The Trinity: insights on globalisation and individualism

Ω By Cardinal William SC Goh, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Singapore                                                                                   Holy Trinity Sunday, June 4, 2023

We live in a very divided society. Mass communication and social media are supposed to help human beings to communicate better. The irony of it all is that it is one of the causes of breakdown in relationships. Instead of communicating with each other more personally, we have become impersonal with emails. Instead of spending time with our loved ones at home or at meals, we are busy with our mobile phones. Instead of using social media to transmit positive information, we use it to destroy people’s lives, shame those who make mistakes and worst of all, transmit fake news and distort information.

Indeed, society has become more individualistic and self-centred.  It is about the happiness of the individual over the rest of the community.  It is about me and my freedom to do what I like at the expense of the greater good of others.  In the name of freedom and human rights, the freedom and rights of the greater community is compromised.  

When an individual claims complete autonomy from others, he becomes inward-looking.  He is selfish, arrogant and cares only for himself.  He puts himself before others. He cares for others only to the extent that they are of use to him.  People are used, not loved. Relationship is for fundamentally utilitarian purposes, not mutual love.

What is the cause?  A godless society!  Whether we admit it or not, we model ourselves according to our values and conception of life.  A society without good role models to imitate but ourselves would be an impoverished community. Conversely, if we believe in God, we will imitate who we believe.  Our concept of God determines how we live our lives.  The religion or faith we subscribe to will impact the way we relate to each other, especially in family life.  Our values originate from our faith.

How we perceive God is how we will relate to each other.  There cannot be a dichotomy between faith and life.  So those without God will operate from what they think how life should be lived, since they have no models to live by except what they see in the lives of others, depending on who they are attracted or inspired by.   If we choose the wrong models of success and happiness in life, we might end up destroying ourselves.  We can either imitate St Teresa of Calcutta or Hitler.   The implications are colossal.

So what is our concept of God?  In the first reading, we read about the attributes of God. He revealed Himself to Moses as “a God of tenderness and compassion, slow to anger, rich in kindness and faithfulness.”  This concept of God is quite similar to that of Islam and Judaism.  Not surprisingly, we share the same Old Testament roots.  In Islam, God is known as the Compassionate One.  Interestingly, although Buddhism does not speak about God, yet the distinguishing mark of Buddha is that of an Enlightened One and of compassion.  

This explains why Jews, Muslims and Buddhists emphasize the need for compassion for our fellowmen. Charity and almsgiving are important practical expressions of our faith.  So followers of such religions at least tend to emphasize much on compassion, fraternal love for their brothers and sisters, forgiveness and helping each other.  Thus, our beliefs in God determine very much how we relate to our fellowmen.  If God is merciful to us and forgiving, then necessarily, we who receive His mercy and forgiveness would extend the same blessings to others as well.

However, Christian Faith goes beyond proclaiming that God is compassion.  The gospel reading speaks of the being of God as love.  “God loved the world so much.”  When we speak of God as love, then we are claiming that God is relationship.  If the being of God is love, He could not possibly love Himself, as this would be narcissistic.  And how could He be love from all eternity when the world, the universe and human beings were still not around for Him to love? So He would be loving Himself!  Flowing from this truth that God is love, we must posit that although the substance of God is One, since God must be a unity, yet within God there must be relations.  Consequently, Christian doctrine defines God as One in being but three in persons.

God is subsistent relations.  This is to say that the three persons in the Trinity do not have relations like you and me.  We have relations outside of us.  We are related to our parents, our spouse, our children, but we are not constituted of these relations because we are also unique individuals.  We can stand alone but we are also social beings.  In God, however, He is pure relations; that is, the Father cannot exist without the Son and the Son without the Father and both without the Holy Spirit.  

This explains why the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is an advancement of monotheism.  Christianity, although monotheistic, does not conceive of God as a monad, as in Judaism and Islam.  In the One God, the three persons share in the same divine substance.  This is what unites the three persons.  But within the one divine substance, there are three persons.

