The Shame of the Abortion Nun

by Jimmy Akin

in Abortion

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.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

{ 132 comments }

bill912 October 27, 2009 at 9:18 am

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.

bill912 October 27, 2009 at 9:20 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.)

Mary October 27, 2009 at 9:42 am

History will believe it.
History will be properly horrified, but it will believe it.

Yeoman October 27, 2009 at 9:53 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.

Ed Peters October 27, 2009 at 11:04 am

You’re a born optimist, Jimmy. :) edp.

Maureen October 27, 2009 at 2:45 pm

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.

JoAnna October 27, 2009 at 3:25 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.

Nathan Tyler October 27, 2009 at 4:58 pm

“I hope it’s just mental illness or something like that.”
Liberalism?

Dean Soto October 27, 2009 at 8:39 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.

BobCatholic October 28, 2009 at 1:14 am

Mirror worshiping knows no bounds.

The Masked Chicken October 28, 2009 at 5:58 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

Dan October 28, 2009 at 7:46 am

This is disgusting. This is happening right in my back yard. I live near here!

Dan October 28, 2009 at 7:57 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 http://www.dioceseofjoliet.org

Barbara October 28, 2009 at 8:16 am

Now that she has been exposed, I have every confidence that something will be done. But then I’m a Perennial Pollyana.

Anon October 28, 2009 at 2:50 pm

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.

David B. October 28, 2009 at 3:08 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.

Amy P. October 28, 2009 at 6:08 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.

Terry October 28, 2009 at 6:16 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.

Terry October 28, 2009 at 7:08 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.

bill bannon October 28, 2009 at 7:43 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.

Larry October 28, 2009 at 7:43 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!

Larry October 28, 2009 at 7:45 pm

Oops… my comment should have been directed at Terry, not Amy P.
Sorry about that!

The Pachyderminator October 28, 2009 at 7:55 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.

JoAnna October 28, 2009 at 9:05 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.

JoAnna October 28, 2009 at 9:06 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.

Bob October 28, 2009 at 10:21 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.

ChristopherY October 29, 2009 at 5:05 am

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.

Terry October 29, 2009 at 5:48 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?

Tim J. October 29, 2009 at 6:25 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.

Lucien Syme October 29, 2009 at 7:09 am

Terry,
Why do you attempt to cite as official Catholic sources of authority the American Life League and Ascension Health?

Terry October 29, 2009 at 7:30 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.

SDG October 29, 2009 at 8:40 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.

Inocencio October 29, 2009 at 8:49 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

Ed Peters October 29, 2009 at 9:20 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!

Brian Walden October 29, 2009 at 9:38 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?

SDG October 29, 2009 at 9:43 am

“Folks, at first I thought Terry’s question was serious”

I hope, sir, you learned your lesson.

Tim J. October 29, 2009 at 9:52 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

Lucien Syme October 29, 2009 at 10:10 am

Okay from now on I understand ignore Terry – got it!

Ed Peters October 29, 2009 at 10:53 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.

BobCatholic October 29, 2009 at 11:46 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?

Terry October 29, 2009 at 12:13 pm

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.”

SDG October 29, 2009 at 12:19 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.

Terry October 29, 2009 at 12:28 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.

Inocencio October 29, 2009 at 12:48 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

SDG October 29, 2009 at 12:51 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.

SDG October 29, 2009 at 1:06 pm

P.S. Besides, you don’t really throw them away. You’ve hearkened back to the “white crayon on white paper” bit yourself.

Terry October 29, 2009 at 2:11 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.

Inocencio October 29, 2009 at 3:00 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

The Pachyderminator October 29, 2009 at 3:08 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.)

Hee-yah October 29, 2009 at 3:25 pm

Troll in the hood

Terry October 29, 2009 at 3:49 pm

Inocencio,

Causing scandal is sinful.

If you’re interested in her sins, perhaps if you contact her, she might give you a list.

Inocencio October 29, 2009 at 4:16 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

Terry October 29, 2009 at 4:37 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.

Matt Yonke October 29, 2009 at 4:56 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?

Matt Yonke October 29, 2009 at 4:58 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)?

Terry October 29, 2009 at 6:51 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.

JoAnna October 29, 2009 at 9:41 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.

Terry October 30, 2009 at 12:16 am

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.

John F. Kennedy October 30, 2009 at 7:00 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.

