Jan 2013
Pro-Life and Politics
01/31/2013 08:09 Filed in: Abortion | Public Moral Issue
They Just Do Not Get It
The Internet has made it easy to send messages to our politicians on various issues. The National Committee for a Human Life Amendment is one of those organizations that has taken full advantage of this new technology. By going to their website and providing some simple information, an email can be sent to senators, congressmen, and representatives with the click of a button. Recently they provided such a service for those who wished to send a message for the 40th Anniversary of Roe vs Wade. The website provides a basic message that a user can easily edit or send as is. When I took action recently, I decided to use the standard message. Here is the message sent to Senator Schumer:
Dear Senator Schumer,
I join with all those marching in Washington and around the country in calling for the end of Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. The regime of Roe, imposed on this country for the past 40 years, is opposed by millions of Americans and has been severely criticized by many legal scholars as lacking a basis in the Constitution.
As your constituent, I urge you to work to end Roe. It is imperative to establish in law the protection of unborn children and to restore to citizens and elected officials their proper voice in addressing this issue.
Thank you.
Rev. Peter Dugandzic
Notice the simple message and the request it makes. The message raises constitutional questions, not religious ones, and asks him to work toward ending Roe. Of course, I am sure that his office has received hundreds of thousands of emails with this same message. Thus, the content of the email is no surprise and should allow him to generate a response that addresses the question raised. The following is the standard response that came a day later. N.B., although the message I sent included my title, the response did not include the title. Here is the response:
Dear Mr. Dugandzic:
Thank you for your comments on the difficult issue of abortion. I always appreciate hearing from my constituents.
As the father of two girls, I share your deep respect for the sanctity of life, and I realize the importance of honoring one's moral and religious heritage. But I also value the freedom under the law that all American citizens have to base our personal choices on our own values and moral convictions. I also believe that the decision to have children ought to be a personal one based on a woman's own religious and moral beliefs, not those of the government or outside organizations. Having said that, I support measures that aim to reduce the number of legal abortions, and I believe that education and prevention are critical to achieving that.
The decision to have an abortion will never be an easy one, nor should it be, but I believe that every woman should have the option to make her own determination in counsel with her minister, priest, or rabbi, her physician and her family.
Again, I thank you for voicing your opinion on this issue. If I can be of any further assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me again.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator
I am sure that anyone who sent a message to him has received this response from his office. In looking over his response, I take insult to certain things. 1) He claims to share my deep respect for the sanctity of life… And then proceeds to tell me why he will allow the slaughter to continue. 2) He does not address the constitutional question, i.e., the right to life, and may believe that I am not smart enough to notice. 3) He completely dismisses fatherhood and the place of the father in his response. So I beg the question, Is abortion a woman’s issue only? 4) He contends that the decision to kill an innocent human being is a private matter determined by the woman, who may do so with counsel, if necessary. This last one is the most troubling because he seemingly abdicates the government’s authority over those who are allowed to kill innocent human beings.
Since he invited me to do so, I decided to contact him again. While I would love to say much more to him, I realize that such communication is near impossible in an email. Here is what I sent to him on January 28 and, as of January 31, have not heard back from him.
Praised be Jesus Christ!
Dear Mr. Schumer,
I received your standard response with regard to abortion and I have to admit that I am very disappointed with what you said. You claim to share my deep respect for the sanctity of human life and then proceed to say that such respect is relative to the individual rather than the Truth with regard to Life. Please note, your response betrays the Constitution by trivializing the Right to Life. Once a human being comes into existence at conception, that being has a Right to Life and such must be guaranteed by people like yourself. No relative perspective can change the existence of a human being and such relativism cannot change the objective character of an act that destroys the innocent.
For the record, the decision to have a child is made BEFORE conception. Once conceived, you and I have a duty to uphold the Right to Life and you, who have the power to do so, have abdicated that by saying the decision is personal and relative to the individual. So answer this question, where is the line drawn on the limits for one to make personal decisions to end an innocent human life?
As someone of your stature and brilliance, I again state that you have disappointed me in your response and have made it impossible for me to support you in your endeavors. If you would like to have a more intelligent discussion on this matter, please feel free to contact me by phone or in person.
