Amazing Day at the Women's March

[Guest]

Catholics are good at this. I'm not excluding myself. I was listening to Immaculate Heart Radio the other night and the speaker was talking about something (not the march) saying so n so was doing this supposed good act for the wrong reason. They weren't really interested in helping. If they were genuine they could do so much more with all the money they had. That so n so should be careful of its image because after so long people will associate you with this negative persona, behavior ect. I had to turn the channel. All of the points could of been directly turned right around on the Church. I'm not saying the speaker was wrong with the points being made but the tone seemed not to even acknowledge the possibility that everything could be turned directly around. Then again maybe I misinterpreted the whole thing. As far as the march wasn't a fan. I hate both gay marriage and abortion. I guess there were other reasons to march but these two seemed to highlight it. And I heard Madonna's comment about blowing up the White House. What a stupid.....

Edited January 26, 2017 by Guest

[KnightofChrist]

@Peace I was simply trying to point out the embalance in the level of your critiques. Your criticisms against voting for a candidate gulity of vulgar language are greater than criticisms against a justification attending a pro-abortion March. Honestly, some of this pointing out hypocrisy I believe is due to personal past issues you have against me and others. My first post in this thread I asked two questions

1) How did Graciela feel about pro-life women's groups being banned from the March?

2) If Graciela would still attend the March (or would it be as popular if) it denied Muslims or immigrants were persons and could be exterminated? 

I thought those question were reasonable being that the march was officially pro-abortion, and one of the two main partners was Planned Parenthood.  

You didnt seem to think so. When you posted right after me and you basically mentioned all the epic disagreements we've had together. Well maybe not epic but very clearly all abortion debates you and I have been involved with. So I took this as directed towards me, that I was trying to hit McM RSCJ and or Graciela with the "abortion block." That I was just trying to talk about off topic issues that had nothing to do with the topic. Both are false. But when Nihil reminded or informed you that the march really was about abortion then you changed gears to the pointing out the hypocrisy of others position. I've not read the whole thread so I'm not sure what others in this thread have said to McM RSCJ and Graciela and if it is justified to label it as hypocrisy, but I only asked two abortion related questions about a pro-abortion march. 

 

[Peace]

52 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

@Peace I was simply trying to point out the embalance in the level of your critiques. Your criticisms against voting for a candidate gulity of vulgar language are greater than criticisms against a justification attending a pro-abortion March.

Well there was certainly no need for me to jump on her case for that. Other posters in this thread did a perfectly fine job of that without me.

52 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Honestly, some of this pointing out hypocrisy I believe is due to personal past issues you have against me and others.

Well either that or the criticisms were in fact hypocritical. The smart money in Vegas is on the latter.

52 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

My first post in this thread I asked two questions

1) How did Graciela feel about pro-life women's groups being banned from the March?

2) If Graciela would still attend the March (or would it be as popular if) it denied Muslims or immigrants were persons and could be exterminated? 

I thought those question were reasonable being that the march was officially pro-abortion, and one of the two main partners was Planned Parenthood.  

You didnt seem to think so.

Well no. I did not think so. But that is because I had not viewed your questions to her. When my comments are directed to or about any person in particular I most often would include a tag such as @KnightofChrist. Please keep this in mind for future correspondence.

52 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

When you posted right after me and you basically mentioned all the epic disagreements we've had together. Well maybe not epic but very clearly all abortion debates you and I have been involved with.

Did those specific conversations involve you? I would have guessed that they involved my dear friend and confidant @Socrates. I certainly would not put it past you though.

52 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

So I took this as directed towards me, that I was trying to hit McM RSCJ and or Graciela with the "abortion block."

 I wouldn't take it so personally. I referred to it as a "Phatmass rite of passage." I didn't call it a "disposition peculiar to @KnightofChrist"

But in general yes I feel that this thread is an example of "abortion block". Perhaps it is less egregious than other instances of this in the past, for the reason that @Nihil Obstat alluded to in the post that followed mine.

52 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

That I was just trying to talk about off topic issues that had nothing to do with the topic. Both are false. But when Nihil reminded or informed you that the march really was about abortion then you changed gears to the pointing out the hypocrisy of others position.

I did not respond directly to Nihil because I did not care to debate the point further. I do not believe that the various responses in this thread relate significantly to content of the OP, but I do not particularly care to get into a long debate about how closely related or tangential the responses are to the OP. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one because I do not think it is worth having a long debate over.

