Demented: "My first abortion party"

My First Abortion Party
By Byard Duncan, AlterNet
Posted on July 8, 2009, Printed on July 9, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/141140/

"Have you guys heard the news?" Maggie (name changed) unwrapped the scarf from around her neck and patted her flat belly. "Preggers." It was around 30 degrees outside, and her cheeks were splashed pink from the Indiana wind.

She had discovered earlier that week, after missing a period and taking the test. "I kind of knew already. My boobs and my lower back have been killing me for a while." She shrugged.

My girlfriend Ali and I exchanged a surprised look. Our forks, dotted with pasta sauce, dangled identically, flaccidly, in our hands. She was quicker than me to gain her composure, and turned to address her best friend.

"What are you going to do?" Unnecessary question, really -- a conversational life vest, used when you’re sputtering for something to say. We knew the answer. Maggie, a 22-year-old college senior with no intention of bringing a child into the world yet, was going to have an abortion. She told us that she had already made up her mind; she had even determined the time, date and location. A better question might have been, "How are you going to pay for it?"

She answered that one before we had a chance to ask. "We’re having a party Friday to raise money," Maggie said. "You guys are obviously invited."

An abortion party. For the price of whatever we were willing to donate, she explained, we could partake of baked goods, beer and dancing. It was going to start at 10 p.m. at Maggie’s.

The Facebook invite came a day later, and it was settled. Ali and I were going to scrape together what donation money we could and join in the festivities.

Before continuing, I should make it clear that I’m no stranger to bizarre, pregnancy-related parties. My junior year of college, I attended a "Welcoming the Baby Kegger" designed to provide love, support and slurred confessions to a friend nearing her delivery date (she drank grape juice). Though I had initially been skeptical, I left this soirée du bébé pleasantly surprised. Everyone had brought gifts, toys, wine and food, which they piled atop a table in her living room. The music was low, and the conversation was great -- an all-around classy affair. I imagined the abortion party might be similar to this: a way to help out a friend who’s made a difficult decision. I was both right and wrong.

Ali and I arrived around 11, only half aware of the irony of being "late" to an abortion party. Walking in, we were bludgeoned with a blast of hot air, followed by the tangy stink of dance floor revelry. Someone had taken a red bed sheet and hung it below a light fixture to resemble a giant womb. Every so often, a dancer’s head or arm or dreadlock would brush against one of its smooth folds, creating a rippling effect. "Let’s Go Crazy" by Prince was playing.

As Ali went off to find Maggie, I sat down and struck up a conversation with Andrew (name changed), the three-year-old son of one of the partygoers. When Andrew and I first met months before, I learned that he’s a very precocious boy when it comes to animals and plants. His father has spent a lot of time teaching him about birdcalls and edible nuts, and he’s always spouting out little nuggets of useful knowledge. Tonight, he had the remnants of some apple-flavored dessert smeared on his mouth and owl pajamas.

Even though I thought the presence of a young child at an abortion party was a little bizarre, nobody else seemed to acknowledge (or care about) this contradiction. Instead, the rest of the guests just took turns fawning over him, exchanging high fives and swooshing him through the air. He, along with everyone else, was having a blast.

"Do you feel welcome here?" I eventually asked him, fully expecting a ‘grown-up’-type answer. He glanced around, chewed on his sleeve and went to look for some babes to hang out with. "Too cool for me," I thought, shaking my head and cramming a pastry into my mouth. I was bewildered.

I continued mingling, sampling pastries and chatting with some of Ali’s friends. I didn’t really feel comfortable discussing the abortion with strangers, so I just talked bullshit: Music. School. The Future. I guess I was hesitant to confront the breadth of the party’s complexity. Maybe I had even hoped to avoid it.

I couldn’t, of course. I saw Maggie’s boyfriend, sitting near the kitchen, wearing rainbow suspenders and looking uncomfortably alone. As it turns out, he had been the object of a lot of vitriol from Maggie’s friends -- women who thought that he should not have had anything to do with the abortion. Both he and Maggie had been saddened about this reaction because they had made the decision together. When we talked, his sentences spilled out in quick little jumbles, like scattered puzzle pieces. His eyes stayed focused on a point behind me. He looked as if he’d like to be somewhere else.

