« What Kind of Robot Do You Want? | Main | More News on the Anglican Situation »
October 27, 2009
The Shame of the Abortion Nun
(Jimmy Akin)
The woman on the left is a Dominican sister. She helps escort women into abortion clinics so that they can have their children killed.
As Ed Peters writes,
[S]uch are the times we live in: a Catholic religious can act for years as an abortion clinic escort and cause barely a ripple in her religious community, the local church, or in Rome. History won't believe it.Indeed it won't.
Once this is all sorted out, history won't be able to understand how a situation like this could arise or continue.
Ed isn't very hopeful that anything will be done to rectify her situation, but I'm more optimistic. The Internet is a wonderful thing, and now that
LIFESITE NEWS HAS DONE A STORY ON HER
and
CANONIST EDWARD PETERS HAS POINTED OUT POSSIBLE LINES FOR CANONICAL ACTION
then someone, perhaps in Rome, will have the right sensibilities and the right position to address the situation.
AND THEN THERE'S THAT DOUBLE-REVIEW OF RELIGIOUS ORDERS THAT'S UNDERWAY.
So we'll have to see.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink
Comments
First of all, we have to pray for her. (I know that's obvious, but sometimes we need to be reminded of the obvious).
Second, the Church needs to send a message to her--for the good of her soul--that she is in danger of eternal damnation. Formal, public excommunication would be a remedial action designed to inform her, and others like her--in no uncertain terms--of this danger. Clear teaching and prayer are the Church's responsibility: making sure that, should she--and others like her--should one morning wake up in hell, they won't have to wonder how they got there.
Posted by: bill912 | Oct 27, 2009 9:18:43 AM
Please ignore that second "should" in the last sentence. (And I've had my coffee. And I proof-read my comment before I posted it.)
Posted by: bill912 | Oct 27, 2009 9:20:47 AM
History will believe it.
History will be properly horrified, but it will believe it.
Posted by: Mary | Oct 27, 2009 9:42:45 AM
In some odd way, that I'd read this on the same day Maureen Dowd's disconnected ossified article on Nuns appears in my newspaper makes sense.
We should pray for her, and for a revival of Religious in this country in general.
Posted by: Yeoman | Oct 27, 2009 9:53:11 AM
You're a born optimist, Jimmy. :) edp.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Oct 27, 2009 11:04:13 AM
She's just putting the "sin sin" in Sinsiniwa.
Seriously, it's sad and I will pray for her. I hope it's just mental illness or something like that.
Posted by: Maureen | Oct 27, 2009 2:45:22 PM
What I don't get about this lady is that she allegedly became an escort because of alleged "abuse" toward abortive women from pro-life protesters. So, why not minister to the protesters and show them more loving and peaceful ways to protest? That way you can stop the "abuse" without cooperating with murder.
But then, I guess she has to justify her actions somehow to her malformed conscience somehow.
Posted by: JoAnna | Oct 27, 2009 3:25:55 PM
"I hope it's just mental illness or something like that."
Liberalism?
Posted by: Nathan Tyler | Oct 27, 2009 4:58:03 PM
I definitely agree with everyone that says that we should pray for her, but I think that it's not just her that should pray about, but also the authorities of her order. It's very sad to know that there is an entire order out there that supports her actions (not that the heterodoxy of certain religious orders weren't already known).
Another great way to help fight this would be to financially support more orthodox religious.
I don't know, this just makes me sad.
Posted by: Dean Soto | Oct 27, 2009 8:39:39 PM
Mirror worshiping knows no bounds.
Posted by: BobCatholic | Oct 28, 2009 1:14:48 AM
Dear Dean,
You wrote:
It's very sad to know that there is an entire order out there that supports her actions (not that the heterodoxy of certain religious orders weren't already known).
I would not cast that net so wide (that is committing the fallacy of composition). I know Dominicans who are very pro-life and march with their parishioners in front of abortion clinics. In fact, they sponsor all-night eucharisitic vigils for life every month.
In some religious orders, as far as I understand, each individual convent is autonomous and under obedience, primarily to the local bishop (I may be wrong, here. Could someone who knows the conventual structures clarify?).
In any event, I am sure at least fifty Dominicans would raid this combox is word got out, openly, that most people thought the Order approved of this nun's actions. To be sure, there are heretical religious that probably could be found in any Order, but that is no reason to condemn the entire Order nor assume that the person is supported by them. I think a guy named Luther disproved the idea that because one Augustinian went rogue, they all went rogue or supported him.
The Chicken
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | Oct 28, 2009 5:58:15 AM
This is disgusting. This is happening right in my back yard. I live near here!
Posted by: Dan | Oct 28, 2009 7:46:26 AM
on the Lifesitenews web site it gives the address for Francis Cardinal George. I'm not sure if the sister resides in the Chicago arch diocese or not, but the fanility that she volunteers at is part of the Joliet diocese with Bishop Peter Sartain who is our Bishop. Perhaps people can also contact him. the web site for the Joliet diocese is www.dioceseofjoliet.org
Posted by: Dan | Oct 28, 2009 7:57:50 AM
Now that she has been exposed, I have every confidence that something will be done. But then I'm a Perennial Pollyana.
Posted by: Barbara | Oct 28, 2009 8:16:28 AM
Abortion:
The only issue for the Catholics and the Catholic Church.
What a sorrow, with the great good the Church could do to help others so close to her.
Posted by: Anon | Oct 28, 2009 2:50:08 PM
Anon,
Would you vote for someone who supports the enslavement of black people? Would you be OK with a nun helping slave traders to ferrying their victims to their new "owners"? If not, then you are also a "single-issue" person, when the time comes.
Posted by: David B. | Oct 28, 2009 3:08:08 PM
What I don't get about this lady is that she allegedly became an escort because of alleged "abuse" toward abortive women from pro-life protesters. So, why not minister to the protesters and show them more loving and peaceful ways to protest?
Forget that. Why not minister to the WOMEN she escorts? Because research shows a majority - more than 60% - are at the abortion clinic because they're being coerced or forced by someone in their family, friends, or the father of the child.
Isn't that more abusive than someone who's trying to stop you from killing your child? What this nun doesn't realize is that abortion is permanent. These women cannot change their minds and get back the child SHE helped them kill.
Posted by: Amy P. | Oct 28, 2009 6:08:20 PM
Ed Peters, you wrote in your blog that she "formally cooperates in the death of babies by abortion". Apart from perhaps appearances, how is that? Her prioress reportedly said she (not the prioress) is "accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors. Her stance is that if the protestors were not [potentially?] abusive, she would not be there."