This doctrine of the One God in three persons is not a philosophical deduction but is rooted in the experience of God in the life of a Christian.  Clearly, in the gospel, we read that God is not merely love but He is also a Father, that is, the origin of life and love.  Jesus revealed to Nicodemus that “God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not be lost but may have eternal life.”  

God is more than love.  He is our Father.  Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father, the expression of the Father on earth.  He is the incarnation of God, the Word made flesh.  Together, the Father and the Son saved the world by bestowing their mutual love and mercy on the world.  This is summed up by St Paul when he described the love of God.  “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”  In this Trinitarian greeting, we have the summary of the Christian experience of God’s love and mercy through our Lord Jesus Christ made present in the Holy Spirit, especially in the fellowship of the Christian community.

What is the implication of this doctrine of the Holy Trinity for us all?  It means that our happiness and joy in life depends on the depth of our relationship with each other.  Just as the happiness and fulfilment of God is found within the mutual relationship of the Father and the Son sharing in the same Spirit of love, our completion and fulfilment must come in our relationships with our fellowmen.  Although we are individuals, yet we are called to be one with others.  We are unique so that we can complement each other in love, in resources and blessings.  No man is an island.  He needs to relate with others to find himself.  Man is therefore an individual and social being.  He needs to be himself but never without the others.  To love himself is to love his neighbours.

The three persons of the Holy Trinity live from each other, by each other, for each other and in each other.  The unity of the three persons is complete and yet they are distinct from one another.  We too are called to love in such a manner.  We are called to be united in our diversity.  We need each other and we are called to live for each other, with each other and from each other as well.  In all that we do and act, we do it out of love.  It is love that unites us in our distinctions as individuals.  When we define God and human beings as love, it means that we need each other.   God must be a Trinity of persons. We are social beings.

This is also our answer to a world that wavers between globalization and individualism.  The recent political developments in the world exemplify this tension. Some countries are going back to protectionism in the face of globalization. They view others as a threat to their economy and their homogenous society.  So instead of reaching out, they are excluding others by promoting themselves at the expense of other countries. 

At the other end of the spectrum are those who promote globalization, free trade and welcoming migrants.  They believe in free competition and mutual promotion of each other’s interests.  The first is a win-lose approach.  The latter is a win-win approach.  What we need to promote today is the uniqueness of the individual which cannot be denied.  But we must also underscore that no individual and no country can exist for herself but for and with others.  This is the kind of communion that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is offering to the world.  Instead of alienating others, we are called to build bridges of love.  In this way, through mutual love, we can truly transform this humanity into the family of God united as one in love.

Now we can appreciate why the Lord tells us that the greatest commandments are these “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”  (Mk 12:29-31)

The concept of God as Trinity therefore reveals to us the key to true happiness, which is the love of God manifested in our love for others, a love that is in imitation of the Blessed Trinity, a love that is mutually giving, caring, and empowering.

 SCRIPTURE READINGS: [EXODUS 34:4-6,8-9; 2 CORINTHIANS 13:11-13; JOHN 3:16-18]

Cardinal Goh...we can truly transform this humanity into the family of God united as one in love.

Let women in West speak - UN expert

                                                                               BBC NEWS

Allow women and girls to speak on sex, gender and gender identity without intimidation or fear: UN expert

A Press Release                                                                                                 

GENEVA (22 May 2023) – Threats and intimidation against women expressing their opinions on sex and sexual orientation is deeply concerning, said Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls in a statement today.

In the context of disagreements between some women’s rights activists and transgender activists in a number of countries in the Global North, Alsalem warned that [there are many cases of] violence against women and intimidation against people for expressing differing views.

“Discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation is prohibited in international and regional human rights law.

I am concerned by the shrinking space in several countries in the Global North for women and feminist organisations and their allies to gather and/or express themselves peacefully in demanding respect for their needs based on their sex and/or sexual orientation.

Law enforcement has a crucial role in protecting lawful gatherings of women and ensuring women’s safety and rights to freedom of assembly and speech without intimidation, coercion, or being effectively silenced. It is clear that where law enforcement has failed to provide the necessary safeguards, we have witnessed incidents of verbal and physical abuse, harassment, and intimidation, with the purpose of sabotaging and derailing such events as well as silencing the women who wish to speak at them.

