Friday, April 29, 2016

Why Is Father Pavone Kissing Up To Amoris Lamentia?

One must wonder who's twisting Father Pavone's arm to cause him to let loose with this drivel.  Either Father hasn't taken the time to study it or he's kowtowing to pressure from on high.  If it's the former, he is being irresponsibly careless; if the latter, he's acting in both a cowardly and dishonest manner.

I'm delighted that the comments that follow this rebuke this white-wash nonsense.  Maggie Sullivan's remarks about the placing of conscience before truth are spot-on.  If that heinous precedent is ever ensconced in "pastoral practice", that can - and will - be used to justify and excuse abortion.  Father Pavone just shot himself in the foot.

Another troubling phrase is found in the very last sentence.  "New road map"?  No, Father!  Nothing will ever be an "improvement" over the Teachings of Jesus Christ, taught by His Church these two thousand years.  One does not need a "new road map" to replace the Commandments and Precepts of the Church.  In fact such a "road map" will most likely confirm our culture's path to destruction and eventually to hell.

Father Pavone, for the sake of the babies whom you work diligently to save, please retract this article.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Cardinal Wuerl: Amoris Lamentia Is A "Consensus Exhortation"

Yes, you read the title correctly.  I will henceforth refer to "Amoris Laetitia" as "Amoris Lamentia".  There is much heresy and spiritual poison therein to cause massive lamentation: or at least it should cause lamentation and great horror on the part of faithful Catholics.

In addition to the ones that I've already highlighted in previous posts, I'll call to your attention some other excellent commentary on AL: one from my blogging colleague at Les Femmes and two other highlighted by another blogging colleague at Tenth Crusade.

Thanks to, I present to you now an interview of Cardinal Wuerl, as he gushes about Amoris Lamentia.  Bear in mind that this document is one of the rotten fruits of the two sin-nods held these past two Octobers: events at which Wuerl wielded a disproportionate measure of influence (see here and here).

I'll point out some highlights of this interview and put them into some historical context.
  1. Cardinal Wuerl is conducting this interview with Susan Timoney, an Assistant Secretary for Pastoral Ministry and Social Concerns for the Archdiocese of Washington.  She's on Cardinal Wuerl's payroll.  It might be reasonable to opine that this dialogue is scripted and probably rehearsed.
  2. Right off the bat, at the 0:25 mark, the Cardinal calls AL the "consensus exhortation".  He mentions all the "talking" and "engaging" with clerics and lay, along with the two sin-nods, and says that AL came from "all that".  As pointed out in one of the earlier links, Cardinal Wuerl himself had quite a hand in developing the final reports from the two sin-nods.
  3. So Amoris Lamentia "reflects the consensus of bishops from all over the world". So what?  Does it reflect the timeless Teaching of Jesus Christ, reflected in Sacred Tradition and Magisterium?  That's what really counts, not all this "consensus".
  4. At 1:30 he stated "we all know what the teaching of the Church is".  I wish that were true but thanks to katholik "education" that is in reality brainwashing in heresy and fluffy-puff homilies, the average Catholic in the pews is often quite ignorant of basic Catholic teachings on faith and morals.  Catholics of the Archdiocese of Washington!  When did you last hear a homily that preached against the mortal sin of contraception?  When did you last hear from the pulpit that homosexual relations are mortal sins?  I can't remember, either!
  5. He continues, "but today as we face the challenges of the current moment..what is it that we (bishops) bring that we all agree we want to say?"  Hey!  If you have to ask that question, maybe your seminary classes weren't all that swift!  "What you should be bringing" is the timeless teachings of Jesus regarding marriage.  These would be the same teachings that have been promulgated for over a thousand years.  They do not change because the origin of these teachings, God Himself, is perfect and immutable.
If time permits, I'll elaborate more on this.  But for now, I'll let you see and hear the drivel for yourselves.  However, here's a big "take away" in all of this.  All this garbage about "consensus" is absolute nonsense.  We Catholics are about truth, the kind of truth mentioned by Jesus when He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life".  Truth is NOT found in consensus.  Consensus has absolutely no value in determining objective and eternal truth, for consensus has its origins in human opinion, not the Word of God.

