"Many of my friends have expressed a “Not-One-Dime” attitude in response. I want to suggest, however, that this response is precipitous and unwarranted at present. "
It's not unwarranted at all. My approach is that even a hint of an anti-life mentality in an organization is sufficient for me to withdraw my support and redirect my resources toward those organizatons that have an absolute respect for life.
Merry Christmas from Canada.

Leroy,

Thanks very much for the article and the links to the websites, etc. The links are so important to show doubters that certain organizations have indeed taken positions that are antithetical to their traditional, stated missions. I have recently gone through a discussion in our parish to show that Amnesty International supports abortion and should not be given contributions by a Catholic church. The links are necessary to that sort of discussion.

Have a Merry Christmas and keep up the good work.

Tony, I respect that, if that's what one's well-formed conscience requires. At this point, I don't think any money given to the Army is going to anything untoward. If it were, that would be a game-changer for me. At this point, I think it better to regard the Army as an erring friend, and to pray for it and perhaps to write a letter and make a phone call.

Rick, thanks for your kind words.

You had better stop paying your taxes, Tony. The Army is not funding abortions. Can you say the same thing about the Canadian government?

Can anyone closer to the situation illuminate why the Salvation Army needs a position statement on abortion at all? Are they changing the focus of their charitable work or their organizational spending in some way?

habeas,

The Salvation Army is not just a charitable organization. It is a church. Like any other church, it has doctrines and beliefs.

The Salvation Army's justification holds the child responsible for somthing outside of its control. Nonetheless if memory serves, St. Thomas Aquinas weighed relative values in a similar manner, i.e. the potential for the viability of various lives needs to be taken into consideration. I wish life were such that there were situations where there is a pristine and sterile moral field; perhaps the womb is such a place, a sui generis. I would want to hear more from the Salvation Army regarding the reason for their decision before tarring them with the same bush as Planned Parenthood.

Nevertheless, questions will still arise as to how to respond to bell ringers and other solicitations. There is no evidence that the Salvation Army is materially cooperating in the act of abortion, so one could not say that money given to the Salvation Army would be used for an abortion. Although the statement of the international organization could be a prelude to advocating for abortion, as is now done by Amnesty International, it does not appear that the Salvation Army intends to use contributions to advocate for a "right" to abortion.

Since the Salvation Army is actually a church rather than solely a charitable organization, the situation is really no different than whether a person should refuse to contribute to another church's soup kitchen because the church's governing body has a statement in favor of abortion rights.

Thus, while we should be very concerned about the Salvation Army's future direction on the issue, the situation is different than Susan G. Komen, March of Dimes, and Amnesty International.

@Virginia Gentleman: I did try to contact their offices in NYC; haven't heard back.

Glad to hear that the Salvation Army supports safe and legal medical care for women. Now if they'd only stop discriminating against gays. That being said, if you don't like what they're doing, you don't have to fund them. This year, I sent my donations to Mercy Corps.

Good article. When organizations become large bureaucracies, they struggle with this creeping secularism. Possibly because they want to expand their base. I think that's what happened with AA. It used to be very Christian but as its based broadened it had to change its message to include a "higher power", whatever that is. Having said that, Salvation Army still remains very true to its mission and I think that we should continue supporting it and use more carrot than stick in persuading them to amend their position on abortion.

A rational person might think that the Salvation Army's positions and actions were conflicting enough for a "pro-lifer" to give such person pause to reflect on uncompromising moral beliefs. This won't happen, of course. Onward Christian soldiers. Keep up the war with millions of decent and moral folks who simply don't see the world as you do.

It saddens me that the Salvation Army has a wishy-washy position on abortion. I've been giving to the Salvation Army for many years & totally stopped when I read about their position. They do such good work; yet, they are not the only non-profit out there helping people. I want to be 100% sure that my donated money will not go towards anything to do w/anti-life agendas. Alveda King has it right: “Good organizations become ‘infiltrated’ .... When the Salvation Army clarifies its position that reflects 100% pro-life then I will gladly donate to them once again.