I am disturbed by the frequent tactic of smear campaigns against women, girls and their allies on the basis of their beliefs on non-discrimination based on sex and same-sex relations. Branding them as “Nazis,” “genocidaires” or “extremists” is a means of attack and intimidation with the purpose of deterring women from speaking and expressing their views.

Such actions are deeply troubling, as they are intended to instill fear in them, shame them into silence, and incite violence and hatred against them. Such acts severely affect the dignified participation of women and girls in society. 

I am also concerned by the way in which provisions that criminalise hate speech based on a number of grounds, including gender expression or gender identity, have been interpreted in some countries. Women and girls have a right to discuss any subject free of intimidation and threats of violence.

This includes issues that are important to them, particularly if they relate to parts of their innate identity, and on which discrimination is prohibited. Holding and expressing views about the scope of rights in society based on sex and gender identity should not be delegitimised, trivialised, or dismissed.

According to international human rights law, any restriction on freedom of expression should be carried out strictly in accordance with the human rights standards of legality, necessity, proportionality and to serve a legitimate aim. Those disagreeing with the views of women and girls expressing concerns related to gender identity and sex also have a right to express their opinion.

However, in doing so they must not threaten the safety and integrity of those they are protesting against and disagreeing with. Sweeping restrictions on the ability of women and men to raise concerns regarding the scope of rights based on gender identity and sex are in violation of the fundamentals of freedom of thought and freedom of belief and expression and amounts to unjustified or blanket censorship.

Of particular concern are the various forms of reprisals against women, including censorship, legal harassment, employment loss, loss of income, removal from social media platforms, speaking engagements, and the refusal to publish research conclusions and articles. In some cases, women politicians are sanctioned by their political parties, including through the threat of dismissal or actual dismissal.”

ENDS

Reem Alsalem is the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, read the same posts at my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

Culture and politics

 Isabel Díaz Ayuso's popularity and profile have given her a national presence Photo

Conservatives force Spanish PM into retreat - The Times

The woke Left can be defeated - Telegraph contributor Nile Gardiner 

Spanish PM Sánchez calls snap general election after disastrous results in local elections - Politico Europe:

Spain was due to hold general elections by the end of the year, but the Socialist leader announced his decision to move up the date following Sunday’s local elections, which saw his party suffer heavy losses across the country.

The gains for the conservative People's Party indicate they could unseat the current left-wing coalition led by the Socialists,  if they replicate the performance in national elections, Reuters reports. As a result of these results the government has called a shock snap election for July rather than wait till the due date of December. 

The numbers showed few clear majorities, except in the Madrid region where regional president Isabel Diaz Ayuso of the PP looked set to win re-election with an absolute majority.

From an earlier Politico report highlighting the prominence of Diaz Ayuso:

At a campaign rally in a square in Madrid’s wealthy Goya neighborhood, the conservative mayor of Lisbon, former European Commissioner Carlos Moedas, praised her.

“You have got rid of something which is the worst thing about the left today: its moral superiority,” he said. “As if they’re better people just because they’re on the left, as if they’re more human. Isabel has looked them in the eyes and said: ‘No, it’s not like that.’”

Moments later, to rapturous applause, Díaz Ayuso took up the same theme. 

“What [the left] don’t understand is that when people are free and prosperous and united despite their differences, they are unbeatable,” she said. 

-----

“She has taken ownership of the word ‘freedom’ away from the left,” said one person close to her who wanted to remain anonymous because of their position on her staff.

“If you say ‘freedom’ in Madrid, people think of Ayuso … She has waged all the ideological battles possible over the last few years and that explains her success.”

Those battles have included attacking the feminist agenda of the government, as well as casting doubt on climate change.