Maybe you have another definition of formal cooperation, but one provided by Ascension Health (which claims to be "the nation's largest Catholic and largest nonprofit health system") says:
Formal cooperation occurs when a person or organization freely participates in the action(s) of a principal agent, or shares in the agent’s intention, either for its own sake or as a means to some other goal. Implicit formal cooperation occurs when, even though the cooperator denies intending the object of the principal agent, the cooperating person or organization participates in the action directly and in such a way that the it could not be done without this participation. Formal cooperation in intrinsically evil actions, either explicitly or implicitly, is morally illicit.
If "accompanying women" to the door of an abortion clinic is formal cooperation in the abortion itself, do guardian angels formally cooperate as well or do they not accompany women to the door? Apart from statements such as that by her prioress, I can only guess at her intentions/attitude/frame of mind, and if her presence and actions are non-essential to the abortion, and she doesn't sign the papers or participate or perform in the abortion itself, could you explain to your readers where you see the alleged formal cooperation "in the death of babies by abortion"?
Thank you in advance.
Posted by: Terry | Oct 28, 2009 6:16:25 PM
Why not minister to the WOMEN she escorts? Because research shows...
Who says she doesn't? Verbal or non-verbal. I have a nun friend who works with abused people, mainly women, and though she can be very verbal and is a wonderful story teller, the real crux of her work is said to be primarily non-verbal, often within moments of meeting someone.
Posted by: Terry | Oct 28, 2009 7:08:53 PM
As an entire Church including the Pope, we have defined Popes as uninvolved with the microcosm because subsidiarity dictates that the local authority take care of such things. But what if he..the local authority... does not take care of things over time? The current model of Pope as primarily author and not administrator is the opposite of many Renaissance Popes who were not authors at all but Euro power players. Neither we nor the Pope have the mix right yet. When local authorities fail over a long time, the higher authority should A. know the issue and B. do something about it. The buck does not stop at the local level according to Truman. Maybe he... not us...was correct. As long as we criticize nearly every level of Church but Pope as the immune exception, we will have these problems all throughout our lifetimes. Galatians did not send us that message about Peter...Euro monarchy did. That is where our etiquette is from.
Posted by: bill bannon | Oct 28, 2009 7:43:04 PM
Amy P.,
I guess that would depend on whether one's guardian angel was wearing a "clinic escort" vest, and helped as an escort on a regular basis, wouldn't it?
Oh, what a silly example you've provided!
Let's look at it according to your own definition:
Formal cooperation occurs when a person or organization freely participates in the action(s) of a principal agent, or shares in the agent’s intention, either for its own sake or as a means to some other goal.
So, inasmuch as she is freely participating in the action of a woman attempting to get into an abortion clinic, either for the sake of getting to the door or as a means to the goal of procuring an abortion... well, I guess your example proves it: she's formally cooperating in abortion!
Posted by: Larry | Oct 28, 2009 7:43:39 PM
Oops... my comment should have been directed at Terry, not Amy P.
Sorry about that!
Posted by: Larry | Oct 28, 2009 7:45:27 PM
Terry, Ed Peters will probably give you a more complete answer later, but in the meantime, I would say this: since it is explicit, not implicit, formal cooperation that is being dealt with here, it is not necessary that Sr. Quinn's actions be necessary to the completion of the abortion. Bringing the women into the clinic is a part of the process of killing their babies, and Sr. Quinn is unquestionably participating in that part.
Who says she doesn't? Verbal or non-verbal. I have a nun friend who works with abused people, mainly women, and though she can be very verbal and is a wonderful story teller, the real crux of her work is said to be primarily non-verbal, often within moments of meeting someone.
What are you saying here? Isn't it obvious you're speaking at random? If these women are being harmed or abused by being coerced into an abortion, helping them obtain that abortion is not ministering to them, it's cooperating in the abuse.
Posted by: The Pachyderminator | Oct 28, 2009 7:55:36 PM
"If these women are being harmed or abused by being coerced into an abortion, helping them obtain that abortion is not ministering to them, [b]it's cooperating in the abuse.[/b]"
This bears repeating a second time, especially the bolded part.
Posted by: JoAnna | Oct 28, 2009 9:05:16 PM
(Let's try this again, with HTML instead of BBCode this time...)
"If these women are being harmed or abused by being coerced into an abortion, helping them obtain that abortion is not ministering to them, it's cooperating in the abuse."
This bears repeating, especially the bolded part.
Posted by: JoAnna | Oct 28, 2009 9:06:25 PM
I read the article and comments about the review of religious orders. The heterodox orders are becoming irrelavant all the way to the nursing home.
Posted by: Bob | Oct 28, 2009 10:21:54 PM
Y'know whenever I am about to do something stupid, mean, or sinful, I usually stop and ask myself, "How am I going to explain this one to Jesus?" I wish that this sister would do the same. God is merciful and forgiving, but not gullible.
Posted by: ChristopherY | Oct 29, 2009 5:05:33 AM
I guess that would depend on whether one's guardian angel was wearing a "clinic escort" vest, and helped as an escort on a regular basis, wouldn't it?
Larry, with or without a vest, as Christians we are all called to be "escorts" of a kind, keepers of our brothers and sisters "on a regular basis". As such, even abortion protesters are called to be "escorts".
inasmuch as she is freely participating in the action of a woman attempting to get into an abortion clinic... she's formally cooperating in abortion!
Accompanying a woman as she walks is an action but it is not the same action as the abortion itself and it does not necessitate the same intention or outcome. Without conflating the walk with the abortion, perhaps you can describe for me how she "freely participates in the abortion, or shares in the woman's intention to have an abortion." The old Catholic Encyclopedia says, "To formally cooperate in the sin of another is to be associated with him in the performance of a bad deed in so far forth as it is bad, that is, to share in the perverse frame of mind of that other... Formal cooperation presupposes a manifestly sinful attitude on the part of the will of the accomplice." As I said before, I don't know her intention, attitude or frame of mind. Her prioress did not seem to me to express that she has a "manifestly sinful attitude".
Bringing the women into the clinic is a part of the process of killing their babies, and Sr. Quinn is unquestionably participating in that part.
Pachyderminator, are you conflating the walk with the abortion? The abortion might (or might not) follow the walk, but that does not make the walk part of the abortion. If we want to talk about "the process", that can be as broad as the universe and all time. Where does it begin, where does it end? For example, if the "process" were to include consultation with a priest and family or the woman viewing an image of the baby in her womb, then priests, family and ultrasound technicians would all be participating in the process too. Mere participation in a "process" does not equate with formal cooperation with evil.
If these women are being harmed or abused by being coerced into an abortion, helping them obtain that abortion is not ministering to them, it's cooperating in the abuse... it is explicit, not implicit, formal cooperation that is being dealt with here
I don't know that anyone is abusing or coercing "these women" into an abortion. Nevertheless, even if someone were doing such a thing, that does not mean the nun is not ministering to them or helping to protect them in some way.