Monday, April 25, 2016

Maryland Pro-Life People! Vote Tomorrow!

Owing to Maryland's lamentable demographics, tomorrrow's primary vote may be the one real chance we have to influence the election by influencing the GOP delegates.  During the general election we can rest assured that the Democrat candidate will win.  Since Maryland is a "winner-take-all" state in the Electoral College, all ten of Maryland's electors will cast for the Democrat.

Get out and vote!  Vote as if the future of all civilization hinges on your one vote; it just might!

Pope Espouses Indifferentism On Earth Day

Yesterday as the Focolare cult movement was celebrating "earth day", Pope Francis dropped by and offered some "off-the-cuff" remarks.  Crud has a report on the mess.  Towards the end of the article, one can see that the pope is explicitly embracing indifferentism.  To wit: "And in this humanity, we can get close to each other to work together … But I belong to this religion, or to that one …it doesn’t matter!"

Oh, yes it does matter which religion we follow!  Jesus Christ established the One True Church, that is, the Roman Catholic Church.  To her He entrusted the Sacraments and the Full Deposit of Faith and Tradition.  To foolishly claim "it doesn't matter" is to commit a sin against faith and against God who commands how He wishes to be worshiped.  It trivializes and holds cheap the graces that are to be found in the Roman Catholic Church alone.  Any one of us engaging in that sin would be held accountable for this sin against the First Commandment.  It is reasonable to believe that such accountability is magnified many times for the Chief Shepherd of the Church.

Speaking of "earth day", here is a stamp that the Vatican released in its honor.  Look closely.  Do you detect anything that might suggest the Vatican's role in the Church?  I can't detect one Crucifix on it.

But there is a religion being touted on that stamp, albeit implicitly: gaia-worship.  It seems that according to the pope, "gaia-worship" is on a par with Catholicism.  Any Catholic who truly believes that is engaging in heresy and endangering their immortal soul.  Please wake up and go to Confession immediately.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Faithful Prelates Being Targeted By Pope Francis

I call to memory the way Cardinal Burke was marginalized by Pope Francis merely for defending the Church's Teachings; see here and here.  My blogging colleagues at Eponymous Flower and One Peter Five have some observations regarding this and the maltreatment of other faithful prelates such as Cardinal Pell, Cardinal Muller, Cardina Oullet, Cardinal Liovera.  Read the EF piece for a description of how Cardinal Pell's work in trying to reform the Roman Curia is being deliberately undermined.  In other cases, the faithful prelates are being snubbed by the pope in favor of heterodox prelates such as Cardinan Schonborn and Cardinal Kasper.

I find this whole thing to be quite Machiavellian.  There are some who hold that the pope is just a naive little bumpkin who is being manipulated by the "evil bureaucrats in the Vatican".  What will it take to remove the rose-colored glasses from their faces?

In the meantime we must pray and keep shining the light of truth on these machinations.

Friday, April 22, 2016

Michael Voris Discloses Past Sins, Forestalls Archdiocese Of New York Scandalmongering

Yesterday Michael Voris released a Vortex in which he laid bare some details of past sins before his return to the Faith.  While he asked for our forgiveness for not being forthcoming earlier, I believe that requires no forgiveness for it was no wrongdoing on his part to be silent on that matter.  He dealt properly with those sins within the Sacrament of Confession.  That was all that was needed to restore him to a state of spiritual life and sanctifying grace.  He was under no moral obligation whatsoever to reveal his past sins anymore than any other Catholic would be.

He apparently revealed what he did because he had reason to believe that persons within the Archdiocese of New York were planning to leak these details in an effort to discredit him and his apostolate.  The last time I checked, that was known as the sin of detraction.

