'Just Look': Cardinal Egan Makes Appeal for Child in the Womb
By Edward Cardinal Egan, Archbishop of New York
10/27/2008

NEW YORK, NY (LifeSiteNews.com) - The picture on this page is an untouched photograph of a being that has been within its mother for 20 weeks. Please do me the favor of looking at it carefully.

Have you any doubt that it is a human being?

If you do not have any such doubt, have you any doubt that it is an innocent human being? If you have no doubt about this either, have you any doubt that the authorities in a civilized society are duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if anyone were to wish to kill it?

If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest—even insist—that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot—must not—be tolerated.

But you might protest that all of this is too easy. Why, you might inquire, have I not delved into the opinion of philosophers and theologians about the matter? And even worse: Why have I not raised the usual questions about what a "human being" is, what a "person" is, what it means to be "living," and such? People who write books and articles about abortion always concern themselves with these kinds of things. Even the justices of the Supreme Court who gave us "Roe v. Wade" address them. Why do I neglect philosophers and theologians? Why do I not get into defining "human being," defining "person," defining "living," and the rest? Because, I respond, I am sound of mind and endowed with a fine set of eyes, into which I do not believe it is well to cast sand. I looked at the photograph, and I have no doubt about what I saw and what are the duties of a civilized society if what I saw is in danger of being killed by someone who wishes to kill it or, if you prefer, someone who "chooses" to kill it. In brief: I looked, and I know what I saw.

But what about the being that has been in its mother for only 15 weeks or only 10? Have you photographs of that too? Yes, I do. However, I hardly think it necessary to show them. For if we agree that the being in the photograph printed on this page is an innocent human being, you have no choice but to admit that it may not be legitimately killed even before 20 weeks unless you can indicate with scientific proof the point in the development of the being before which it was other than an innocent human being and, therefore, available to be legitimately killed. Nor have Aristotle, Aquinas or even the most brilliant embryologists of our era or any other era been able to do so. If there is a time when something less than a human being in a mother morphs into a human being, it is not a time that anyone has ever been able to identify, though many have made guesses. However, guesses are of no help. A man with a shotgun who decides to shoot a being that he believes may be a human being is properly hauled before a judge. And hopefully, the judge in question knows what a "human being" is and what the implications of someone's wishing to kill it are. The word "incarceration" comes to mind.

However, we must not stop here. The matter becomes even clearer and simpler if you obtain from the National Geographic Society two extraordinary DVDs. One is entitled "In the Womb" and illustrates in color and in motion the development of one innocent human being within its mother. The other is entitled "In the Womb—Multiples" and in color and motion shows the development of two innocent human beings—twin boys—within their mother. If you have ever allowed yourself to wonder, for example, what "living" means, these two DVDs will be a great help. The one innocent human being squirms about, waves its arms, sucks its thumb, smiles broadly and even yawns; and the two innocent human beings do all of that and more: They fight each other. One gives his brother a kick, and the other responds with a sock to the jaw. If you can convince yourself that these beings are something other than living and innocent human beings, something, for example, such as "mere clusters of tissues," you have a problem far more basic than merely not appreciating the wrongness of abortion. And that problem is—forgive me—self-deceit in a most extreme form.

Adolf Hitler convinced himself and his subjects that Jews and homosexuals were other than human beings. Joseph Stalin did the same as regards Cossacks and Russian aristocrats. And this despite the fact that Hitler and his subjects had seen both Jews and homosexuals with their own eyes, and Stalin and his subjects had seen both Cossacks and Russian aristocrats with theirs. Happily, there are few today who would hesitate to condemn in the roundest terms the self-deceit of Hitler, Stalin or even their subjects to the extent that the subjects could have done something to end the madness and protect living, innocent human beings.