Moreover, even if the nun were somehow "helping them obtain that abortion", the American Life League says that merely helping someone get an abortion is not the same as formal cooperation with abortion. They say, "formal cooperation [is] when one not only helps another to do evil but also joins in his evil intention." They go on to say, "If the cooperator intends the object of the wrongdoer's activity, then the cooperation is formal and, therefore, morally wrong. Since intention is not simply an explicit act of the will, formal cooperation can also be implicit. Implicit formal cooperation is attributed when, even though the cooperator denies intending the wrongdoer's object, no other explanation can distinguish the cooperator's object from the wrongdoer's object."
Thus I question the claim that the nun is formally cooperating with abortions without proof that she herself intends the abortions. Furthermore, if we take the statement by her prioress (i.e. "if the protestors were not abusive, she would not be there") as in effect a denial that she intends the women's abortions, then according to both the American Life League and Ascension Health, that would rule out explicit formal cooperation in abortion, and thus we must turn to the possibility of implicit formal cooperation. That then begs the question of whether "no other explanation can distinguish the [nun's] object from the [women's] object [i.e. abortion]" (per American Life League) or "the [nun] participates in the action directly and in such a way that the it could not be done without this participation" (per Ascension Health). Here again, the statement by the prioress may be providing the "other explanation", if she's suggesting that the nun's object is to protect the women from harm by the protesters, which is different from the object of the women getting abortions.
But who knows what she intends or what she denies. Does the nun even know?
Posted by: Terry | Oct 29, 2009 5:48:42 AM
"But who knows what she intends or what she denies. Does the nun even know?"
What's the sound of one hand typing?
The big lie in the whole thing is the phantom "abusive protesters". In the twisted minds of these clinic escorts, questioning, resisting or protesting abortion = "abuse". Handing a girl a pamphlet = "abuse". Talking to a girl = "abuse".
The real aim of these escorts is to keep anyone from changing these girls' minds before they can get into the clinic.
Posted by: Tim J. | Oct 29, 2009 6:25:05 AM
Terry,
Why do you attempt to cite as official Catholic sources of authority the American Life League and Ascension Health?
Posted by: Lucien Syme | Oct 29, 2009 7:09:32 AM
Tim, I've heard a number of them saying they're against abortion and that their aim is not to keep women who are going to the clinics from changing their minds and walking away but to "respect" the women's consciences and choices as their choices, whatever they may be, even if they're wrong. Many say they "respect" the protesters too. As to "abuse", anyone can be abusive, even nuns and priests, from foul mouths to physical violence. Likewise, anyone can be a protester. Not everyone, whether escort or protestor, will win an award for their reasons, aims or behavior.
Lucien, I do not "attempt to cite as official Catholic sources of authority the American Life League and Ascension Health". I cited their words because their words were handy and I cited the sources because I didn't care to engage in plagiarism.
Posted by: Terry | Oct 29, 2009 7:30:57 AM
FWIW, Canon 1329 provides for latae sententiae or ferendae sententiae penalties for those assisting others in committing delicts such as abortion. If "without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them," latae sententiae applies; "otherwise, they can be punished by ferendae sententiae penalties."
This seems at least potentially applicable, in whole or in part, to individuals who provide assistance without which the delict might not be committed, or who provide assistance giving support in the commission of the delict; perhaps Ed or some other competent commentator can illuminate that point. At the very least, the canon seems to imply that assisting others in the commission of a delict is a bad thing.
Posted by: SDG | Oct 29, 2009 8:40:33 AM
Terry,
If you can put down your white crayon for a moment...
Sister Donna Quinn has been a vocal advocate for abortion and other issues that are against Church teaching for many years. You may not want to acknowledge her intention but she has always been clear about it.
Now please feel free to continue to draw with your white crayon on white paper and describe the beauty of the emperors new clothes...
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Oct 29, 2009 8:49:56 AM
Folks, at first I thought Terry's question was serious, until I hit the line about "do guardian angels formally cooperate as well or do they not accompany women to the door?"
Chuckle chuckle chuckle.
ps: Some nice comments above!
Posted by: Ed Peters | Oct 29, 2009 9:20:17 AM
Terry what do you benefit from your word games? You're not trying to refute the Church's teachings, nor understand them, but instead you turn every plain and straightforward statement into a tangled web of meaninglessness. Is your intent merely to spread confusion?
Posted by: Brian Walden | Oct 29, 2009 9:38:24 AM
"Folks, at first I thought Terry's question was serious"
I hope, sir, you learned your lesson.
Posted by: SDG | Oct 29, 2009 9:43:41 AM
"As to "abuse", anyone can be abusive, even nuns and priests, from foul mouths to physical violence."
Any examples? I mean, anything from a verifiable source?
Here is a video showing abuse *of* clinic protesters;
http://catholic-caveman.blogspot.com/2009/10/i-thought-pro-abortion-scum-were-in.html#links
Posted by: Tim J. | Oct 29, 2009 9:52:00 AM
Okay from now on I understand ignore Terry - got it!
Posted by: Lucien Syme | Oct 29, 2009 10:10:08 AM
BW: It's just a version of sophism. :)
SDG: I have, but I have to keep relearnging it. :(
TimJ: The most hateful, foul, vitriolic harangue ever --and I mean ever-- launched on me was delivered by an abortion clinic escort while I stood with literature in the parking lot outside an aborotorium, oh, must have been 30 years ago now. As the venom (I have no other word for it) spewed forth, I'd have sworn, I saw EVIL in those eyes. It deeply frightened me. I thought I was in a scene from The Exorcist, facing Satan, and several people who saw it happen ran over to help me walk away. I slumped down on some steps for several minutes, and couldn't eevn think.
I don't think I have ever gone to a clinic again without asking the special protection of Guardian Angel.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Oct 29, 2009 10:53:13 AM
>I question the claim that the nun is formally cooperating with abortions without proof that she herself intends the abortions.
What does the nun think happens at the abortion clinics? Toe-nail clipping?
Please.
How totally disingenuous.
Imagine if there were escorts for people to gun shops so they could buy guns because of all the anti-gun protesters outside of gun shops.
It is like saying:
"I question the claim that the gun-shop escort is formally cooperating with gun violence without proof that she herself intends the gun violence."
So, why do you hate babies?
Posted by: BobCatholic | Oct 29, 2009 11:46:19 AM
Folks, at first I thought Terry's question was serious, until I... Chuckle chuckle chuckle... It's just a version of sophism.
I'll add "sophism" to the list.
you turn every plain and straightforward statement into a tangled web of meaninglessness.
And water into whine.
Sister Donna Quinn has been a vocal advocate for abortion
People say all sorts of things about her.
Any examples? I mean, anything from a verifiable source?