I just read a comment on another blog in which the writer of that comment warned that Voris better have good evidence of that.  Being an investigative reporter himself, I'm sure Voris understands the necessity for solid evidence.  However, we all know there is demonstrated precedence that supports any suspicion that the Archdiocese of New York is capable of such thuggish behavior.  Please recall the treatment that the Archdiocese of New York meted out to Father Justin Wylee; for a memory-refresher, see here.   More of Dolan's chicaneries can be found here.  Some are so egregious that New York Catholics filed suit against him.  If one thinks Cardinal Dolan wouldn't stoop to dredging old sins against Voris, I'd suggest they think again.

What Michael Voris did yesterday took quite a bit of courage.  Not too many people would want their mortal sins being made public; I sure wouldn't.  I was particularly struck by his faith and gratitude to God and His Church for Sacramental Grace won by the Cross of Christ.  Let us pray that this move does knock the wind out of New York sails and that Church Militant continues its work.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

More On The Richards Debacle At Georgetown

When Georgetown announced the Richards talk, they made it clear that only Georgetown students and faculty/staff would be admitted.  They did not even allow the press into the hall and there was no recording allowed.  Doesn't that make you wonder just what Georgetown was trying to hide?  If the Richards presentation was on the up-and-up, why the secrecy?  Whatever happened to the free exchange of ideas?

One of the Georgetown Right to Life members attended the thing and tweeted as she listened.  So some of the deep, dark secret proceedings of the event are now known.  See here for some more tweets.  Richard put down the video exposes of the Center for Medical Progress.  Poor dear!  She probably feels that her income from the murders of babies might dry up as a result of the truth being told.  The tweeting student also exposed the Georgetown Lecture Funds as pro-abortion hacks.  Apparently the leader of that bunch claimed that "god is pro-choice".  Either she blasphemed the One True God or the "god" she worships is a blood-sucking demon.  See here for the information on this lecture fund.

An article from Prison Planet details the treatment that both pro-life activists and the media received at the hands of Georgetown staff.  Again, one wonders of what they were afraid.  I for one think they resented us rebuking them as they once again played the prostitute before the Culture of Death and its agents.  Pay close attention to that last video at the bottom, where the pro-life woman (a friend of mine, by the way) is finding herself stifled, much as I was.  At 1:09, note the woman at the extreme left, in the background.  This is the same woman who shooed me into the "protest pen", stating that I couldn't distribute the flyer that you saw on my post yesterday.  I also couldn't help but notice the two other police officers in the background.  Either they really saw one woman with an "offensive" banner as a dire threat or they were all extremely bored.  Either way it's a disgrace that Cecile Richards was granted a forum in which she could legitimize herself and her murderous organization while those proclaiming Christ's teachings were stifled on an ostensibly Catholic campus.

As I said in my flyer, the Richards debacle was by no means the first time that Georgetown prostituted itself before the culture of death.  It won't be the last, either.

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Today Georgetown Was Rebuked

Georgetown University went ahead with their honoring of Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood - the nation's chief organization for the murder of babies.  Sadly we're not surprised but still it is just one more insult to Catholic education in this country.  As announced two days ago, there were several protest locations at Georgetown.  Today I was at two of them.

The first one was outside Lohrfink Auditorium itself.  Because I had to spend some time to find a parking place, I arrived there about 12:40 pm.  I could see that the Students for Life contingent was penned in an area where they could be seen from the attendees at a distance but there was no chance for interaction between those going into the talk and the pro-life activists.  I stood at the bottom of the steps and distributed my flyer (see right) - for as long as I was permitted.  After about 30 minutes a woman who identified herself to me as "Dean of Student Affairs" marched herself downstairs and ushered me to the "protest pen" (for lack of a better word).  Frankly I suspect the cause of this move is because my flyer did directly rebuke Georgetown for bringing Richards to campus.  I was able to distribute about 25 of them before I was effectively stifled.  I decided not to protest the move since I do respect the fact that Georgetown is private property.  Still, I find it fascinating that a woman who makes her living, at least in part, from the murders of babies is allowed to speak on campus but pro-life activists are penned off as though they pose dire threats to the students.

