Euthanasia - Abortion

I do not understand why society believes abortion and euthanasia is such a dichotomy. Both, involve taking a life.  One is taking your own life and the other is taking the life of another. It seems to me that abortion (taking the life of another) is far worse than voluntary euthanasia, the ending of your own life, when you no longer want to contend with constant physical suffering and your life quality is zero.  Yet, people vote to make abortion legal, the Supreme Court of the United States upholds abortion laws making it legal and society will flock to the streets in masses if legal abortion is ever in danger of being overturned. 

Abortion is taking the life of an innocent person that has no say in the matter.  Voluntary euthanasia is taking your own life and you make the choice.  Yes, I concede non-voluntary euthanasia is wrong just as I believe abortion is wrong.   

People argue voluntary euthanasia will lead to non-voluntary euthanasia.  Abortion of babies in the mother’s womb has not led to killing children outside the womb.  So, how can one argue on that basis one is wrong and the other is okay.  If one is morally or ethically wrong then both are.  I do not hold that it is an issue of morality or ethics when speaking of voluntary euthanasia. 

People who are "pro-life" are generally opposed to anyone taking any life - even their own - for any reason.

But, what is life without quality?  I have diabetes, in the final stage of heart failure, kidney failure, and COPD (lungs failing).  I am in constant pain, I cannot walk five steps without breathing spasms and basically confined to sitting.  To me that is not life!   I have been told by all my doctors my condition cannot be cured, it will never get better, it will get worse and all they can to is try to SLOW the progression.  That is not very comforting to me and I do not know anyone in their right mind that would applaud a doctors effort to prolong their suffering.  Now, I can stop the seventeen plus medications and suffer even more to achieve a solution – I guess.  If it is God’s will I believe I would live with or without the medication. 

Am I a coward, of course I am.  I want to end my life quickly and not have it drag on for days, weeks, months or even years before it happens by removing medication.  I really see no honor in being afraid to die and choosing to be a burden on those around me.  I have cared for two people that suffered for years, my mother and my uncle.  I could not have possibly loved my mother more than I did and I have no regrets for taking care of her, but was it extremely difficult – yes it was!  Did I ever have thoughts that I wished her suffering would end – yes I did and then I would feel guilt for weeks for having such a thought.

I believe before any act of euthanasia may be committed the suffering person must make some kind of assessment of the value of their life with the assistance of medical professionals, mental professionals and legal professionals.  There should be a waiting period involved to guarantee that someone does not wake up one day and decide this is a good day to die.

 The practice of euthanasia is Biblically wrong because it violates the principle that life is given by God. God does not approve of “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:16-17). Life comes from God. It is God’s decision to give life and to take it away (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Job 1:21). In the Bible, shedding innocent blood is called murder (1 John 3:15; Genesis 9:6).  I do not need ten thousand replies telling me what the Bible says about the subject. 

The death of King Saul an example of euthanasia or suicide? (1 Samuel 31:1-6). Saul did not want the Philistines to find him alive, because he knew they would torture him. He asked his armor bearer to kill him. When the armor bearer refused, Saul fell on his own sword and died. Saul committed suicide, but he did it in order to avoid suffering at the hands of his enemy. He murdered himself to prevent suffering prior to it happening and therefore was guilty of sin in my eyes. (Exodus 20:13). 

I have a difficult time relating killing yourself because you do not want to be taken by your enemy and suffering from a physical disease without any hope of ever getting better.  You may say that I am greedy, but I have worked and saved all my life and I have no desire to give all my money to doctors and hospitals and pharmaceutical companies when before I die I could give it to the poor. 

My father worked hard all his life and saved for his retirement and my education .  The last eleven days of his life he beg my mother and I to let him die and stop giving everything he had planned on my mother and I having to doctors when we all knew it was hopeless.  Of course we could not or would not end treatment and in the end we went from being a high middle class family to poverty.  His final hospital bill was 275,000 dollars, a lot of money in 1958.  The experiments like inserting a pigs valve in his heart did not help him and it has not help me now that I suffer as he did.

I know some Christians are thinking not all suffering is bad.  Even though we may not always understand why we suffer, some good can come from it.  The apostle Paul understood this (2 Corinthians 12:7-10). He had a “thorn in the flesh” which he asked God to remove, but he was made to realize it was for his good. Job is also an excellent example of this point (James 5:11).  I would be lying if I said I have not learned from my suffering for I have.  That does not mean I want to continue to suffer.

Do not tell me I do not respect human life.  I have been told when people understand and respect the sanctity of human life, they will not vote to end it.  You want to end it if you respect the life of your loved ones that are also suffering because of you.

I view euthanasia as the end of suffering when there is no hope of ever recovering from the illness and you are in need of life support (mechanical or medicinal) in order to barely hang on to life, it would be beneficial for both the patient and his/her family members to just let them go.  By allowing them to die peacefully, painlessly and quickly.  They will die on their own terms, rather than forcing them to live and let the disease slowly kill them.

I recognize the negatives of euthanasia and that is it could be abused by physicians and others who have the power to use this method of ending life. And more importantly, though the chances of recovery from certain diseases may be minimal, it is a known fact that some overcome this mountainous feat.  That is why I feel strongly only the suffering victim should be able to make the choice.  My niece was advised to remove all life support from my sister because she only had days to live, but my niece refused.  She continued to live three years most of it spent in a hospital and suffering.

Don’t insult me as one person did by saying a teenager that flunks a test or fails to make the football team may be suffering as much as I am and ask me would I say he has the right to end his life because he is suffering.  I will tell you as I told the person who said that to me – “You are a fool”.

I feel obligated to tell Catholic what our church says about euthanasia - So-called “mercy killing” and the efforts of the Hemlock Society and the late Dr. Jack Kevorkian to make euthanasia socially acceptable are condemned by the Church.

God alone should decide when someone leaves this earth — not the patient, doctor, or caretaker. Keeping the dying patient pain-free, comfortable, clean, nourished, and hydrated — and just allowing the natural death process to take its course — is how human beings die with dignity.  In other words if you die a miserable death you die with dignity and God is well pleased – I guess that is how they feel.  Our church always thought it was good for people to suffer. 

When death is thought imminent; the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable.

In closing, It is always unfair to directly kill an unborn child; the unborn have no say in what happens to them, and whatever interests are placed above theirs are done so in a biased and self-serving way. But this is not true in most cases of physician assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia: in some cases death really is what the patients desire and what they ask for.  This does not mean that they are right in desiring and asking, nor that it would be right to comply; but it does indicate that the wrongness of euthanasia cannot exclusively be the wrong of unfairness to the person killed. This is a decision I should be able to make for myself – not you make for me.

