A Question of Choice?

"I am personally opposed to abortion, but I support a woman's right to choose."

That is not only a morally erroneous position, it's logically indefensible as well.  It quite simply doesn't make any sense.

Look at it.  If one is opposed to abortion, what is the basis for the opposition?  Well, unless it's a simple matter of aesthetics, the objection is moral.  And if one feels abortion is immoral, how can one support another "choice" to behave immorally?

But there is more to it than that.  Quite simply, the objection to abortion is that it is the willful destruction of a human life--an act of murder.  To say "I am personally opposed to abortion, but i support a woman's right to choose." is to say "I am morally opposed to Murder, but I support a thugs right to choose to murder."

Abortion isn't a sui generis issue.  Abortion's moral implications proceed directly from it being the willful murder of an unborn human.  We cannot be opposed to abortion and yet support someones nonexistent "right" to choose to murder.

It is exactly like someone saying that they were opposed to the Nazi's, but felt that they had the legitimate authority to kill off Jews and political opponents.

I'll Tell You What's Creepy!

When an author in a parenting magazine, Mother and Baby (published in the UK) says breast feeding is creepy. 

Katherine Blundell, deputy editor of the above magazine says that her breasts are for sex only, and that breast feeding means that she couldn't get druk whenever she chooses.  And that it's "creepy".

That's really creepy.

A Really Disappointing Liturgy

Well, Sunday we went to Mass at St. Benedict's Church in Terre Haute, IN.  In the Archdiocese of Indianapolis.

It was awful.  Period.

As we approached the church (once the most beautiful in Terre Haute, but having undergone an unfortunate "renovation") we heard the bells, and that was hopeful.  As we entered the Church there was an organ prelude, also hopeful.

Then Mass started.

The Celebrant was vested in an alb and a stole.  No amice, cincture or chasuble.  he was wearing a pair of Bermuda shorts and a t-shirt under the alb.  You could tell because they shown through.  He also looked out of it, like he was hungover or medicated or...something.  There was no processional cross.  The Gospel was carried in the procession by a 50ish woman in street clothes, who looked not unlike the 50ish dancers I knew in Bloomington. 

The liturgy was introduced by the Gospel carriers clone, then by the celebrant.  At the Gloria the music ministers lead the people in a version that started "Gloria in Excelsis Deo"--to some insipid folk music tune, accompanied by a tinkling piano.  At the end of the text as found in the missal, they kept going for another line or two with words I've never heard in the Gloria, any version.

The celebrant mixed the water and the wine in the cruet, but did pour it into the chalices before consecrating it.  His movements were casual and barely there, even at the elevations--he acted like he was rearranging things on a pub table, to be honest. 

At the communion, after the Agnes Dei, said aloud a prayer I have never heard at that point in the mass:  "May this Eucharist bring us all to eternal life".  I'm pretty sure that's not in there anywhere!

While distributing the Blessed Sacrament to the EEMs, he used this method:  he just picked up handfuls of the host and put them into their dishes.  He also dropped on on the floor.  An EEM pick it up casually and put it in the paten he was holding.  The female EEMs ignored it, as did the celebrant.  No effort was made to recover any crumbs, or to protect them from further accidental profanation.  The celebrant just walked over the place with no concern.

After mass I asked the celebrant a question:  "How can I trust you with my faith, my family or my money when I can't trust you to wear the proper vestments, to say the black, or to do the red?"  His response, and I quote verbatim and in whole, was "Huh".

Horrible.

Judging by Appearances

We are told that we are not to judge by appearances.  That it's wrong to do so.  I have to say, that that is one of those modern conventions that serve only to obscure our capacity fro rational and critical thinking.

I'm in favor of judging by appearances.  Perhaps I'll get a little more mileage if I use the phrase "Discerning by visible criteria.".

You see, the only way I know that we can make decisions--judgement calls, under prudential judgement--is by what we observe.  And as time passes, we accumulate a fund of experience, whereby we can collate outcomes and trends with the appearance presented.

In a word, the majority of people I have interacted with who look thuggish, have been thugs.  Likewise the majority of people who appear to be slutty, or deranged, or dishonest. 

This fund of experience is sometimes called "wisdom".  I mean, how often do you have to see something before you associate it with an undesired outcome?  How often do you need to be stung by a wasp to decide that you will judge all wasp like insects as a potential threat, and thereby receive fewer stings?

We judge by appearances all the time.  And we only hear that we shouldn't when we make a judgment that someone doesn't like.  Often, that some one is the person in the category that our experience has shown us that we should avoid, due to shared appearances.

Now, some people will say that my appearance sets off warning bells--does that mean that they are entitled to avoid my company or disregard what I say.  Well...yes.  Judging by my history, and the shenanigans (I love typing that word!) I have pulled, it would be wise for someone to spend a lot of time evaluating my behaviors and attitudes to see if they match my appearance.

So, there  you have it--bluntly put, how else are we to judge?  We live in an era when people we barely know can destroy us via, innuendo, fraud, violence, etc.  When we talk about things like judgement, we need to use common sense.

And to remember that we cannot pass judgement on the soul of another, or the status of their relationship with God.