Just now, out of curiosity, I went to the web page of this "Student Affairs" office and got a clue as to the icy treatment that I received.  Not surprisingly, the page reeks of dissidence against Church teaching, to the point of possibly directing students - LGBTQ students, that is - to hell.   They have a whole "resource center" dedicated to them - something that I don't see for ethnic minorities, by the way.  This resource center boasts of being "the first such center of its kind at a Catholic/Jesuit institution in the country".  Well, whoopdie-doo!  If that's what Georgetown calls "brag material", no wonder their moral credibility is swirling down the crapper!  Ever hear of a "lavender graduation"?  Well look no further!  Georgetown is having one (next week, apparently).  The whole page is designed to make it easy for these poor deluded students to confirm their own damnation.  I seem to remember Our Lord talking about those who scandalize "little ones", saying it would be better for them had millstones been tied to them as they were tossed into water.  This reeks of satanic evil, but I digress.

After about 20 minutes or so in "the pen", I left there and headed east through the campus to where I was parked.  As I walked east, I continued to distribute flyers to students passing by me.  I then reached the eastern part of campus when I heard bagpipes.  I knew then that the American Society for Tradition, Family and Property was at the O Street entrance - where they were when we protested the appearance of Kathleen Sebelius four years ago.  Today the American TFP roundly rebuked Georgetown.  You'll hear it in the video below.

I know that Defend Life staged a protest along M Street; about 15 people held a "life chain" with signs to explain why Richard's appearance was such an atrocity.  I was unable to get down there but I await a report as to how that went.  Now here's the video of American TFP.

Msgr Pope Excoriates "Social Justice" Charity

Several days ago Msgr Charles Pope posted on his blog page (hosted by the Archdiocese of Washington) an article entitled "Eradicating Poverty Is Not A Gospel Value: A Reflection On A Teaching By Cardinal Sarah".  While I link to it now, I will copy and paste it below for it wouldn't surprise me if archdiocesan progressive wonks had this post removed.  It would not be the first time that they did this to Msgr Pope.  I'll post some commentary first.

The Catholic charitable organization to which Cardinal Sarah referred could well be the Catholic Relief Services.  With their endless kvetching about "poverty" and "global warming", they have engaged in serious conflicts with Catholic moral teaching including the distribution of abortifacients, harboring of gay activists in their midst, partnering with pro-abortion organizations, etc.  A whole litany of malfeasances can be found here.  These misdeeds can only be expected of Catholic organizations when they forget that the prime mission of the Catholic Church is to help souls attain heaven.

It's noteworthy that Msgr cites the abysmal failure of Johnson's "war on poverty".  Through the expansion of welfare and its devastating impact on poor families, it could well be called "war on families".  While the "war on poverty" flopped, the "war on families" has been all too successful.

Far too many Catholics - especially those in high positions of the USCCB - have made a false idol out of "social justice".  It's no coincidence that many of these dissent from Catholic teaching regarding faith and morals - especially morals regarding marriage, sexuality, life and family.  Perhaps they think that by undue focus on "social justice" they might compensate for deviance from Catholic moral teaching.  If that's the case they play "Russion roulette" with their eternal destinies.  Pray that they repent.

And now, Msgr's article..