Maggie, too, looked less than excited. A few days beforehand, one of her friends had asked her to have the abortion in Ohio. When Maggie insisted on bringing her boyfriend along, the friend told her not to bother coming. Maggie was being shown a great deal of respect, certainly. But she told me she couldn’t help but feel as though her pregnancy had been "hijacked" by women who felt like her inclusion of a man in the decision was weak or wrong. This was a surprise to me, but I didn’t exactly know how to weigh in.

Abortion is, after all, a very tricky topic -- a minefield of opinions where the slightest misstep can elicit unexpected reactions from friends, family, co-workers and strangers. Though I would classify myself an ardent pro-choicer, I also recognize that I am a man, and therefore somewhat of a problematic player in the debate. It’s never been made clear to me what sort of involvement I’m entitled to on the issue, and I don’t feel particularly confident making judgment calls about women -- whatever their political leanings.

I did, however, think the extent to which Maggie’s friends were eager to vilify her partner was peculiar. These were liberal people, after all -- people whose views on sex were worlds away from anything someone might consider "modest." I couldn’t help but notice how aggressive and, for lack of a better term, ‘male’ their attitudes became when confronted with the issue of a woman’s right to choose. It was almost as if, in the process of upholding an ideal of openness and acceptance, they had fallen victim to the same forces they were trying to critique.

Read the rest of this pure evil here.

Gotta admit, sometimes that crazy lesbien is right!

Camille Paglia always has an interesting column. Here's from her latest:

The American system of higher education has become an insane assembly line -- bankrupting families to process hapless students through an incoherent, haphazard and mediocre liberal arts curriculum. In the '60s, there was a brief moment when middle-class young men were dropping out of college to become silversmiths or leather workers in San Francisco or Greenwich Village. As the product of an Italian-American immigrant family where the crafts were honored, I cheered that development and prayed that it would continue. But it sputtered out -- probably because the recession of the 1970s was a cold dose of reality.

Perhaps there's hope of change because of the tens of thousands of liberal arts graduates with expensive degrees who are finding themselves out of work and depressingly marginalized in a society where the manual trades offer guaranteed employment at relatively high wages. A dose of Buddhism might do people good: Sweeping garden sand into oceanic designs around ornamental rocks is considered a spiritual exercise in Asia. I say that landscaping, construction, carpentry, metalworking and all the other trades should be promoted by primary education as worthy careers for both men and women. The pre-college rat race is a sadomasochistic imposition on the young that robs them of free will and saps their vital energies. When will they rebel?

Tough to disagree with that.

A lesson in how sin makes you stupid: by Margaret Sanger

You have to link up here. Very wicked and very interesting.

Watch this wicked interview. It's interesting how solid journalism was back in the day. Wallace, can you believe it, just grills her over and over. I wonder what would happen to our modern day politicians if they were dealt with in such a fair, but forthright manner? (actually, I have a pretty good idea)

Article: Bush plan would blunt state birth control law

Full story here.

(08-20) 18:11 PDT WASHINGTON -- A proposed Bush administration regulation on contraception and abortion would stop California from enforcing a state law that requires Catholic hospitals and charities to provide birth control coverage for thousands of female employees, state Attorney General Jerry Brown and family-planning advocates said Wednesday.

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department regulation, still in draft form, would define abortion as including certain methods of contraception and would prohibit states and other recipients of federal funds from penalizing health care workers who refused to provide those services because of religious or moral beliefs.

Violators would forfeit federal health care funds, which in California amount to as much as $37 billion a year.

The draft regulation describes the problem as laws such as those in California and New York that require employers to include contraceptives in any prescription drug coverage they offer to employees. The federal agency had no comment Wednesday on the proposal.

California's law was passed in 2000 in response to decisions by many health insurance plans to cover the male potency drug Viagra but continue to deny coverage for birth control pills, forcing women to pay for contraceptives.

The state Supreme Court upheld the law in a 2004 ruling that applied to 1,600 employees of Catholic Charities and 52,000 employees of Catholic hospitals in the state. The law exempts church employees, but the court said affiliated agencies such as Catholic Charities are secular institutions because they employ and serve mostly non-Catholics.

New York's highest court later issued a similar ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of Catholic Charities' appeals in both cases. Similar laws exist in 25 other states, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research organization.

Hilarious & crazy: the wymyn priest ordinations...

Check out the whole thing from Fr. Z.
Commentary by Fr. Z.

