|
0 members (),
321
guests, and
22
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,295
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 124
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 124 |
Today (11 August 2006) I received an email from Sister Eleanor Bernstein of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Medaille informing me that Sister Helen Prejean: is now in the process of contacting the organization asking that her name be immediately removed from the ad on their website and that her retraction be published. These efforts have taken longer than expected because Sister Helen is on vacation in a rural area without access to computers or even good working phone communication.
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. If you think it will be helpful, please share this statement with those who share your concerns. Here is a copy Sister Helen's statement I received as an email attachment: Prejean statement. 11 August 2006
On August 3, 2006, an ad titled "The World Can't Wait! Drive Out the Bush Regime!" appeared in the New York Times. The ad carried the endorsement of 90 individuals, including that of Sister Helen Prejean, a member of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Medaille. Since the ad was published, Sister Helen has asked that her name be withdrawn from the ad. The Sisters of St. Joseph of Medaille regret any concerns that this misunderstanding may have caused for those who share in our ministries to bring all people into union with God and with one another.
The text of Sister Helen's statement follows.
Recently my name appeared on a New York Times ad urging citizens to call for the removal of George W. Bush from office. The reasons cited are many, among them:
--his reckless pursuit of war in Iraq, which has helped to destabilize the entire middle East
--his approval of torture
--his zealous promotion of imprisonment and executions
--his fiscal policies which make the wealthy people more wealthy and poor people poorer
(During the past six years poverty in the U.S. has risen 17%)
There is, however, one issue addressed in the ad that I cannot endorse, which if I had seen the final version of the ad would have led me to withhold my signature. The statement reads: "Your government is moving to deny women here and all over the world the right to birth control and abortion." The life issues involved in the beginning of life are exceedingly complex. My stance on abortion is a matter of public record. I stand morally opposed to killing: war, executions, killing of the old and demented, the killing of children, unborn and born. As I have stated publicly many times, I stand squarely within the framework of "the seamless garment" ethic of life. I believe that all of life is sacred and must be protected, especially in the vulnerable stages at the beginning of life and its end.
I signed the ad because as a follower of the way of Jesus and a U.S. citizen, I cannot stand by passively and silently as I witness my government wage such grievous oppression and violence. It has been this same spirit of engaged citizenship that has for the past twenty years led me to speak out against the death penalty while encouraging my fellow citizens and my church to deeper reflection on the issue by the books and articles I have written and numerous public lectures.
For me, personally, it would be sinful not to raise my voice publicly in opposition to the life-destructive policies and practices of the Bush administration. That is what led me to sign the ad calling for his removal.
When I signed my endorsement of the ad, the conversation focused on the abuses of the Bush administration. I understood that the draft form of the ad which I signed was an intent of my willingness to sign the ad; however, I expected to be given a final version to critique before affixing my signature. Since that opportunity was not granted, I feel the need to issue this clarification.
Sister Helen Prejean, CSJ Irenaeus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268 |
I'm reminded of the adage admonishing us not to prejudge others:
"If you spit into the air, it will fall flat on your face!" :p
Bravo, Sr. Helen and the Sisters of St. Joseph!
Amado
BTW, the Congregation of St. Joseph is not of "Nuns" in the strict sense but of women religious, or simply "Sisters."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,532
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,532 |
Originally posted by Amadeus:
I'm reminded of the adage admonishing us not to prejudge others:
"If you spit into the air, it will fall flat on your face!" :p
Bravo, Sr. Helen and the Sisters of St. Joseph!
Amado
BTW, the Congregation of St. Joseph is not of "Nuns" in the strict sense but of women religious, or simply "Sisters." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thanks, Irenaeus, for posting her latest statement. Amado..amen to your post. Peace and blessings,  Porter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
|
|
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 |
Originally posted by Jessup B.C. Deacon:
Good job, Irenaeus.
However, I did post the following on the other thread regarding this issue, and in response to Sr. Helen's comments. I think my post provides some food for thought (Dn. Robert):
A couple of comments:
(1.) A few years ago, I remember reading an article on Sr. Helen quoting her as being in dissent against Catholic teaching on contraception and abortion.
(2.) The "seamless garment" approach to being pro-life is a lot of eyewash, and was invented by the late and very liberal Cardinal Joseph Bernadin. Rather than putting the life and death issues at the top of the hierarchy of values, it equated such things as government spending on public housing, and "nuclear freeze" proposals (which were much more radical than what was taught on the issue by American & European Bishops at the time) with the murder of the unborn in the womb. It enabled Chicago-area (and other)"Catholic" liberal pro-abortion voting politicians to claim to be "pro-life" because they voted for disarming the U.S. military, and in favor of increased spending on dubious social programs.
Dn. Robert
P.S.
I don't recall reading, or hearing about Sr. Helen protesting against the Clinton Administration's bombing of Bosnia, or that Administration's promotion of RU-486, and Partial Birth Abortion. It appears that the Left always gets a pass with her!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
Originally posted by Jessup B.C. Deacon: Originally posted by Jessup B.C. Deacon:
[b] Good job, Irenaeus.
However, I did post the following on the other thread regarding this issue, and in response to Sr. Helen's comments. I think my post provides some food for thought (Dn. Robert):
A couple of comments:
(1.) A few years ago, I remember reading an article on Sr. Helen quoting her as being in dissent against Catholic teaching on contraception and abortion.