Apparently some people collect such things. Do you trade them like marbles? Never got into that.
It is like saying: "I question the claim that the gun-shop escort is formally cooperating with gun violence without proof that she herself intends the gun violence."
It's like saying: "I question the claim that the security guard is formally cooperating with crime without proof of his criminal intent."
What does the nun think happens at the abortion clinics? Toe-nail clipping?
Many things happen at abortion clinics. Perhaps as women enter the clinic, Sr. Quinn could say to them what Jesus said to Judas: "What you are going to do, do quickly."
Posted by: Terry | Oct 29, 2009 12:13:01 PM
"Apparently some people collect such things. Do you trade them like marbles? Never got into that."
But you do collect labels like "sophist," apparently. Marbles seem like a healthier choice.
Posted by: SDG | Oct 29, 2009 12:19:20 PM
But you do collect labels like "sophist," apparently.
No, my "list" or file 13 is my waste basket. The trashman collects it. He knows what to do with it.
Posted by: Terry | Oct 29, 2009 12:28:14 PM
Terry,
I wasn't talking about what other say about her. I was referring to her own words and actions. If you are so ignorant or purposely blind of her advocacy just keep coloring with your white crayon...
Lord, have mercy on both our souls.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Oct 29, 2009 12:48:58 PM
"No, my "list" or file 13 is my waste basket. The trashman collects it. He knows what to do with it."
What a coincidence. That's just what I was thinking here when I mentioned finding "just the right place" in connection with something you said.
Posted by: SDG | Oct 29, 2009 12:51:50 PM
P.S. Besides, you don't really throw them away. You've hearkened back to the "white crayon on white paper" bit yourself.
Posted by: SDG | Oct 29, 2009 1:06:58 PM
I wasn't talking about what other say about her. I was referring to her own words and actions.
When you speak about Sr. Quinn as you did when you said "Sister Donna Quinn has been a vocal advocate for abortion and other issues that are against Church teaching for many years," you are one of the "others" saying things about her. As I said, people say all sorts of things about her. You are one of those people. You're more than welcome to use your crayons to color it as "referring to her own words and actions", if you want.
If you are so ignorant or purposely blind of her advocacy just keep coloring with your white crayon.
Wisdom says I'm ignorant, love says the white crayon is yours whenever you like.
You've hearkened back to the "white crayon on white paper" bit yourself.
It may be my trash, but it's perhaps Inocencio's treasure. I love Inocencio. He's so very colorful.
Posted by: Terry | Oct 29, 2009 2:11:29 PM
Terry,
"As I said, people say all sorts of things about her."
Yes, yes. Ignore her words and actions if you like. Causing scandal is sinful.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Oct 29, 2009 3:00:46 PM
BobCatholic, far be it from me to defend Terry's sophism or white crayon-coloring, but I have to say your example of the gun shop is ill chosen. Law-abiding citizens buying guns helps prevent gun violence, but there's no way procuring abortions helps prevent the evil affects of abortion. Can't we like babies AND guns? (Just to clarify, I don't deal with either on a regular basis, but if I had to pick one, I'd pick the babies any day.)
Posted by: The Pachyderminator | Oct 29, 2009 3:08:18 PM
Troll in the hood
Posted by: Hee-yah | Oct 29, 2009 3:25:44 PM
Inocencio,
Causing scandal is sinful.
If you're interested in her sins, perhaps if you contact her, she might give you a list.
Posted by: Terry | Oct 29, 2009 3:49:59 PM
Terry,
Since she is so public about them that isn't necessary.
I will keep both of you in my prayers. I ask you to keep me in yours.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Posted by: Inocencio | Oct 29, 2009 4:16:40 PM
Thank you Inocencio. If you like, the Sinsinawa Dominican Sisters will also pray for you and anyone you would like them to pray for.
Posted by: Terry | Oct 29, 2009 4:37:28 PM
Terry,
Here's a news story from '04 about Sr. Quinn attending an abortion rights rally holding a "Nuns for Choice" sign.
I'm sure she was attending the rally to pray for the women having abortions. You know, so they'd change their minds.
But in all seriousness, those are her actions, not anyone else attributing motives to her.
Also, if someone was escorting a bank robber into the bank, praying the whole time that he would change his mind and not rob the bank, but maybe make a deposit instead, are we really going to say that person is not participating in the sin of the robber? Even if they're only there to shelter them from the anti-robbery protesters outside the bank?
Posted by: Matt Yonke | Oct 29, 2009 4:56:45 PM
Also:
Inocencio,
Causing scandal is sinful.
If you're interested in her sins, perhaps if you contact her, she might give you a list.
What does her list of sins have to do with whether she's causing scandal (which she is) and whether or not that's sinful (which it is)?
Posted by: Matt Yonke | Oct 29, 2009 4:58:35 PM
Matt,
But in all seriousness, those are her actions, not anyone else attributing motives to her.
The article you provided says the following about Sr. Quinn:
1) "Sister Donna Quinn, a Palos Hills resident, attended the last two and is flying to this one with four other nuns." [Last two what?]
2) "Sister Quinn and the Nuns for Choice also make a brief walk-on appearance in coverage at the Ms. Magazine blog, but we learn nothing about them."
Was there some other "action" I was supposed to note? Because the article notes only a few appearances/attendances.
Here's a news story from '04 about Sr. Quinn attending an abortion rights rally holding a "Nuns for Choice" sign.
I clicked the link you provided, but there was no statement in that article saying Sr. Quinn was holding any sign. There was a mention of a sign in the clause "the quiet presence of a 'Nuns for Choice' sign in a single story in the Hartford Courant, but there were no additional details." The link to the referenced Hartford Courant story came back "page not found". In regard to "for choice", I suspect Sr. Quinn maintains there is a difference between "for choice" and "for abortion".
if someone was escorting a bank robber into the bank, praying the whole time that he would change his mind and not rob the bank, but maybe make a deposit instead, are we really going to say that person is not participating in the sin of the robber?
The question I was discussing earlier was specific to formal cooperation only. Formal cooperation in wrongdoing means that the cooperator intends, desires, or approves the wrongdoer's conduct. Formal cooperation in wrongdoing is not morally licit. However, the case you describe does not necessarily entail that the cooperator "intends, desires, or approves the wrongdoer's conduct", and without that, it would not be formal cooperation.
So what next? If the cooperator does not intend the object of the wrongdoer's activity, such as perhaps in the case you describe, then it is not formal cooperation, but rather the cooperation is material and, depending on additional factors, can be morally licit or morally illicit. When the object of the cooperator is the same as the object of the wrongdoer, then we call it immediate material cooperation and it is wrong, except in some instances of duress. On the other hand, when the object of the cooperator's action remains distinguishable from that of the wrongdoer's, material cooperation is mediate and can be morally licit. In the case you cite for example, as I read it, you do not establish beyond question that the cooperator has the same object as the bank robber.