It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing—and approving—with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers. We know full well that to kill what is clearly seen to be an innocent human being or what cannot be proved to be other than an innocent human being is as wrong as wrong gets. Nor can we honorably cover our shame (1) by appealing to the thoughts of Aristotle or Aquinas on the subject, inasmuch as we are all well aware that their understanding of matters embryological was hopelessly mistaken, (2) by suggesting that "killing" and "choosing to kill" are somehow distinct ethically, morally or criminally, (3) by feigning ignorance of the meaning of "human being," "person," "living," and such, (4) by maintaining that among the acts covered by the right to privacy is the act of killing an innocent human being, and (5) by claiming that the being within the mother is "part" of the mother, so as to sustain the oft-repeated slogan that a mother may kill or authorize the killing of the being within her "because she is free to do as she wishes with her own body."

One day, please God, when the stranglehold on public opinion in the United States has been released by the extremists for whom abortion is the center of their political and moral life, our nation will, in my judgment, look back on what we have been doing to innocent human beings within their mothers as a crime no less heinous than what was approved by the Supreme Court in the "Dred Scott Case" in the 19th century, and no less heinous than what was perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin in the 20th. There is nothing at all complicated about the utter wrongness of abortion, and making it all seem complicated mitigates that wrongness not at all. On the contrary, it intensifies it.

Do me a favor. Look at the photograph again. Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of "legalized" abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act.

Edward Cardinal Egan
Archbishop of New York

So here’s a story about a kid who draws a picture with a Cross on it, and the legend "John 3:16 A sign of love." His teacher asked him to remove the Christian references, and he refused. So he got a zero on the assignment.

Story at foxnews.com

And now the kid is suing the school for giving him a failing grade, alleging that his rights to free speech and practice of religion have been denied. But here’s the kicker: he signed a policy at the beginning of the year that "prohibited any violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs in artwork." Now I don’t know whether such a policy is strictly Constitutional for students in a public school or not. I don’t even know if it’s a good idea or not. But what I do know is that if you signed this document, you witnessed before God and man that you would uphold it, and to break your word is just plain wrong.

The student goes on to tear up a copy of the policy in front of the teacher, earning himself two detentions. Really setting a fine example there, son. Really proclaiming the peace and joy of the Gospel, eh?

If you had problems with the class policy, you should have addressed it at the beginning of the year before signing it, but now that you’ve agreed to it, you make a fool and a liar of yourself to willingly break it, and then moan and complain about your failing grade. If you want to "make a statement" about your beliefs, then take your failing grade and count it as a suffering for Christ.

And if you’re not prepared to do that, then shut the hell up already.

Pope, the killing of Archbishop Rahho is "an act of inhuman violence"

Telegram from Benedict XVI to the Chaldean patriarchate: "decisive condemnation" of the killing of a "zealous pastor". A brief profile of the archbishop of Mosul.

Vatican City (AsiaNews) - "An act of inhuman violence that offends the dignity of the human person and seriously harms the cause of fraternal coexistence among the beloved Iraqi people". This is how the pope is expressing his "most decisive condemnation" of the killing of the Chaldean archbishop of Mosul, Faraj Rahho, the news of which arrived today. In a telegram addressed to Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly, the patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans, Benedict XVI assures him of his "special closeness" and "fervent prayers for the repose of the zealous pastor kidnapped at the end of the celebration of the Via Crucis". "I invoke the Lord’s mercy", the message continues, "so that this tragic event may serve to build a future of peace in the tormented land of Iraq".

Who Archbishop Rahho was

Because of the conflict in Mosul, only a third of the area’s Christians have remained, Archbishop Rahho denounced in November. For his little flock, the prelate still represented a "hope". The faithful recount to AsiaNews that the bishop had always said "that he wanted to remain in Iraq until the end, even if this meant death". His presence was an act of "resistance against terrorism and violence". Born in 1941, Faraj Rahho was a seminarian at the patriarchal seminary of Saint Simon. He then became the pastor of the church of Mar Elia. After a brief period of studies in Rome, he returned to Iraq. There, in the 1980’s, he became the leader of the newly founded parish of St Paul in Mosul, until he was appointed as an archbishop in 2001. In 1989, he founded the Fraternity of Charity and Joy, with the aim of assisting sick people and guaranteeing them love and a dignified life. He also worked hard on behalf of young people. In the 1990’s, when Iraq was under embargo, he instituted the "Youth Week", a successful initiative that later became a pastoral outreach for the entire diocese.