(2.) The "seamless garment" approach to being pro-life is a lot of eyewash, and was invented by the late and very liberal Cardinal Joseph Bernadin. Rather than putting the life and death issues at the top of the hierarchy of values, it equated such things as government spending on public housing, and "nuclear freeze" proposals (which were much more radical than what was taught on the issue by American & European Bishops at the time) with the murder of the unborn in the womb. It enabled Chicago-area (and other)"Catholic" liberal pro-abortion voting politicians to claim to be "pro-life" because they voted for disarming the U.S. military, and in favor of increased spending on dubious social programs.
Dn. Robert
P.S.
I don't recall reading, or hearing about Sr. Helen protesting against the Clinton Administration's bombing of Bosnia, or that Administration's promotion of RU-486, and Partial Birth Abortion. It appears that the Left always gets a pass with her! It is unfortunate when Christians who are more or less liberal, politically speaking, give the "Left" a pass on issues that are in opposition to the Church's teaching. However, it is no less unfortunate that so many Christians who tend to be conservate in the political sense have given George Bush and other Republicans a pass, when their sins, though perhaps of a different character, are just as abundant as those of the liberals.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716 |
Originally posted by Jessup B.C. Deacon: Originally posted by Jessup B.C. Deacon: It appears that the Left always gets a pass with her! Does the Right always get a pass with you??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Brian,
Your comment was completely uncessesary.
Father Deacon,
I noticed that her comments on the advertisement were limited to abortion and did not include any commentary on "access to birth control", which, I might point out, includes typically a number of abortafacient methods such as the pill (its not so publicized secondary effect is to make the lining of the uterine wall hostile to the implantation of the embryo) and the IUD (which really has no other purpose than abortion).
I would also say that part of the reason why I would imagine that she is so sympathetic to left leaning causes is because the right (including the conservative Catholic right, of which I am a crunchy and not always assenting, member) has seen fit to disregard the guidance of the Servant of God, Pope John Paul II, on capital punishment, which is her core issue. With that said, while I agree in principle with the seamless garment approach, the danger is that one creates the illusion of moral equivalence between the execution of a mass murderer and the taking of an innocent human life in the womb. Yes, killing is killing, but the two actions must be regarded as fundamentally different in moral content. (This position denying moral equivalence was clearly defended by Pope Benedict in an interview I read some time back.)
Certainly abortion is not the moral equivalent of poor housing conditions!
Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716 |
Originally posted by ebed melech:
Brian,
Your comment was completely uncessesary.
!
Gordo Well, I thought that the comment previous about a Religious was completely unnecessary.. Is it only unnessesary when we disagree with someone?? Do we defend Mel Gibson because we agree with his particular outlook but rake Sister Helen over the coals when we don't even KNOW her views but INFER them because we oppose her???? What is more unjust or unnecessary??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716 |
Originally posted by Brian: Originally posted by ebed melech:
[b] Brian,
Your comment was completely uncessesary.
!
Gordo
Do we defend Mel Gibson with every excuse in the book "Oh he was drinking" etc because we agree with his particular outlook but rake Sister Helen over the coals when we don't even KNOW her views but INFER them because we oppose her???? What is more unjust or unnecessary?? [/b]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,708
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,708 |
I have considered, for some years, the "seamless garment" theory to be a peculiar bit of nonsense that originated with someone who wasn't, in my view, any bastion of orthodoxy. However, I do oppose the death penalty for many other reasons, not in any way connected to the late Chicago cardinal. I don't know why anyone would be shocked by Sister Helen's views. She has been, I think, consistent over the years and doesn't say anything she hasn't said before. So let's all engage in a fun game of, "I can knock your sacred cows, too!" :p I hear that sacred cows make the best hamburger. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Originally posted by Brian:
Well, I thought that the comment previous about a Religious was completely unnecessary.. Is it only unnessesary when we disagree with someone??
Do we defend Mel Gibson because we agree with his particular outlook but rake Sister Helen over the coals when we don't even KNOW her views but INFER them because we oppose her???? What is more unjust or unnecessary?? But we do know her views on a number of issues, some of which I am personally sympathetic to. Others, well... The same holds true for Mel Gibson. Some areas of agreement, and others not. I applaud Sister's courage in standing up for what she believes in as a Catholic, enough to potentially anger some of her supporters. My issue with your comment is that you were castigating Father Deacon when you are not aware of his positions. The good sister is a far more public figure and a voice in the publc square. Her views on many matters are well known. Father Deacon mentioned an article he read with a direct quote that indicated her dissent on a moral issue within the Church. His point about the abuse of the seamless garment approach is also a fair one, as I mentioned before. One cannot argue for moral equivalence among all these issues, although the dignity of the human person is a common thread. Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
Let's give Brian a break here. Although I don't want to accuse Deacon Robert of always giving the Right a pass, because I don't know that to be the case, I can sympathize with Brian. Theological conservatism and political conservatism do not always go hand in hand, in spite of what many might think! Those of us who tend to be politically liberal are not necessarily theologically liberal and we are getting sick of being vilified for our political positions. I am very liberal politically, generally speaking. However, I do not give assent to every liberal position. For example, I am not pro-choice, since abortion is inconsistent with the teachings of the Church. While I'm liberal politically, for the most part, I am very traditional theologically.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505 |
I still question the reason why her name was even there in the first place? A retraction should not have been necessary because she should have NEVER signed such a document.
Stephanos I
I am however glad to see that she has the good sense to retract her name.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 641
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 641 |
Thank you, Sr. Helen, for the retraction.
|
|
|
|
|