Jessamine woman to be ordained a priest
By Jim Niemi
Herald-Leader Religion Writer

As a young girl growing up in Milwaukee, Janice Sevre-Duszynska often fantasized [That places it in the right category.] about becoming a priest while helping clean the sanctuary of the church her family attended.

“I’d sit in the priest’s chair, go to the pulpit, make believe I was preaching and giving communion,” she said. “I thought, ‘Why couldn’t I be up here?’” [Make believe is still fun!]

Now, 50 years later, she will get her wish, but it could come with a price — excommunication from the Roman Catholic church. [NB the small "c".] On Aug. 9, in defiance of the church’s 2,000-year ban on women in the priesthood, she will be ordained [No she won’t be.] by Roman Catholic Womenpriests, an activist group that has protested the ban since 2002. [Okay… what language is being used here? So far, its a "ban". Can’t only things that are actually possible be banned? Right there is a ban on importing Cuban cigars in the USA. But it is still possible to smoke them here.]

Sevre-Duszynska, 58, a Jessamine County resident and grandmother of three, has protested the church’s stance [now its a "stance".] for the last decade.

In 1998, she disrupted the ordination of a Lexington priest [classy!] at the Cathedral of Christ the King by pleading with then-Bishop J. Kendrick Williams to ordain her as well. In 2000, she impersonated a reporter [a liar too!] to attend an annual meeting of Catholic bishops in Washington, D.C., where she grabbed the microphone and again called for the ordination of women. And in 2002, she was arrested as part of a group protesting ordination of deacons by the Catholic Diocese of Atlanta. [and stingy! "If I can’t be ordained, no one can!"]

"Call To Action" liturgy update... puppet mass, anyone?

This is a photo from the recent Call to Action seminar... this was the mass....

This is real.

If you've never heard of Call to Action, you're lucky. In case your curious, here's how they describe themselves:

Call To Action (CTA) is a Catholic movement working for equality and justice in the Church and society. An independent national organization of over 25,000 people and 53 local chapters, CTA believes that the Spirit of God is at work in the whole church, not just in its appointed leaders. The entire Catholic Church has the obligation of responding to the needs of the world and taking initiative in programs of peace and justice. CTA acts as a nexus where the full panoply of Church renewal issues come into focus, intersecting and interacting to produce a vision of the Catholic Church as it can and should be. CTA promotes its vision of a progressive, engaged Catholicism through its acclaimed annual conferences, award-winning publications, extensive network of regional groups and joint programs with other Catholic renewal organizations.

CTA draws its mission from the US Bishops' 1976 Call To Action conference, and the "Call for Reform in the Catholic Church" proclaimed by more than 20,000 signers (New York Times, Ash Wednesday, 1990) articulates its goals for our Church.

This is code for: we want to see the Church change how it views life in Christ... totally. We want gay marriage, co-habitation, abortion, contraception, women priests, gay bishops, transvestite everybody... Spare me...

Judging from the photo above, I bet the majority of CTA's members are lesbians over 55 and old people who got (pardon the term) grandfathered in because their bingo club closed.

PRAY FOR THESE PEOPLE!

Nun saves burning man with her habit

Don't worry, nuns can take care of anything!

Reason # 2,435 for religious men and women to wear habits....

From the British paper Daily Record.

A NUN saved a burning man from death by jumping on him - then smothering the flames with her habit.

Brave Sister Donatella Ciucciumei, 51, saw the elderly man douse himself in petrol in a street in San Severino Marche, in Italy.

She ran towards the 71-year-old as he raised a lit match to his body.

And as he was engulfed in flames, she jumped on top of him, spreading her habit to douse the flames.

The nun was unhurt and the man is recovering after sustaining second degree burns to most of his body.

Sister Donatella has visited daily to offer him counselling. Police said he was depressed because his wife left him.

Nice work, sister!

The crap articles you can find in Commonweal...

I was searching for an article by Paul Griffiths, originally published in Commonweal (a lefty Catholic magazine), that I had to read for my master's degree. Somehow, I ended up on Commonweal's mailing list, and every week I get emails alerting me to the great stories in each new edition...

Well, lo and behold, I opened my email today to find these great new offerings from Commonweal; check this out:

Why Not?
by Robert J. Egan
Scripture, History & Women’s Ordination

Do we really need to beat this dead horse to a pulp? Why do we need to keep fighting this battle? The Church will never ordinate women... I repeat NEVER!