Islam, the "Religion of Peace." I’m sure they "peacefully" gave the Archbishop a chance to "convert" before they tortured and killed him. I only pray my faith is as strong as the Archbishop’s.

Requiem aeternam dona ei, Domine,
et lux perpetua luceat ei.
Requiescat in pace. Amen.

Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho, Ora Pro Nobis

This one is sort of an imitation of the "Lorica of Saint Patrick," found here:

http://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/prayers/patrick.htm

LORICA

Christ, the Son of the Father,
Christ our Holy Sacrifice,
Christ the giver of the Spirit,
walk every step today with me.

*

Christ be our morning sun,
to light our steps by day.

Christ be sweet rain,
to quench our thirsty hearts.

Christ be the gentle moon,
to guard our dreams by night.

Christ in the shining stars,
Christ deep in the earth,
Christ alive in all creation.

*

Christ be our guide
along the winding path.

Christ be our teacher,
to open our eyes to truth.

Christ be our doctor,
mending bones and healing wounds.

Christ in our youth,
Christ in our old age,
Christ beside our cradles and our graves.

*

Christ in my eyes,
Christ in my mind,
Christ in my heart and soul.

Christ on my right hand,
Christ on my left,
Christ before me and behind me.

Christ walk every step today with me.

This is a terrific article:

"Here we encounter Catholic drinking. Catholic drinking is that third way, the way to engage in an ancient activity enjoyed by everyone from peasants to emperors to Jesus Himself. And again, it is not just about quantity. In fact, I think the chief element is conviviality. When friends get together for a drink, it may be to celebrate, or it may be to mourn. But it should always be to enjoy one another's company."

Well said. Read the rest here.

All I can add is: Amen.

So today Anna and I went to the Atlanta Botanical Garden to see the "Orchid Daze" exhibit, and it was incredible. It was really one of the coolest echibits of any sort I have ever seen. It runs through March, so if you are even remotely interested in Orchids, tropical plants in general, or just beautiful things, go see it!

I have posted several photos I took, but I took more than 100 in all, so at my website you can see more orchid photos than you can probably stand:

Orchid Daze photos.

My only beef: though it was sort of sub-titled "Grace and Gargoyles," there's only like four gargoyles. Must say I was a little bummed about that--but I forgot it quickly.

Guess I wasn't the only one peeved by this story...but I didn't express my opinion nearly so well as "Tiffany" did:

An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: "Duh, I'm a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I'm illiterate I'll pull down the lever for someone. Hm... Well, he black so I may vote for him... oh wait she a woman I may vote for her... What Ise gon' do? Oh lordy!"

Awesome. "Tiffany," whoever you are, I salute you.

So, according to CNN, black women voters in South Carolina face a tough choice--should they vote for Obama, a black man, or Hillary Clinton, a woman? What the hell is this nonsense? Shouldn't anyone voting for the President of the United States make an informed decision based on what the candidates stand for, and how qualified they are to do the job--not their race or gender?

I am sick of hearing about "the black vote" or "the woman vote" or "the latino vote"--in my view, neither a woman candidate nor a "minority" will ever be taken seriously until we can evaluate them based on their position on issues and their dedication to the job. Voting for someone ebcause they are black, or a woman, or anything else is irresponsible and stupid.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go figure out which candidate is the whitest and manliest, since according to CNN that's who I should be voting for.

Well, I missed the 2007 Geminid Meteor Shower--I still saw a few tonight, but it's well past it's peak, I suppose. There were times in my very geeky childhood when I would have anticipated it for months. At least since the Perseid shower was over in August. Ah, well.

But it did remind me of a poem I wrote a few years back, and thought i'd share:

CLOSER

Cassiopeia, Perseus, and Pegasus
Nestled in the wash of Milky Way,
Each one named and in its place
To suit the mind that knows them.
And then a shooting star--
A child's eyes wide to catch it.
And nothing has a name, but somehow
Every star is closer than before.