As for that feminist agenda, a report from Le Monde describes the outcome of a national law on rules for transitioning from one sexual identity to another:

While this law is a "historic victory" for the trans community to become less "stigmatized," it has also provoked the indignation of a part of the feminist movement, grouped within the Alliance Against the Erasure of Women. For this alliance, the law leads to the "legal erasure of biological sex," "inoculates children with sexist stereotypes," "makes it impossible to take any action to rectify the discrimination suffered by women in the public space" and could jeopardize the reserved spaces where women feel safe (toilets, domestic abuse shelters and prisons). 

Political action is certainly central to taking control of the direction of ideology and the shape of the culture, but this task must be coupled with reclaiming influence for the common good within institutions such as education, the media, and the corporate domain. 

American author and social analyst Rod Dreher, writing from the vantage point of his new home base in Europe, is worried by the aggressive US response wherever a nation's cultural heritage is deemed a persona non grata:

The United States is awash in its own many problems now. The ruling class, across institutions, has committed itself to the spread of an insane ideology that trains Americans to see each other in terms of racial identity, and acculturates them to grievances. It is also committed to the spread of a parallel ideology that is destroying biology, destroying science, destroying the mental health of young people, wrecking their bodies and their capacity to procreate, and so forth. The ruling class’s ideology is pulverizing the idea of truth-telling, and of merit and competence. I could go on. AND YET … the United States ruling class believes it has everything all figured out, and has the moral right to push countries like Hungary around, either directly or through its proxies in Brussels.

None of this makes Russia right, either in its invasion of Ukraine or about anything else! But folks, if you could only see how our country is seen by so many people outside of its borders. To be fair, America has a tremendous amount of goodwill built up in the hearts and minds of people all around the world. We are ruining it with our colonialist liberal messianism.   

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, read the same posts at my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

Cancel culture can never be regarded casually

There is an important debate about how to negotiate trans rights and women’s rights, but trying to shut down one side of the debate as unacceptable will make it more difficult to work out a fair solution, writes Kenan Malik, a British writer, lecturer and broadcaster.

In his latest Observer column he examines the rising tolerance of censorship whether by the social elites in universities or the government, or among the educated young. For example, the de-platforming of those opposing views caught up in the cult of the fashionable transgender ideology has generated dismay. Though not without blame of censorship themselves, "many of the issues they ["anti-woke free speech champions"] highlight are nevertheless important".

Of particular concern is that "there is growing support in sections of the left and on campuses for the suppression of unacceptable views".

The Higher Education Policy Institute found in a student survey last year that 79% thought “Students that feel threatened should always have their demands for safety respected” and more than a third believed academics should be sacked for teaching “material that heavily offends some students”. “Many people may be surprised, perhaps even unsettled”, the report observed, “by the greater keenness of students to limit what their peers and lecturers can say and do within the law”.

Last week, the Office for Students, as part of its regular reporting on the impact of Prevent guidance, ["the government anti-terror policy that has helped create a climate of self-censorship"], published data on cancellations of university talks. Out of 31,545 speakers in the academic year 2021-22, 260 had their events cancelled. The reasons for doing so are unclear; the OfS data unfortunately does not show how many speakers were banned because their views were deemed unacceptable. Whatever the figure, it is small – less than 1%. This shouldn’t lead us to conclude, though, that there is no issue. Controversial speakers will inevitably be small in number, but attempts to stop them speaking often highlight a deeper problem, particularly the tendency to portray political and social disagreements as “hatred” or “bigotry”.

The aggression of transgender activists disturbs Malik.

The most incendiary issue at the moment is that of trans rights. “Gender critical” feminists such as Kathleen Stock or Julie Bindel, who argue for the importance of sex-based rights and for the exclusion of transgender women from sex-based, women-only spaces, such as refuges or prisons, have faced calls for their meetings to be shut down.

Many of their critics argue that such individuals are not being censored because they have other platforms on which they are able to express their views, from newspaper columns to books. That is to miss the point.