Stop trying to live others life's - live your own!

Today I am going to just ramble or vent a bit. I hope you will excuse me for doing so. Last night I met with a child of a friend at their request to talk to her about her attitude. During the conversation I said, "Why is it your teacher gives you a glowing report. She says you are the best student in your grade in the entire school and you are the most respectful child she has ever met. She claims she can only describe you as excellent - perfect", but that is not how your parents describe you.

She replied, "I am not the same at school as I am at home".  The first time I met this child several years ago I told her uncle they are going to have problems with her. She is "intelligent" and she knows it. The things they believe is cute now is not going to be cute in a few years. Well my prophesy was correct.

At home she wants to do things when she wants to do them and not when she is told to do them. If you cross her she yells and walks off.  You get the "whatever" with the hand in the air pointed towards you. If you try and talk to her she plays the I 'am sorry bit' and cries to make THEM feel sorry for her. She has the technique of getting and doing what she wants down pat. She has no problems calling cousins and siblings stupid because they do not excel in school as she does.

I ask her, "Why are you not the same at school as at home? Why are you not the same everywhere? Are you telling me that sometimes you are a phony - fake? Her reply was, "I do not know why I am different at school".

During my 3 a.m. prayer session it hit me like a ton of bricks - Tom why are you not the same everywhere with everyone?

My answer was - I was taught that I am to meet the expectations of those I am accountable to. That is a lesson I wish I had not learned so well. It has at times made my life miserable. I really did not want to be the best at everything I tried. I wanted to do MY best, but not try to be better than everyone else. I did not want to compete. I wanted to be good, fair, just, humble, faithful and loyal, but I personally did not have a need to be perfect all the time and I wasn't no matter how hard I tried.

Many in my family tried to live their life through me. I was the only one to go to college even up to today. I was the only minister. I was the only business owner, except for two uncles and grandfather. I was certainly the only one to graduate cum laud. All I wanted was to be was a minister from age six.

I was told in the seminary (cemetery) that a good minister has to appear to have all the answers. After all that is why they pay you and come to you for advice. I felt inadequate because I did not and do not have all the answers and it took me about ten years to realize I could just tell the people "I do not know". That was hard because I personally felt I had failed them. The authority figures in my life had told me I would be a failure if people thought I did not know it all.

Then came the time when I began not to agree with everything the hierarchy of my denomination handed down for us to teach. Do I tell the people I do not  believe abortion is an unforgivable sin and if it is forgiven the bishop must forgive it? Do I tell them I believe that having children they cannot afford is a bigger sin than using artificial birth control? Do I tell them Christ was not born in the month of December? Do I tell them the Shepherds did not arrive when Christ was a baby in a manger? Do I tell them that infant baptism is a ritual and it is okay, but I really believe it is best to wait until the children can acknowledge their own baptism? Do I tell them that I do not believe once saved always saved? Do I tell them I thing the Church is wrong to deny Communion to divorced and remarried couples or gay and lesbian couples? Will I be honest with myself or meet the expectations others place on me. Eventually, I began to preference things that I really did not support with - "THIS IS WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES" and people in my parish knew that I did not whole heartily agree and then I would say other Christians believe -----.

Oh believe me when I say, it caused a lot of flack for me by some, but the majority supported me and did not want me to change. They were looking for truth and wanted to have the opportunity to pray, study and reason what was the truth. I would say the majority of Christians want to be TOLD what to believe.

Back to the beginning why have I spent my life trying to please others? All I really ever wanted was to please is God and myself. Why do I have to guard what I say so others will not be offended? What right do they have to impose their beliefs on me or what right do I have to impose my beliefs on them?

I sympathize with the gay and lesbian community. Their sexuality is between them and God as long as they obey the laws of the land (and lot of laws need to be changed) and they do not physically or emotional hurt others that is between them and God. What right do I have to judge them?

I do not want to anyone come back and say their actions emotionally offend me because it goes against what I believe God said - you should not be so emotionally weak. You can hold to your beliefs and let others do the same if you are really as faithful as you say you are.

I think a lot of Christians today have confused following God with trying to be God.

I am now getting nearer 80 every week and I frankly no longer care what others think of me and my beliefs if I feel I am right with God. I do not have to conform to anyone else belief system.  You have no right to judge me and I have no right to judge you. I can forgive the offences you did to me, but I cannot forgive the offences you did to others.  Only God and the ones you harmed can do that. By the way no other priest, bishops, cardinal or pope can forgive your sins either.

So in closing, I frankly do not care what you think of my of my political, personal or religious beliefs! I just want to be who God created me to be and please Him.

If you are allowing others to live their life through you or put demands on you to meet their expectations of what you should be or do my advise to you is make your own decisions and make yourself happy.

I just typed and did not worry about grammar or spelling or anything else. Please forgive me and do not nick-pick me. I actually have stupid people come back and say, "You were never a priest you misspell this or that or your grammar is terrible and you do not know where a comma, period or question mark belongs".  Hate to tell you priest are not perfect and they have the same bodily functions you do.  

Do you feel the Catholic Church has failed you?

I have reached a point where I can no longer justify the actions of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. I have not had anything done to me personally, but I have witnessed for years how the hierarchy’s thirst to hold on to power and control has hurt and even destroyed others. I have managed to continue to attend Sunday after Sunday by telling myself the church is not at fault it is the hierarchy of the church that is at fault.

I thought Pope John Paul I would bring change, but his death came too quickly. I thought Pope John Paul II would bring about change, but he caved to the misguided Cardinals. I knew when Pope Benedict XVI came to power all hope for change was lost.  I still cling to hope that Pope Francis can bring about change, but I do not think I will live to see it due to my bad health.

I realize the church is governed by men who are not perfect. Anyone who expects them to be flawless is not logical. I can deal with not personally agreeing with some of the decisions they make, but when I see people being hurt by their decision it is difficult for me to deal with that.

For years I have ask God Do I leave or do I stick it out and continue to hope for change? There are many denominations that I could attend like Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian or Presbyterian, but I love the Mass. No other denomination could replace the Mass for me.

 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt. 16:18.

No matter the issue of hurt, harm or anguish, Jesus is the head of the church, not the pope, not the cardinals, not the bishops and that will never change.  Unfortunately, many in the hierarchy of the church have come to believe it is their church, they are in charge, they make the rules and the rest of us must follow without questioning them.

“So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” Isaiah 55:11.

“If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more the heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him.” Luke 11:13.

When in doubt I go the Bible and the Holy Spirit for guidance. If the words of the hierarchy do not line up with the Bible and the direction the Holy Spirit leads me I ignore their words.