Moral theologians recommend two other considerations for the proper evaluation of material cooperation. First, the object of material cooperation should be as distant as possible from the wrongdoer's act. Second, any act of material cooperation requires a proportionately grave reason. In the case you cite for example, we have, among many possible objects, praying vs bank robbery, and escorting vs bank robbery, etc. Praying is rather distant from bank robbery, but escorting a bank robber into a bank, even if you're praying while escorting him, may be troublesome depending on the details. For example, perhaps you were under sufficient duress (e.g. your life was at risk), or you innocently didn't realize what he was up to until he was actually in the bank at which time you weren't involved any longer, etc.
So, depending on the full facts and circumstances, we might "really say that person is not participating in the sin of the robber", or we might not.
[Credit to Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, National Conference of Catholic Bishops.]
What does her list of sins have to do with whether she's causing scandal (which she is) and whether or not that's sinful (which it is)?
As the subject was her alleged sin(s), of which scandal might be only one, I inquired into Inocencio's interest into a list of them.
Posted by: Terry | Oct 29, 2009 6:51:39 PM
Uh, Terry? Did you read the article on Lifesite news at all?
While LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) was unable to reach Sr. Quinn for comment, NCAN's Sr. Beth Rindler confirmed to LSN that Quinn is still a member of their group, which favors unrestricted legalized abortion and disagrees with the teaching that abortion is intrinsically evil. "We respect women, and believe that they make moral decision, and so we respect their decisions," Rindler explained.
How, exactly, can you question her motives given her stance on such issues? She is in grave sin, if not mortal sin, due to her stance on abortion. Assisting women in procuring abortion only compounds her sin.
Posted by: JoAnna | Oct 29, 2009 9:41:37 PM
JoAnna, the quote by Sr. Rindler says the group respects women and their decisions. Perhaps she was giving a rendition of the Catechism which says, "charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience". Whatever she meant, the rest of what you copied is presented as LSN's opinion/interpretation and discounted as such. Nevertheless, in regard to the issue which I was discussing, namely formal cooperation, what you presented is insufficient to prove that Sr. Quinn desires that any woman actually get an abortion. As I said earlier, I suspect that Sr. Quinn distinguishes between pro-choice and desiring abortion. What you copied does not prove otherwise.
Posted by: Terry | Oct 30, 2009 12:16:19 AM
The guards at death camps didn't participate in the evil. The guards escorting them to the death chambers didn't participate in the evil, they always hoped that it wouldn't happen. We must keep an open mind.
Terry is a evil joke. Playing word games, trying to sow confusion.
Posted by: John F. Kennedy | Oct 30, 2009 7:00:14 AM
Terry, thanks for the link to the form to submit prayer requests to the sisters. I asked them to pray for unborn babies and women scarred by abortion and listed the reasons to pray as, "For the end of abortion and to convert the hearts of those who support the murder of innocent children. And for the healing of women who have procured abortions." I suggest others to do the same.
Posted by: Brian Walden | Oct 30, 2009 7:17:18 AM
Test
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | Oct 30, 2009 7:17:54 AM
I can't seem to post from my Linux box. Has anyone else run into posting problems in the last few days?
The Chicken
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | Oct 30, 2009 7:18:54 AM
Mere participation in a "process" does not equate with formal cooperation with evil.
That is correct. But her actions go beyond participation in an incidental sense. For example, the gas station owner who sold her gasoline so she could drive to the abortion clinic may have participated unknowingly in a strictly causational sense, but that is not cooperation. Cooperation requires knowledge of the end being sought (abortion) and performing an act that knowingly furthers the accomplishment of that act in order to bring it about. Sr. Quinn's actions fit this criteria - she is knowingly escorting the women for the purpose of allowing them to exercise their choice to obtain an abortion. Whether they ultimately go through with it is irrelevant to the moral calculus - her actions are in support of the choice to do evil, and her actions knowingly bring about the opportunity to make that choice. That is cooperation, not mere incidental participation.
Posted by: c matt | Oct 30, 2009 8:02:42 AM
Don't enable the Concern Troll.
My two cents' worth, fwiw, which ain't much. :)
Posted by: diane | Oct 30, 2009 8:21:43 AM
JFK,
"Terry is a evil joke. Playing word games, trying to sow confusion."
I think you are giving him/her too much credit; a troll is typically not evil or capable of sowing genuine confusion.
They are lonely and sarcastic people who are trying to get attention.
And since Trolls are so good at discerning the intentions of others, in this case Sr. Quinn:
"I suspect that Sr. Quinn distinguishes between pro-choice and desiring abortion. What you copied does not prove otherwise."
I will share my hypothesis about the intentions of Trolls (they want attention) and how they typically obtain their habit:
1) They never got any genuine attention from their parents growing up.
2) They did get negative attention by being disruptive in the family, but at least it was attention.
3) They were never able to break this habit and carried it through puberty into adulthood.
4) This habit has ruined attempts at forming genuine friendships.
5) This has left them isolated in adulthood with trolling allowing an outlet, of sorts, for attention getting.
I think Trolls needs our prayers almost as much as Sr. Quinn.
Posted by: Lucien Syme | Oct 30, 2009 9:45:14 AM
If this 'nun' is going publically against church Doctrine and Canon Law,then she deserves both excommunication and to be stripped of her status as a religious.
If she refuses to recant these heresies,she MUST be dealt with harshly.
It will send a message to the other traitors inside Holy Mother Church,that there will be repurcussions for failing to obey,when they swore to upon taking their vows.
Dominic.
+++
Posted by: Dominic | Oct 30, 2009 1:47:55 PM
The guards at death camps didn't participate in the evil. The guards escorting them to the death chambers didn't participate in the evil, they always hoped that it wouldn't happen. We must keep an open mind. Terry is a evil joke.
JFK, perhaps it's age, for as the Holy Father has said, "the advance of age brings with it a more open mind." And, "The problem of the Inquisition belongs to a troubled period of the Church's history, which I have invited Christians to revisit with an open mind." And, "seek to help our brother and sister refugees in every possible way by providing a welcome that will lead to their full participation in the everyday life of society. Show them an open mind and a warm heart."
May I show you an open mind and a warm heart.
her actions go beyond participation in an incidental sense... Cooperation requires... Sr. Quinn's actions fit this criteria - she is knowingly escorting the women for the purpose of allowing them to exercise their choice to obtain an abortion.
