May 8, 2004
Saturday
vol 15, no. 129

God's holy wisdom was reflected in Solomon's decision; one we can readily identify with in today's society where the pro-aborts so clearly represent the second woman who felt no compunction in cutting the child in two. Whereas the true mother would rather give her child up than seeing it killed. Do the pro-aborts get the message? Does Mother's Day mean anything to them?

"The past few weeks have given us a surreal contrast of what false motherhood and real motherhood are all about. Sociologists will tell us that the concept of motherhood is a constantly evolving figment of social structure, history, culture, religion, and traditions. They will tell us that modern motherhood is not confined to the home or to childrearing. They will proclaim that being a mother is so superficial that even men can do it and that two fathers can raise a child. Feminists can paint motherhood as some sad vestige of slavery to male dominance. They can claim that the modern woman must rip away the chains of traditional motherhood to carve her own brand of motherhood built on personal interests, self-focus, and love of self above all else."

    In this month where we celebrate Our Blessed Mother and motherhood, the saddest thorn is that we still feel the savage wounds inflicted by the recent March for Death disguised as a March for Choice. Faced with such conflicting faces of motherhood, we seek the guidance of God Almighty for both strength and wisdom. Our Creator provides this guidance in The Holy Bible, and we are well advised to seek its ancient wisdom so beautifully preserved by Holy Mother Church who commissioned St. Jerome to compile all of Divine Revelation into the Latin Vulgate.

The Basic Story

    We all know the story found in 1 Kings 3: 5-14 wherein two women claiming to be the mother of a child come before Solomon for his judgment. Seeking to draw out the truth, Solomon declares that the child should be divided since the true mother cannot be determined. Upon hearing this, the first woman declares her love for her child, but offers to sacrifice her claim to the baby to spare his life. In contrast, the second woman agrees to the proposed division of the child. Upon hearing the differing responses of the two women, Solomon awards the child to the first one, reasoning that the true mother would love her child so much that she would be willing to sacrifice her custody of him to spare his life, while a fake mother would be more intent on at least not relinquishing the whole child and would care little for its welfare. With motherhood at the forefront in light of tomorrow being Mother's Day, what can we draw from this tale?

What Lead to This?

    Immediately before this situation, Solomon had asked God to grant him the wisdom to judge fairly and in accordance with God's Will and Standards. Hence, we can take Solomon's decision and judgment to be that of God. Once again, as is often the case, the meaning of a Biblical story is best served with a deep faith and respect for The Bible itself, its authority, and its accuracy.

Differing Takes on This

    Those who do not believe in the authority or accuracy of the Bible, who only see it as some biased fiction, will only see a ruthless, powerful king playing chicken with two powerless subjects to see which one blinks first. The reasoning says that the true mother would not want to risk her child's life on a possible bluff and would rather sacrifice her claim to the child to save his life in any event. The reasoning also says that a false mother would care less about risking the child to prove a point and would be ambivalent or even apathetic to the ultimate fate of that child. In other words, no real mother would expose her child to harm to prove some ulterior agenda or point!

    Feminists will likely see this whole thing as another example of a powerful, arrogant male leader's ruthless manipulation of two powerless females thereby once again stamping the Bible as merely some collection of macho stories. They will see the first woman as weak and kissing a male's feet and thus being rewarded for her show of submission. Meanwhile, they will cite the second woman's defiance, ambivalence, and even apathy toward the life of that child as tantamount evidence of a strong woman being punished for her insolence and disrespect toward a king's dictates.

    In Contrast, those who believe in the Bible as God's Word and Will and hold its passages to be sacred emails to us from a loving, just, merciful, yet strict God will see a king's wise determination of a dispute thanks to the influence of a God Who had just granted the king the kind of wisdom and ability he sought. In other words, Solomon had merely done what God would have done in that situation.

Relevance and Standards of Judgment

    Did Solomon, through God, seek to deceive or manipulate these women? Of course not! God would never deceive or manipulate anyone, and to suggest that He would is to lose respect for The Almighty and His Eternal Wisdom! It is clear that Solomon's suggested division of the child was meant to test each woman's response to the threat, and the first woman's perception was rewarded while the second woman's reaction was punished. The first woman demonstrated a willingness to completely sacrifice her claim, to lose that which she claimed to love so much, if only to spare the life of that beloved child. To this first woman, the life of the child was of primary importance, and her own selfish or personal claims or motivations ran a distant second despite their gripping sorrow on her heart. The second woman seemed more interested in respecting the decision than in protecting her child. She was not unlike some shrewd or clueless poker player calling the king's bluff and, unfortunately for her, losing the bet.

    Did the first woman's response guarantee that she was the biological mother? Perhaps not, since it is conceivable that a false mother would relinquish all claims to a child which she never had the rights to in the first place, if only to save face or avoid punishment for fraud or perjury. What of the second woman's response? Did her seemingly heartless, cold, impersonal response guarantee that she was not the mother? Again, not necessarily, since we know from present evidence that biological mothers can be heartless, impersonal, cold, or apathetic toward a child, even marching for the right to kill him! While it would be nice to conceive of a world where we would just not imagine a real mother permitting her child to be killed, such thinking in this lost society would be naïve and even foolish given the abundance of sisters which that second woman has in today's right-to-choose swamp!