Brian Walden October 30, 2009 at 7:17 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.

The Masked Chicken October 30, 2009 at 7:17 am

Test

The Masked Chicken October 30, 2009 at 7:18 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

c matt October 30, 2009 at 8:02 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.

diane October 30, 2009 at 8:21 am

Don’t enable the Concern Troll.
My two cents’ worth, fwiw, which ain’t much. :)

Lucien Syme October 30, 2009 at 9:45 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.

Dominic October 30, 2009 at 1:47 pm

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.
+++

Terry October 30, 2009 at 2:12 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.

Dominic October 30, 2009 at 2:36 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.
+++

tizoc October 30, 2009 at 2:42 pm

*sigh*
Terry, if you don’t want to go to Milwaukee, what are you doing on the train?

Terry October 30, 2009 at 3:48 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.

John F. Kennedy October 30, 2009 at 4:03 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”.

Terry October 30, 2009 at 5:43 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.

The Masked Chicken October 30, 2009 at 5:43 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

Terry October 30, 2009 at 5:57 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.

The Masked Chicken October 30, 2009 at 7:03 pm

That’s okay. I didn’t have anything important to say, anyway.
The Chicken

BobCatholic October 30, 2009 at 8:07 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.

Terry October 30, 2009 at 10:13 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?

Terry October 31, 2009 at 3:11 am

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

Lucien Syme October 31, 2009 at 8:48 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,”

Dominic October 31, 2009 at 12:00 pm

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.
+++

Terry October 31, 2009 at 1:05 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)

Terry October 31, 2009 at 1:10 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.

Dominic October 31, 2009 at 4:53 pm

You twist and pervert Scripture to support this open heretic.
Dominic.
+++

Michaelis October 31, 2009 at 5:02 pm

Exorcism
period

Lucien Syme November 1, 2009 at 11:49 am

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.

Terry November 1, 2009 at 3:43 pm

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.”

Lucien Syme November 1, 2009 at 5:53 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.

Terry November 1, 2009 at 6:22 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.

BobCatholic November 1, 2009 at 6:39 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….

Terry November 2, 2009 at 2:25 am

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.

Tom Simon November 2, 2009 at 5:32 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.

Lucien Syme November 2, 2009 at 6:10 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.

Terry November 2, 2009 at 7:06 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.

Lucien Syme November 2, 2009 at 8:17 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.

Terry November 2, 2009 at 9:40 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.

Lucien Syme November 2, 2009 at 10:04 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.

SDG November 2, 2009 at 10:28 am

Lucien, you can’t make Terry play the game by your rules. That’s not how he rolls.

Lucien Syme November 2, 2009 at 10:56 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?

Terry November 2, 2009 at 11:08 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.

Lucien Syme November 2, 2009 at 12:38 pm

“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?

Tim J. November 2, 2009 at 12:49 pm

I recommend we starve the troll.

Terry November 2, 2009 at 1:53 pm

Lucien,

So since the Church loves God, the sinfulness of those inside of the Church makes no difference? That is your premise.

Your “no difference” premise is yours, not mine. The Church teaches that God permits evil in order to draw forth “some greater good”, not “make no difference”. Of course, difference is relative, so depending upon the basis for comparison, there may or may not be a difference.

Terry, do you believe the molesting priests did a ‘good’ for the Church?

Evil as molestation may be, as all things work for good, so too molestation works for good. But if you were to specify with clarity a particular act, and particularly as necessary in terms of intentions, facts, circumstances, etc., and ask if such act is moral to will, you might get a different answer. Please be aware that phrases like “Sister Quinn’s choice at the abortion clinic” and words like “escort” mean different things to different people, and with respect to such, I may not respond with a “yes” or “no” to suit your belief that I know what you’re talking about.

Tim J. November 2, 2009 at 2:20 pm

Please quit feeding it.
It will apparently pick up anything on the nursery floor and put it in its mouth.
It’s my guess that it has choked on something and this has restricted the flow of oxygen to its brain.
Let it be.

Lucien Syme November 2, 2009 at 3:12 pm

Understood Tim J.,
I really just wanted to see how far Terry could be pushed in this instance; if he might actually answer a question directly.
I wonder how much he actually adheres to in what he types or if it is all an act of absurdity. I think more of the latter being probable.
I did say a Memorare for his intention and will drop any further communications with him. How do we warn others to constantly disregard him? So that confusion is kept to a minimum or is that no longer important?