As for me changing gears - I got the idea for my "hypocrisy" post because of something that @havok579257 wrote. As you know threads on this site dovetail into different conversations quite often.

Good night Knight.

[Ash Wednesday]

In fairness to my objection that such a march is "God-filled" lest McM RSCJ feel totally dogpiled here, I'm also not a fan of proclamations among some Christians, particularly Evangelicals out there, that the rise of Trump was somehow appointed by God. I'm just a bit of a stickler about the kinds of things we choose to attribute to God.

[Papist]

12 hours ago, Peace said:

And likewise I believe it fair to point out your hypocrisy. Good day to you.

My hypocrisy?   Can you give examples?

[Papist]

10 hours ago, Josh said:

Catholics are good at this. I'm not excluding myself. I was listening to Immaculate Heart Radio the other night and the speaker was talking about something (not the march) saying so n so was doing this supposed good act for the wrong reason. They weren't really interested in helping. If they were genuine they could do so much more with all the money they had. That so n so should be careful of its image because after so long people will associate you with this negative persona, behavior ect. I had to turn the channel. All of the points could of been directly turned right around on the Church. I'm not saying the speaker was wrong with the points being made but the tone seemed not to even acknowledge the possibility that everything could be turned directly around. Then again maybe I misinterpreted the whole thing. As far as the march wasn't a fan. I hate both gay marriage and abortion. I guess there were other reasons to march but these two seemed to highlight it. And I heard Madonna's comment about blowing up the White House. What a stupid.....

Good point. A lot of times we look at the organization (and "bad" members/ideology in it) rather than the individual speaking.  I am guilty as charged.  My apologies to @McM RSCJ My comments were directed at the RSCJ/LCWR. I did not intend to project my criticism of RSCJ/LCWR on to you.  However, I would question your affiliation. 

[havok579257]

22 hours ago, Peace said:

Plenty of people in this thread have voted for Trump or advocated voting for Trump. There are a few technical distinctions that one could draw but in principle I do not see how her attendance at the women's march is different than people here who have voted for Trump or advocated voting for him.

She appears to have decided to attend the women's march because she felt that there were good things about the march and good reasons to participate despite the bad things about the march (e.g. the various support it may lend to the pro-choice position).

Several priests at my parish openly told me that they support Trump and were planning to vote for Trump. Does that not then mean that we should all be shocked and condemn them for openly associating themselves with a man who brags about walking up to women and "grabbing them by the p***y" and the numerous other moral flaws that Trump has? Those priests certainly could have voted for another candidate without those flaws, such as the ASP candidate for example. But they made a choice to vote for someone with serious problems because they believed that there were nevertheless good reasons for doing so. Has not everyone here made similar choices at some point?

I personally doubt that I would have chosen to attend the women's march for some of its negative affiliation with the pro-choice movement, but there are positive things about the women's march and I think that it is up to each person to make the decision to participate or not participate for himself. I think it is a bit hypocritical for so many people to jump on her case when many of us make essentially the same type of decisions in our own lives.

voting for a president between two candidates where one has to take office and choosing to voluntarily attend a rally are two different things.  its not like she had to choose to attend this rally or a KKK rally and if she didn't attend this one, then the KKK would be allowed to march on Washington.  Where as voting it comes down to Hilary or Trump (no third party candidate has enough recognition to come close to winning this past election) for president.  No matter what anyone did, one of those two people were taking office. By being essentially forced to vote for one of those candidates, you are left with no alternative than to pick who you think is the lesser of two evils.  If she had choose to not attend the march, nothing else would have taken its place.

 

Like going to the march would be similar to what a politician would deal with when voting on a bill.  So let's say a democrat proposed an ammendment to the consitution that would solve a major problem in the world today.  Doesn't matter what it is.  Pick any thing you think is a grave injustice that needs to be fixed.  Now let's say he also added to it that abortion be made a right in the constitution.  So the issues then comes do I vote to fix poverty once and for all but agree to make abortion a constitutional ammendment.  I will solve a huge problem and save many lives in society but I will also support abortion being a constitutional right in America and pretty much making it impossible to remove that right.  You can vote yes because you believe in one of the causes or you can vote no and no support something which although has something good in it, has something horrible in it.  Its the same thing with the march.  Support a march which has some good things in it but also heavily pushes for abortion on demand and citizen paid for abortions or don't go.  