Chicken, I've been talking specifically about formal cooperation in abortion but you seem to be rendering an opinion in regard to "cooperation" in general without qualification as to kind of cooperation. Some forms of cooperation can be morally licit while others, like formal cooperation, are not. Per the NCCB document, "If the cooperator intends the object of the wrongdoer's activity [i.e. the abortion], then the cooperation is formal." A person can be cooperating but that alone is not sufficient to say she is formally cooperating. With the presumption that she denies intending the abortion, then for it to be formal cooperation, it must be that "no other explanation can distinguish the cooperator's object from the wrongdoer's object." In my post to Matt, I also made mention of other forms of cooperation and likewise how other explanations can be significant. Proving there is no other explanation would seem a tall order, especially if you're trying to prove it to me. The burden of proof is not on me. Per Canon 1526 §1, "The burden of proof rests upon the person who makes the allegation." Perhaps you're just wanting to talk of the possibility that someone is formally cooperating without asserting it to be the truth. If so, I would like to remind that the Church teaches "He becomes guilty of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor." For me, I question whether a LSN article is sufficient foundation. In review, the LSN article contains a few quotes alleged to be Sr. Quinn's words from seven years ago. The rest is someone talking about her.
Posted by: Terry | Oct 30, 2009 2:12:42 PM
The woman has helped women procure abortions.
That is enough to condemn her,let alone expell her from both Holy Mother Church at large,and from her Order.
Stop equivocating.
Dominic.
+++
Posted by: Dominic | Oct 30, 2009 2:36:31 PM
*sigh*
Terry, if you don't want to go to Milwaukee, what are you doing on the train?
Posted by: tizoc | Oct 30, 2009 2:42:45 PM
That is enough to condemn her
A judge is needed for that. But the scribes and the Pharisees and all the people went away one by one, beginning with the elders ("the advance of age brings with it a more open mind"), leaving the woman alone with Jesus who straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She replied, "No one, sir." Then Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more."
Terry, if you don't want to go to Milwaukee, what are you doing on the train?
I'm the janitor.
Posted by: Terry | Oct 30, 2009 3:48:46 PM
Terry insists on more games. This is NOT a game to see how close we can get to the edge without falling. I think numerous people here have done what we can to point out your error (Terry's). THAT is OUR duty. Insisting that a there is no sin and even justifying this Sister's actions creates a new sin, Terry's sin. I hope you repent, but I doubt you will. You will get what you deserve. You have been warned. I have wasted too much time already on a hopeless case. I shake the dust from my feet as I leave you to your "choice".
Posted by: John F. Kennedy | Oct 30, 2009 4:03:25 PM
Insisting that a there is no sin and even justifying this Sister's actions creates a new sin, Terry's sin.
JFK, if it's your view that what I've written justifies Sister's actions (whatever those may be) or insists there is no sin, that's your view. If you insist it's mine, you might check who is insisting, with an open mind.
Posted by: Terry | Oct 30, 2009 5:43:25 PM
If this gets posted (Linux troubles?), Terry, at no time have I ever used the word cooperation in this combox for this article. In fact, I haven't been able to post in two days. What are you talking about?
The Chicken
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | Oct 30, 2009 5:43:58 PM
Chicken, apparently I saw your name ("Posted by: The Masked Chicken | Oct 30, 2009 7:18:54 AM") above the post to which I was responding (which was written by "c matt") and copied your name rather than his/hers. Please accept my apologies for any confusion.
Posted by: Terry | Oct 30, 2009 5:57:53 PM
That's okay. I didn't have anything important to say, anyway.
The Chicken
Posted by: The Masked Chicken | Oct 30, 2009 7:03:07 PM
>It's like saying: "I question the claim that the security guard is formally cooperating with crime without proof of his criminal intent."
This is beyond apples and oranges comparison. This is apples and roast beef.
The nun is not a security guard. She is not an employee of the clinic. She is a volunteer who hates babies and wants to see more babies killed. A security guard is there to protect those from being harmed. The nun is there to make sure at least one is dead and one wounded. You got a wierd definition of "security".
>Many things happen at abortion clinics.
Oh really? What services do they provide to pregnant women besides slaughtering their children? Oh yes, they counsel the women to kill their babies.
>Perhaps as women enter the clinic, Sr. Quinn could say to them what Jesus said to Judas: "What you are going to do, do quickly."
Are you accusing Jesus of complicity with the devil?
Interesting how you seem to know what she is saying. There's no way for her to say "Please don't kill your baby." right? That will not happen. All she will do is encourage a woman to slaughter her baby.
Gotta love the pro-abort way of thinking. Hate the unborn. Dehumanize them. Try to canonize the supporters.
Posted by: BobCatholic | Oct 30, 2009 8:07:35 PM
BobCatholic,
The nun is not a security guard. She is not an employee of the clinic.
One doesn't have to be an employee to be a "security guard". Like I said, I don't know what she does or doesn't do, and that includes what or whom she's guarding or even if she's guarding, but if I look up the word "escort" in a dictionary, I see issues of protection, guarding and defense plainly listed among the many other meanings. Her prioress also spoke of "abuse", which is related to the subject. Perhaps one of the broadest meanings for "escort" would be someone who spends time with another. In that sense, for voluntarily spending time with me here on this forum, thank you for being a volunteer escort.
You got a wierd definition of "security".
I use a dictionary. Under "security", here's one meaning you might find to be ironic: "precautions taken against escape". And for "weird", I find "involving or suggesting the supernatural". Perhaps I don't speak English as you do. English is not my native language.
What services do they provide to pregnant women besides slaughtering their children?
The website for ACU Health Center in Hinsdale, IL says they offer pregnancy testing, counseling, annual gynecological exams, breast exams, STD testing, ultrasound, cervical cancer screenings, laser surgery, family medicine and urology.
Are you accusing Jesus of complicity with the devil?
Satan is mentioned in the same verse, but do you think John was accusing Jesus of complicity with the devil?
"After he took the morsel, Satan entered him. So Jesus said to him, 'What you are going to do, do quickly.'" (John 13:27)
Interesting how you seem to know what she is saying.
I must be left out of the seeming because it doesn't seem to me that I know what she's saying. Like I've said before, the LSN article contains a few quotes alleged to be Sr. Quinn's words from years ago none of which are specific to abortion, and the rest is someone talking about her. What is she saying? I suspect she may distinguish between pro-choice and pro-abortion because, like a number of people who are "pro-choice", Sr. Margaret Traxler, the cofounder of the group to which Sr. Quinn reportedly belongs, has reportedly said, "We reject the claim that to be prochoice is to be proabortion. We are against abortion." I've also read where it has been said that the group "has no position on abortion itself."
All she will do is encourage a woman to slaughter her baby.
Do you know all that you will do?
Posted by: Terry | Oct 30, 2009 10:13:29 PM
I also came across these reports in regard to Sr. Quinn and abortion...