The Holy Spirit does not just speak to the hierarchy of the church He speaks to us to. When we are living in close relationship with God, the close proximity of our heart to His allows us the privilege of hearing as He speaks to us with peace in our decision-making processes.  If you are walking with God and do not feel peace about a situation then something is wrong for our God is not the author of confusion. (I Cor. 14:33). There is a reason the Holy Spirit is not giving you peace and this should guide your decisions in all situations, including church situations.

There was a time when it bothered me to hear a Christians say, ‘The church has failed me’.  I now think differently because if you are Catholic you have no say in the decisions of the church. If you are Protestant you do. Protestants have a say in making the church what it should be, but Catholics do not.  If you risk speaking out in the Catholic Church you risk being excommunicated. There is no democracy within the Catholic Church and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church would be the first to admit that. The hierarchy has unquestionable authority. The priests cannot even question their authority.

Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and Catholic priests believe artificial birth control is a sin? Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and Catholic priests believe divorced and remarried people should be denied Communion? Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and Catholic priests believe divorce should not be allowed? Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and Catholic priests believe you can pray the dead into heaven? Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and priests believe the same on the issue of homosexuality? Do you honestly believe all Catholic priests were for the bishops covering up pedophilia by other priests?  I know they do not and did not! Many priests reported child abuse to their bishops and it fail on deaf ears.

The church hierarchy is not infallible; neither are the pastors. What do you do as a Catholic when you are assigned a pastor by the bishop that is lazy, arrogant, and stubborn, has a bad attitude, and never prepares a homily? You do nothing because you have no say on who your pastor will be or who the assistants will be. You pray you can tolerate him for six years. If you are Protestant you take it up with the Board or Elders.

For decades and decades and decades we sat silently suspecting something might be odd with our priest, but we never uttered a word that he might be molesting children. When some began to speak out they were not only attack by the hierarchy of the church they were attacked by some priests and some of the laity.  We had been trained well. Catholics never speak in a negative way about their priest. To speak against the priest or the hierarchy is to speak evil of the Catholic Church. I would venture to say some feel it is speaking evil against God.

I am all for having people of authority in the church, but I am not for those people abusing that authority. All organizations need authority figures, especially the church.

There was a time in history when absolute control may have been justified, but not today.  Any curious challenge or genuine question about Scripture, teachings traditions or doctrines is seen by the hierarchy as a direct attack on church leadership. I know people who have been branded as spiritually rebellious for questioning something they've been told rather than silently accepting it without question.

I feel like the hierarchy of the church is preoccupied with maintaining its position of authority in a changing society rather than seriously challenging itself. It appears to me the hierarchy would prefer the church to be an outdated museum than a relevant part of modern society. It refuses to make any changes to adapt to modern society. The attitude seems to be if it worked in 300A.D. it should work today and if it does not then something is wrong with you. The Church hierarchy has allowed the church to become out of touch and ineffective. It has become steeped in hypocrisy and complacency.

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9).

This is speaking of confessing our sins to God not man.  There was a time when only the bishops could forgive abortion and allow you to take Communion again. Now the bishop can allow the priest under him to forgive abortion and permit you to take Communion again.  This is a change and a good change, but whose Communion is it, the bishops, the priest or Gods? Why does a woman have to tell her bishop or priest about the abortion if she has confessed it to God, repented and sought forgiveness. It seems to me the change did not go far enough, but we do not have the right to question if the change went far enough or not.

“…for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself (herself).” 1 Corinthians 11:29.

This scripture does not say he that gives the Communion brings damnation to himself. It says the one taking the Communion unworthy brings damnation to himself. Should the worthiness to partake in Communion be between God and the Communicant or the hierarchy/priest of the church and the Communicant? Should anyone have the right to deny another Christian the right to take Communion? None of us hierarchy/priest/laity are really worthy.  How can my divorced friends and homosexual friends feel a part of the church when they are judged by the church every Sunday?

Don’t tell me we cannot change we no longer own slaves, we no longer kill our children that talk back to us, we no longer require women to remain silent, we no longer consider women property of men, we no longer require women to cover their heads in church, we allow women to do the 1st and 2nd readings and we are now allowed to attend weddings and funerals at churches of other denominations. This is just a few of the unjust and silly cultural/traditions that we have done away with.

My closing words to the hierarchy/priest/pious laity is take the 2x4 out of your eye before you try to take the splinter out of your brother’s or sister’s eye. Then maybe we can become the church God called us to be.

What do I think of Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz tries to appear as an uncompromising politician, but he is deal maker just like all other politicians.  His father has said over and over again his son, "Ted will not compromise." But, I think Ted Cruz will compromise on matters that do not matter to him regardless if they matter to others within the party or the Republican voters.

It depends on what audience Cruz is talking to if he is willing to compromise or not. In front of some audiences Cruz has said, "If they offer you half a loaf, you take it - and then come back for more."

Some students who were in college with him complained that Ted didn't have an off switch and that he lectured them all the time. Some claimed he was overbearing.  The Ted Cruz I see today affects me in much the same way as he did his college friends.  I have never felt he was talking to the American people it always seems to me he is lecturing us and prior to Donald Trump he was the most overbearing and smug politicians I had listened to.

Like Obama he knows what he wants and he wants everyone else to want the same thing.  In other words Ted Cruz like Obama thinks he knows what is best for us!  I get the impression if we do not agree with him he believes we must be stupid.

Rob Marks, a fellow student at Princeton, said this about Cruz, "There was no emotion. It was pure logic. In Ted's mind, he was never wrong. He viewed himself as ideologically pure."  I do not think Rob Marks would have a difficult time recognizing the Ted Cruz of today because it appears to me he has not changed.

Edward Bergman, a New Jersey lawyer who taught Cruz in a course on alternative dispute resolution, said Cruz's classroom manner and written work displayed a smugness that made him unpopular. I am glad I had an opportunity to read that article because that is the same feeling I get when Cruz addresses the Senate or in the recent debates. It's a smug, know-it-all attitude like he demonstrated on Greta Van Susteren show on 12/18/15 on Fox News. I now know I am not the only one that feels that way about him.

When Cruz filibustered in 2013 against Obamacare for 21 hours and 19 minutes, many conservative thought they saw a man standing up for their principles. I was and still am against Obamacare, but what I saw during the filibuster was an arrogant, uncompromising, hardheaded, stubborn man who thought his ideas were the only correct ideas. What did he accomplish with the filibuster theatrics, except get some television exposure? We still got Obamacare. If Cruz had been willing to work with others and compromise a little maybe he could have gotten some amendments to Obamacare that would have made the plan better.