Mystery or Mystification?
by Rev. Gerard S. Sloyan
The limits of Latin in the liturgy

Limits of Latin in the liturgy....... Yes, choice is such a bad thing, when it comes to liturgy. These liturgi-nazis want to force crappy vernacular masses (complete with horrid, dumbed down translations) down our throats. Why is it so bad to incorporate Latin into the liturgy? Isn't this being more diverse?????

Will the lefties at Commonweal ever move on?

A Possible 5th Marian Dogma?

5th Marian Dogma Nothing New
Interview With Puerto Rico's Cardinal Aponte

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico, MARCH 18, 2008 (Zenit.org).- By declaring Mary the Spiritual Mother of All Humanity, Benedict XVI wouldn't be saying anything new about her, only clarifying her role in salvation, says Cardinal Luis Aponte Martínez.

The retired archbishop of San Juan is one of the five cardinal co-sponsors of the 2005 International Symposium on Marian Co-redemption, held in Fatima, that are asking Benedict XVI to declare a fifth Marian dogma.

The petition urges the Pope to proclaim Mary "the Spiritual Mother of All Humanity, the co-redemptrix with Jesus the redeemer, mediatrix of all graces with Jesus the one mediator, and advocate with Jesus Christ on behalf of the human race."

In this interview with ZENIT, Cardinal Aponte discusses his views in favor of the proposed dogma.

Q: Your Eminence, what has led you to take a leadership role in the present petition to Benedict XVI for this new Marian dogma?

Cardinal Aponte: Our Lady has always been a source of particular strength and the object of particular love for me. These roles of the Blessed Virgin as our spiritual mother have always been part of our Catholic tradition. For Latin American Catholics, it is all contained in her manifestation as Our Lady of Guadalupe who shows herself as a merciful mother, ready to intercede for us in our gravest needs, and to use her maternal intercession to bring us closer to Jesus.

I first spoke of the importance of this dogma to my brother cardinals in the presence of Pope John Paul II in Rome in 2002. There I related this Marian proclamation to the Church’s new evangelization. As the first great evangelization of Latin America was led by Our Lady of Guadalupe, so should the Mother of Christ be invoked to lead this new evangelization of the third millennium.

The solemn definition of her motherly roles as co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate will simply release Our Lady all the more to perform these motherly functions of intercession for our age for the maximum effectiveness in leading a new evangelization.

There are new times for the world and the Church. Just imagine how much Our Lady can help us in the new evangelization and with other elements of difficulty and crisis in our present age if we solemnly acknowledge her in these God-given roles of intercession for humanity.

Q: How would you respond to the objection that the Church doesn’t need a new teaching on Mary at this time?

Cardinal Aponte: There is nothing new in this teaching. It is actually very ancient. It is important to keep in mind that this truth is already an official doctrine of the Church regarding Mary as taught at the Second Vatican Council -- "Lumen Gentium," Nos. 57, 58, 61, 62 -- and has been the consistent teaching of the papal magisterium for centuries.

John Paul II called Mary the “co-redemptrix” six times during his pontificate. The role is always understood in complete dependency to Jesus and as a human participant with the redeemer in the work of salvation.

When Blessed Pope Pius IX proclaimed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as a dogma in 1854, he explained that a dogmatic statement would add greater light and appreciation of the doctrine, leading to its “perfection.” That’s what this definition would do for Our Lady’s spiritual motherhood -- add nothing new, but provide greater appreciation, understanding, and clarity of the existing truth.

Q: Do you think that these functions of co-redemptrix, mediatrix, and advocate within her general role as our spiritual mother may be too difficult for the common person to comprehend?

Cardinal Aponte: On the contrary, I think, for example, that the faithful in Latin America both comprehend this Marian doctrine in their hearts and already experience these maternal roles of Mary in their lives. Once again, Our Lady of Guadalupe embodies these motherly roles in a dynamic way, as a mother who suffered with Jesus for us, a mother who comes to nourish us with the graces of Jesus, and a mother who intercedes for us in our needs. That’s co-redemptrix, mediatrix, advocate.

