David Ancell's Virtual Home

It has been said by some that the Church’s teachings or Mass is not relevant to real life. The real problem is that what passes for real life is often not relevant. If the Mass or the teachings of the Church do not seem relevant to your life, then it’s time to change your life.

There’s a great article on Catholic Exchange about Modernism. The article seems to suggest that modernism isn’t as widespread as it used to be, but I seem to be able to find traces of it around. I’ve heard my share of people who seem to think that dogma is a contraint rather than a light.

Ironically, it’s dogma that gives us the ability to grow in our knowledge of the Lord. If every generation has to erase and start over, then no one will get very far. Having the centuries of Tradition to build upon ensures that growth is possible.

Furthermore, most people know that it is ridiculous to say that believing the law of gravity restricts our ability to grow in science. Gravity is there whether we believe it or not. Science that doesn’t take it into account is junk science. The same is true for dogma. It is true regardless of our belief. A defined belief is a dogma is no more restrictive than our belief in gravity.

Here is the e-mail I sent to Phil Donahue (donahue@msnbc.com) just minutes ago:

Dear Mr. Donahue,

I am writing in regard to your interview with Oprah Winfrey in the September 2002 issue of Oprah Magazine. In it, you gave a graphic description of an abortion that you filmed.

In this, you describe the unborn child as “the birth matter in the jar” as though it were a disposable object being described. That which was in that jar was nothing less than the mortal remains of a human being just like you and me. If you had been aware that someone had planned to gun down someone else on the street, would you have filmed it?

You noted that half of the people to whom you showed the film in a room were crying when they saw the abortion. No doubt they recognized that this was the murder of an innocent human being. I am saddened to hear that your response to them was “Well, that’s the procedure–15 minutes,” as though they were viewing a normal medical procedure. Many of them, are aware that an abortion is, for many people, not just a 15-minute procedure. It is the killing of a human being. Many women will suffer for a lifetime because of the evil they know they have done. On top of that, many suffer from medical complications as a result of their abortion, including infertility and infection from incomplete removal of the unborn child.

I would hope that you would become more respectful of human life in the future. I will pray for as much. However, if you have determined that you will not be so, please be more sensitive to those who are suffering from regret for what they have done. Such depictions as these can bring back very painful memories in these women.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

David Ancell

My e-mail to Oprah Winfrey (youropinions@hearst.com) is very similar, but here it is:

Dear Ms. Winfrey,

I am writing in regard to your interview with Phil Donahue in the September 2002 issue of Oprah Magazine. In it, Mr. Donahue gave a graphic description of an abortion that he filmed. I am disturbed that you would print such a thing.

In this interview, he describes the unborn child as “the birth matter in the jar” as though it were a disposable object being described. That which was in that jar was nothing less than the mortal remains of a human being just like you and me. Would you have been so willing to print the interview if he had described filming a murder of someone on the street?

He noted that half of the people to whom you showed the film in a room were crying when they saw the abortion. No doubt they recognized that this was the murder of an innocent human being. I am saddened to hear that his response to them was “Well, that’s the procedure–15 minutes,” as though they were viewing a normal medical procedure. Many of them, are aware that an abortion is, for many people, not just a 15-minute procedure. It is the killing of a human being. Many women will suffer for a lifetime because of the evil they know they have done. On top of that, many suffer from medical complications as a result of their abortion, including infertility and infection from incomplete removal of the unborn child.

I would hope that you would become more respectful of human life in the future. I will pray for as much. However, if you have determined that you will not be so, please be more sensitive to those who are suffering from regret for what they have done. Such depictions as these can bring back very painful memories in these women. In fact, I would ask you to consider having a show about post-abortion trauma. It is a side of abortion that is rarely depicted in the secular media.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

David Ancell

I may not be a theologian, but I won’t let it stop me. Since I blogged the appeal to support the law to protect pharmacists from being forced to dispense abortifacient drugs, I thought I’d post a couple of reflections.