To be in politics you must be willing to compromise. Politics is all about give and take in order to accomplish goals. Obama is a failure in politics because he does not understand the art of compromise.  Even though Cruz claims “half a loaf is better than none” his actions do not reflect that.  Like Obama Cruz loves intellectual arguments for the sake of arguing. Like Obama Cruz would perhaps make a better professor than politician. Like Obama Cruz could care less who criticizes him and he is not interested in finding out why they criticize him because he has already concluded he is right.

How tough will Cruz be on Wall Street since his wife Heidi Cruz is a managing director of Goldman Sachs in Houston? I know what Cruz says now, but if elected and he has real power over the economy what will he do then. 

His wife claims Ted has learned, “…not to preach at people. People don't want to be judged." She sees a different Ted Cruz than I do or he was so much worse than he is now the change has overwhelmed her.

I have noticed when he is in Iowa, a farm state, he skirts over the fact that he is against farm subsidies and feeds them bushels of political propaganda on, "Abolish the IRS"; the “EPA is completely lawless" and “over the past 17 years, the planet has seen "no warming whatsoever."

 Cruz likes to tell the story about a 6-foot-6 African American guard walking up to him and saying, “I didn't vote for you, but I'll say this: You've done what you said you'd do", if elected president the farmers of Iowa will be able to say, I did vote for you and you’ve done what you said you would do you took our subsidies away – we didn’t hear you say it, but we now know you said it to others.

Cruz still has excellent debate skills and he knows what to say and what not to say at the appropriate times. Cruz is to public speaking what Michael Phelps was to swimming. Cruz is the Republican Barack Obama. He is a Huckabee Christian Conservative. He can demonstrate he is a bit of Ron Paul when it serves him well. He is the Tea Partiers candidate because his goal is to push the Republican Party as far right as possible.

Ted Cruz truly believes the Declaration of Independence's promises people certain unalienable Rights. He believes certain freedoms are every human's birthright and that governments must protect those rights. Ted Cruz has always demonstrated that he is for the underdog. Cruz stands for many things I stand for, but what frightens me about Cruz is he is not flexible in his thinking, once he has decided he is right he seems to close his mind to further discussion.

I know Cruz is against abortion, but I am not clear why he is against abortion. Does he oppose abortion because it is murder (moral) or that terminating a pregnancy violates natural order and natural law is the basis of the Constitution (intellectual) — is it an intellectual or moral issue for Cruz? The difference speaks to his real evangelical roots. Evangelicals are against abortion for moral reasons regardless of any intellectual argument. Pro- right groups can argue for abortion based solely on intellectual reasoning. I know Cruz loves intellectual debates, but what about moral debates.

Cruz would be for a Constitutional Amendment limiting the Federal Governments power. At a 2010 Federalist Society panel he stated, "If one embraces the views of Madison...which is that men are not angels and that elected politicians will almost always seek to expand their power, then the single most effective way to restrain government power is to provide a constraint they can't change."  If elected and he pursued the Amendment change it would be divisive and it would take up valuable time an administration needs to deal with more relevant crisis.

As Solicitor General for Texas Cruz went before the Supreme Court eight times, five involved the death penalty, with Cruz arguing that Texas should be allowed to execute the mentally ill.  Was the argument a moral issue or an intellectual issue for him? You may ask what difference it makes. Again, I think it speaks to his conservative religious views he constantly touts.

 No one's is a bigger promoter of Ted Cruz than Ted Cruz. The Austin American-Statesman pointed out that he took credit for a case that was actually argued and won by Gregg Abbott, then Texas Attorney General, now Governor of Texas. He actually claimed the victory as one of his own high-court victories. Journalists who have interviewed him have commented “Ted Cruz loves to talk about Ted Cruz”.

Cruz should give credit to the super-PAC’s, and a flurry of barnstorming by national conservatives, including Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, and Sarah Palin for his runoff win for the Senate. Cruz dishonestly ran as an outsider even though his credentials—Harvard Law Review, Rehnquist court, Bush campaign, Perry administration did not truly fit that billing. Cruz can speak the language of established Republicans and Tea Party Republicans and that is one of his greatest assets – he can live in both worlds as needed.

Cruz can and will break out in a few lines of Spanish when he thinks it will benefit him even though he cannot carry on a conversation in Spanish.  Cruz is the typical educated politician, use car salesman, door to door vacuum cleaner salesman. He will say and does what he thinks will help him win. The argument he is having with Rubio at the moment over immigration/citizenship is an example of that.

Cruz touts the 10th Amendment theories most prominent during the civil rights clashes of the 1950s and '60s, when Southern governors touted their (nonexistent) right to invalidate federal laws. His social conservatism takes us back to the '90s, when the gay rights agenda (which Cruz has pledged to combat in DC) was seen lurking around every corner. His fear of international treaties as a gateway to the dissolution of American sovereignty might have fit right in during the Eisenhower era. Many of Cruz’s ideas are not new.

Cruz supports a Constitutional amendment mandating that Congress pass a balanced budget. He argues that this is the best way to cut down deficits and the debt. I agree that we must have a balanced budget. I think that politicians are so dishonest we can never have a balance budget unless the Constitution demands it. If politicians are going to seek an amendment change on the budget now may be the time to do it.  But, Cruz would most likely want to tie the 10^th Amendment argument to it and it would all be a waste of time and money.

Cruz wants to reduce corporate tax rates to 15 percent and cut federal subsidies for renewable fuels. I definitely could support lowering corporate tax rates because I believe it would improve the economy and create jobs. I am for stopping subsidies of all kinds to private for profit corporations. No one ever financed one of my business ventures and I do not want to finance someone else’s. Business ventures are always a risk and those who stand to profit from them should take the risk and not the taxpayers.

Cruz is a proponent of a simpler tax code. Politicians have been saying we need a simpler tax code for thirty years, but they take no action to accomplish it when in office. I do not think Cruz is any different.  Although he does claim he is for a ‘flat tax’ which I would support.

Cruz is for each individual states defining “marriage”. I am not a supporter of that. All Americans should be guaranteed the same equal rights in all States regardless of where they live in the United States. This could prohibit gay couples from seeking advancement in employment in other states. It could prevent gay couples from living where they want to live. It could prevent gay couples from living near their families. It could create problems for couples when traveling and sickness occurred. There are all sorts of problems with States defining marriage. I once supported what Cruz stands for, but now I see the problems it can and would create. I am not against a national vote to decide the legal definition of marriage, but I would oppose not offering gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples in committed relationships. I understand that the term ‘marriage’ has traditional meaning to many Americans.

Cruz stand on gays is confusing because in April, he sounded more open-minded at a New York reception hosted by two gay businessmen. Cruz, an attendee told the New York Times reporter, "He would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay." It could be Cruz just trying to say the right thing at the right time to win once again demonstrating his ‘debate and public speaking skills’.