Tim J. November 3, 2009 at 7:29 am

Sorry if I sounded like I was picking on you especially, Lucien. Just frustrated that Jimmy’s fine blog seems to draw what seems like a higher-than-average number of keyboard space cadets with too much time on their hands.
Just so much intellectual clutter to wade through.

Mike Petrik November 3, 2009 at 2:35 pm

We know that in everything God works for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose.
This is the more modern and accurate translation of the Scriptural soundbite that Terry seems to think supports his/her rather bizarre understandings.

Terry November 3, 2009 at 2:55 pm

This is the more modern and accurate translation of the Scriptural soundbite…

Just so much intellectual clutter to wade through.

Opinions galore. It’s truly exquisite! Thank you for your contribution! The realist is the one who recognizes the Word of God, in this apparently weak and “cluttered” reality, as the foundation of all things. By the very fact of their having been created, all things are endowed with their own stability, truth, goodness, proper laws and order which man must respect. In Christ, all things, including “intellectual clutter” aka “flowers of the mind”, hold together. All is created from the Word and all is called to serve the Word. All of creation, in the end, is conceived of to create the place of encounter between God and his creature, a place where the history of love between God and his creature can develop. It is the motive for everything. Everything is created so that this story can exist, the encounter between God and his creature.
There’s a great and wonderful danger in seeing things as only “intellectual clutter”. There is always a need for “exquisivi”. We must always look for the Word within the words. By entering into the Word of God, we escape the limits of our experience and enter into the reality that is truly universal. We go beyond our limitations. We go towards the depths, in the true grandeur of the only truth, the great truth of God.
To “sum up in Christ all things”, “to see God in all things and all things in God” is to live in a spirit of constant praise. In a world in which hope is all too often absent, the rediscovery of God’s goodness, both in His creation and in people, restores purpose to life and leads to thanksgiving. Let us rejoice in God’s eternal wisdom which “reacheth from end to end mightily and ordereth all things sweetly.” Rejoice always. Pray without ceasing. In all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus.

Tim J. November 3, 2009 at 4:09 pm

* y-a-a-a-w-w-w-n… *

BobCatholic November 3, 2009 at 4:18 pm

>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.”
So using your logic, those who “escorted” black people to KKK lynchings were just doing God’s will. Right. Right. Gotcha.
I vehemently disagree with you. You will have a lot to explain about why you hate the unborn.

bill912 November 3, 2009 at 4:40 pm

“…God ‘neither wills evil to be done, nor wills it not to be done’…”
I smell the smoke of Satan. Of course, God DOES will that evil NOT be done. To attribute the above to God is the sin of Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit; i.e., attributing to God what is actually the action or will of Satan.
Terry desperately needs our prayers. I also think that, for the sake of his soul, he needs to be banned from posting here, atleast for some time. Posting here has become an occasion of sin for him. The more he posts such blasphemies, the more he will become inured to the midden in which he is rolling, the more hardened the shell of habitual evil with which he is surrounding himself will become.

Terry November 3, 2009 at 6:09 pm

So using your logic, those who “escorted” black people to KKK lynchings were just doing God’s will… I vehemently disagree with you.

BobCatholic, perhaps you “vehemently disagree” with your own interpretation of what you think I said. If so, you disagree with yourself. What happens to a house divided against itself? The word “escort” can have many meanings. Which meaning have you chosen? May the Good Shepherd escort you in your choice.

I smell the smoke of Satan. Of course, God DOES will that evil NOT be done. To attribute the above to God is the sin of Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit; i.e., attributing to God what is actually the action or will of Satan. Terry desperately needs our prayers… The more he posts such blasphemies…

Bill912, what are you smoking? The quote that 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,” is from Summa Theologiae, la, q. xix, a. 9, ad 3m of St. Thomas, of which Pope Leo XIII said, “This saying of the Angelic Doctor contains briefly the whole doctrine of the permission of evil.”
May I remind you that the Church teaches that he becomes guilty:
– of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor
– of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
Everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.
Thank you, Bill.

bill912 November 3, 2009 at 6:43 pm

St. Thomas was writing of God’s PERMISSIVE Will, not his ACTIVE will. This post is about evil ACTIONS. Terry made my point: he continues to roll in the midden, and desperately needs our prayers.