Apparently the Salvation Army USA was caught off guard and isn't happy at all with the international SA. Excerpts:

The U.S. branch of the Salvation Army has quickly distanced itself from the Salvation Army International’s controversial stance on abortion as reported by WND. “When I read [the international group's position] I was stunned,” Major George Hood, chief communications officer for Salvation Army USA, told WND. The International Social Justice Commission’s position statement “does not reflect the position we’ve taken in the U.S. on abortion.” “When I saw the language, there was smoke coming out of both my ears,” Hood said. [...]


The stronger position statement of the Salvation Army U.S.A. reads:

“The Salvation Army believes in the sanctity of all human life and considers each person to be of infinite value and each life a gift from God. Therefore, when an unwanted pregnancy occurs, The Salvation Army advises that the situation be accepted and that the pregnancy be carried to term, and offers supportive help and assistance with planning.”

“The Salvation Army recognizes tragic and perplexing circumstances that require difficult decisions regarding a pregnancy. Such decisions should be made only after prayerful and thoughtful consideration, with appropriate involvement of the woman’s family and pastoral, medical and other counsel. A woman in these circumstances needs acceptance, love and compassion.”

[...]

When informed of the International position, Jeff Stanger, development director of the Salvation Army, Indiana Division, told WND, “In a way, you may have done us a favor by calling attention to it. We were a bit caught off guard.”

Major Hood said a process has begun to make the Salvation Army’s position statement “even more tight, more anti-abortion.”

Unfortunately for the protest expressed here, the Salvation Army is not doing anything which would be considered a deviation from the historical Catholic teaching on the subject.


“Although it is virtually unknown in much public international discourse, the Roman Catholic position on abortion is pluralistic. It has a strong "pro-choice" tradition and a conservative anti-choice tradition. Neither is official and neither is more Catholic than the other.”

Professor Daniel C. Maguire, Catholic Theologian, Marquette University

(http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/moderate_RC_position_on_contraception_abortion.htm)

Pope Innocent III and St. Antoninus, after all, supported abortions for reasons not nearly as conservative as those given by the Salvation Army.

So, if the objection to the SA's statement is Catholic orthodoxy then, perhaps we can be done with it and support the Army's excellent work in Minot and elsewhere in the world.

Merry Christmas!

DRF,

"Glad to hear that the Salvation Army supports safe and legal medical care for women."

...to kill innocent children.

Richard,

Of course, if abortion is murder and homosexuality is sin, then these aren't exactly "millions of decent and moral folk" in that regard they? A rational person might think that you could step outside your question begging assumptions for a moment. This won't happen, of course.

Constantine, I hardly think that Maguire is a holder of orthodox teachings on Catholic morality, so he's hardly a voice we should be heeding above the voice of the Magisterium on the issue of abortion.

That said, I'd have to see the specifics of Innocent III's and Antoninus (never heard of him) argument, but they're from an era before the understandings of modern embryology and I would guess that they're working from an Aquinian 40-day 'ensoulment' belief. With the development of modern embryology, fetal development and genetics, as well as the development of doctrine, that is hardly a tenable position any longer except for one who wishes to name-drop to support his own dissent. The fact is that the Catholic/Christian position has historically been that one can never take an innocent life. Full stop. Once life is recognize as present, that moral law kicks in.

Constantine,

Professor Daniel C. Maguire, Catholic Theologian, Marquette University, is very misleading about the Catholic position on abortion. It is the current position of the Catholic Church that any direct abortion, at any time during pregnancy, for whatever reason (including to save the life of the mother), is the killing of an innocent human person. Old concepts like quickening no longer apply.

Having said that, contributing to the charitable work of the Salvation Army, which work has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, can hardly be seen to be support for abortion or even for the Salvation Army's position on abortion, whatever it might be.

It sounds to me like the more liberal statement of the Salvation Army's position on abortion given above is basically the same position as about 95% of politicians who call themselves "pro-life." If you can vote for a politician who would allow exceptions for abortion in the cases of rape, incest, fetal anomalies, and the life of the mother, then certainly you can contribute to the Salvation Army.

Constantine,

You have me puzzled. Do you really think Professor Maguire speaks authoritatively on the Magisterium? Of course, Innocent III did or at least did in the 12th and 13th century. What exactly did he say and in what form?

Don't you think if there were indeed two traditions, you would be able to find a more contemporary reference?