John Paul II, in his brilliance, always spoke of Our Lady’s mediation in terms of her motherhood, using the expression “maternal mediation.” What is more common and understandable than a mother who suffers, nourishes, and pleads for her people? That’s what Our Lady does for us as a spiritual mother. It is really quite simple and already part of the daily experience of the Catholic faithful. What may be challenging to some of the learned has already been revealed to the little ones and accepted within the Church.

Q: The principal objection to this new Marian dogma seems to be ecumenism. Would this papal definition hurt the Church’s critically important mission of ecumenism in your view?

Cardinal Aponte: Mothers by their very natures and vocations are unifiers of families. So, too, with the Mother of Jesus within the family of Jesus. The Church’s mission of ecumenism is extremely important, but by leaving the Mother out, we only impede our own progress toward eventual Christian unity in the one body of Christ.

John Paul II made it clear in his encyclical on ecumenism, "Ut Unum Sint," that authentic Catholic ecumenical activity could never include either compromise of Catholic doctrine or impede proper doctrinal development, and this includes the doctrine regarding Mary.

A solemn definition regarding Our Lady’s spiritual maternity would actually be a giant step forward in ecumenism, as it would clearly distinguish what the Church definitively teaches -- that Mary is not a goddess, that Catholics don’t place Mary on a level of equality with Jesus her divine son, and that Mary as a human participated in the historic act of redemption in a way absolutely and completely dependent on Jesus. This would clear up a myriad of misunderstandings amidst our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters, leading to greater dialogue and unity regarding Jesus’ mother and within his body. This is true ecumenism from a Catholic perspective.

At the time preceding the definition of the Assumption in 1950, the same objections regarding ecumenism were raised to Pius XII. After the definition, the Church experienced its greatest progress to date in ecumenism leading up to the second Vatican council.

Mary is the Mother of the ecumenical movement, the Mother of unity, not is obstacle. Let us give her the opportunity to unite us in ways only a mother can by openly and proudly declaring her maternal roles of intercession for us. Just think of how powerfully she could help us in the mission of Christian unity if we solemnly invite her to intercede for this goal.

From Zenit.org

Great Reuter's photo!

Mother refuses to abort twin babies... babies save her life!

Michelle Stepney with her girls Alice and Harriet / Photo Credit: The Daily Mail

Mother refuses to abort twin girls who knocked loose tumor

London, Feb 7, 2008 / 04:41 am (CNA).- A British woman’s twin girls saved her life when, while still in the womb, they kicked free a tumor growing in their mother’s uterus, the Daily Mail reports.

Though advised she needed to abort the twins so she could be treated for cancer, the mother avoided harsh cancer treatment so her babies could be born.

Michelle Stepney, 35, was expecting twins when she went to a hospital with a suspected miscarriage. The doctors realized that she had cervical cancer, saying that the kicking of the twins had dislodged a tumor.

Had the tumor not been dislodged, the cancer may not have been discovered in time for successful treatment.

After the discovery of the cancer, Stepney’s doctors told her that she would need to undergo chemotherapy and a hysterectomy. To do this, she would need to abort the twins.

Stepney refused. "I couldn't believe it when the doctors told me that the babies had dislodged the tumor," she said, according to the Daily Mail.

"I'd felt them kicking, but I didn't realize just how important their kicking would turn out to be.

"I owe my life to my girls, and that's why I could have never agreed with a termination."

"I knew I could have an operation straight away and it would cure me of the cancer, but that would mean getting rid of my babies and I couldn't do that.

"I had two lives inside me and I just couldn't give up on them - especially after they had saved me like this," Stepney said.

The twins are now one year old and thriving. She and her husband, Scott, also have a five-year-old son.

"I feel so lucky. And one day I will tell my daughters how they saved their mummy's life."

Read the full story here:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11713

AGNUS DEI, MISERERE NOBIS (Lamb of God, have mercy on us)

Read this absolutely ridiculous article by a female Episcopalian 'priest'. First, endure my introductory rant...
Case in point about why the priesthood is only for men; as soon as being a priest turns into being innovative or clever, is about gender or sexuality, or that one's personality is important - then the whole thing turns into a disaster for the office and the faithful. Priests (male or female) begin treating their office as if it had something to do with what 'they' can contribute, but the simple fact is that they simply need to be faithful to the office and to Tradition, not imposing their views onto the faith. Priesthood is about fidelity and obedience, just like marriage. It is difficult for us humans to bear- that God did not ordain the priesthood for women, but neither did God ordain the primordial 'sacrament' of motherhood, bearing a child in the womb for 9th months, to man. We, man and woman, are complimentary and have different roles in the mystical Body of Christ. It is little noted that the only perfect human being to have lived (besides the God-man Christ, of course) was Mary, the Blessed Mother of God; but then again, Catholicism represses women... right.

