The definition (abortion as 'family planning') should be clearly, and most adamantly, rejected by the United States! There is nothing more reprehensible than a married couple doing that!!!

I wonder if part of the motivation for the use of the term "family planning" for abortion grew out of the overpopulation fear in the 1970s and the need for an euphemism.

Subdeacon Boris,

Here is an interesting discussion on this very topic...

Fr. Z's Blog - On LR article.

I do not think it is a situation where the Pope had a direct hand in this nonsense.

God bless,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Christ is Risen!!

The speech is over and the content is out there to be analyzed and argued over.

What really caused me to pause, however, was the enthusiastic welcome of so many in the audience who call themselves Catholic. If the students and their families were REALLY Catholics, there would have been no audience to hear one word of the President's remarks. So much for commitment to what is really important: one's baptismal commitment.

Is it that we are so caught up in being assimilated--being like the rest of society so as not to draw attention to oursleves--that the core of our Faith is not important, or not important enough to take a stand for?

What is this reaction that we saw?

BOB

Ryan,

I agree, but I do think it is a problem which tends to predominate among liberal progressives. How else could one explain why conservative African Americans who, say, oppose "affirmative action" policies and practices are vilified and regarded as traitors by the political left?

To Alice's point, this is not simply about "parties." Republicans certainly have their share of liberal progressives.

God bless,

FrDD

Fr. Deacon Daniel:

Your point is not at all lacking in merit and is fair. My point is that there are more than just a few conservatives who vilify those who do not agree with them and who treat those who do not follow their ideology as being "either duped or a social heretic." I mean no disrespect, but are you allowing your own personal rejection of liberalism (for which I acknowledge that you have a firm grounding in your convictions and which I respect) to block your objectivity on this matter? Unfortunately, American liberalism is hypocritically intolerant. On the other hand, American conservatism is quite intolerant as well-so much so that I find it very difficult to swallow your accusations against liberalism in this matter. I become increasingly convinced that conservatives and liberals are more or less equally guilty in this matter.

Sincerely,

Ryan

Ryan,

As always I enjoy your posts.

To be sure there is a tendency on the part of many conservatives to vilify the left or to be so one-sided that it is difficult to acknowledge the underlying value of the objectives many of liberals seek (and some conservatives), even if there is strong disagreement as to the means.

For my part, I tend to be much more of a conservative at the federal level and slightly (just slightly - mostly on some social safety net and education issues) more progressive at the state level. I believe that the principles of subsidiarity as reflected in our Constitution (and I believe in keeping with Catholic Social Teaching) demand that we use all means to avoid a highly centralized, overreaching and intrusive federal government.

Power to the people means local accountability and such a thing is IMPOSSIBLE when Washington holds all the power.

God bless,

FrDD

Another interesting piece on the LR article. Good stuff...

LR Needs a New Editor

How many of them are Catholic? At the Baptist school I went to a minority were Baptist and a slim majority Christian. Most were secular.

I mean, the many who were so cheering.

"Power to the people means local accountability and such a thing is IMPOSSIBLE when Washington holds all the power."

I am looking forward to 2010. Enough of Obama's policy will be in place to dash the hopes of many. He has promised sacrifice, but his supporters have yet to realize the sacrifice demanded of them.

When government punishes and inhibits the producers to be fair to the unproductive, the only result is some level of universal poverty. With the nationalization of the American auto industry (which also would mean the nationalization of all the companies they own as well) and the suggestion of the nationalization of the banks, I can only think of one thing. Which industry is next on the list? The oil and gas industry? The insurance industry? Perhaps the Obama Administration would like to protect us from the risk of the tourism industry too, he has already shown some promise with Las Vegas.

The power is not all his just yet, but he has shown the ambition of a despot.