Infanticide is infanticide. It is NOT very nice. There are a multitude of good, pro-life charities. There is no reason to give the Salvation Army a dime. How/why did they get sucked into the Culture of Death?
Christianity disconnected from Peter eventually goes goofy.....

I found the following (long) entry on the Human Life International site very helpful in understanding the Church's policy on surgery and the life of mother and child:

+++++++++++++++

http://www.hli.org/index.php/cloning/400?task=view

Facts of Life: Chapter 9: Catholic Church Teachings on Abortion: Abortion to Save the Life of the Mother -- The Double Effect


Abortion to Save the Life of the Mother — The "Double Effect."

The very rare cases of pregnancy that pose a real and immediate threat to the mother's life — including uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancies — are a source of great confusion, especially among Catholics.

It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans direct abortion to save the life of the mother. However (and this is an extremely important point) the mother's life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly attack the preborn baby's life.

The most common dysfunctions that may set a mother's life against that of her preborn child's are the ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the ovary. Occasionally, cancer of the vulva or vagina may indicate surgical intervention.

In such cases, under the principle of the "double effect," attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the preborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this kind of surgery would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.

The principle of the twofold, or double effect, states that it is morally allowable to perform an action that will produce both good and bad effects as long as the following conditions are all met. The example shown is for the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy, where the preborn child is developing in the Fallopian tube. If the child continues to grow there, the tube will eventually rupture and will probably cause the death of both the mother and the child.[13]

(1) The object of the action to be performed must be good in itself or at least morally neutral. In this case, the object of the surgery is to remove a pathological organ which presents a threat to the life of the woman. By contrast, the object of surgical or chemical abortion is simply to kill the preborn child ["object" is the end toward which an action tends, and does not connote the intention(s) of the operator, as does the word "objective"].


(2) The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect, but must come directly from the action itself. In this case, the good effect (saving the mother's life) is not caused by the bad effect (the death of the preborn child). By contrast, in the case of direct abortion (surgical or chemical abortion), the death of the child is wrongly considered to be the "good" effect.


(3) The evil effect must not be desired in itself but only permitted. In the case of the removal of an ectopic pregnancy, the surgeon does not intend or want to kill the baby; his death is an unintended and unwanted side effect of the surgery. By contrast, the intent of abortion is to kill the preborn child.


(4) There must be a sufficiently grave reason for permitting the evil effect to occur. In this case, the reason is to save the life of the mother, a good that is greater than or equal to the evil effect of the baby's death. Pro-abortion groups often stretch this principle to absurd lengths, going so far as to justify all abortions under the principle of the double effect because, as they allege, all abortions threaten the life of the mother.[14]


(5) Sometimes a fifth condition is added, implicit in (4), above, namely, that there is no other alternative available to solve the problem at hand. If there are alternatives other than the intervention that offer better possibilities to save both mother and preborn child, these of course must be used.

In fact, this last condition is the one that most clearly distinguishes the "indirect abortion" case (the case under the double effect principle) from the "therapeutic" abortion case. "Therapeutic" abortion is direct abortion, and therefore is always gravely evil. It is the abortion committed with the (supposed) intention of saving the mother's life, but where one or more of the above conditions are not met. Basically, the doctor in this case does have alternatives to save both mother and preborn child, but chooses abortion as the most expedient way to solve the problem at hand. The phrase "therapeutic abortion" is in fact an oxymoron, since no direct abortion is therapeutic, i.e. it does not "cure" anyone of an illness, but instead kills an innocent human being.

It is perhaps a sign of the times that abortionists see pregnancy itself as a disease, and abortion as the "cure" for this dreaded malady. At an Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians conference, Willard Cates compared the miracle of pregnancy to a venereal disease when he said that "Unwanted pregnancy is transmitted sexually, is socially and emotionally pathologic ... and has many other characteristics of the conventional venereal diseases. The incubation time, defined as the period between exposure (mid-cycle coitus) and the development of initial symptoms (usually missed menses), averages approximately two weeks."[15] Barbara Roberts said that "It's obvious, therefore, that unwanted pregnancy is the most common venereal disease ... This disease is associated with immense suffering. Seeking to be cured of this disease, women from time have risked pain, mutilation, and death in numbers that really stagger the imagination."[16] And late-term abortionist Warren Hern has said that "[Pregnancy] is an episodic, moderately extended, chronic condition ... defined as an illness ... treated by evacuation of the uterine contents. ... The relationship between the gravid female and the feto-placental unit can be understood best as one of host and parasite. Pregnancy should be seen as a biocultural event in the context of other human illnesses."[17]

