An "Ah Hah" Moment

I'm loathe to mention this since I just posted a piece on Dori, but I had Mass offered for her at St Mary's, since today is her birthday. The first reading was from Genesis 2:19-25 on the creation of woman. The Gospel was from Mark 7:24-30, the story of the Canaanite woman who grovelled at the feet of Jesus for the sake of her child. Two awesome readings about women. The first about her creation and the sanctity of the union between man and woman, the second about the things a mother will do for her child.

I know that when Dori stands before her God, a member of the "great cloud of witnesses",she will plead for the man she loves, and the children who were the center of her life.

Wow! Just wow!

Til next time. all the best. Joe

My Dark Nights

She's been gone for over three years now, but as the occasion of Dori's forty eighth birthday draws near, I find myself lost in reveries of her. In the dark of the night those memories of our blissful moments together steal over me and I find myself lost in what was and what could have been.

I will not pretend to tell you that our time together was perfect bliss. We had our share of difficulties, and I am sure that, as all who have lost dear ones do, I have built a shrine to her in my memory, exaggerating the good times and minimizing the bad. Such is the nature of our memories, I'm sure. There are those who tried to tell me then, and still tell me today, that two so deeply troubled people had no business being together, and perhaps that was true, but I think not. We were both persons of deep passions, passions which often conlicted with one another. What is true, though, is that we fumbled through our relationship. We were two deeply flawed people looking for a way around the hurts we had suffered previously. The solutions we chose were not always the healthiest soultions, the places we sought solace were not the safest refuges. Unfortunately, our end came just as we started to find our way out of our flawed decisions.

Oddly enough, it was her illness that united us at last. There is something cathartic in suffering, something healing, not only for the one who suffers, but for those who love the sufferer, as I love Dori. There is something is witnessing the suffering of another, especially up close and personal, that calls upon the "better angels of our nature", I think. Suffering calls us to not only work for the benefit of the sufferer, for the alleviation of the suffering, but it calls us to share the pain, to unite ourselves to one another through that shared experience. The suffering itself becomes a bond between us. I witnessed the healing effects not only between Dori and I, but between her and others. I saw some the ties of some friendships strengthened; I saw family bonds strained by dysfunction restored.

Dying, it has been said, focusses the mind wonderfully. I think that's true. Living in the present takes sudden priority over the hurts of the past and the fears of the future that those of us who will go on living have difficulty grasping. Suddenly, one realizes that, as Richard John Neuhaus put it, that "the work of dying well is, in largest part, the act of living well." Dori knew she was dying well before I did; I don't think I ever quite grasped the fact until she did, in fact, die. She did what she could to prepare, still, I think the end surprised her.

This time of year the late winter sunshine streams through the windows in the late afternoon, much as it did in the little house we shared together. It illuminates the corner of the couch which was her favorite napping spot. I'd often walk into the living room to find her dozing there and when she stirred and opened her eyes to see me she'd burst into a radiant smile. It melted my heart every time I saw it. Even when I was angry or cross with her, I never could be for long when confronted by that smile. How I miss that. I'd trade everything I have to see it just once more. She always loved me better than I loved her.

I miss you, baby and I think of you every day.

Til we meet again, my darling, all the best. Joe

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Conclusion

Just a short note to let you know that Shan seems to have lost interest in our conversation, and I can't blame him. He had elected to defend an indefensible position, and, while I admire him greatly for his dogged determination to do so, I can understand his frustration. I'll let you know if he responds again, but I'm not hopeful. On to other things.

As always... til next time, all the best. Joe

"What have you to do with us?"

Things have been going slowly in my exchange with Shan and as a result I've decided I should interrupt those postings with some thoughts which have been rattling around in my head.

A Gospel reading at Mass recently was from the first Chapter of St Mark. It recounted the story of Jesus at the synagogue in Capernaum (not by coincidence St Peter's home town) where He is confronted by a demon possessed man. The demon shrieks at Christ, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us?" This question echoes through the ages to this day; it is still heard from the world, addressed now to those who stand counter to the culture, particularly those who hold to the teachings of Christ as passed on by His Church.

"What have you to do with us?" The culture recognizes Christianity as a force counter to itself. It sees in Christianity a force capable of reforming itself, capable of seizing the reins and redirecting the progress of mankind towards its ultimate goal. This is why it rails against the Church. This is why the Church is under such vehement attack by proponents of the culture at large. Academia distorts her history and philosophy, the media misrepresents her opinions and exaggerates the flaws of her members.

"Have you come to destroy us?" Within the Christian call for discipline, for self-denial, self-restraint and self sacrifice, the culture sees its nemesis. It recognizes a force for change more powerful that its call for individual, for temporal happiness. In its drive for the common good over the good of individuals the Christian ideal is diametrically opposed to that which the society overall values most, the happiness of the individual at the expense of the whole of mankind. The disciplines which allow the Christian to see the suffering of others, to feel that pain, to act outside himself to alleviate that suffering where possible, and where the alleviation of that suffering is not possible, to share in it, are baffling to those involved wholly in the popular culture.