First, in some of the articles I’ve read concerning conscience clauses for pharmacists, a question has been raised. It goes like this: What if you are the only person available to “provide the service” (to dispense abortifacient medication)? The thinking of many of these people is that a pharmacist who objects to abortion should be obliged to “provide the service” because otherwise the patient’s “rights” would be violated. However, Catholic moral teaching would actually state that the pharmacist would have a greater obligation not to dispense the medication. The reason for this is that the pharmacist’s cooperation would become necessary to the performance of an objectively evil action.

The second reflection may seem to make the first one a moot point if you haven’t been reading pharmacy “ethics” literature (most of which is stinky relativism, hence the quotes). In fact, the only reason that I brought up the second point was due to literature I had read. Pope John Paul II stated in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that formal cooperation in an abortion is never morally acceptable, even under the guise of “I don’t impose my values on others.” See the quote from article 74 of the encyclical below:

In order to shed light on this difficult question, it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).

This is pretty powerful stuff from the Holy Father. It speaks of truth in an age of moral relativism. It is my hope and prayer that more people will follow suit.

Once again, I am urging my dear readers to consider action. As a pharmacist, I am concerned that one day I may have to give up my profession because I will not be involved in abortion, euthanasia, or other moral evil. Please consider writing a letter support the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act that is being considered in the House of Representatives. As a pharmacist, I can say that we are forgotten almost every text on medical ethics that I’ve read. We need protection, too. Although I am fortunate enough to have an employer who doesn’t deal in these products (we are a specialty pharmacy), who knows where I’ll be in the future.

It’s a bit disturbing to me that I was not able to find any mention of this on the Tennessee Pharmacist Association web site (of which I am a member). I didn’t find anything on the site of the American Pharmaceutical Association either (of which I am not a member). In fact, a search of “abortion” on their site revealed this garbage.

Interestingly enough, many people who consider themselves “pro-choice” do not want to extend that choice to health care providers. This is one more reason why I prefer the label “pro-abortion.” In any event, please support our pro-life pharmacists.

Is the Voice Faithful?
Here’s another article on Catholic Exchange by Deal Hudson. In case you haven’t seen it, they have a new web site. The article in Catholic Exchange suggests that the web site doesn’t accurately represent what’s going on inside the organization.

Our Sunday Visitor has had a recent article suggesting that an attack against Iraq would have moral problems with it. The HMS blog took it up. Here’s the Greg Popcak view vs. the Emily Stimpson view. Who wins? I don’t know.

There are a few comments going around on other blogs about the new Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles. Honestly, I don’t like it a bit. If I passed it on the highway, I would hardly be able to tell it’s a Catholic Church. The depiction of their conference center looks like an office park.

I feel fortunate to live in Memphis. Our Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception was renovated, and it is beautiful. In fact, it appears that almost every piece of artwork was preserved. The web site is found by clicking this link, but I had trouble finding a good picture of it.

In the HMS blog, Gregory Popcak asked readers to pass this on. Apparently, there’s an interview with Phil Donahue in the September 2002 issue of Oprah magazine where Donahue talks about the time he filmed an abortion. Beware that there is a graphic and disturbing description at the bottom of the post. I am contemplating writing to both Donahue and Oprah about this. I would urge you to do the same. If you’re a subscriber to Oprah magazine (I am not, nor will I ever be.), I would also encourage you to write to the companies who advertise in that magazine.

Did I mention that I enjoy reading Emily Stimpson’s blog? Many of her posts have been about issues dear to my heart, like this one on tabernacle placement.

Here’s my philosophy: If you have to have a sign to tell people where the tabernacle is or if one has to ask directions to find it, it’s in the wrong place (large cathedrals excepted). I only know of one church like this in the Memphis area, but there’s another one that has the tabernacle in the back corner of the church. Our cathedral has a separate Blessed Sacrament chapel, but you can see it from the pew.