January 23, 2014

march for life, 2014

At 4:30 this morning (oh, ungodly hour), we returned from the 41st Annual March for Life in Washington D.C.  I went home, blacked out under the covers of my delicious bed for a couple hours, went to Mass.  Now, off to school in a few minutes, and then to church for Anna's rosary.

Life really doesn't slow down at all ever.

Anyway.

This basilica, maaaan...  I'm telling you.  Being there eight times has not lessened the wonderment I feel when I go in that place.  It's like all the pounds of stress and worry and whatever just seem to melt into nothingness when I look at this stunning tribute to the Lord's Majesty and to His Mother.
P.S.  All that artwork is mosaic tile.  Say WHAAAAAT.  Yes.
Christ conquers.  Christ reigns.  Christ rules.  Eternal Victor, eternal King, eternal Master.
His power is everlasting - power that shall not be taken away.
via
We went to 7:30 Mass here on March morning.  What a blessing and inspiration it was to see so many young people willing (and happy!) to be up at the crack of dawn to go sit in a hard wooden pew bench for a few hours before spending the rest of the day freezing.  For something they/we believe in.
Then, we took the very crowded Metro to the National Mall.
I am exceedingly fond of the Metro.  Exceedingly.  Don't as me why, because I have no idea.
Met the hundreds of thousands of other pro-life advocates, and marched.
Hellooooooo.  Tell me how the media can black this out of their sights.
via
via
via
"My" little fellowship was smaller than anticipated this year because some people backed out at the last minute, but we enjoyed ourselves just the same.  Traveling in a smaller group makes it easier to maneuver up to the front of the March, where we saw the powerful witness of women who have had abortions, regret it, and now raise their voices to help other women who were in their situation.
'Ello, menfolk!
'Ello, cousins! :)
'Ello, friend.  And Self.  Erin drove to D.C. with a different group, but we met up for the March.  What fun that was!
I did not take as many pictures this year, because I wanted to be more present than I was last year, but happy news!  We did have relatively fair coverage from a few sources this year, including USA Today.

And if you wanted to watch it live, but didn't have the chance... here you go!

If you're new here, you might enjoy my blog's Facebook page, browsing myInstagram pictures, or following me on the Twitter.  Leave me a comment somewhere, because I'd love to get to know you!

Please vote for Country Girl’s Daybook under the “Best Underappreciated Blog” Section! à http://bit.ly/1dYITpR

21 comments :

  1. I so wish I had been there!! We are the Pro Life generation! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We saw some Canadians there and screamed for 'em. :D They had a giant, beautiful banner with the maple leaf and all.
      We are indeed! And we will not be silent.

      Delete
  2. Really well done, Iris. Truly. Thank you for the wonderful reporting and perspective on a really important event. God Bless YOU!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Kate. <3 I didn't report too much this year, but I plan on doing a little video again next year, depending on the circumstances. :)

      Delete
  3. Your generation gives me hope for my granddaughters' future!!

    Thanks for sharing these pictures. And God bless you!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Loved your pictures! Thank you for going and marching--I live in the West Coast and have gone to the Walk for Life before, but with kids, it's just hard to get there anymore. Would you mind if I link to this post and your pictures in a post of my own? And again, thank you for your witness!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Mary! I do not mind at all! Thank you for spreading the word. :)

      Delete
    2. Awesome Iris, and thanks again! http://www.domesticapologist.com/2014/01/7qt-francis-march-trains-chicken.html

      Delete
  5. I always wonder about all the fuss and people trying to tell others how to think and live....if you don't want an abortion, then don't get one...kind of the same way I think about gay marriage: if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, well, then don't!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello, anonymous! ☺ I agree with you on some things, but when it comes to matters of life and death, then we HAVE to tell people what to do and not to.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Anonymous # 2.
      Abortion is literally a matter of life and death - killing another tiny little human being. In that case, we have to tell folks how to think and live in order to protect the babies being killed.

      Delete
    3. I can respect your feelings about abortion. BUT, do you become fanatic about war? about military strikes? killing in the name of national defense? You can't pick and choose. Do you honor those who kill in our military or do you denegrate them? Anon #1

      Delete
    4. I forgot one: would you kill someone that was harming your child? Anon #1.

      Delete
    5. Well first of all, we are on the topic of abortion, which is very different from war, national defense, or the defense of my/your/anyone's child, so I'll only address that one for now, although I'd be happy to discuss it at another time, because they're definitely important issues! (How's that for a run-on sentence? ;)
      I'm talking about the murder of thousands of innocent children before they're even born.

      Delete
    6. I won't bother you again (came upon your site from a favorite one of mine - I'm really not a troll), but I have to ask why killing of an unborn human is different than killing of other humans. Christ said to not kill, yet we kill in the name of defense, offense, self-defense, and mostly out of fear. This is theoretical for me and something I try to come to terms with.... Turning the other cheek might mean decimation of nations or the rising of crazy fundamentalist belief-systems, but isn't that what we as Christians are to do? It is just hypocritical to me to be so fanatical about some killing and not others.

      Delete
    7. Oh no, you're not a bother at all! I like discussions like this. :) Even if you were a troll. ;)

      Christian Tradition has never stated that "killing" was uniformly wrong, only the taking of innocent life. This is why Catholic Tradition opposes abortion while simultaneously affirming the right of State's to execute certain offenders. The commandment does not say "Thou shalt not kill" but "Thou shalt not murder." Abortion is not wrong because it's killing, but because it is murder. Jesus is not a pacifist; at the end of the world, it says that He Himself will descend from heaven and personally slaughter the entire army of the Antichrist.

      Delete
    8. Iris, Your blog was passed on by a very important person. I love your zeal. Stay safe. The photos are amazing. UB.

      Delete
    9. Hey there Iris - I am also not a troll (sent here by another blog) and interested in debate :)

      I have to quibble with your statement above - "This is why Catholic Tradition opposes abortion while simultaneously affirming the right of State's to execute certain offenders." The Vatican is actually opposed to the death penalty, and this position has been most recently reiterated by Pope Francis: "In a message to participants of the Fifth World Congress Against the Death Penalty held in Madrid, Pope Francis reiterated the Holy See’s support for “the abolition of the death penalty.” Opposition to the death penalty is part of the Church’s defense of the dignity of human life, he said, and it is “a courageous reaffirmation of the conviction that humanity can successfully confront criminality” without resorting to the suppression of life." http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/papal-message-reaffirms-call-to-abolish-death-penalty

      Delete
    10. The Church teaches the state has the right to execute to criminals who merit it, but stresses that modern countries should exercise restraint in applying it. Go to the Catechism and look up Capital Punishment in the index. :)

      "2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

      2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

      If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
      2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

      2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

      2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

      If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

      Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

      Delete
    11. Look at CCC #2267: "2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor."
      What the pope is arguing for is a change in how this is applied. And, when push comes to shove, the traditional Catholic dogma and the teaching of the CCC outweigh the pope's speech.

      Delete

LEAVE A COMMENT IF YOU WISH TO MAKE MY DAY!

No anonymous comments, please.