The promotion of "therapeutic" abortion by pro-abortionists in countries where abortion is illegal is a strategy they use to not only legalize abortion in these cases, but also to eventually legalize abortion on demand. Exceptions to direct abortion are not only evil in themselves, they also and always lead to abortion on demand.

As medical science advances, surgeons might be able to save the preborn child despite even these serious medical problems. If we ever arrive at the point where the lives of both mother and child can be saved in all cases, the principle of the double effect would not apply.[18]

The principle of the "double effect" also applies to sexual sterilization. If a non-pregnant woman must have a hysterectomy to remove a dangerously cancerous uterus, this will result in her sterilization, but is not a sinful act (provided the above conditions are met). However, if the purpose of the operation is not to heal or safeguard health, but to directly sterilize, then that act is intrinsically evil and is always a mortal sin.[19]

Statement of Intent and Principle.

Pope Pius XII summarized the intent of the double effect when he addressed the Family Front Congress on November 27, 1951; "Both for the one and the other, the demand cannot be but this: To use every means to save the life of both the mother and the child."[20]

Pius also stated the general principle of the "double effect" on October 29, 1951, at his address to the Italian Union of Midwives. This speech is codified in the Pope's Acta Apostilicae Sedis, 43(1951), page 855.

Article 14 of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Declaration on Procured Abortion reiterates it.

The pertinent passage of this document reads;

Deliberately we have always used the expression 'direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,' 'direct killing.' Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions — granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.

Yet More Silliness.

As described in Human Life International's course on "Winning Pro-Life Debates," one of the most effective general tactics employed by pro-abortionists and other anti-lifers involves the assertion that "this is not a black and white question." In other words, the pro-aborts would have us believe that there is some enormous (and necessarily undefined) grey area within which many ethical questions fall.

Of course, this concept is the ultimate red herring: According to 'Catholics' for a Free Choice and other phony 'Christians,' any abortion that any woman wants inevitably falls into this "gray area."

As with every other ethical and moral question posed to pro-abortionists, "wanna-be" theologians stretch the 'double effect' to cover all abortions, and the effects are frequently comical. For example, John Swomley, a propagandist for the 'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR, now RCRC), claims that "The Roman church argues that although the death of the fetus is foreseen, it is not intended because the intention is to preserve the health and life of the woman. Isn't it just as reasonable to assert that the intention of most women is the separation of the fetus from the woman, not the killing of the fetus, though its death may be foreseen?"[21]

Swomley obviously is not familiar with the principle of the double effect, which requires that the act producing two effects must itself be a morally good or neutral act to begin with. The only purpose of an abortion is to kill the unborn child, and such an action can never be good or even morally neutral, regardless of the circumstances or intentions surrounding it.

Canon law requires that the desired effect (in Swomley's example, "separation of the fetus from the woman") must be accomplished in such a way as to best assure the survival of both mother and child. Thus, the approved method to achieve "separation" would be the natural termination of pregnancy known as "birth," occurring at about nine months' gestation.

Additionally, if the intention of most women is the "separation of the fetus from the woman," why do 1.6 million women reject adoption each year? And why do abortionists deliberately use methods designed to kill preborn babies in late abortions? It is plain that the purpose of abortion is indeed to produce a dead baby.

+++++++++++++

Best,

Richard

I have to agree with David Nickol on this, especially in light of the statement from the US wing of SA. It is all but certain that none of the donations given to SA will go to fund abortion or to promote abortion. In fact, based on this part of the statement - " The Salvation Army advises that the situation be accepted and that the pregnancy be carried to term, and offers supportive help and assistance with planning.” - it is likley your donations will actually help assist mothers in choosing not to abort based on the support provided by SA.

Hi David,

Merry Christmas to you, too!

