UPDATE: Mr. Ruse has responded to this posting in the comments section at the end. As indicated in my responses, I will do a follow up post as soon as I can.---------------------------
Catch up on the article written by Austin Ruse here. More background on his comments here and here.
Austin Ruse has been for me a pro-life hero with his Friday Fax publication and work at the UN. I do
my best to financially support his work but this latest rant raises doubts
about the future credibility of his work, sad to say.
Ruse asks:
But her challenger’s chances aside, the more interesting question is
what is the duty of the Catholic politician when it comes to contraceptives?
But he’s asking the wrong question, isn’t he? The correct
question is:
What is the duty of ANY Catholic when it comes to contraceptives?
And the answer clears the waters immediately: Any and every
Catholic must adhere to the Church teaching on the intrinsic
evil of contraception and avoid use of all artificial contraception—on pain
of mortal sin—and, in addition, oppose every effort to damage the common good
of society by unjust laws that advocate for such evils.
There, that wasn’t so hard at all, was it? And the amazing
thing is that everyone who has the slightest clue about being a Catholic knows
precisely this. Yet most Catholics personally dissent from Catholic teaching
and most see no danger to the common good through laws that liberalize use of
contraception.
How can this be? …thanks to dissenting
Priests and Bishops and their cowardly cousin Priests and Bishops who don’t
dissent but who prefer to remain silent and non-confrontational. And these are
the clergy that Austin Ruse partly uses to justify his position. Will they all
end up in
the fires together? I really don’t know but I’d be extremely fearful for
any soul who sought to identify with these enemies of the Faith.
Ruse’s argument, taken to what I see as its logical conclusion, is that we can cross the moral line in order to engage the culture politically and then work to bring society back to that moral standard. What’s the proof for my conclusion? Ruse politically supports a Catholic woman who is advocating for greater availability of contraceptives!
Ruse’s argument, taken to what I see as its logical conclusion, is that we can cross the moral line in order to engage the culture politically and then work to bring society back to that moral standard. What’s the proof for my conclusion? Ruse politically supports a Catholic woman who is advocating for greater availability of contraceptives!
This is wrong-headed and evil. Is it ever right to do wrong in order that good comes of it? You get the idea.
Yes, the practice of contraception is fatal to the faith. Doesn’t Mr. Ruse personally believe that the practice of contraception is intrinsically wrong, a moral evil precisely, and that the continued practice of such acts could well constitute grave sin and threaten the eternal soul of the individual involved? To read his article you kinda get the impression he might think this. As Catholics our primary goal is the salvation of souls, or am I wrong? Where exactly does that figure in to Ruse's equation?
Furthermore, failure to emphasize Church teaching on contraception undermines very
seriously our credibility on the evils of abortion and homosexual acts.
For goodness sake, laying aside Catholic dogma, even an 18 year old can make a very strong argument for a ban on contraception strictly from the natural law point of view.
For goodness sake, laying aside Catholic dogma, even an 18 year old can make a very strong argument for a ban on contraception strictly from the natural law point of view.
I really was shocked by Ruse’s closing paragraphs:
As for her critics, do they really want us to charge up Contraceptive
Hill, flying our flags high and singing Te Deums? Must we now launch campaigns
to ban contraceptives? And condoms, too? Must we make overturning Griswold and
Eisenstadt a litmus test for candidates and judges?
Certain defeat awaits us up Contraceptive Hill. We should not fight
there.
If we cannot fight for the eternal truth of Christ there,
where exactly will we end up fighting for it? Oh yeah, I forgot: we used to do
that in the Catacombs.
I’ll try to make it simple again Mr. Ruse. Every Catholic
needs to live the life of a faithful Catholic, in good times, in bad times, in
corrupt times, whenever, wherever. That’s enough to do it. That’s all it takes
because God will take care of everything else, even the politics. Once upon a
time most every real Catholic believed that, from Popes all the way down to
parishioner.
I hope and pray you'll quickly come to your senses Mr. Ruse. We need you to continue your good work.
I hope and pray you'll quickly come to your senses Mr. Ruse. We need you to continue your good work.
7 comments:
You misunderstand my piece. I oppose Barbara Comstock's position on over the counter contraceptives. I say that clearly in my piece. Please correct the misimpression you have created.
Yours,
Austin Ruse
Mr. Ruse, thank you for commenting. I would like nothing better than to discover that I have misunderstood you. However, my first reaction to your response is that I don't possibly see how I could have. Your article certainly covered a lot of ground. And you really haven't addressed any of my chief criticisms. However, in the interests of fairness I will read and re-read your piece once again before making further comment.
If you could, I would appreciate it is you would google "Austin Ruse Contraception" and you can see i have been fighting this batter for more than a decade, quite publicly. I do not advocate in the least that Catholics give ground on this topic.''
Best,
Austin Ruse
Eric,
You are spot on.
Let's just for a minute project we all capitulate on the issue of contraception and put the power of our political vote behind Comstock.
What is the result of this?
Women and 18 year old children are handed over the counter access to abortifacients and massive doses of estrogen (known to cause breast caner) to 'contracept' a pregnancy.
Children get flushed down the toilet.
Doctors, nurses, pharmacists have to follow Comstock's legislative edicts and commit an egregious act of collaborating in the demise of her soul - or they have to find a new profession.
How is this not giving ground on this topic?
It's a compromise with the devil that can't be made.
Austin does great work but this one is a dud and prolifers can't get on the bus.
If we all stop playing partisan politics and put the power of our vote and money behind prolife candidates, they'll win.
Dividing the vote by caricaturing Comstock's scandalous and possibly irreversible spiritual malpractice to some souls as 'prolife' is a same old game that filled all three branches of government with people who are destroying the soul of our country.
It is long past time to cut the baloney.
Thanks TTC for leaving a comment. I will be doing a follow up posting to this one in order to address what Austin Ruse said in his above comments and what may still be unclear to readers.
Les Femmes is a Virginia-based blogger who points out that there is a true pro-life candidate running for that seat - Robert Marshall. Surely this doesn't escape Mr. Ruse's attention. I defer to Les Femme's judgment that Mr. Marshall is the morally superior candidate. We as Catholics cannot do - or suggest - a supposedly lesser evil. Never.
Post a Comment