[Peace]

1 hour ago, havok579257 said:

voting for a president between two candidates where one has to take office and choosing to voluntarily attend a rally are two different things.  its not like she had to choose to attend this rally or a KKK rally and if she didn't attend this one, then the KKK would be allowed to march on Washington.  Where as voting it comes down to Hilary or Trump (no third party candidate has enough recognition to come close to winning this past election) for president.  No matter what anyone did, one of those two people were taking office. By being essentially forced to vote for one of those candidates, you are left with no alternative than to pick who you think is the lesser of two evils.  If she had choose to not attend the march, nothing else would have taken its place.

No. Your assumption is false. Sorry.

You were not essentially forced to vote for either of those candidates. I did not vote for either of those candidates. If there were no other moral choice except to vote for Donald Trump then I would have sinned by refusing to vote for him. Did I sin by voting for the pro-life ASP candidate?

It was not inevitable that either Trump or Hillary must have been president. That is an excuse that people use to justify voting for an evil candidate, instead of simply admitting that they chose to indirectly cooperate with evil in order to bring about a positive good. You wrote that "no matter what anyone did, one of those two people were taking office", but that is untrue. I voted for the ASP candidate. You could have voted for the ASP candidate too. If you and other people like you who use the same excuse actually voted for the ASP candidate, then ASP candidate would be president.

And even besides the good of potentially electing someone other than Hillary or Trump, even if the other person you voted for lost, there would have been a positive good in voting for another candidate if for no other reason than to take a principled stand and refuse to vote for an evil candidate.

You chose to vote for Trump because there was a positive good that you believed would result from it (lessening the likelihood that Hillary would be elected). And that is a moral choice. People could have voted for Hillary based on the same principle.

But to sit there and say that you had no other option except to indirectly cooperate with the evil that is Donald Trump (or Hillary) is false. You had other options. Nobody held a gun to your head and told you to vote for Trump or Hillary. You simply chose not to exercise your other options, just as the OP chose not to exercise her other option of refusing to attend any march.

But we can still be friends.

[havok579257]

6 minutes ago, Peace said:

No. Your assumption is false. Sorry.

You were not essentially forced to vote for either of those candidates. I did not vote for either of those candidates. If there were no other moral choice except to vote for Donald Trump then I would have sinned by refusing to vote for him. Did I sin by voting for the pro-life ASP candidate?

It was not inevitable that either Trump or Hillary must have been president. That is an excuse that people use to justify voting for an evil candidate, instead of simply admitting that they chose to indirectly cooperate with evil in order to bring about a positive good. You wrote that "no matter what anyone did, one of those two people were taking office", but that is untrue. I voted for the ASP candidate. You could have voted for the ASP candidate too. If you and other people like you who use the same excuse actually voted for the ASP candidate, then ASP candidate would be president.

And even besides the good of potentially electing someone other than Hillary or Trump, even if the other person you voted for lost, there would have been a positive good in voting for another candidate if for no other reason than to take a principled stand and refuse to vote for an evil candidate.

You chose to vote for Trump because there was a positive good that you believed would result from it (lessening the likelihood that Hillary would be elected). And that is a moral choice. People could have voted for Hillary based on the same principle.

But to sit there and say that you had no other option except to indirectly cooperate with the evil that is Donald Trump (or Hillary) is false. You had other options. Nobody held a gun to your head and told you to vote for Trump or Hillary. You simply chose not to exercise your other options, just as the OP chose not to exercise her other option of refusing to attend any march.

But we can still be friends.

when did I say anything about voting for a candidate being sinful?

also are you just trying to be arguementative for arguements sake?  So the week before the election, two weeks before the election is was not inevitable that Trump or Clinton would be president? Not looking at what you want to happen but realistically a week out from the election you legit thought one of the 2 third party candidates had a resonable chance to win the election?  If you actually thought that, your being delusional.  I'm not saying a third party candidate could never win and election, I am saying it was not going to happen this election and I was proven right by the facts. The facts show both third party candidates had minimal support compared to Trump or Clinton this election.  Supporting a third party candidate is good and should be done.  Although one should at the same time not stick their head in the sand and be delusional.  The facts were there before the election that no thirdy party candidate had enough support to win the electoral college.  That's not opinion, that's fact.  I can almost be certain no third party candidate actually thought they had a legit chance at becoming president this election a week out.  