You are exactly right when you when you say, “the current position of the Catholic Church that any direct abortion, at any time during pregnancy, for whatever reason (including to save the life of the mother), is the killing of an innocent human person.” The question is on what basis does the current position invalidate any previous positions. You see, that is very dangerous territory for Catholics because it is the position of the Church of Rome that it cannot err and is protected by the Holy Spirit in the matter of faith and morals. So while the “current” position may be what you say, that has not ALWAYs been the case. If the “current position” is correct, and it contradicts previous positions, where can one find the retraction or amendment of the previous doctrines? That’s another sticky wicket.

The Salvation Army's current position is really no different from the pre-20th century Catholic version.


Please have a wonderful Christmas season!

Peace.

Hi Mike Melendez,

No. But I do think that Professor Maguire, as an historian and theologian, accurately describes the historical teaching of the Magisterium. (Please see my earlier response which describes the gist of Innocent’s thought.)


Well, there were at least two, and maybe more, traditions unless, of course, you can disqualify a pope and a saint. That much is just historical record.
And your request for a more “modern” reference is very interesting. It implies what Maguire asserts, namely that this doctrine can change and only the more modern is referenceable.


So the diatribe against the Salvation Army is based solely on modern interpretations of Roman Catholic teaching which have not always been the case.

Merry Christmas to you!

Constantine,

"So the diatribe against the Salvation Army is based solely on modern interpretations of Roman Catholic teaching which have not always been the case."

First of all, let me say that I am a Protestant (PCA, to be precise). So I have no personal interest in whether or not the Roman Catholic church is being consistent or whether you are accurately representing the situation.

My response to you will be more narrowly focused. And that is, to put it simply: so what? Your response looks like a red-herring, though perhaps not intentionally so on your part. Maybe you are a Roman Catholic and so the supposed conflict between earlier and later teaching causes you some cognitive dissonance.

But here is why I say "so what?" -

The article doesn't object to the SA's position because it is against Roman Catholic teaching. The article simply takes it for granted that abortion is wrong.

And Roman Catholics put forth reasoned objections to abortion outside of the "this is what Roman Catholic teaching says" (e.g. Francis Beckwith). Indeed, one would think the RC teaches what it currently does precisely because of such reasons.

And while the Roman Catholic church teaching a more permissible view towards abortion in the past may be of interest to questions about RC theology and the development of teachings and its ecclesiology, it has no relevance to their reasons for their current position on abortion, which can stand with or without RC teaching on the nature of its ecclesiastical body.

In other words, even if we must conclude that the RC church's claims about it's ecclesiology are flawed, it wouldn't invalidate the arguments Roman Catholics have recently set forth against all forms of abortion. One might just conclude that the RC church's current arguments against abortion are sound and, therefore, their current conclusion is sound. One might then conclude that this is in conflict with previous RC teaching and, thus, entails that one should become a Protestant or something like that... though I doubt it.

Either way, your objection looks peripheral at best - having to do with a question about how teachings can and can't develop in Roman Catholic theology and whether they in fact have developed and having nothing to do with abortion per se.

Merry Christmas!

1. "Having said that, contributing to the charitable work of the Salvation Army, which work has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, can hardly be seen to be support for abortion or even for the Salvation Army's position on abortion, whatever it might be..."

2. "The Salvation Army is against same-sex marriage and gay rights. Why should anyone who believes in gay rights support them when (if you are like me) every day in the mail you get appeals from so many worthy charities that you can’t hope to give to all of them?..."

One of these things is not the same as the other...

figgy pudding,

First: Well done!

Second: Merry Christmas to you, too!

Constantine,

I'm asking you to make your case. Vague references to Innocent III without specific pointers are not very convincing. At least point to Professor Maguire making the case: a book or a specific article. Claiming something, simply because you believe it, is not a good foundation for making an argument.

Representative Pelosi made the same claim. In a public letter to her, her bishop detailed the argument against the claim quoting all the way back to the recorded beginning of the institutional church, the Didache. She provided no counterargument except the simple claim. Certainly you can do better.

From the Didache, Chapter 2, late 1st or early 2nd century:

"Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not corrupt youth; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use soothsaying; thou shalt not practice sorcery; thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born; thou shalt not covet the goods of thy neighbor;"

Until you make your case, all the rest of your conclusions are merely beliefs of your personal faith not the Catholic church based in Rome.