On this Malik would clearly be a full supporter of the "right to hear", so that even the least degree of censorship is an offence against the personal rights of those who would otherwise have been able to hear, maybe for the first time, a speaker offering unfashionable ideas.  He continues, referring to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which became law this month:

At the same time, opponents of gender critical views should be equally free to express themselves. Last week, a tweet from Oxford University LGBTQ+ campaign calling for Stock’s invitation to speak at the Oxford Union to be rescinded was taken down by the student union on the grounds it might infringe the new law. The [anti-woke] Free Speech Union crowed about it as a victory. It was, in fact, a blatant denial of free speech. The episode revealed both how state-imposed free speech can itself be a form of censorship and how little the FSU understands about the meaning of free expression.

Malik offers these points by way of conclusion:

There is an important debate about how to negotiate trans rights and women’s rights, and how best to ensure that both are respected. Shutting down one side of the debate as unacceptable will not settle the issues but merely make it more difficult to work out a fair solution.

For too many people today, on both the left and the anti-woke right, what matters about free speech depends upon which side of the culture wars they stand. It is an issue too important to be treated with such casual disdain.

There is no easy answer to the ostracism a person may face in a work environment, especially if the corporate HR personnel are DEI activists, or even among friends and neighbours. But a guiding principle for us all is: Live Not By Lies.

Ω See also:

"A Generational Threat to Free Expression" ‒ Survey data show that Americans under 30 prize cancel culture over liberty. Eric Kaufmann ‒ City Journal

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, read the same posts at my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published. 

The corrosion of social norms without religion

Most clearly in the United States, but significantly so, too, in most WEIRD nations, "shared ideas about norms, about decency, have been seriously corroded". In this there is a correlation with disengagement from participation in religion by the young, the university educated, and those captured by the self-invention promoted by the morality-denying ideology at the core of Critical Theory.   

Hard-headed journalist Jesse Singal is the dismayed source of the quoted view of much of the social discourse on the likes of Twitter. In his latest Substack post he examines a particularly nasty episode of vicious responses from those who opposed the victim's views. His exposition of the implications for Americans of this widespread moral corrosion, evidenced by the abusive language used on social media, come as Australian broadcaster Stan Grant, of Aboriginal parentage, has responded to a deluge of gutter language and threats by stepping away from his roles, making the comment:

"To those who have abused me and my family, I would just say — if your aim was to hurt me, well, you've succeeded."  

One can also think of JK Rowling, so bravely enduring slanderous harassment.

For Singal, the corrosion of traditional social standards is to be observed particularly in those most strongly bound by what has been described as the cult of left-wing activism:

Progressive organizations all over the country are in the midst of wave after wave of embarrassing, time- and money-wasting meltdowns, largely because shared ideas about norms, about decency, have been seriously corroded. Antisocial behavior — both outright, obvious bullying and the more subtle, manipulative variants that tend to weaponize shared lefty contempt for oppression and various -isms and -phobias — is, if not endorsed, certainly endorsed tacitly by the silence of a lot of people who are otherwise super concerned about bullying and meanness and online harassment. At least theoretically.

The Pew Research Center reports:

Seven-in-ten adults who were raised Christian but are now unaffiliated [also termed "nones"] are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents, compared with 43% of those who remained Christian and 51% of U.S. adults overall. Some scholars argue that disaffiliation from Christianity is driven by an association between Christianity and political conservatism that has intensified in recent decades.

Singal finds that the foul language, and the urge to inflict pain, are "unfortunately characteristic of a broad swath of the online lefty world, which is just a miserable, deranged, angry place". 

See this Twitter post here.

However, Stan Grant's experience of harassment, presumably from the Right after statements on colonial treatment of Aborigines and present-day racism, illustrates how a society can become desensitised and lose sight of the value of moral guardrails in trying to undertake a peaceful examination of controversial issues. See his article: For years I've been a media target for racism and paid a heavy price. For now, I want no part of it – I'm stepping away

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, read the same posts at my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published. 

The Mass as eternal sacrifice that saves us

The Ascension of Christ 1958 Salvador Dali

Jesus' sacrifice of himself on Calvary to his father is able to continue for all eternity because of Jesus' ascension to heaven. In Revelation, Jesus is the Lamb, in glory but "as if slain". Jesus is both God and victim, saving us by the unceasing sacrifice he offers his father.