About 25 years ago (October 7, 1984), Sr. Quinn and others reportedly signed on to a full page "diversity of opinion" ad in the NY Times. That apparently created quite an uproar. By June 1986, the Vatican had reportedly said Sr. Quinn's case was closed after she and others had made "public declarations of adherence to Catholic doctrine." Sr. Quinn is reported to have said that the statement she signed said: "I have never promoted abortion nor do I intend to." [1] In a June 18, 1986 interview, she reportedly also said, "I do not promote abortion. I never have promoted abortion." [2]
Similarly, Sr. Traxler, who had reportedly said, "We reject the claim that to be prochoice is to be proabortion. We are against abortion," [3] reportedly also agreed to a statement saying she believed in the sanctity of human life, after which she said "I stand firmly in my belief that every woman has the gift of free will." [1]
And here (about 1/3 down the page) is a photo of a woman in a "Nuns for Choice" shirt. If it's not Sr. Quinn, it's some other smiling woman. (Note: Though it shows a smiling woman, you might feel angry or sad after viewing this photo.)
[1] as reported by the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, July 26, 1986
[2] as reported by The Interim, a Canadian newspaper, October 10, 1986
[3] as reported in Mother Jones Magazine, Feb-Mar, 1985
Posted by: Terry | Oct 31, 2009 3:11:25 AM
Terry from all the evidence you cite here (and you have read above) what conclusion do you reach personally?
That is the point here after all.
Never being able to form an opinion would be maddening.
It is one thing to get someone to see their position is not properly thought through; it is another to make a joke of the process of coming to a well-formed conclusion.
It is this constant joking that is referred to as "trolling".
Do you actually reach a conclusion here, there or anywhere?
It would be a shame to common sense if I could state and people actually agree to the following proposition stated by Sr. Traxler, "We reject the claim that to be prochoice is to be proabortion. We are against abortion,"
Posted by: Lucien Syme | Oct 31, 2009 8:48:37 AM
Are you comparing an abortion enabler and liberalist 'nun' with the Woman taken in Adultery?
That is probably the lowest thing i've ever heard of,using Scripture to cast doubt on this woman's position as a heretic.
Well,liberals that flock together....
Dominic.
+++
Posted by: Dominic | Oct 31, 2009 12:00:27 PM
Terry from all the evidence you cite here (and you have read above) what conclusion do you reach personally ... Never being able to form an opinion would be maddening.
Lucien, given that the Church teaches that "charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience" and that "the education of the conscience is a lifelong task," here are some possibilities: In terms of her conscience, that she is perhaps today as she was in the 80's, or perhaps has 25 years additional "education" since then. That, according to the reports I've read, she did not apparently recant anything back in the 80's in regard to her "pro-choice" position and the Vatican apparently closed her case and/or, as has been reported, "cleared her" nonetheless. That perhaps she (along with perhaps some women going to such clinics) is obeying what she may believe is the certain judgment of her conscience, and if protesters are spoken to as they've been described or as I've been described on this forum, I might wonder if indeed there are women who feel abused by the protesters if not indeed are actually abused by them. And, in terms of "conclusion", that I pray we remain open to the truth.
Are you comparing an abortion enabler and liberalist 'nun' with the Woman taken in Adultery? That is probably the lowest thing i've ever heard of...
Dominic, is it too strong to compare an alleged "abortion enabler" (given the poster said "that is enough to condemn her") with someone alleged to be deserving of death?
Well,liberals that flock together....
... we pray, flock with Jesus, the "liberal giver of salvation". (CCC#987)
Posted by: Terry | Oct 31, 2009 1:05:33 PM
Correction: Rather than "if protesters are spoken to as they've been described or as I've been described on this forum", that should read, "if women and protesters going to such clinics are spoken to as they've been described or as I've been described on this forum".
Thank you.
Posted by: Terry | Oct 31, 2009 1:10:03 PM
You twist and pervert Scripture to support this open heretic.
Dominic.
+++
Posted by: Dominic | Oct 31, 2009 4:53:23 PM
Exorcism
period
Posted by: Michaelis | Oct 31, 2009 5:02:37 PM
Terry,
Again you danced around the question, 'being open to the truth' is another way of saying you have not formed an opinion in this case (or any case that I have witnessed).
So since you haven't reached, or choose not to convey, your opinion in this matter why push for others to be open?
Open exactly to what?
You should either make the case for people to agree that Sr. Quinn is wrong, in this particular situation, or right.
Any other position is a waste of time and typing; but when you get right down to it, it is quite typical of a troll.
Sr. Quinn should know the difference between right and wrong, the Church is very clear. She knows shielding women who are intent upon killing their young is not the best utilization of her vocation.
The insults that get thrown at you are quite well deserved but I think you know and appreciate that fact. Hopefully, this reminds you of your childhood to some degree and keeps you warm at night but I doubt if trolling really accomplishes any of that.
I for one, miss Oneil the Viking Heretic and long for the day when he can slay and free us from Terry the Troll.
Posted by: Lucien Syme | Nov 1, 2009 11:49:35 AM
Lucien,
'being open to the truth' is another way of saying you have not formed an opinion in this case (or any case that I have witnessed). So since you haven't reached, or choose not to convey, your opinion in this matter why push for others to be open? Open exactly to what?
I'm commanded to love, and remaining open to the truth is an eminent exercise of love.
You should either make the case for people to agree that Sr. Quinn is wrong, in this particular situation, or right.
If it's your opinion that I should make a case, then that's your opinion and thank you for sharing it. But I ask you, who needs to make a case? Per Canon 1526 §1, "The burden of proof rests upon the person who makes the allegation."
Sr. Quinn should know the difference between right and wrong, the Church is very clear.
The Church is very clear, "The education of the conscience is a lifelong task... it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed." So it can happen in regard to anyone, whether it's you, me, Sr. Quinn or anyone.
She knows shielding women who are intent upon killing their young is not the best utilization of her vocation.
What Sr. Quinn or anyone is or is not doing, what she knows or doesn't know, is open to question. And whatever she chooses to do is her choice. If it's evil, God permits evil because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it. So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.
The insults that get thrown at you are quite well deserved but I think you know and appreciate that fact.
The Most High is kind to the ungrateful and wicked, and yet they spat on Jesus. I'm content with insults. "I consider that the sufferings of this present time are as nothing compared with the glory to be revealed for us."
I doubt if trolling really accomplishes any of that.
As the Holy Father has said, "By diverging from predominant ideologies, this path often exposes one to misunderstanding and marginalization... But it is also a path, which by forming mentalities open to the truth, becomes an eminent exercise of love."
Posted by: Terry | Nov 1, 2009 3:43:43 PM
"I'm commanded to love, and remaining open to the truth is an eminent exercise of love."