 

I never stated people could not have voted for Hilary and be justified in their votes. Also just because someone voted for a third party candidate does not mean they made a good vote in voting for a not evil candidate.  The other candidates were not loads better than either Trump or Hilary.  To claim that a third party candidates this election were good and Hilary and Trump were evil is laughable.  All the candidates this election were not good choices. 

 

I as a person believe it is wrong to not vote for any person in an election and just refuse to vote.  Some people may not agree with my beliefs but I have yet to be alive for an American election where I conisdered all candidates so morally opposed to the churches teachings that I could not vote for anyone.  I believe it is the duty of every citizen to vote for elected officals.  I don't take the stance that I can obstain from voting just because a candidate does not support every single view I support.  Cause if your waiting for that you will wait forever.  Each person is different and no 2 people will ever agree on every single thing.

 

Again attending a march is completely different than voting.  Nothing worse would have come about if she did not attend the march.  Unless I am mistaken.  Although no matter who you voted for, dem or repub or thirday party, someone on the ticket was becoming president.  Its not going to happen that after the election we have no one elected president and the seat sits open.  This is not "Brewsters Millions".  So if you choose not to vote for a candidate, one you perceive who is less evil, then the other candidate could get in.  If you don't vote, someone will still win the election.  If you don't go to the march that supports many things the catholic church is against, a worse protest/march will not take its place.  

 

Also one last thing.  Voting in private for a candidate you believe is the lesser of two evils is completely different than publically supporting a march that supports many things the church is against.  It would be no different than if I voted for Trump in private because I did not want Hilary to win as opposed to me getting on social media and going to rallies to support planned parenthood because they provide medical care for low income women.  Publically supporting planned parenthood because they offer medical care for low income women and trying to ignore they are the worlds largest abortion provider doesn't work.  Whatever reasons I try to use to justify my support for them, I am still supporting publically an entity that supports abortion in demand, tax payer funded and deems an infant in the womb to not be a person receiving personhood status.

[McM RSCJ]

May I thank Peace and Beatitude for their helpful posts to me.  I think both are terrific at bridge-building.

May I thank Graciela for posting to say she, too, had a positive experience of the march. 

In terms of the other responses I provoked, I have been reflecting that, as any learned theologian who specializes in Ecclesiology knows and teaches, there are different, equally valid and complementary, models of the Church.  (In my Father's house, there are many rooms.) 

In terms of the responses that I received criticizing my decision to participate because I am a Religious (even as hundreds of Religious Women participated), please know that one charism within Apostolic Religious Life is being sent, going out, to find God in all things, in all times, in all cultures.  I love the charism of my own Religious Order (to make known on earth the love of God revealed in the Heart of Jesus).  I value the Ignatian spirituality within which I live that charism.  I believe God is acting in our time.  I believe that through prayerful meditation on the Gospels and the rest of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, prayerful attention tothe teaching of the Church, and under the guidance of the Spirit, we can be led to discern where God is acting.  And we may distinguish the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit, from other spirits also at work.  [Fyi, I don't know how many men religious participated, nor how many diocesan priests, but I know there was as least one.]

I live, work, and minister in a Catholic institution within a wide and mixed community--among persons of all religions and none, among all social classes.  I treasure this ministerial opportunity.  I don't know what it would be like to live, work, and minister only among Catholics who not only share a commitment to Catholicism, but even the same traditional perspective of Catholicism frequently expressed on this website.  I doubt I would flourish there, but the point is moot, since that is not where God called me, nor is it a requirement of the charism of, or membership in, my Religious Order. 

The same day as I am reading in the responses to my post how wrong it was of me to participate in the march because I represent the Church, and how my participation was as evil/sinful as if I had participated in a Nuremberg rally for Hitler, I was hearing from my students, male and female, how much it meant to them to participate in the march.  In fact, one young woman (now in her sixteenth year of Catholic education), explained how thrilled she was to encounter pro-life and pro-choice women much older than her who were marching together and relishing their common ground in marching for the rights of women not to be subordinated or sexually objectified, for the rights of immigrants, especially the undocumented, rights of the disabled, concern about Climate Change (c.f. Laudato Si')  Her point was:  It was so moving to see these (older) women and men, who had not known each other til thrown up against each other in the massive crowd, talking to one another so amicably about these issues.  (I didn't say this in class, so as not to interrupt the flow, but what crossed my mind was the account of Pentecost in Acts:  The Spirit made it possible for us to understand one another although we were speaking "different tongues." )