Terry November 3, 2009 at 7:59 pm

Bill912,

St. Thomas was writing of God’s PERMISSIVE Will, not his ACTIVE will. This post is about evil ACTIONS.

Are not rash judgment and calumny evil actions?
As to Sr. Quinn’s actions, she reportedly volunteered as an “escort”. What does that mean apart from Sr. Quinn submitting to God’s permissive will? If to “escort” means to spend time with someone, where is the “evil action”? If “escort” means to guide someone as they struggle with a choice, where’s the “evil action” with that? Women can be arriving at the clinic for many reasons, including things other than abortion. Even in regard to abortions, women may continue to consider their choices after arrival at the clinic with every step of the way until it’s too late. Should the women be abandoned while there’s still time to change their minds?
The Church teaches, “Everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.” It must be possible to interpret Sr. Quinn’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way, for Jesus said, “Everything is possible to one who has faith.”

Tim J. November 4, 2009 at 5:21 am

You know, “Terry”, it might do you some good to give some thought as to why you are continually drawn to post here (under your various aliases), even though JA.O readers find your antagonistic, sophistic or just plain nonsensical posts tiresome, if not offensive.
This desire to continually play the spoiler is as old and pathetic as Satan. But maybe that’s the point.

Terry November 4, 2009 at 5:46 am

You know, “Terry”, it might do you some good to give some thought as to…

Tim, like I said, “All of creation, in the end, is conceived of to create the place of encounter between God and his creature, a place where the history of love between God and his creature can develop. It is the motive for everything. Everything is created so that this story can exist, the encounter between God and his creature.”
Public Statement of the Sinsinawa Dominican Congregation

11/2/09
Several months ago, the leadership of the Sinsinawa Dominicans was informed that Sister Donna Quinn, OP, acted as a volunteer escort at a Chicago area clinic that among other procedures, performs abortions. After investigating the allegation, Congregation leaders have informed Sr. Donna that her actions are in violation of her profession as a Dominican religious. They regret that her actions have created controversy and resulted in public scandal. They are working with Sr. Donna to resolve the matter appropriately.
Congregation leaders offer the following statement on behalf of members of the Congregation. We as Sinsinawa Dominican women are called to proclaim the Gospel through the ministry of preaching and teaching to participate in the building of a holy and just society. As Dominican religious, we fully support the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the dignity and value of every human life from conception to natural death. We believe that abortion is an act of violence that destroys the life of the unborn. We do not engage in activity that witnesses to support of abortion.

Sr. Donna’s response as reported in the news:

“I want to be clear that this is my decision,” she said in a statement Tuesday, saying she would suspend her role as a peacekeeper outside the ACU Health Clinic in Hinsdale. “Respect for women’s moral agency is of critical importance to me, and I look forward to continuing to dialogue with our congregation on these matters as a way of informing my actions as well as educating the community.”

Quinn said the order’s announcement only served to stir more controversy. A private meeting to discuss her position had been set for later this month, she said.

“I am disappointed that the process agreed upon was circumvented,” she said. “As a peacekeeper, my goal is to enable women to enter a reproductive health clinic in dignity and without fear of being physically assaulted. … I am very worried that the publicity around my presence will lead to violations of every woman’s right to privacy and expose them to further violence.”

“I take this opportunity to urge those demonstrating against women who are patients at the Hinsdale Clinic, whom I have seen emotionally as well as physically threaten women, to cease those activities,” she said. “I would never have had to serve as a peacekeeper had not they created a war against women.”

So there you have it… Congregation leaders informed her that “peacekeeping” is a “violation of her profession as a Dominican religious”. Who’d have thought that? Perhaps that’s why they had to inform her.

SDG November 4, 2009 at 6:25 am

“So there you have it… Congregation leaders informed her that ‘peacekeeping’ is a ‘violation of her profession as a Dominican religious’. Who’d have thought that? Perhaps that’s why they had to inform her.”

Terry, do you consider this characterization of the congregation leaders’ reported correction to be in keeping with a preference to give a favorable interpretation of others’ statements?

Lucien Syme November 4, 2009 at 6:49 am

Not to encourage Terry in any way I would like to state that Sr. Quinn sounded very contrite and sincere in her statement (that was me being sarcastic).
It always goes to show you, if you do not repent – you will resent.