The Earthly Father: What if Mary wasn't a virgin?
By Chloe Breyer
Posted Thursday, Dec. 22, 2005, at 7:07 AM ET

At Christmas, Christians celebrate the birth of God's only son. Some believers, however, wonder if Jesus Christ is God's son only. The ancient "illegitimacy tradition" and its modern proponents propose that Jesus may have had a human father. That idea upsets one of the central mysteries of the Christian faith—the virgin conception. But it's entirely in keeping with more essential tenets: Jesus' role as the Messiah, and God's love for the poor and downtrodden. What's more, the illegitimacy tradition responds to many strange utterances about Jesus' birth in the Scriptures themselves.

Christians agree that Jesus was not conceived by Mary and Joseph while they were married. He was born so soon after Joseph took Mary into his home that it was clear she had conceived during her betrothal to Joseph. Beginning in the second century, most Christians explained the scandalously timed birth as evidence of the virgin conception. Christian leaders were still figuring out Jesus' identity at the time, and the virgin conception offered evidence of the Messiah's exceptionalism. It also made sense that if Jesus was both fully human and fully God, he should have one human parent and one divine one.

The illegitimacy tradition, by contrast, holds that the Holy Spirit supplemented, rather than replaced, Jesus' human paternity. Justin Martyr, a second-century Christian theologian, wrote of early Christians born as Jews who believed that Jesus was the natural son of Mary and Joseph. Origen, another early church father, referred to two branches of first-century Jewish Christians, collectively called the Ebionites, "the one confessing as we do that Jesus was born of a virgin, the other holding that he was not born in this way but like other men." The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas includes an enigmatic saying that may well refer to Jesus: "He who knows the father and the mother will be called the son of a harlot."

But by the fourth century, the author of Thomas and the other doubters of the virgin conception had been labeled heretics. The illegitimacy tradition was particularly unpopular with church leaders because non-Christians took the lead in articulating it—not just early rabbis, but pagan philosophers as well. (Click here for an example from True Doctrine, a pagan anti-Christian polemic written in 178.)

For centuries, the illegitimacy tradition was forgotten. But recently it has been resurrected, and not only by miracle-bashers. Its proponents include establishment theologians like Raymond Brown, author of the massive Birth of the Messiah and the commentary on John's Gospel in the Anchor Bible Series, and feminist theologians like Rosemary Radford Ruether and Jane Schaberg. To be sure, the idea isn't mainstream. In 1987, Schaberg, a biblical studies professor at the University of Detroit Mercy, published The Illegitimacy of Jesus. Her central argument was that Matthew and Luke's Gospels originally told of an illegitimate conception rather than a miraculous virgin one. University of Detroit Mercy, which is Catholic, publicly distanced itself from Schaberg's positions. She got hundreds of angry letters and a few death threats and one night awoke to discover that her car was in flames on the street outside her apartment.

Should Schaberg and other scholars who question the virgin birth be hurled into the outer darkness? The problem with dismissing them, as the fourth-century church authorities dismissed their forerunners, begins with Scripture. The biblical sources for the virgin conception are a few short passages in two of the four Gospels. In Matthew, an angel appears to Joseph, who is perplexed about his fiancee's pregnancy. Should he divorce Mary or have her stoned her to death, as the law of Deuteronomy requires? "Joseph, Son of David," says the angel, "Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus." The angel then goes on to quote the Hebrew prophet Isaiah. "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel." (In fact, "virgin" comes from Matthew's use of a Greek mistranslation; the Hebrew in Isaiah reads "young girl.") The version in Luke is similar.