This, though baffling though it may be to many, is exactly what we are called to do. We are possessed of a philosophy and a way of life which has great power. Indeed, it is a way of life capable of reforming the culture. Secure in the knowledge that what we believe is firmly grounded in objective truth, and with a guarantee from He who established that truth that the victory belongs to us, we as His instruments must attempt, as best we can, to live within the confines of that discipline, to demonstrate that life within that discipline is not only possible, not only feasible, but that it is productive and fulfilling both physically and spiritually and is in the best interest of the whole of mankind.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Part 5

My reply to Shan. He begins by quotin my previous post (in red). My new comments are in italics.

Not at all. Outlawing abortion will certainly not eliminate abortion, but will reduce the number of abortions performed. I believe that since both mother and child are human, the net savings in lives will be appreciable.
This is a valid point to say, however... What value do you place per person? I believe a net saving in mothers would far outweigh a net saving in "children".
A healthy adult with an established life out values a unborn fetus with no assumed presence in the world, in my book.

Why is the mother's life more valuable? Why are her rights more important than that of the child? You have already conceded that the fetus is indeed human. If that is the case, the law requires that we extend to that unborn human the same equality before the law as we extend to the mother.

Now...I'm going to try and not sound like I'm picking through semantics here, however I'm not sure how to respond without changing topic.
The crux of our disagreement would lie there if we were debating the morality of Abortion itself, which I would be glad to do. However, the point I had been trying to make was on abortion being a necessity in society, from YOUR moral standpoint.
Weather I personally condemn or condone abortion, if I play by your rules that a fetus is a child, and that abortion is in fact killing a person, will banning it create a more justified balance of human rights than allowing it?

Yes, banning abortion legally would create a more equitable balance of human rights. Just as you conceded that the fetus is a human life, I hav conceded that banning abortion would not mean that abortions would still not occur. However, the fetus would be extended protection under the law since, when the the life of the fetus was intentionally taken, it would be a criminal act. Not only do laws regulate society, they make a statement about those things which that particular society values. Do we value human life?

We currently have laws in place against armed robbery. Should we, in the interest of reducin the number of persons injured in the commisiion of robberies, decriminalize that act to make robbery a "safer" choice?

From a practical standpoint, let's compare situations. Under the current system, one hundred women "need" an abortion, one hundred abortions take place. If abortion was illegal, one hundred women "need" abortion but due to availability of practicioners willing to violate the law or the prohibitive cost of obtaining an illegal procedure only twenty take place representing a net savings of eighty lives. Hmmmm.....

For my take on that, refer to the top of this email, on a mother being more viable than a fetus.

But the mother is more viable than a newborn, or a six month old, or a three year old. You've conceded that the fetus is human, so you tell me, when do rights attach to that life? At birth? At six months? At three years? The only point in human development which is not arbitary is conception. If there is some other non-arbitrary point at which rights adhere in a human being, please let me know when that point is.

With these rules, deeming abortion an evil, and a dirty subject...I can relate it to this:
You're caught on the edge of a cliff, there are two people hanging from the cliff... The mountain is crumbling away and you only have time to save one of them. Who do you choose? It's a nasty subject that you'd never want to have to decide on, but if you're forced to, who is the more viable candidate to be saved?

First, you have made the admission that abortion is an evil. Is it ever ethical to condone evil, even if a greater good may come of it? I would contend that it is not.

While your analogy is delightful, it is seriously flawed. Both parties are over the cliff due to the irresponsibility of one party, the other is wholly innocent. My emphasis would be to clearly mark the precipice, maybe build a fence around it, make the cliff clearly off limits thereby preventing folks taking themselves and those whose care they have been charged with into the abyss.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Part 4

Shan's latest reply in our exchange:

Not at all. Outlawing abortion will certainly not eliminate abortion, but will reduce the number of abortions performed. I believe that since both mother and child are human, the net savings in lives will be appreciable.

This is a valid point to say, however... What value do you place per person? I believe a net saving in mothers would far outweigh a net saving in "children".
A healthy adult with an established life out values a unborn fetus with no assumed presence in the world, in my book.

Now...I'm going to try and not sound like I'm picking through semantics here, however I'm not sure how to respond without changing topic.

The crux of our disagreement would lie there if we were debating the morality of Abortion itself, which I would be glad to do. However, the point I had been trying to make was on abortion being a necessity in society, from YOUR moral standpoint.

Weather I personally condemn or condone abortion, if I play by your rules that a fetus is a child, and that abortion is in fact killing a person, will banning it create a more justified balance of human rights than allowing it?

For my take on that, refer to the top of this email, on a mother being more viable than a fetus.
With these rules, deeming abortion an evil, and a dirty subject...I can relate it to this:
You're caught on the edge of a cliff, there are two people hanging from the cliff... The mountain is crumbling away and you only have time to save one of them. Who do you choose? It's a nasty subject that you'd never want to have to decide on, but if you're forced to, who is the more viable candidate to be saved?

Best,
-Shan