only options were to confess that abortion-being-murder does in fact her a murderer, or ignore her, or lie to her, or change the subject, and the latter three would all have been unproductive. He was just being direct — if abortion is murder, then the correct answer to the woman's question is "yes."
You're right that there are good ways and bad ways to say things — but when asked this very-uncomfortable question, the answer has to be affirmative, if it is to be correct.
I think you were right. I personally do not see women who have abortions as murderers, but as victims who are being tricked and robbed by the abortion industry. Many women(according the Planned Parenthood's own fact recording institute the Guttmacher institute)over 68 % of women who have abortions are coerced, some actually dragged in, while a portion of the remainder(I forget exactly how much) feel they have no other choice.
It terrible that society is still pinning scarlet A's on women with a sin that belongs to us all.
No, you were absolutely right to correct him.
However, maybe, you could offer him forgiveness and re-friend him.
m
Teri ~ once a murderer, always a murderer, because that act can't be undone. However, that "brand" doesn't mean "unforgiven", so you're correct in that regard.
To give an example, one to which you alluded…Moses was a murderer. We recognize him as such because, in fact, he murdered a man. But we also recognize him as a Saint, as a prophet, and a loyal son of God.
What being Catholic means is that we look at murderers and adulterers and the like as children of God, whether they have been forgiven or not, whether they have repented or not. And if they have NOT repented, we try to bring them to repentance. If they have, we try to help them realize that no matter what they have done, they are beloved of God and beloved to us.
But we never deny the reality of the sin…we just don't beat people over the head with it.
I'm a sinner, I've screwed up HUGELY and I beat myself up enough for an army of overzealous unforgiving cretins. Personally, I am grateful for the authentic teachings of the Church that allow me to take responsibility for what I have done…and then let go in order to be a child of God once again.
And welcome Home! đ God bless you!
Being woman who had a abortion I know I am a murder…sinner… and as much as that hurts me I know I have been forgiven…. no-one can make me feel any worse then I already do I have reminders often.
I now live for the Lord
Since I don't know what was originally said, it's hard to give an opinion.
I might have deleted the comment and sent a quick note, even pre-made note concerning being charitable online before you hit the enter key, to them instead of defriending the person. We all have bad days where we don't think quite as much as we should before we hit enter.
Any further "off comments" would likely have equalled a defriend though.
Michael seemed nice. You seemed nice. I don't know what the problem was. Hope you can both work it out and forgive each other.
Patrick,
Correct me if I'm wrong, because I am a Catholic Convert (Easter Vigil 2010!!), but the caller or de-friended Facebook person must not believe all of his Faith.
If the woman is truly repentant and sorry for her sin and then is completely forgiven and absolved – she is not a murderer.
Is the caller denying the power of the sacrament of grace or the authority of The Church and the Priest?
Either way, it's wrong. The Church doesn't gleefully smack it's lips over punishing those who have repented and been forgiven …again and again and again.
Believe me, I wouldn't be so thrilled about finding the faith handed down ONCE for all the Saints if I thought I was going to have to wear my sin on my "cloak" or branded on my forehead like one of my family member's reformed faith.
Nothing is as much fun or exciting as getting to "virutally stone" someone too death or viruatully burn them at the stake after they have confessed their sin.
I've lived with that sort my entire life and it's wrong.
Our Lord didn't stone the woman taken in adultery because she was innocent or because it wasn't the Jewish law. It was the law and the witnesses were supposed to stone her under the law of Moses.
Aside from the fact that it was a set up for Our Lord and that the Romans did not take kindly to that sort of mob mentality, Our Lord could have done whatever He wished. HE was God in human flesh. He was The Law.
Yet, He, The God/Man forgave her and told her to go and sin no more.
No matter what religion or sect you come from, you cannot really call yourself a Christian when you deliberately do the opposite from what He would do and did do.
Thank you for allowing comments,
In the peace of Christ,
T