    While Solomon's decision and the responses it provoked cannot tell us who the real biological mother is, they do reveal God's notion of who the mother should be! When God sees a mother, He sees someone who will love and sacrifice herself at all times for the welfare and safety of her child, regardless of the personal or emotional loss or burden which that selfless sacrifice and commitment may entail. He sees someone whose standard of conduct will always be centered on the best interests of the child, not merely herself. Finally, He sees someone without an agenda, plan, or strategy developed for appearance or selfish gain. The first woman clearly reacted from the gut for the benefit of the child. Her main objective was to keep the child safe and protect him. Harming the baby or allowing the baby to be harmed was the last thing this first woman would permit, encourage, or participate in!

    What of the second woman? Regardless of whether or not she had actually been the biological mother, she was clearly not the psychological mother of this child. She did not love the child or care to sacrifice herself to keep the child safe and protected. It was clear that she cared more about winning and losing and herself than she did about the welfare of the infant. She clearly did not concern herself with the best interests of the child.

    While it is unlikely that this second woman's response was the result of some formulated plan or agenda either, it did represent a vivid apathy toward the child and a strong focus on her own wants and demands. In short, the first woman was selfless and the second woman was selfish!

Reflection of Mary

    Does not the first woman more closely respond in the way Our Blessed Mother responded to the mission given to Her by God Almighty and the resulting sorrows that Her Son's own mission would bring? Did not our Heavenly Mother love Her Divine Son so much that She was willing to sacrifice having Him with Her so that He could fulfill His mission, regardless of the deep sorrow that this loss gave Her? The first woman trusted in the king's judgment, wisdom, and mercy and humbly sacrificed her claim out of love, obedience, and respect for the law. She opened herself to further sorrow, vulnerability, and loss out of an overriding, selfless, giving love. Did not our Heavenly Mother do likewise in trusting a higher King? She was totally resigned to God's Will, Judgment, Wisdom, and Mercy and humbly sacrificed her interests out of love, obedience, and respect for God's Law and Word. Did She not therefore open Herself to further vulnerability and loss through that overriding, selfless, giving love?

    Our Blessed Mother is nothing like the second woman, who cares only for herself and is not willing to sacrifice her interests out of love or concern. That second woman measures a thing out of her own agenda and self-interest and displays her attitude in defiance and insolence. I strongly feel that this second woman represents the feminists, pro-choice pro aborts, and lesbian women who care little for traditional family values, only think in terms of their own interests and self-benefit, and think nothing of slicing an innocent baby in half or quarters or whatever it takes to rip the child out of their womb if the baby's presence there is an inconvenience or hassle. This second woman is probably more sophisticated and street-wise than the first, able to bluff and play logical poker with the king of the world at least on some level. Many feminists and Pro-Choice women are highly educated and wise to the ways of the world, yet those supposed attributes render them no more able to love or nurture than heartless heathens! So, we see, it is not education, sophistication, or social skills that determined whose claim was successful. It was the simple measure of which woman loved so much that she lost herself for the interest of the child.

    Such a love and respect for the glory and majesty of motherly love and its special, unique status in God's plan is something which feminists and Pro-Choice females have no clue about. While the first woman is thinking of love and sacrifice, the second woman was thinking of math, rights, and choice! So, we see, our Blessed Mother is a supercharged, million-times upgraded example of that first woman. Mary is a loving, humble servant of the law. The feminists and Pro-Choice females which grace our sinful society are, in contrast, multi-charged, updated versions of that second insolent, resentful, arrogant, rebellious, selfish, unloving, narcissistic female having the gall to call herself a mother or even mother material!

Conclusion

    The past few weeks have given us a surreal contrast of what false motherhood and real motherhood are all about. Sociologists will tell us that the concept of motherhood is a constantly evolving figment of social structure, history, culture, religion, and traditions. They will tell us that modern motherhood is not confined to the home or to childrearing. They will proclaim that being a mother is so superficial that even men can do it and that two fathers can raise a child. Feminists can paint motherhood as some sad vestige of slavery to male dominance. They can claim that the modern woman must rip away the chains of traditional motherhood to carve her own brand of motherhood built on personal interests, self-focus, and love of self above all else.

    No matter what any of these pathetic experts, scholars, and fools say, the concept of motherhood is best reflected in Our Blessed Mother and Her life. In addition, the contrast between what a real mother is and what a pathetic, absurd, fraud of a mother is can be illustrated by the two very different women in Solomon's court. A real mother can only love and protect. A false mother can only think of herself and expose her child to harm to serve her own interests. While there are certainly degrees between these two kinds of mothers, abortion and Pro-Choice positions are clearly the home of the second kind of so-called mother, who treats her child as some kind of appendix to be removed at whim. This pathetic excuse for a mother not only allows her child to be divided to prove her vile, selfish point; she even seeks the swordsman or executioner herself! In some cases, she even takes the sword in her own hands!

    What does this story tell us of those pathetic, so-called "faithful Pro-Choice" advocates? They are worse than the murderers who do not believe in God or ignore His Word, for they sacrilegiously blaspheme Him by daring to imply that He would ever condone, allow, or even support the murder of the most innocent! Heaven help these ghouls who dare to speak for The Lord and only spit on His Name and Word!

    As we celebrate motherhood and Our Blessed Mother, let us celebrate what real motherhood is all about, and honor those with the courage, humility, obedience, love, respect, decency, and strength to nobly fulfill this most noble calling which, despite what the feminists say, is not a chain but a link to The Majesty of God's Creative Blessings! I wish all true mothers who embrace the attributes of the first woman exemplified so clearly by Our Lady, a Blessed and Happy Mother's Day.

Gabriel's Clarion
May 8, 2004
Volume 15, no. 129