The eradication of poverty is an oft-stated goal of the modern, liberal West. President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s pronouncement of a “war on poverty” so imprinted this notion in the Western mind that it has become almost axiomatic. It is now a fundamental pillar in the thinking of almost every person (and organization) in the Western world, from the religious pew-sitter concerned for the poor to the most secular humanist bent on a utopian vision. Poverty is a great enemy that must be stamped out!
The only problem is that this is contrary to the Gospel! It is no surprise, therefore, that even after decades of Western “do-goodism,” barely a dent has been made in the percentage of people living in poverty. In fact, some statistics show that the percentage in poverty has increased. But why should we expect great fruitfulness in something that opposes God?
I can see the look of shock on your face right now; you may even be embarrassed that I have written this. I’d like to share a quote with you from Robert Cardinal Sarah, which makes an important distinction that we need to recover. While what he says may also shock you, I encourage you to read it carefully and thoughtfully; the distinction he makes is critical. Not only does the Gospel depend on it, but cultures and individual lives do as well. For indeed, in the name of eradicating poverty some of the worst of Western arrogance has been displayed. It is an arrogance that does not even recognize that it can become willing to the destroy the poor themselves as well as what and whom they love all in the name of this “noble” goal.
Cardinal Robert Sarah is no neophyte in this discussion. He grew up in an impoverished region of Africa and later headed the Roman dicastery, Cor unum, a charitable arm of the Holy See. The extensive passage below is an abbreviated version of the Cardinal’s response to the following questions posed by his interviewer, Nicholas Diat:
How would you describe the nature of Cor unum, the dicastery to which you devoted several years of your life, in its fight against all sorts of poverty? Furthermore, why do you speak so often about the close relation between God and the poor?
In his reply, the Cardinal is reacting somewhat to Mr. Diat’s description of Cor unum’s work as “fight[ing] against all sorts of poverty.” The Cardinal’s response is nothing short of stunning. Please read it carefully and consider obtaining the book so as to able to read the unabridged remarks as well.
The Gospel is not a slogan. The same goes for our activity to relieve people’s suffering … [it is a matter] of working humbly and having a deep respect for the poor. For example, I remember being disgusted when I heard the advertising slogan of a Catholic charitable organization, which was almost insulting to the poor: “Let us fight for zero poverty” … Not one saint … ever dared to speak that way about poverty and poor people.
Jesus himself had no pretention of this sort. This slogan respects neither the Gospel nor Christ. Ever since the Old Testament, God has been with the poor; and Sacred Scripture unceasingly acclaims “the poor of Yahweh.” …
Poverty is a biblical value confirmed by Christ, who emphatically exclaims, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:3). … The poor person is someone who knows that, by himself, he cannot live. He needs God and other people in order to be, flourish and grow. On the contrary, rich people expect nothing of anyone. They can provide for their needs without calling either on their neighbors or on God. In this sense wealth can lead to great sadness and true human loneliness or to terrible spiritual poverty. If in order to eat and care for himself, a man must turn to someone else, this necessarily results in a great enlargement of his heart. This is why the poor are closest to God and live in great solidarity with one another; they draw from this divine source the ability to be attentive to others.
The Church must not fight against poverty but, rather, wage a battle against destitution, especially material and spiritual destitution. … [so that all] might have the minimum they require in order to live. …
But we do not have the right to confuse destitution and poverty, because in so doing we would seriously be going against the Gospel. Recall what Christ told us: “The poor you will have always with you …” (Jn 12:8). Those who want to eradicate poverty make the Son of God a liar. …
[In his yearly Lenten message in 2014, Pope Francis] espoused what St. Francis [of Assisi] called “Lady Poverty.” … St. Francis of Assisi wanted to be poor because Christ chose poverty. If he calls poverty a royal virtue, it is because it shone brilliantly in the life of Jesus … and in the life of his mother, Mary of Nazareth. …
Similarly, I often think about the vow of poverty taken by religious … [they] do so in order to be as close as possible to Christ. The Son [of God] wanted us to be poor in order to show us the best path by which we can return to God. …
The Son of God loves the poor; others intend to eradicate them. What a lying, unrealistic, almost tyrannical utopia! I always marvel when Gaudium et Spes declares, “The spirit of poverty and charity is the glory and witness of the Church of Christ” (GS 88).
We must be precise in our choice of words. The language of the UN and its agencies, who want to suppress poverty, which they confuse with destitution, is not that of the Church of Christ. The Son of God did not come to speak to the poor in ideological slogans! The Church must banish these slogans from her language. For they have stupefied and destroyed peoples who were trying to remain free in conscience(Cardinal Sarah, God or Nothing: A Conversation in Faith with Nicholas Diat, pp. 140-142).
Perhaps stunned himself, Mr. Diat follows up with the following question: “Are you not afraid of being misunderstood in employing this sort of distinction?”
The Cardinal replies,
It is a lack of charity to shut one’s eyes. It is a lack of charity to remain silent in the face of confusing words and slogans! … If you read the Latin text of Gaudium et Spes carefully you will immediately notice this distinction (Ibid, p. 143).
This is a powerful insight and it reveals the deep flaw in Western “anti-poverty” programs. Christ asks us to love the poor and imitate the best of what they are, not eliminate them and disregard the simplicity and trust that they can often exemplify. But we in the West, imbued with our materialistic notions and mesmerized by the comfort and control that wealth can temporarily buy, denigrate what the Gospels praises and seek to eradicate it.
So unreflective are we in this matter that some will even justify the most awful things in the name of eradicating poverty. Many programs (U.S.-sponsored and U.N.-sponsored) with this goal advocate for contraception, abortion, and/or euthanasia. Some have even sought to compel these sorts of things as a precondition for receiving aid. Some seek to impose certain aspects of Western thinking, something that has been labeled an attempt at “ideological colonization.” Many of us in the “First World” often speak of the “Third World” in a way that at best is patronizing and at worst exhibits a thinly veiled contempt.
While it is true that certain economic and political systems best support Western lifestyles, there is more to life than material abundance. With our own culture, families, and common sense collapsing around us, it seems odd that we so easily consider our way of life superior; that we see our relationship to the poor and to poorer countries as one in which we have all the answers and they should just listen to us.
The word “arrogance” comes to mind. We too easily assume, without even asking, that we know what is best; we presume that poor people in every part of the world want what we have (materially) and that they don’t perceive the awful price we have paid in order to get it.
We must recover a respect for the world’s poor, who have much to teach us. Even if they are not materially without troubles, they often possess many things we have lost: simplicity, family and tribal (communal) life, reciprocity, proper interdependence (as opposed to radical individualism), trust, a slower life, and a less-stressful life.
Further, we must not forget that the Lord counseled poverty (Lk 18:22), declared the poor blessed (Lk 6:20), lived simply Himself having “nowhere to lay his head” (Mt 8:20), lived among the working poor, and warned of the pernicious quality of wealth (Lk 16:13). God hears the cry of the poor and Mother Mary taught us of a great reversal that is coming, when the mighty and powerful will be cast down and poor and lowly raised up (Lk 1:52). Jesus taught us that many who are now last will be first in the kingdom of Heaven (Mat 19:30). In this life, the poor will sometimes need us. In the next life, on Judgment Day, we are going to need them to welcome us into eternal dwellings (Luke 16:9).
I really cannot say it better than did the good Cardinal, so I will not attempt to do so.We must surely work to alleviate the destitution that often comes in times of famine, war, or natural disaster. But destitution and poverty are not the same thing. Overlooking this distinction can be deadly for the poor we claim to serve and for their cultures, and can result in the worst forms of ideological colonization and secular utopianism.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Thoughts On Why Amoris Laetitia Undermines The Faith