So far, the Scripture sounds pretty clear. But the infancy narratives from Matthew and Luke must be squared with some startling silences, alternative Greek translations, and a couple of snide comments from Jesus' hometown critics. Paul never mentions the virgin conception and in Galatians describes Christ as "born of a woman." John's Gospel says nothing on the subject of Jesus' conception. And Mark describes the shocked response of the synagogue-goers of Jesus' hometown of Nazareth when Jesus as an adult returns to preach and teach as God's chosen one. The Nazareth Jews presumably would have known better than anyone about the irregular timing of Jesus' birth. "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?" his parents' neighbors ask one another. Since Jewish men of the time were identified in relationship to their father, Schaberg and other scholars take this remark as an insinuation about Jesus' parentage—one that was so offensive that the later Evangelists Luke, Matthew, and John changed it.

And there's more. When Mary responds to the angel's good tidings in Luke, one translation of her speech is, "How can this be, I do not know a man?" But in the Greek, the word for man is anthropos, which also means "husband." Schaberg suggests that if this is the meaning Luke intended, the text could imply that Jesus had a human father who was not Joseph. Finally, in the Magnificat, Mary's song of praise and thanksgiving to God, she says, "God has lifted up his humble maidservant." The Greek word for "humble" is the same one that the Septuagint (the old Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) uses to describe the rape of Dinah in Genesis and other incidents of sexual violation. From this, Schaberg discerns the possibility that Mary's "humility" could be "humiliation" from a sexual assault.

Admittedly, Schaberg's conjecture that the Gospel writers were obliquely conveying an illegitimacy tradition—one in which Mary was the victim of rape or seduction—is just that: conjecture. It lacks positive corroboration within the Gospels or other Christian writings. Schaberg acknowledges that she cannot prove that early Christians read the infancy narratives in the way she proposes. Still, if the Gospel writers did assume that their readers knew of an illegitimacy tradition, their words could support a figurative, rather than literal, reading of the angel's annunciation. It seems rash to rule out that historical possibility when theologically it works so well.

Can a loyal Christian believe that Christ was not born of a biological virgin? Perhaps it's worth posing a different question: Why is church authority so intent upon Mary's virginity as a historical fact? Would Jesus be any less God's son if he had an earthly father? The central message of the Gospel is that God raised up and redeemed his servant from death by crucifixion—the Roman style of execution reserved for the lowest of the low. Why couldn't God have sent the same message of divine solidarity with the world's outcasts by making a Messiah out of a man whose conception was also taboo?

Some church leaders feel the pull of the illegitimacy tradition but fear its impact. "Undoubtedly, some sophisticated Christians could live with the alternative … [but] for many less sophisticated believers, illegitimacy would be an offense that would challenge the plausibility of the Christian Mystery," Brown writes. However well-intended, that fear may be misdirected. When she published her book, Schaberg got seven grateful or supportive letters for every angry one she received. More than a century ago, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote, "If a heavenly father, why not a heavenly mother? And if an earthly mother, why not an earthly father?" She continued, "I think the doctrine of the Virgin Birth as something sweeter, higher, nobler than ordinary motherhood, is a slur on all the natural motherhood of the world." An unveiled illegitimacy tradition offers this Christmas gift: the restoration of natural motherhood to its rightful place in the miraculous.

Gag me with a spoon. . .

A new book...
titled.... (drumroll)
The Two Marys: The Hidden History of the Mother and Wife of Jesus

Are you kidding me?!

Here's what Amazon says... unbelievable how stupid people are; even more unbelievable how stupid Amazon thinks Christians are.

Editorial Reviews

"Ms. Browne is as close as publishing gets to a sure thing." [yeah, shameless...]
-The Wall Street Journal

Book Description
Many controversies have remained unanswered in Christianity for centuries [uhhh, yeah like "was Jesus married?" I know that was the first question I had after reading the Gospels. Guffaw.]. Some of these controversies have recently drawn increased attention due to new discoveries in archaeology [B and S] as well as bestsellers and movies such as The Jesus Tomb and The Da Vinci Code. With the unique perspective only Sylvia Browne could bring, The Two Marys focuses on one of the greatest unknowns: the lives of the two most important women in the life of Jesus.

Jesus' mother had an enormous influence on him, which has mostly been marginalized by the Christian churches [Yeah, for instance in Catholicism...]. Contrary to the beliefs of all the Christian religions, Jesus did marry Mary Magdalene [notice the editorial trump card- "What??? You didn't know that FACT, you must be a stupid Christian." Thanks, Amazon.], and she too influenced his teaching. In The Two Marys, New York Times bestselling author Sylvia Browne uncovers the hidden history of these two women in a remarkable book that will be the perfect gift this Christmas season.