Kathryn Lopez writes at National Review about a new book concerning the Kernit Gosnell trial, and a movie about it, that hasn't reached distribution yet. She writes about the journey of the authors of the book, Ann McElhinney and her husband:
McElhinney’s interest in the trial was not ideological. She wasn’t pro-life, and she’s quick to tell you that she “never trusted or liked pro-life activists.”
and
But Gosnell changed things for McElhinney. “I got an education on abortion because of researching and investigating this story,” she tells me.
She quotes McElhinney:
Hundreds of African-American babies were born alive and then murdered. Where is the outrage for those black lives that matter? Progressive Pennsylvania with all of its government agencies couldn’t have cared less. Where’s the outrage for that?
It is important for you read her entire article.
At National Review On-Line there are a couple of interesting articles concerning words involving gender and their application to God.
Firstly, there is an article by Jay Nordlinger about the use of words and masculine, feminine and neuter genders for those words.
He begins by writing about an article written in 1972 proposing the "desexing" of the language. He then writes:
“To each their own” is ungrammatical. “To each his or her own” is uneuphonious. Pick your poison. Or stick to your guns.
Like “tey” and the rest, “genkind” has not caught on, thank goodness. “Humankind” is bad enough. Why did people ever begin to think that “mankind” referred, not to people in general, but to men only? Why did they begin to think that about “man” — as in “the rights of man”?
The supposition that the word "man" has a single meaning is patently absurd, and to ascribe to the word only that meaning guts the language of its' power.
To my mind the word "humankind" is an abomination, and should be excised from the practice of the language.
A second article, this one by Katherine Timpf, deals with extending this language based absurdity to the realm of discussing God.
She addresses this by pointing to actions at divinity schools at Duke and Vanderbilt. She notes how this is contrary to Christian Theology writing:
According to Heat Street, Duke’s particular divinity school is “geared toward people already working in the Methodist church, taking supplemental weekend or summer classes.” Yes, “Methodist,” as in the Christian religion that has already completely, officially, 100 percent decided that their God is a man. And yet, Duke’s guidelines suggest avoiding gender specific pronouns when discussing Him and suggest using “God” and “Godself” instead.
(Yes — “Godself.”)
This may be news to Miss Timpf, but such shenanigans have been common among some women in the Catholic Church for nearly two decades.
I clearly recall women, who were Readers at Mass, changing the pronouns in the Lectionary on the fly because they were convinced that the ones written in the Lectionary were "exclusive." They not only changed the words from the ones approved by the Bishops, but they also insisted that other Readers follow their example, claiming that the local ordinary had given them that direction.
It is asinine! As Christians we follow Jesus, the living bread come come down from Heaven, the Way, the Truth and the Life, the Light of the world, the fullness of God's revelation of himself, who clearly teaches us to call God Father, Abba, Vater.
Paul writes to us that God has sent the Spirit of His son into our hearts crying out Abba, Father. If you are not crying out Abba, do you have the Spirit of the Son of God residing in your heart?
Jesus does not pray Mater Nostra, nor Unser Muhti. He doesn't say oma, nor opa, nor Our Mother, nor Our Parent. In the words Our Savior taught us we pray Our Father, Unser Vater, Pater Noster.
May this stupidity of so called gender inclusion, come to an end.