This morning I read in the newspaper an article about how many disabled people participated in the march, how the march organizers worked hard to make that possible, and how for those for whom the accommodations still would not work, there was a video site for "on-line participation."  The Disabled Persons quoted in the article explained how much it meant to them to be included.  They shared their fears:  As a nominee, Trump mocked a disabled reporter.  Obamacare included preexisting conditions--would this now go away?  The Education Secretary nominee seemed un[informed on IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act].  Some commented on their joy in the first march that deliberately included and stood up for them.  I was delighted.  Then, recalling the responses to my post about my delight in the March, this thought went through my mind:  Maybe the posters on Phatmass would object to the reflections of the Disabled Persons expressing these views along lines like this:  You participated in this March?  You dupes.  Don't you understand that it was organized by Pro-Abortion groups who would have aborted you? 

You disagree with me on my participation, fine.   I stand by emphasizing the amazing, uplifting, and spiritual experience I had.  (And I know this march was 180 degrees opposite to Nuremberg.  More likely, shared fear of a phenomenon like Nuremberg drove the grassroots turnout.)

Let me leave you with this question:  Do you think the teaching of the Jesus in the Gospels and mediated through the Catholic Church is complete once and for all?  Or do you believe God is acting within our times and we are called to seek, find, and discern? 

The answer to that question may point out the fundamental difference between some of you who posted in response to my thread and me. 

(Maybe that question is prominent in my mind because this week, in one of my classes, I'm presenting my students with the Church's 180 degree change in teaching on "freedom of conscience" and "religious liberty" between 1864 and Vatican II.)

This is my last word on this thread that I created--to share my amazing experience in the March last Saturday.

[Peace]

How many of the critics in this thread would have told Jesus himself "how dare you eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

[havok579257]

14 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

May I thank Peace and Beatitude for their helpful posts to me.  I think both are terrific at bridge-building.

May I thank Graciela for posting to say she, too, had a positive experience of the march. 

In terms of the other responses I provoked, I have been reflecting that, as any learned theologian who specializes in Ecclesiology knows and teaches, there are different, equally valid and complementary, models of the Church.  (In my Father's house, there are many rooms.) 

In terms of the responses that I received criticizing my decision to participate because I am a Religious (even as hundreds of Religious Women participated), please know that one charism within Apostolic Religious Life is being sent, going out, to find God in all things, in all times, in all cultures.  I love the charism of my own Religious Order (to make known on earth the love of God revealed in the Heart of Jesus).  I value the Ignatian spirituality within which I live that charism.  I believe God is acting in our time.  I believe that through prayerful meditation on the Gospels and the rest of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, prayerful attention tothe teaching of the Church, and under the guidance of the Spirit, we can be led to discern where God is acting.  And we may distinguish the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit, from other spirits also at work.  [Fyi, I don't know how many men religious participated, nor how many diocesan priests, but I know there was as least one.]

I live, work, and minister in a Catholic institution within a wide and mixed community--among persons of all religions and none, among all social classes.  I treasure this ministerial opportunity.  I don't know what it would be like to live, work, and minister only among Catholics who not only share a commitment to Catholicism, but even the same traditional perspective of Catholicism frequently expressed on this website.  I doubt I would flourish there, but the point is moot, since that is not where God called me, nor is it a requirement of the charism of, or membership in, my Religious Order. 

The same day as I am reading in the responses to my post how wrong it was of me to participate in the march because I represent the Church, and how my participation was as evil/sinful as if I had participated in a Nuremberg rally for Hitler, I was hearing from my students, male and female, how much it meant to them to participate in the march.  In fact, one young woman (now in her sixteenth year of Catholic education), explained how thrilled she was to encounter pro-life and pro-choice women much older than her who were marching together and relishing their common ground in marching for the rights of women not to be subordinated or sexually objectified, for the rights of immigrants, especially the undocumented, rights of the disabled, concern about Climate Change (c.f. Laudato Si')  Her point was:  It was so moving to see these (older) women and men, who had not known each other til thrown up against each other in the massive crowd, talking to one another so amicably about these issues.  (I didn't say this in class, so as not to interrupt the flow, but what crossed my mind was the account of Pentecost in Acts:  The Spirit made it possible for us to understand one another although we were speaking "different tongues." )