Bishop Robert Barron of Minnesota made his latest Sunday TV sermon on how the ascension is central to this gift on our behalf:

Open up to the Letter to the Hebrews, this wonderful, mysterious text, written by someone who was deeply acquainted with the Jerusalem temple because it’s all about temple worship and sacrifice.

But here’s his basic insight:  For centuries earthly priests, on the Day of Atonement, would bring animals for sacrifice into the Holy of Holies.

Throughout the year, priests would facilitate the sacrifice of animals, the pouring out of blood and offering to the Lord.

These are commanded by God. But did they accomplish their purpose? No was the answer.

Why? Because the blood of cattle and goats and sheep is not sufficient for righting the wrongs of the world.

What alone satisfies the Father? Answer: The sacrifice of the Son. Jesus now on the cross, the lamb of sacrifice.

We say, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.” So think of all the lambs and sheep and cattle and so on that were sacrificed. Did they take away the sin of the world? Well, not definitively. They were anticipations, they were the foreshadowing of this one great sacrifice of the cross.

The sacrifice with an eternal dimension

Now, because the one who performed that sacrifice is not just a human figure, not just a rabbi or a teacher or a social reformer, but is the very Son of God, that sacrifice has an eternal dimension.

Here’s the climax of the Letter of the Hebrews: That sacrifice on Calvary now takes place eternally in the heavenly temple.

So yes, on Mount Calvary in around the year 30 AD, but because it has an eternal dimension, it’s taking place forever in the heavenly temple.

It’s the resurrected and ascended Christ who is eternally presenting this sacrifice to the Father. In space and time, yes, in the year 30, but now eternally in the heavenly temple.

Every time we attend Mass, we are communing with this eternal sacrifice of the Son. What takes place on the altar — how important that is, by the way — not just the table. It is that, but also an altar; it’s a place of sacrifice because we represent the sacrifice of Jesus, uniting ourselves to the eternal sacrifice present in the heavenly temple.

It’s powerful, mystical stuff, I realize that, and if we think of the Mass as just a religiously themed jamboree or a chance for us to get together and hear stories about Jesus, I mean, that ain’t enough.

That’s not a sufficient understanding of the Mass.

The Mass is a link to heaven. It’s a link to the risen and ascended Jesus who is presenting his sacrifice eternally before the Father.

That wouldn’t be possible unless the Ascension were true.

Not of Jesus’ absence, no, on the contrary, of his more intense presence to us as the one directing our operations in the world, and as the one with whom we are united every time we celebrate the Mass.

Further insights

Christ IS “always able to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25). What is the basis of this intercession? The sacrifice of the Cross (Heb. 7:27; 9:12; 10:14), which is forever present before God in the heavenly tabernacle because he who was both offered as victim and who offered the sacrifice as priest “appears before God on our behalf” (Heb. 9:24).

Christ’s perfect offering of himself present in heaven (Heb. 9:11-12) is brought to earth in an unbloody, sacramental manner in the Mass. As Frank Sheed puts it, “The Mass is the breaking through to earth of the offering of Himself that Christ makes continuously in heaven simply by His presence there.”

(Source)

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

The Mass is the ‘once for all’”, perfect sacrifice of Calvary, which is presented on heaven’s altar for all eternity. It is not a “repeat performance”. There is only one sacrifice; it is perpetual and eternal, so it need never be repeated. Yet the Mass is our participation in that one sacrifice and in the eternal life of the Trinity in heaven, where the Lamb stands eternally “as if slain”.

The Lamb’s Supper, Scott Hahn (p150).

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

Ω See also 

Dali and the beauty of science

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, read the same posts at my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

Ten-week twins certainly no 'tissue'

 

See on Twitter here. Dr. Christina Francis, an OB/GYN and chair of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, described the Guardian article as misleading, saying, “The images in the Guardian article are clearly intentionally misleading. They state that they are pictures of gestational sacs, ignoring the inconvenient fact that in pregnancy, the gestational sac surrounds the embryonic or fetal human being — which have clearly been removed before these photos were taken.”