Like Cruz I am for requiring all judges to stand for election at least every four years, but I would exempt Supreme Court Judges from the law.  I still favor lifetime terms for Supreme Court Judges because I feel it brings more continuity to the legal system and American way of life. I do not want Supreme Court Judges making decisions based on the current whims of Americans because they have to stand for reelection.

Ted Cruz supports building the Keystone XL pipeline. I support Keystone XL pipeline and believe that any politicians that values the interest of the American people would support it. Obama allowed tree huggers to keep him from doing what was best for employment and the economy. Obama is responsible for many American families’ suffering needlessly for non-existent environmental concerns.

Ted Cruz favors deportation of unauthorized immigrants. It is not clear to me or to Greta on Fox News how he would accomplish the deportation. He wants those that want immediate round up and deportation to believe he would do that, while those, like me, who want illegal aliens deported as they are caught he wants us to believe he would proceed in that manner.

In 1999 Cruz urged Mr. Bush, to state his opposition to illegal immigration and to urge enforcement of border restrictions. At the same time, he reminded Mr. Bush we need to remember that many of those coming here are coming to feed their families, to have a chance at a better life. It is not quite the same as calling illegal immigration “an act of love,” as Jeb Bush did last year, but Mr. Cruz’s advice to Mr. Bush in 1999 was sharply different than in 2015 as he seeks to create distance between him and Mr. Rubio.

Cruz supports expanding foreign trade and voted to give President Obama fast-track authority for getting the Trans-Pacific Partnership through Congress. I did not like the typical Washington backroom deals that allowed the bill to get to the floor, but I to would support a bill that would create jobs, growth, and opportunity for struggling American families.

Latest polls put the candidates standing at: Donald Trump 34%, Ted Cruz 18%, Marco Rubio 13%, Jeb Bush 7% , Ben Carson 6% , Chris Christie 5%, 4% each for Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee, 2% each for John Kasich and Rand Paul, 1% each for Lindsey Graham and Rick Santorum, and less than 1% each for Jim Gilmore and George Pataki.

Can Cruz win in 2016?  The Tea Party supporters believe Cruz can win in the general election. I do not think ‘purest’ do well in the Republican Party in the end. Republicans tend to support more moderate candidates when it comes to the final vote. I do not think just nominating a ‘purest’ conservative is going to win the general election for the Republicans. 

Now that the field of candidates appears to be down to Trump, Cruz and Rubio I believe voters will start taking a more critical look at all the candidate and they will find Cruz is not all he claims to be. Cruz to me is just a more polished politician than Trump. Both are egotistical maniacs – in love with themselves. 

If I were to support either I would choose Trump because I see Cruz as a snake hiding in the grass waiting to attack.  I cannot get past my feeling that Rubio seems too young and too immature to be President of the United States. I was optimistic when the primary campaigns began, but not so optimistic now. Who is going to win I honestly do not know.

++Did Cruz not prove Cruz is for Cruz at the Republican Convention and is the snake that I always claimed he was.

All elections are important - the 2016 election is critical if you are concerned about radical Islamic terrorism.

Well the liberal Democrats are at it again according to them Republicans are responsible for the Plan Parenthood killings. They say Republican candidates are repeating lies over and over again that inflame people. I do not think the Plan Parenthood video’s I saw are lies. If they are edited, so what, I still heard people laughing over selling body parts to buy a luxury car. I think anyone that remains silent about those videos regardless of their party affiliation is a co-conspirator to murder. If I were crazy I might have done the same thing as the man in Colorado Springs and it has nothing to do with the Republican Party that I support. It has everything to do with my belief that abortion is murder and God instructed us not to commit murder.

This is so typical of the Democrats/liberal - kill the messenger if they do not agree with the message. They want to stop the truth from getting out and will use abortion to further their political agenda even if abortion is murder and immoral.

President Barack Obama told world leaders that the climate talks in Paris stand as a rejection of the terrorists. Quite frankly I think ground troops, bombs and declaring war would be much better. It would also help the economy at the expense of the terrorist. I will have a hard time voting for Donald Trump because of his lose tongue, but Donald Trump is the only one saying what I want to hear when it comes to the terrorist, trade agreements, illegal aliens and the economy. War (force) sometimes is the only thing that can bring about peace – World War I, World War II.

 Obama said World Leaders are showing the terrorist what is possible when they all come together, united by a common effort and a common purpose (climate change) – why can’t they do the same against terrorism? Why can’t our weak American President Obama get the wealthy nations to come to gather to spend the money necessary to fight the terrorist and take care of the refugees in their own land?

The IMF –World Bank - officially agreed to accept China’s currency – the Yuan – into the IMF’s foreign exchange basket. It is well known that China manipulates their currency. This only fuels the fire to remove the American dollar from being the world reserve currency. A weak U.S. dollar is one more thing Obama should take credit for, but of courses he will blame someone else. 

The people of the Philippines do not know anything but a corrupt government, therefore they accept it. They will tell you, “It is just the way it is”. Young Americans are being born into a government that is corrupt and eventually – sooner than most think – will just accept it and change will not come until a radical group take to the street to overthrow the system and once the system is overthrown corruption will likely return. We can learn that lesson from the Philippine People Power. The martial law government was overthrown, but corruption, police and military abuses continued, the rich became richer and the poor became poorer, etc.

What have Obama’s promises of change brought about; remember “Yes we can!” Unless you are for selling aborted baby parts, same sex marriages, doing away with gender designated public restrooms, forced government hospitalization, ignoring the constitution when it pleases Obama, ignoring immigration laws, more welfare, weaker military and lower standard of living what change have we gotten from Obama.

The vacuum that follows any radical change in government usually brings about a government that is not well thought out and key players in the old government can become key players in the new government thus the problems continue. That is what happen in the Philippines and could happen in the United States.

Obama was elected at a time when the people were desperate for change and they were influenced by a charismatic black politician that did not have a plan or experience. He was and is a social engineer and has no idea how to govern a people looking to return to a Federalist or Democratic Government.   

As much as I love Cory Aquino what was her plan and what experience did she have? She did make a great sacrifice for her country because she ran for an office she did not want and in doing so she most likely prevented one of the key players from the old martial law regime from becoming president. She may have prevented a second dictator from declaring martial law. But, she was constantly plagued by threats of being overthrown by key players in the old regime and her life was in constant danger. To this day the people of the Philippines continue to elect key players in the old martial law era. The people of the United States reelected Obama after a failed first term.  Why?  