This morning I read in the newspaper an article about how many disabled people participated in the march, how the march organizers worked hard to make that possible, and how for those for whom the accommodations still would not work, there was a video site for "on-line participation."  The Disabled Persons quoted in the article explained how much it meant to them to be included.  They shared their fears:  As a nominee, Trump mocked a disabled reporter.  Obamacare included preexisting conditions--would this now go away?  The Education Secretary nominee seemed un[informed on IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act].  Some commented on their joy in the first march that deliberately included and stood up for them.  I was delighted.  Then, recalling the responses to my post about my delight in the March, this thought went through my mind:  Maybe the posters on Phatmass would object to the reflections of the Disabled Persons expressing these views along lines like this:  You participated in this March?  You dupes.  Don't you understand that it was organized by Pro-Abortion groups who would have aborted you? 

You disagree with me on my participation, fine.   I stand by emphasizing the amazing, uplifting, and spiritual experience I had.  (And I know this march was 180 degrees opposite to Nuremberg.  More likely, shared fear of a phenomenon like Nuremberg drove the grassroots turnout.)

Let me leave you with this question:  Do you think the teaching of the Jesus in the Gospels and mediated through the Catholic Church is complete once and for all?  Or do you believe God is acting within our times and we are called to seek, find, and discern? 

The answer to that question may point out the fundamental difference between some of you who posted in response to my thread and me. 

(Maybe that question is prominent in my mind because this week, in one of my classes, I'm presenting my students with the Church's 180 degree change in teaching on "freedom of conscience" and "religious liberty" between 1864 and Vatican II.)

This is my last word on this thread that I created--to share my amazing experience in the March last Saturday.

You addressed all these groups of people who were included in the march and the accomidations made for them but I see you left out the fact pro life groups were told not to go to the rally by the leaders.  How is support for a march which excludes the pro life groups any differnt from a march which excludes black people.  The facts are pro life groups were told they were not invited.  Would you have been ok with the march if the leaders told all black people they were not allowed to go?  I imagine you would be outraged.  You talk about how great these marches were and how bad Trump is but your refuse to acknowledge how bigoted this march was to pro life women's group.  It seems because this fact goes against your point, you are just avoiding it.  Its sad because I can almost be certain if the march leaders told black people they did not want them there, you would take issue with that.

 

You bash on Trump for many things he has said and many things people think he is going to do.  Fair enough and justified.  I won't argue saying Trump was ok in some of the things he has said.  Although just because of the bad things Trump does, does not mean the opposition to him are beyond reproch.  Although you seem to act like this.  You disregard the groups who the march excluded because of their religious beliefs.  You disregard the agenda the leaders were promoting for unfettered access to abortion.  You disregard a speaker who said she has thought about blowing up the White House (I am sure had Trump said he had thought abvout blowing up the women's march you would have issues with that statement).  You did regard the attire they were selling of women;s genitalia to help promote the rally.  The problem with so many people today is they see the oppoisiton to their views as all bad and disrgard the sides flaws and evils they commit.  All they do is promote how good their side is and how bad the other side is.  It seems from all your posts you are falling into the trap.  You gloss over or ignore the evil things the march supported or did such as to pro life groups and instead only look at the things which support your point of view.

1 minute ago, Peace said:

How many of the critics in this thread would have told Jesus himself "how dare you eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

Do you think when Jesus ate with sinners and tax collecters if they had excluded a group of people soley based on the teachings of God, Jesus would have remained silent?  I can;t imagine the sinners and tax collecters telling the poor widow she can not sit with them at the table and Jesus being ok with it?  Can you?

[KnightofChrist]

33 minutes ago, McM RSCJ said:

May I thank Peace and Beatitude for their helpful posts to me.  I think both are terrific at bridge-building.

May I thank Graciela for posting to say she, too, had a positive experience of the march. 

In terms of the other responses I provoked, I have been reflecting that, as any learned theologian who specializes in Ecclesiology knows and teaches, there are different, equally valid and complementary, models of the Church.  (In my Father's house, there are many rooms.) 

In terms of the responses that I received criticizing my decision to participate because I am a Religious (even as hundreds of Religious Women participated), please know that one charism within Apostolic Religious Life is being sent, going out, to find God in all things, in all times, in all cultures.  I love the charism of my own Religious Order (to make known on earth the love of God revealed in the Heart of Jesus).  I value the Ignatian spirituality within which I live that charism.  I believe God is acting in our time.  I believe that through prayerful meditation on the Gospels and the rest of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, prayerful attention tothe teaching of the Church, and under the guidance of the Spirit, we can be led to discern where God is acting.  And we may distinguish the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit, from other spirits also at work.  [Fyi, I don't know how many men religious participated, nor how many diocesan priests, but I know there was as least one.]