Peace,
Fr. Peter Dugandzic
So, based on this exchange, I invite Catholics of good conscience to make their voices heard. Let your politicians know that they are missing the mark and it is time for them to come to grips with the reality of abortion. Since they are in office to represent you, even if you did not vote for them, make sure they do not dismiss you. Most especially, do not allow them to mire the conversation in relativistic language, which trivializes the foundations of our Country and our Faith.
The Internet has made it easy to send messages to our politicians on various issues. The National Committee for a Human Life Amendment is one of those organizations that has taken full advantage of this new technology. By going to their website and providing some simple information, an email can be sent to senators, congressmen, and representatives with the click of a button. Recently they provided such a service for those who wished to send a message for the 40th Anniversary of Roe vs Wade. The website provides a basic message that a user can easily edit or send as is. When I took action recently, I decided to use the standard message. Here is the message sent to Senator Schumer:
Dear Senator Schumer,
I join with all those marching in Washington and around the country in calling for the end of Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. The regime of Roe, imposed on this country for the past 40 years, is opposed by millions of Americans and has been severely criticized by many legal scholars as lacking a basis in the Constitution.
As your constituent, I urge you to work to end Roe. It is imperative to establish in law the protection of unborn children and to restore to citizens and elected officials their proper voice in addressing this issue.
Thank you.
Rev. Peter Dugandzic
Notice the simple message and the request it makes. The message raises constitutional questions, not religious ones, and asks him to work toward ending Roe. Of course, I am sure that his office has received hundreds of thousands of emails with this same message. Thus, the content of the email is no surprise and should allow him to generate a response that addresses the question raised. The following is the standard response that came a day later. N.B., although the message I sent included my title, the response did not include the title. Here is the response:
Dear Mr. Dugandzic:
Thank you for your comments on the difficult issue of abortion. I always appreciate hearing from my constituents.
As the father of two girls, I share your deep respect for the sanctity of life, and I realize the importance of honoring one's moral and religious heritage. But I also value the freedom under the law that all American citizens have to base our personal choices on our own values and moral convictions. I also believe that the decision to have children ought to be a personal one based on a woman's own religious and moral beliefs, not those of the government or outside organizations. Having said that, I support measures that aim to reduce the number of legal abortions, and I believe that education and prevention are critical to achieving that.
The decision to have an abortion will never be an easy one, nor should it be, but I believe that every woman should have the option to make her own determination in counsel with her minister, priest, or rabbi, her physician and her family.
Again, I thank you for voicing your opinion on this issue. If I can be of any further assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me again.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator
I am sure that anyone who sent a message to him has received this response from his office. In looking over his response, I take insult to certain things. 1) He claims to share my deep respect for the sanctity of life… And then proceeds to tell me why he will allow the slaughter to continue. 2) He does not address the constitutional question, i.e., the right to life, and may believe that I am not smart enough to notice. 3) He completely dismisses fatherhood and the place of the father in his response. So I beg the question, Is abortion a woman’s issue only? 4) He contends that the decision to kill an innocent human being is a private matter determined by the woman, who may do so with counsel, if necessary. This last one is the most troubling because he seemingly abdicates the government’s authority over those who are allowed to kill innocent human beings.
Since he invited me to do so, I decided to contact him again. While I would love to say much more to him, I realize that such communication is near impossible in an email. Here is what I sent to him on January 28 and, as of January 31, have not heard back from him.
Praised be Jesus Christ!
Dear Mr. Schumer,
I received your standard response with regard to abortion and I have to admit that I am very disappointed with what you said. You claim to share my deep respect for the sanctity of human life and then proceed to say that such respect is relative to the individual rather than the Truth with regard to Life. Please note, your response betrays the Constitution by trivializing the Right to Life. Once a human being comes into existence at conception, that being has a Right to Life and such must be guaranteed by people like yourself. No relative perspective can change the existence of a human being and such relativism cannot change the objective character of an act that destroys the innocent.