We are beginning to see more radical street demonstrations in the United States such as Black Life’s Matter, Sit in’s on Wall Street, college campus protest, protester in the streets calling for people to kill policeman, etc. The American protesters are not civil and non-violent as the Philippine People Power protesters were or the American protesters days in the days of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement.  Does anyone think that the leaders of these radical American street protesters could really lead our country? The Democratic politicians must because they support the groups and there leaders. Liberals like their ideas and Democrats (Hillary Clinton) are afraid to speak out against them for fear of losing votes in the 2016 election.    

Democrats/liberals do not want to admit it, but when prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance were removed from ours schools and public lives the decline in America only grew worse. They do not want to admit it because they are the ones that brought it about.  Removing them from public life contributed to the end of a government that people could trust and believe in. The prayer and pledge contributed to instilling pride (especially among young students) in our country.  

When I first came to the Philippines the first time I went to a movie at SM Mall the National Anthem came on.  I was so impressed it brought tears to my eyes. The Philippine National Anthem was played before every movie. Later they began to play it at the beginning of the first movie of the day. Now it is often not played at all. When the anthem was played everyone stood and sang the song. Sunday at SM Mall Davao the National Anthem was played and the only person standing was an AMERICAN – FOREIGNER – ME! 

The National Anthem in the United States is not like the Philippine anthem. The Philippine Anthem is beautiful and easy to sing. The American anthem is not beautiful and is difficult to sing. The one thing Filipino’s and American’s now have in common when it comes to their National Anthems is a lot of people  in both countries no longer show honor, pride and respect for their country when their anthems are played. That is sad! The lack of pride in one’s country leads to a downward spiral of the country. 

Today, our government wants to suppress individual thinking so our politicians like Obama can tell us what we need and what we want. The politicians (Obama) think they know best.  The people are so confused by politician’s double talk that they have stopped trying to understand it or corrected it and accept it as the way it is.  We are following in the footsteps of the Philippines and we are not intelligent enough voters to learn from there mistakes.  

Evil is no longer on the way - it is among us. Sen. Jeff Sessions has been in the news lately trying to draw attention to a list of “vetted refugees” who have joined terror cells after being permitted entry into the United States. President Obama continues to move forward with a plan to bring thousands of refugees from terrorist filled nations in the Middle East to the United States despite top security officials’ warnings that the government can’t possibly vet all of them. Last month, FBI director James Comey said, “The U.S. government simply doesn’t have enough intelligence information about individual refugees to satisfactorily complete the vetting process” – this is a man appointed by OBAMA.

Will we also follow in the footsteps of the Philippines and designate a certain area in the United States to be ruled by Muslims? Will we engage in a thirty plus year war within our own borders trying to have one country, but two sets of rules? I do not think two governments, but one nation will work.  Three but one (Trinity) which came about in 325 continues to cause confusion among Christians.  What happen to ONE Nation under God?

I am old enough to remember the days when countries around the world wanted to model themselves after the United States, but those days are long gone. Most Third World Countries today try to straddle the fence between the United States, China and Russia. They do not want to be on the wrong side if things grow worse. As long as the United States has a weak President I do not blame them.

I read that over 3000 expats have given up their United States citizen in the last few years. I realize most of them did so because of tax reasons. Regardless of the reasons that is something that no American would have considered a decade ago. Honestly, if citizenship was easier to obtain in the Philippines than it is I might consider Philippine citizenship myself. I have no intention of returning to the United States. I have hope for the Philippines there have been advancements in the last few years (it has taken nearly 30 years), whereas over the past eight years the United States has regressed (will it take 30 years for us to recover from Obama). 

The 2016 elections are more than important they are critical! Voter had better vote wisely and not vote name recognition, political party affiliation, family name (Jeb Bush) or buy into political campaign promises. They had best not vote the favored party bosses candidates. There is a reason these party bosses select a favorite candidate and it is not always for the good of the people. We all had better strive to know what the candidate we vote for really stands for.  The candidates past history is the best gauge of that and with a little work, thanks to modern day video and Internet, we can discover what they have said and done in the past.

 

 

Your vote can make a difference!

It is a sad day when the people of the world have to ask us if we are Christians! It is time we return our country to Christian core values by voting for politicians who will enforce present laws and make new laws that - end political correctness that has become insane, end trafficking of children and women, end drug lords from controlling our neighborhoods, stop funding public universities where professors are corrupting our children, punish those who commit blue collar crimes, force our people in government to obey the Constitution, return the balance of powers to the three branches of our government, end late term abortions, establish government funded mental institutions, create jobs to end poverty and not more welfare programs, enforce our immigration laws, protect our borders and build up our military to prevent wars, not start them. We do this by allowing our principles and not our personal greed to dictate our vote on election day.

Is artificial birth control a sin?

‘Responsible breeding or rabbit breeding’

Classic church doctrine since the time of Saint Augustine and before has condemned contraceptive practices as sinful.  Is contraception really a sin, and if not, what types of birth control are acceptable for the Christian?  This debate has taken on even greater significance with the recent controversy surrounding the Roman Catholic denunciation of contraceptives in poverty-stricken Africa and Philippine, which some fear contributes to overpopulation, sexually transmitted disease, and perennially poor families. 

By far the most common Biblical story used to support the anti-contraceptive mantra is the account of Onan in the book of Genesis.  According to the account: Then Judah said to Onan, “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfil your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your dead brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing an offspring for his brother.  What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also.” [Genesis 38:1-10]. 

Does this verse really demonstrate that contraceptives are wrong and sinful?  It seems to me Onan’s sin was deliberately refusing to birth a son for his dead brother and his brother’s wife.  It is important to realize the cultural context in which this story took place.  This story may seem strange to us in modern society, we would be shocked at the idea that we should have sex with our brother’s wife if she was without a child.  But in ancient times, maintaining a family line was essential for survival; children took care of their parents in old age.  It is quite clear to me that Onan’s sin was refusing to birth a son for his deceased brother.  It remains possible that contraceptive practices are sinful, but the story of Onan certainly doesn’t prove it. 

The act that Jewish law required Onan to perform would nowadays be regarded as rape, since the widow's consent was not required and this makes the story a very flimsy foundation for moral argument on birth control.

Some will argue that the command to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ found in Genesis 1:28 argues against the use of contraceptives.  However, at best I believe these scriptures demonstrate that we have an obligation to have children; it does not prove that we should have as many kids as possible or that we should never use contraceptives.  This verse proves nothing regarding the use of contraceptives to me.  I remain skeptical that the Bible clearly states contraceptive are wrong and I definitely am skeptical that using contraceptives are a sin. 

Some people say that contraceptive use means a couple does not believe children are blessing from God.  Not so!  Some parents decide to use birth control to stop from having more kids for the time being due to a financial situation or some other factors.  I believe the parents that make decisions like this are being responsible and wanting to protect the children they have.  Wanting to protect the children they have tells me they are inclined to believe their children are a blessing. 

One of the most common arguments against birth control is that the Church has almost unanimously condemned it throughout history.  However, this point is only valid for Catholics who believe that church tradition is authoritative.  Without such a prior commitment to church tradition, the opposition to contraceptives is not valid.

There are claims that birth control is bad for society.  They will say, it increases abortion frequency, encourages premarital sex, leads to the spread of STDs, etc.  I believe the effect of using contraceptives would do just the opposite.   I believe birth control is acceptable if it does not involve abortion. The fact that contraceptives have been misused does not prove that contraceptives are wrong.

Many claim that we should not use birth control because we should let God decide when and how many children we should have.  Sounds good for a Christians to say, but look around you and you and you will see that does not work.  Maybe God is looking down from Heaven and saying I gave them a brain and instead of using it they breed like rabbits, let them suffer the consequences.  Some actually believe God will provide for their financial and emotional needs even when they do not act responsibly.  Responsible people do not  wait around at home believing that God will provide them with the amount of food they need- they go to work, get a pay check, and buy enough food to survive.   God gives us the ability to make responsible choices for ourselves. 

I fine no evidence in the Bible that gives direct support for birth control.  I find no support in the Bible that states sexual pleasure and reproduction should be separated.  I believe God intended sex to be enjoyed.   I do find that the Bible supports some acts of sex as being wrong. 

The Bible never explicitly approves of contraception.  However, there are a number of passages where the Bible appears to accept that sex should be enjoyed for other reasons than the production of children, and some people argue that this implies that no wrong is done if a married couple has sex with the intention of not having children.

“The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.  The wife’s body does not belong to her alone, but also to her husband.  In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone, but also to his wife.  Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer,” [1 Corinthians 7:3-5].

This verse clearly demonstrates that the purpose of marriage is not only for procreation.  Paul tells us that we should not withhold sex from our spouses.  It is not merely ok to have sex within marriage for pleasure, it is actually mandatory.

The Song of Solomon argues against the idea that procreation is the only purpose of sex.  I don’t think one could read the book and conclude that God only gave us the gift of sex so that we can produce children. 

There is another major problem with claiming that it is sinful to separate procreation from marital sex- what about couples who are infertile, either by old age or physical limitations?  Is it wrong for people who are infertile to have sex?  Is it wrong for old people to have sex?  Almost everyone would admit that there is nothing morally wrong with infertile sex; in fact, most would think it morally repulsive to claim that such people should never have sex.  This would also conflict with Paul’s teaching about fulfilling marital duties.

Sometimes there are very good moral reasons for using birth control.  A couple may want to limit the number of children they have because they can’t support more, either for financial reasons or because they want to be able to spend enough individual time with each child they already have . Doing otherwise could harm the family.  For those couples who can’t support more children, contraceptive use may be morally justified and even morally good.

I believe that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, any birth control methods which involves abortion of any kind is immoral.  Yet, there are several responsible forms of birth control that can be reasonably used. Couples should feel free to decide for themselves whether, and when, use of contraceptives is appropriate and desirable. 

Christian ideas about contraception come from church teachings rather than scripture, the Bible has little to say about the subject.  Their teachings on birth control are often based on different Christian interpretations, traditions and culture regarding the meaning of marriage, sex and the family.  

Christian acceptance of contraception is relatively new; all churches disapproved of artificial contraception until the start of the 20th century.  I think it is wrong for us Catholics to say the denominations that adopted and approved contraception or definitely wrong – maybe they found the error in the teaching and allowed the Holy Spirit to enlighten them. 

The Roman Catholic Church allows only ‘natural birth control’, which means only having sex during the infertile period of a woman's monthly cycle. Artificial methods of contraception are banned.  When Catholics practice natural birth control are their goals not the same as those who practice artificial birth control?   They all wish to control the birth of a child.  

Many Catholics have decided to disobey church teaching on birth control creating a breach between laity and the Church establishment.  I cannot help but thing birth control often leads to stronger families and better marriages, churches should let believers decide birth control on their own.  Married couples know best what they can and cannot afford and it is a known fact finances is the biggest cause of divorce. 

The Catholic Church teaches that using artificial contraception is wrong because:

•it is against 'natural law'

•it breaks the natural connection between the procreative and the purposes of sex

•it turns sex into a non-marital act

•it gives human beings the power to decide when a new life should begin and that power belongs only to God

•it leads to widespread immorality

•it damages the institution of marriage

•it reduces male respect for women

•it gives human beings the idea that they can have complete power over the body

•it allows the implementation of eugenic programs

The Catholic Church also says the Church does not condemn things like the pill or condoms in themselves.  What is morally wrong is using such things with the intention of preventing conception.  Using them for other purposes is fine - for example, using the pill to regulate the periods of a woman who is not in a sexual relationship is not wrong.  It is not the product used that is wrong it is the purpose for the product being used.  Makes sense I guess.

I believe the real problem for the Catholic Church is the leaders cannot accept that the physical expression of love between husband and wife in sexual intercourse can be separated from the reproductive act.  The Catholic Church says nothing evil can be done even if in the end good comes from it – I would agree with that.  I just do not see the evil in using artificial contraception if it is in no way connected to abortion.

I Timothy 5:8 tells us that parents must provide for their children.  This includes properly caring for and supporting their children until they reach maturity.  Couples should not have children unless and until they are able to do this.  If they are unable to properly care for them, they should consider some form of controlling pregnancies.  I do not think God prefers homeless hungry children over artificial birth control. 

The issue of birth control is now becoming an issue in Islam.  One Muslim doctor that I know of is working to dispel the myths that fuel the resistance to family planning.  For over ten years he has been presenting evidence to persuade clerics that Islam supports family planning methods, contrary to the views of many clerics. 

Some of the clerics, especially in northern Nigeria use the same arguments that the Catholic leadership uses to denounce artificial birth control. 

Can abortion be forgiven?

Some people believe having an abortion is an unforgiveable sin and that is not true.  There is nothing in the Bible that would support that idea.  I suspect that most who teach that abortion is unforgivable are simply trying to scare women into not having an abortion. 

I whole heartily believe abortion is murder.  I believe killing any one is terrible, especially an innocent child.   If abortion is unforgiveable then all types of killing are unforgiveable and no scripture supports that.  Numerous people in the Bible committed murder and were forgiven by God. 

Moses murdered an Egyptian (Exodus 2:12), David had Uriah killed (2 Samuel 11:14-17) and even Paul went about arresting and killing Christians before he became one of the greatest missionaries the world has ever seen (Acts 8:1-3). Even when it comes to killing children, many Israelite people fell into the sin of sacrificing their children to false idols (Ezekiel 16:21).  Although these sins were deplorable to God they were still forgiven by God.  If God can forgive people like Moses, David, Paul, and the idol-worshipping Israelites, God will also forgive every mother who has had an abortion.   There is grace and forgiveness for all who have had an abortion who sincerely repent.

People have often asked me what about rape and incest?  What about it!  As horrible as it would be to become pregnant as a result of rape or incest, is the murder of a baby the right answer?  Two wrongs do not make a right.  The child who is a result of rape or incest could be given in adoption to a loving family unable to have children on their own or the child could be raised by its mother. Again, the baby is completely innocent and should not be punished for the evil acts of its father.  All life has dignity and value. 

I have also been asked many times what about when the life of the mother is at risk.  This is the most difficult question for me to answer on the issue of abortion. The truth is the issue of the mothers health is the reason behind less than one-tenth of one percent of all abortions done in the world today.  Far more women have an abortion for convenience than women who have an abortion to save their own lives.  

I think we must remember that God is a God of miracles.  He can preserve the life of a mother and a child despite all the medical odds being against it.  But, I believe this question can only be decided between a husband, wife, and God.  Any couple facing this difficult situation should pray to the Lord for wisdom (James 1:5) as to what He would have them to do.  I do not think a priest, preacher or any Christian should give advice to a parent facing this dilemma.

Over 95 percent of the abortions performed today involve women who simply do not want to have a baby.  Less than 5 percent of abortions are for the reasons of rape, incest, or the mother's health being at risk. 

For those who have had an abortion, remember that the sin of abortion is no less forgivable than any other sin.  Through faith in Christ, all sins can be forgiven (John 3:16; Romans 8:1; Colossians 1:14).  A woman who has had an abortion, a man who has encouraged an abortion or even a doctor who has performed one can all be forgiven by faith in Jesus Christ.  There is hope for those who have participated in, or who have had an abortion.  If this is you, I encourage you to read Psalm 51 often.  God's unfailing love and compassion will see you through.  We lean on His strength for the future and not our failures from the past.   

The Catholic Catechism Says: “Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently, cannot be granted.” and “The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation....” – CONFUSION.

Monsignor J who is now deceased interpreted that to mean if you have an abortion you go to hell.  He told a young woman who was a diabetic and pregnant she would go to hell and there was no way to change it.  The woman was in the hospital for one month in the early stages of her pregnancy and the doctors advised her to have an abortion immediately.  She refused. 

Before she left the hospital her husband ask her for a divorce and told her he was marrying someone else.  The young woman then changed her mind and had the abortion.  When Monsignor J told the young woman several months later she could never take Holy Communion and she would definitely go to hell she had a mental breakdown. 

I in no way agree with Monsignor J.  I think his sin of telling the woman she could never be forgiven and was going to hell was a greater sin than the woman committed if you could rate sin. The woman unfortunately took the priest words as God’s words.  

Frankly I am confused by the Catechism.  As we have seen in Scripture, God is merciful and full of compassion, even to those who have committed the worst of sins.  On one hand, we are told that abortion is a mortal sin, which needs to be confessed to a priest.  This confession needs to be made in order for the Catholic individual to participate in the eternal life-giving sacrament of the Eucharist.  Then the Catechism places the decree of excommunication on those who have participated in the act of abortion and they are forbidden from receiving this life-giving sacrament.

Now I must make clear that the Catholic Church today says and the early Church Fathers agreed abortion, like all sins, is forgivable; and forgiveness is as close as the nearest confessional.  Unfortunately Monsignor J must have been absent the day when they taught that in the seminary or his disgust for abortion was so great he allowed his law to replace the law of the church and most importantly the law of God.  He may have been as confused as I am. 

I do not believe God has separated out the sin of abortion and withheld His redeeming grace from those who have fallen in this way.  Only God offers eternal life.

I also want to add that I believe the Sacrament of Communion belongs to God and not the Church.  It is a private matter between the person taking Communion and God.  I do not believe any man has the right to deny Communion to anyone unless they are intentionally making a mockery of Communion.  Of course this goes contrary to our Catholic belief.  I would never refuse anyone Holy Communion who was seeking it with reverence.  I did have a responsibility to see that the person giving the Communion was worthy to distribute Communion to the best of my knowledge.

Latter-day Saints believe murder is an unforgivable sin, when it’s done with real intent to take an innocent life, and they believe that to have an abortion is murder and is an unforgiveable sin. 

They tell their member, “In all seriousness you who submit yourselves to an abortion or to an operation that precludes you from safely having additional healthy children are jeopardizing your exaltation and your future membership in the kingdom of God.”  They go on to say, “Church members guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion must be subjected to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant.   Such discipline, which applies to all parties consenting to the evil act, may include excommunication from the Church.”   

Again, I am confused by their teaching is it forgivable or not.  It appears some men in the church can meet and make it forgivable it they choose.  That sounds to me like playing God.

I want to relay to you a message that I read from a young woman.   “Not long after I turned 30-years-old, I met and surrendered my life to the King of kings, the Lord of lords, the Creator of the universe.  Many a Sunday I sat on a church pew and bumped elbows with my new friends and family in Christ.  I estimate that during three years I listened to about 150 sermons; and three times I cried and died on the inside as I sat through the well-meaning Sanctity of Life programs.

Condescending tones of voices, shaking of wise heads, wagging righteous fingers, and all manner of good and godly in which ‘abortion’ was spoken of inside of church walls, forced me throw secret shovelfuls of dirty dirt on the pain of my past.  I crammed it deep down into the unmentionable regions of my soul. I thought it was my only option. 

You need to realize that as a young Believer, I did not know that that ugly, horrific piece of my past could be and or should be handed over to Jesus.  About three years into my Christian walk, I praise God that I heard a teaching about freedom and healing through forgiveness.  Finally, someone tore back the curtain just enough for me to see that this Jesus was not only capable, but quite available, and even willing, to set free a sinner such as me. 

Even so, I knew I could not travel this road alone as I sought Christ’s mercy; so, with humility and shame to the utmost, I shared my past, my guilt, and my secret with a couple of women.  These ladies immediately came alongside me with gentle hands, tender hearts, and Truth-edged tongues.  They led me to the very feet of Jesus. Once there, I literally laid flat at the base of the cross as He poured redeeming water over hell’s sin-flames.  God drenched the devil’s fiery lies and set me free.

What I had done may have been unfathomable to most, but it was forgivable by the Jesus of my salvation.” 

God doesn’t pick and choose the forgive-ability of sins; He doesn’t weigh them on a scale and set the ugly, heavy ones aside and refuse to forgive them.