For those who are interested, I've found a pretty good summary of Catholic teaching regarding abortion on a non-Catholic web site:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c.htm

Note, in particular, what it says about Innocent III. Guesses about when "ensoulment" occurs appear to be the source of these dual tradition ideas. Fact is, we do not know the exact moment and science cannot tell us. Indeed, the "ensoulment" ideas appear to depend on the state of scientific knowledge of the day, not to mention the common prejudices. Science has advanced a bit since then and we know a full set of DNA becomes available at conception. Regardless, the Catholic Church has always taught that abortion was immoral.

As for the dual tradition, I give you Paul Simon's The Boxer, "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

@Constantine 12/23/2011 11:50 AM


Sorry so late to bring you a response, but the USCCB responds to Fr. Maguire in (http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/sexuality/statement-concerning-two-pamphlets-published-by-professor-daniel-maguire.cfm).

I'll give you the concluding paragraph:

"Conclusion

The Archbishop of Milwaukee, exercising his pastoral responsibilities as teacher and shepherd, has made public statements affirming that the views expressed by Professor Maguire in his two pamphlets are erroneous and incompatible with the Church's teaching. [24] We the Committee on Doctrine of the USCCB concur that, despite his claims to authority as a Catholic theologian, the views of Professor Maguire on contraception, abortion, and same-sex "marriage" are not those of the Catholic Church and indeed are contrary to the Church's faith. We deplore as irresponsible his public advocacy of his views as authentic Catholic teaching. Lastly, we trust that this statement will clarify the Church's faith and teaching for all of the Catholic faithful throughout the United States."

Self-explanatory, eh?

I agree with Fr. Michael. SA helped my dad get my dad a flight home when he was a poor young man in the Navy, so I used to give to them. Now, no way. this statement “The Salvation Army recognizes tragic and perplexing circumstances that require difficult decisions regarding a pregnancy. Such decisions should be made only after prayerful and thoughtful consideration, with appropriate involvement of the woman’s family and pastoral, medical and other counsel. A woman in these circumstances needs acceptance, love and compassion.” ignores or even denies in its very silence the fact that the baby needs acceptance, love, and compassion. I just went through this with a family member who had a baby dx'd with trisomy 13, and they did kill the baby.

Who we support matters, including their philosophy on the basic dignity of all human life. Would you continue to support them if they were just a "little" off on slavery? Only in extreme circumstances, and under advisement of family, pastor, and other counsel? And, yes, it is not the same thing. Most slaves got to live.

Abortion is to target another living being for annihilation.

It is to directly, intentionally to will the *death* of another, and to set about putting into motion the means precisely and exactly to bring death about. And no other, but death is to succeed.

Abortion is to take up weapons of destruction - scalpels, poisons, suction machines - against one who has done nothing worthy of punishment, worthy of death. Against one who doesn't have a voice. Against one who never had a chance.

Abortion is to *deal death*.

"Freeze!"

"Put down the scalpel and step away from the baby!"

"Put down the poison and put your hands in the air!"

"Put it on the ground where I can see it! Do it now!"

"Do you have any other weapons on you?"

Weapons. . . . deployed against babies.

No. Salvation Army. No.

I know in the past some popes have varied on what canonical crime abortion fell under and some appealed to ensoulment for their position, but I have yet to see anyone produce evidence that the Church approved of direct and deliberate abortion in certain circumstances. As my parish priest said when I informed him that one of my confirmands thought abortion was ok: "She's in the wrong church."

drf 12/23/11 Supporting a mother in her determination to murder her unborn child is is not related in the slighest way to providing "safe and legal medical care for women." Wake up. Nor is this issue limited to saving individual children's lives alone. For centuries - all of human history, really - mothers have been ready to protect their children, even with their own lives if necessary. That is what motherhood is. We have finally entered into a generation where mothers are fighting for the right to destroy their own babies. Such an aggregious manipulation and deviation of the role of motherhood is a cancer on all humanity.

I am guessing no one who was in that valley is conflicted about the SA because of their stance on homosexuality. When the rivers rise around you who else will volunteer to be there to offer you a helping hand with with gas vouchers, Walmart cards, food, clothing and most of all, love?