Inocencio November 4, 2009 at 7:04 am

“peacekeeping”
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! -Isa %:20
“We do not engage in activity that witnesses to support of abortion.”
It appears that Sr. Donna’s scandalous actions spoke louder than her deceitful words…
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Terry November 4, 2009 at 7:05 am

Terry, do you consider this characterization of the congregation leaders’ reported correction to be in keeping with a preference to give a favorable interpretation of others’ statements?

In that “peacekeeping” is a word that Sr. Donna apparently favors to characterize “her actions”, yes. However, in that my continuously revising dictionary now includes “peacekeeping: Sr. Donna’s actions”, it is neither favorable nor unfavorable, but simply an “in other words”. Meanwhile, the Sinsinawa Dominican Congregation was not exactly clear what “her actions” are that are “in violation”.

Tim J. November 4, 2009 at 7:13 am

“Meanwhile, the Sinsinawa Dominican Congregation was not exactly clear what “her actions” are that are “in violation”.”
What, O, what could it be?… To what actions could they possibly be referring? It’s all such a muddle!

SDG November 4, 2009 at 7:30 am

“In that “peacekeeping” is a word that Sr. Donna apparently favors to characterize “her actions”, yes. However, in that my continuously revising dictionary now includes “peacekeeping: Sr. Donna’s actions”, it is neither favorable nor unfavorable, but simply an “in other words”. Meanwhile, the Sinsinawa Dominican Congregation was not exactly clear what “her actions” are that are “in violation”.”

In that case, why are you so sure that the actions rejected by the Congregation can be characterized as “peacekeeping” even by Sr. Donna’s lexicon? Why do you find the Congregation’s statement so seemingly counter-intuitive (“Who’d have thought that? Perhaps that’s why they had to inform her”)? Why is your tone so conclusive (“So there you have it”)?
The proposition that you neither perceived nor intended the perception of any disconnect or dissonance between “peacekeeping” and “violation of her profession as a Dominican religious” seems improbable enough that I doubt you will baldly claim it.

Terry November 4, 2009 at 9:47 am

To what actions could they possibly be referring?

Perhaps more or less than I might intuit.

why are you so sure that the actions rejected by the Congregation can be characterized as “peacekeeping” even by Sr. Donna’s lexicon?

I said I was using my lexicon, wherein I may find “peacekeeping: Sr. Donna’s actions”. That may refer to any action of Sr. Donna, whether rejected by the Congregation or not. And by “In that ‘peacekeeping’ is a word that Sr. Donna apparently favors to characterize ‘her actions’“, I mean: to the extent that “peacekeeping” is a word that Sr. Donna apparently favors to characterize “her actions”, whether rejected by the Congregation or not. If in fact she does not use “peacekeeping” to refer to all the actions that the Congregation claims to reject, then those actions as “peacekeeping” simply fall under my own lexicon and not hers.

Why do you find the Congregation’s statement so seemingly counter-intuitive (“Who’d have thought that? Perhaps that’s why they had to inform her”)?

By “Who’d have thought that? Perhaps that’s why they had to inform her,” I’m asking a number of things, including the question of whether Sr. Donna already knew whatever it was that the Congregation was reportedly informing her; whether the Congregation thought she already knew; whether the Congregation’s statement was intending to imply that she didn’t know, etc.

The proposition that you neither perceived nor intended the perception of any disconnect or dissonance between “peacekeeping” and “violation of her profession as a Dominican religious” seems improbable enough that I doubt you will baldly claim it.

If it happens that perceived dissonance between “peacekeeping” and “violation of her profession as a Dominican religious” heightens the question I asked in any way, so be it. Likewise, if it happens to appear that I intended to point to an apparent disconnect, paradox, or however it’s seen to be, so be it.

SDG November 4, 2009 at 10:21 am

“I said I was using my lexicon, wherein I may find “peacekeeping: Sr. Donna’s actions”. That may refer to any action of Sr. Donna, whether rejected by the Congregation or not.”

I wasn’t aware that even Sr. Donna had suggested that any action of hers qualified as “peacekeeping.” Does your rulebook oblige you to accommodate any intersubjective considerations whatsoever for your lexicographal choices, or do you follow the semantic nihilism of Humpty Dumpty? If so, I think our dialogue ends here.

“By “Who’d have thought that? Perhaps that’s why they had to inform her,” I’m asking a number of things, including the question of whether Sr. Donna already knew whatever it was that the Congregation was reportedly informing her; whether the Congregation thought she already knew; whether the Congregation’s statement was intending to imply that she didn’t know, etc.”