I live, work, and minister in a Catholic institution within a wide and mixed community--among persons of all religions and none, among all social classes.  I treasure this ministerial opportunity.  I don't know what it would be like to live, work, and minister only among Catholics who not only share a commitment to Catholicism, but even the same traditional perspective of Catholicism frequently expressed on this website.  I doubt I would flourish there, but the point is moot, since that is not where God called me, nor is it a requirement of the charism of, or membership in, my Religious Order. 

The same day as I am reading in the responses to my post how wrong it was of me to participate in the march because I represent the Church, and how my participation was as evil/sinful as if I had participated in a Nuremberg rally for Hitler, I was hearing from my students, male and female, how much it meant to them to participate in the march.  In fact, one young woman (now in her sixteenth year of Catholic education), explained how thrilled she was to encounter pro-life and pro-choice women much older than her who were marching together and relishing their common ground in marching for the rights of women not to be subordinated or sexually objectified, for the rights of immigrants, especially the undocumented, rights of the disabled, concern about Climate Change (c.f. Laudato Si')  Her point was:  It was so moving to see these (older) women and men, who had not known each other til thrown up against each other in the massive crowd, talking to one another so amicably about these issues.  (I didn't say this in class, so as not to interrupt the flow, but what crossed my mind was the account of Pentecost in Acts:  The Spirit made it possible for us to understand one another although we were speaking "different tongues." )

This morning I read in the newspaper an article about how many disabled people participated in the march, how the march organizers worked hard to make that possible, and how for those for whom the accommodations still would not work, there was a video site for "on-line participation."  The Disabled Persons quoted in the article explained how much it meant to them to be included.  They shared their fears:  As a nominee, Trump mocked a disabled reporter.  Obamacare included preexisting conditions--would this now go away?  The Education Secretary nominee seemed un[informed on IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act].  Some commented on their joy in the first march that deliberately included and stood up for them.  I was delighted.  Then, recalling the responses to my post about my delight in the March, this thought went through my mind:  Maybe the posters on Phatmass would object to the reflections of the Disabled Persons expressing these views along lines like this:  You participated in this March?  You dupes.  Don't you understand that it was organized by Pro-Abortion groups who would have aborted you? 

You disagree with me on my participation, fine.   I stand by emphasizing the amazing, uplifting, and spiritual experience I had.  (And I know this march was 180 degrees opposite to Nuremberg.  More likely, shared fear of a phenomenon like Nuremberg drove the grassroots turnout.)

Let me leave you with this question:  Do you think the teaching of the Jesus in the Gospels and mediated through the Catholic Church is complete once and for all?  Or do you believe God is acting within our times and we are called to seek, find, and discern? 

The answer to that question may point out the fundamental difference between some of you who posted in response to my thread and me. 

(Maybe that question is prominent in my mind because this week, in one of my classes, I'm presenting my students with the Church's 180 degree change in teaching on "freedom of conscience" and "religious liberty" between 1864 and Vatican II.)

This is my last word on this thread that I created--to share my amazing experience in the March last Saturday.

There was no room for pro-life women's groups at this march, they were banned. I would have liked to know your thoughts and feelings on that. 

15 minutes ago, Peace said:

How many of the critics in this thread would have told Jesus himself "how dare you eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

How do you think Christ would have reacted if he was invited to dine with a group of sinners but and his followers were forbidden to preach repentance of sins, infanticide for example?

[bardegaulois]

" Do you think the teaching of the Jesus in the Gospels and mediated through the Catholic Church is complete once and for all? "

Yes, I do. Forms may change subtly. The Church may emphasize one thing or another at a different time of history. But the Truth is the Truth, and will always continue to be the Truth. To deny that is to deny Our Lord and to deny His kingdom in favour of someone else's. You entered religion because you saw it as the best way to save your soul; do not allow yourself to be deceived. Even the devil can appear as an angel of light.

[Nihil Obstat]

3 hours ago, McM RSCJ said:

Let me leave you with this question:  Do you think the teaching of the Jesus in the Gospels and mediated through the Catholic Church is complete once and for all? 

Oh dear. Do you?