You still never answered the question Terry, nor have I seen you answer any question. Let me state a direct yes or no question: Do you think Sr. Quinn is doing the Catholic Church, and her faithful witness to the sanctity of all life, any good by her choice at the abortion clinic?
Being open to Jesus, who is the Truth, is an exercise of love. His Church teaches doctrines regarding faith and morals, she does so knowing that there are absolute truths in these two areas, to be open to her teachings - that is an exercise in love.
Being unable to form an opinion so that you can actually answer a question is an exercise in futility.
Posted by: Lucien Syme | Nov 1, 2009 5:53:57 PM
Dearest Lucien,
Do you think Sr. Quinn is doing the Catholic Church, and her faithful witness to the sanctity of all life, any good by her choice at the abortion clinic?
Whatever Sr. Quinn might be doing, "We know that all things work for good for those who love God." (Romans 8:28)
You still never answered the question Terry, nor have I seen you answer any question.
I point to the answer. I don't make you look.
Posted by: Terry | Nov 1, 2009 6:22:15 PM
>I'm commanded to love
Except when it comes to unborn children. For them, you support the escorts who make sure they are slaughtered in cold blood.
Some definition of love.
Remember "Whatever you do to the least of my people"? nobody is more least than the unborn....
Posted by: BobCatholic | Nov 1, 2009 6:39:12 PM
you support the escorts who make sure they are slaughtered in cold blood. Some definition of love.
Bob,
God is love, and he supports, upholds, sustains the escorts -- all of them and at every moment, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. And we are all called to be "escorts", in support of one another, as we cooperate in the accomplishment of God's plan, wherein, in regard to evil, God "neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done, but wills to permit evil to be done; and this is a good."
Lord, you willingly subjected yourself to mockery and scorn. May we never lose heart when faced with the contempt of this world which ridicules obedience to your will.
Posted by: Terry | Nov 2, 2009 2:25:32 AM
Terry, we are NOT ‘called to be escorts’ in order to demonstrate our solidarity with the abortion industry. Your attempts to fudge the issue aren’t fooling anybody.
Posted by: Tom Simon | Nov 2, 2009 5:32:45 AM
"Lord, you willingly subjected yourself to mockery and scorn. May we never lose heart when faced with the contempt of this world which ridicules obedience to your will."
Jesus actually made declarative statements too, that is why He was mocked. You are mocked because you have been found out to be a troll.
There are many so-called Christians that believe it is okay to protest at funerals of homosexuals holding signs stating, "God hates f@gs". They too Terry will go to their grave believing they have done God's will (it is in Scripture).
You will go to your grave stating, "God hates decisions" believing you have done God's will ("Judge not or you will be judged"). If the Church interpreted that verse so perversely she would never make Dogmas and the Church would have vaporized by now.
Some philosophy to live by, one that keeps you from being able to answer a question; or one that just wastes other people's time at comboxes.
And you still never answered a question.
Posted by: Lucien Syme | Nov 2, 2009 6:10:32 AM
Terry, we are NOT ‘called to be escorts’ in order to demonstrate our solidarity with the abortion industry.
Tom Simon, I said "in support of one another as we cooperate in the accomplishment of God's plan." If you believe God's plan is to "demonstrate solidarity with the abortion industry," then that's what you believe.
You will go to your grave stating, "God hates decisions" believing you have done God's will
Lucien, God hates decisions??? I've not heard that one before. Done God's will??? Oh my, who believes that!
And you still never answered a question.
Like I said, I point to the answer. I don't make you look.
Posted by: Terry | Nov 2, 2009 7:06:36 AM
Terry,
I put forward the thesis that your philosophy is something to this effect, "God hates decisions" and that you are in the same boat, relatively speaking, as those who misunderstand God's will; as in those who hate in the name of God. In other words you are deluding yourself.
From your musings here at Jimmyakin.org one gathers the impression that you hold being open enough to never make a decision is the highest point of Christianity.
Answer this question in a yes or no fashion:
Do you think Sr. Quinn is doing the Catholic Church, and her faithful witness to the sanctity of all life, any good by her choice at the abortion clinic?
Yes or no?
Don't point to your earlier obfuscated comments, answer the question.
Posted by: Lucien Syme | Nov 2, 2009 8:17:18 AM
Lucien, I don't hate decisions and I gave you an answer to your question that's as clear as Scripture. You asked if Sr. Quinn is doing "any good by her choice at the abortion clinic." I answered: Whatever Sr. Quinn might be doing, "We know that all things work for good for those who love God." (Romans 8:28) Therefore, whatever she's doing, whatever her choice, whatever it is... I don't even have to know what it is... it works for good. It's part of God's plan.
Posted by: Terry | Nov 2, 2009 9:40:45 AM
Terry,
Here is the question again: Do you think Sr. Quinn is doing the Catholic Church, and her (her being the Church not Sr. Quinn) faithful witness to the sanctity of all life, any good by her choice at the abortion clinic?
Is Sr. Quinn doing the Catholic Church any good? Not is Sr. Quinn doing a good act by her presence at the clinic.
A pretty simple question I think but since you can't seem to grasp the concept I will state it twice in this post and again ask for a yes or no answer:
Do you think Sr. Quinn is doing the Catholic Church, and her (yet again the 'her' here referring to the Church) faithful witness to the sanctity of all life, any good by her choice at the abortion clinic?
Yes or no please.
Posted by: Lucien Syme | Nov 2, 2009 10:04:09 AM
Lucien, you can't make Terry play the game by your rules. That's not how he rolls.
Posted by: SDG | Nov 2, 2009 10:28:05 AM
Since trolling is not banned on Jimmyakin.org in Da Rulz section. How do you keep someone's constant comments, intentionally meant to confuse, under containment?
Posted by: Lucien Syme | Nov 2, 2009 10:56:30 AM
Lucien, I said nothing that was limited to Sr. Quinn's "presence" at the clinc. Whatever Sr. Quinn might doing at the clinic or in the news or wherever or whatever, whether it's greeting people with a smile or scowl, praying, spreading the Gospel, sweeping floors, pushing people into a blazing furnace, chopping heads off of babies, saying the Rosary or whatever, it does not change what I said. "All things work for good for those who love God", and as the Church loves God, that would mean good for the Church.
Posted by: Terry | Nov 2, 2009 11:08:27 AM
"All things work for good for those who love God", and as the Church loves God, that would mean good for the Church."
So since the Church loves God, the sinfulness of those inside of the Church makes no difference? That is your premise.
Terry, do you believe the molesting priests did a 'good' for the Church? Do you believe the janitor who killed the priest in NJ did a 'good' for the Church and showed his love for her?
How far are you willing to extend this premise? Are there no logical limits?
Posted by: Lucien Syme | Nov 2, 2009 12:38:53 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