Not being one to "reinvent the wheel" I'm going to link to some excellent commentaries on Amoris Laetitia and post an interview conducted by Raymond Arroyo of EWTN.  Here they are.
  • This is an analysis of Chapter 8 found in Catholic World Report by Eduardo Echeverria, comparing it with Veritatis Splendor by Pope Saint John Paul II.
  • Christopher Ferrera wrote "Amoris Laetitia: Anatomy Of A Pontifical Debacle".  It is a thorough analysis of AL.  Because AL is long, this is fairly long too, but well worth the read.
  • LifeSiteNews reports that Pope Francis doesn't remember Footnote 351.  However, his remarks during that plane ride from Greece indicate that he was at least aware of the controversy contained therein.  Does he suffer from "Clinton Amnesia Syndrome"?  At any rate, the buck stops at his desk.  He owns it.  It is his responsibility, not that of some Vatican bureaucrat.
Before I post the Arroyo interview, I'll urge everyone again to read Amoris Laetitia for themselves.  Educate yourselves as to what is proceeding from this pontificate.  If you care about your loved ones and their souls, it is your responsibility to educate yourselves.  I realize the tone of my suggestion may seem rather strong, but I've been reading/hearing too many suggestions that "the ordinary Catholic" need not read AL.  Such suggestions are both irresponsible and condescending and should be utterly rejected outright.