To what end would you have asked those questions? “Who’d have thought that?” seems to be a question about what other people would think, and seems to suggest that most people would be surprised to learn the truth of the proposition in question (i.e., that “peacekeeping” was “contrary to her vocation,” etc.). Given how you have lately defined “peacekeeping” to include any action of Sr. Donna’s, this supposition would seem nonsensical (why would anyone be surprised to learn that some wholly unspecified action of a particular nun was contrary to her vocation?).

Terry November 4, 2009 at 12:10 pm

I wasn’t aware that even Sr. Donna had suggested that any action of hers qualified as “peacekeeping.”

As “any” can mean “some” ot “one or more”, it would seem apparent from Sr. Donna’s words that she suggests at least some or one or more of her actions qualify as “peacekeeping”. Similarly, I only said that it may refer to any action of Sr. Donna, as in some, or one or more, but not necessarily every.

Does your rulebook oblige you to accommodate any intersubjective considerations whatsoever for your lexicographal choices, or do you follow the semantic nihilism of Humpty Dumpty?

I accommodate every intersubjective consideration ever invented — and a good many that haven’t been invented just yet.

“Who’d have thought that?” seems to be a question about what other people would think, and seems to suggest that most people would be surprised to learn the truth of the proposition in question

I was asking from a supposed view of Sr. Donna, as if perhaps she didn’t already know (as perhaps suggested by the statement that the Congregation leaders had informed her). Perhaps she was surprised.

SDG November 4, 2009 at 1:22 pm

“I accommodate every intersubjective consideration ever invented — and a good many that haven’t been invented just yet.”

Then they aren’t intersubjective. Which seems to put you in Humpty Dumpty’s camp. I’m sorry. I had begun to think you enjoyed playing with others. At the moment, it seems you want to play by (or with) yourself. Cheers.

Terry November 4, 2009 at 2:59 pm

I had begun to think you enjoyed playing with others. At the moment, it seems you want to play by (or with) yourself. Cheers.

I always enjoy playing with others! Like bouncing a ball back and forth, you passed to me a Humpty Dumpty quote in a question, and I passed back to you your question answered in a Humpty Dumpty quote. Perhaps it’s you who doesn’t enjoy playing with others. Indeed, at the moment, it seems you want to play by (or with) yourself. Cheers!

BobCatholic November 5, 2009 at 4:40 am

>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.”
Here, the nun is escorting people to do evil – the slaughter of the unborn.
I keep asking you why you hate the unborn. And you give me empty platitudes of “love” which you do not show to the unborn.

Gail F November 7, 2009 at 5:48 am

I am amazed at the amount of time and attention people are giving this Terry person, who is obviously not interested in anything but trying to twist other people’s arguments into the strangest shapes imaginable. I suppose it can be good for one’s argument skills to practice… but as for Terry, I remind everyone that even the Devil can quote scripture.
Personally, I think it’s incredibly sad that a religious sister can convince herself that escorting women to an abortion clinic is a Christian thing to do. Over the centuries, religious congregations have had to be reformed or closed many times. Today we don’t seem to shut them down, we just let them die out. I’m not sure that that is a better solution.

Lucien Syme November 7, 2009 at 2:09 pm

Gail,
I think Jimmy Akin and SDG are using the same approach with Terry that the Vatican uses with Congregations that sprint away from the Church teachings.
Instead of just shutting them down, seeming uncharitable in the process, they allow them to die off from their own iniquity.
This also allows the door to remain open to the possibility of repentance. From my perspective it would seem quite rare that would actually happen with heretical religious let alone Terry the Troll.

Terry November 25, 2009 at 4:08 pm

I keep asking you why you hate the unborn.

Are you asking in reference to Luke 14:26? “If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”
Otherwise, I’ll point you back to Canon 1526 §1 which says, “The burden of proof rests upon the person who makes the allegation.”

this Terry person, who is obviously not interested in anything but trying to twist other people’s arguments into the strangest shapes imaginable.

“This Terry person” that you see is a twist of your imagination. Be untwisted, love your neighbor as yourself.

Lucien Syme November 25, 2009 at 6:41 pm

You see there is something to be thankful for after all…Terry is back!

Inocencio November 26, 2009 at 2:30 am

White crayon on white paper…

Previous post:

Next post: