Margaret Thatcher once wisely said, “Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.”
Margaret Thatcher had it right, the more you claim, the less you probably are. The recent march of the ‘pussyhat’ protesters seemed to confirm that. Carrying signs with disgusting slogans and demeaning anyone that disagreed with them doesn’t leave one with a feeling of any real accomplishment. A peaceful discussion, common sense, and a sense of fair play might promote conversation but how can one do so with the yelling and shoving that goes on once you are perceived as a ‘non-believer’?
The event was promoted as a way for ALL women to come together and voice their needs, desires, wants, etc., as citizens of the United States. Unfortunately, their cause lost some ‘moral’ traction when they only allowed their agenda to be heard and disrespected the women who advocated pro-life. Seems to me that the pro-life women were fighting for the future women the other marchers were fighting so hard to have aborted.
The real contradiction in this recent event is that they proposed it to give every woman a place to represent . . . except if you disagreed with them. Students for Life were in attendance and verbally abused and one, pregnant woman was actually shoved into the street by three of the ‘peaceful’ demonstrators for the Women’s March. Tolerance is a one-way street for these women.
We had a very learned pastor, years ago, who said that a woman who abuses her child is not a mother. How can a woman abort one child then give birth to another when it is convenient to her?
Not that we shouldn’t already know this but for the Catholics who vote without thought to how their Faith may view HOW they vote, here is a thought:
Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 wrote a letter in 2004 forbidding Catholics from voting for pro-abortion candidates.
The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73).
Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. […] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
Then Cardinal Ratzinger reinforces his opinion in the footnote:
[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
Fr. Jay Scott Newman reinforced Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter in 2008:
“Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law.”