For the record, the decision to have a child is made BEFORE conception. Once conceived, you and I have a duty to uphold the Right to Life and you, who have the power to do so, have abdicated that by saying the decision is personal and relative to the individual. So answer this question, where is the line drawn on the limits for one to make personal decisions to end an innocent human life?
As someone of your stature and brilliance, I again state that you have disappointed me in your response and have made it impossible for me to support you in your endeavors. If you would like to have a more intelligent discussion on this matter, please feel free to contact me by phone or in person.
Peace,
Fr. Peter Dugandzic
So, based on this exchange, I invite Catholics of good conscience to make their voices heard. Let your politicians know that they are missing the mark and it is time for them to come to grips with the reality of abortion. Since they are in office to represent you, even if you did not vote for them, make sure they do not dismiss you. Most especially, do not allow them to mire the conversation in relativistic language, which trivializes the foundations of our Country and our Faith.
Intimidating?
01/14/2013 06:24 Filed in: Religious Liberty | General
The Christian Message
With increasing regularity, anyone who presents the Christian message in the public square is silenced. In this regard, there has been a growing number of public debates over such things as publicly displaying a Nativity Scene, school prayer, or what constitutes Religious Freedom. In our society today, any Christian speech in a public forum is immediate targeted for rejection and, with increasing regularity, the secular doctrines are imposed on religious institutions. What makes this process so disconcerting is the latent anger that drives the rejection.
In the most recent case, a public school teacher has been told, “Your rights to free speech are not as broad as if you were simply a private citizen.” Certainly it is one thing to ask a teacher not to display a Bible quote. But the same teacher was also asked to remove a quote from President Reagan (see below), presumably because the former president spoke of God. And in all this, it remains unclear as to when public school teachers ceased being “private citizens.” Granted, every public school teacher in New York State takes an oath of loyalty in which they swear to uphold the constitutions of the United States and New York State, but, to the best of my knowledge, neither of those constitutions restrict the “rights to free speech” with regard to religion.
The question that should be brought up in this regard is, “What is it about Christianity and Christian doctrine that intimidates so many people to the point of vehemently silencing the voices of Christians?” Anyone would be hard pressed to explain why a doctrine that includes exhortation to moral living, a call to love that includes enemies, and promotes virtue over sin is one that is angrily rejected from the public square.
With increasing regularity, anyone who presents the Christian message in the public square is silenced. In this regard, there has been a growing number of public debates over such things as publicly displaying a Nativity Scene, school prayer, or what constitutes Religious Freedom. In our society today, any Christian speech in a public forum is immediate targeted for rejection and, with increasing regularity, the secular doctrines are imposed on religious institutions. What makes this process so disconcerting is the latent anger that drives the rejection.
In the most recent case, a public school teacher has been told, “Your rights to free speech are not as broad as if you were simply a private citizen.” Certainly it is one thing to ask a teacher not to display a Bible quote. But the same teacher was also asked to remove a quote from President Reagan (see below), presumably because the former president spoke of God. And in all this, it remains unclear as to when public school teachers ceased being “private citizens.” Granted, every public school teacher in New York State takes an oath of loyalty in which they swear to uphold the constitutions of the United States and New York State, but, to the best of my knowledge, neither of those constitutions restrict the “rights to free speech” with regard to religion.
The question that should be brought up in this regard is, “What is it about Christianity and Christian doctrine that intimidates so many people to the point of vehemently silencing the voices of Christians?” Anyone would be hard pressed to explain why a doctrine that includes exhortation to moral living, a call to love that includes enemies, and promotes virtue over sin is one that is angrily rejected from the public square.
Catholics Come Home
01/07/2013 15:51 Filed in: General | Year of Faith
The New Evangelization
In response to the call for a New Evangelization by the late Pope John Paul II, a group put together an organization called Catholics Come Home. This group has produced many “evangomercials” to help spread the Good News. Here is one with Lou Holtz that is playing during the college football bowl week.
In response to the call for a New Evangelization by the late Pope John Paul II, a group put together an organization called Catholics Come Home. This group has produced many “evangomercials” to help spread the Good News. Here is one with Lou Holtz that is playing during the college football bowl week.
Coach Holtz from Catholics Come Home on Vimeo.