Monday, April 18, 2016

Protesting Cecile Richards At Georgetown This Coming Wednesday

Almost two weeks ago I promised to post details of protests to occur this Wednesday April 20th.  Here they are.

From Jack Ames of Defend Life:  Cecile Richards, President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, will be speaking at Georgetown University at 2 PM. In response, we will have a Life Chain of signs along M Street to let people know we Stand against Planned Parenthood. Please Come, Stand up and be counted! Join me at the intersection of Wisconsin and M Streets NW, between Noon at 2 PM.  

In front of the Rafik Hariri Building that houses the Lohrfink Auditorium, Students for Life and Georgetown Right to Life will have an information table set up outside.  The display is entitled "We Don't Need Planned Parenthood".

Please come and support one of these activities - both if you can.  We've got to take a stand in the streets if we are going to combat the culture of death.

CCHD Scandal In The Archdiocese of Cincinnati

With all the focus on the world-wide disaster that is Amoris Laetitia, it can be very easy to lose track of the local debacles funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development - that is, those who contribute via the in-pew collections.

The Peaslee Neighborhood Center is funded by the Archdiocese of Cincinnati via the CCHD.  How much national CCHD money flows to them I don't know.  We do know that Peaslee has teamed with the local "black lives matter crowd" to host a forum on the Black Panthers.  That means that Cincinnati Catholics paid to promote the Black Panthers.  Such an innovative use for Catholic dollars!  What will they think of next?  What kind of fool am I to ask that question?

Sunday, April 17, 2016

The New Possibilities That Point Toward Hell

Once again we hear the pope making wild claims while engaged in an in-flight interview.  In the past I viewed these interviews as just another source of scandal.  In retrospect I can see I was incorrect.  The scandals aren't coming because of the plane interview settings, but because of what the pope has on his mind.

At any rate this latest revelation occurred on a flight from Greece.  Maybe "revelation" is not an accurate term.  Perhaps it is simply confirmations of suspicions that faithful Catholics have had after the two synods and the release of Amoris Laetitia.  Due to other commitments, I've been a little slow to report on these matters but fortunately my blogging colleagues at One Peter Five and Les Femmes have put up excellent analyses of that mess.  They both link to Cardinal Schonborn's statement, the one that the pope seems to think is more authoritative than 2000 years of Church teaching.

The pope was asked about "new possibilities for the divorced and remarried".  If by "new possibilities" he speaks of these adulterers (for if the first marriage isn't annulled they are living in adultery) being admitted to Holy Communion while still engaged in ongoing mortal sin, he is confirming their path to hell.  That is not so much a "new possibility" but a highly probable eternal destiny if they continue on that till death.

Two more things:
  1. Those who are in denial of the situation, hiding behind the "the pope can't change doctrine" canard now have no morally acceptable choice but to wake up to the peril in which these "non-binding" statements place so many souls.
  2. I'm seeing some nonsensical suggestions to Catholics that they need not read Amoris Laetitia for themselves because they're just "ordinary Catholics".  Such suggestions are patently irresponsible.  I believe the late Father John Hardon when he said "only heroic Catholics will attain heaven in this day and age."  We might as well start by grappling with the heresies in Amoris Laetitia.

Friday, April 15, 2016

Do Not Believe Every Spirit But Test Against God's Word

The Vatican Radio station published the homily that the pope gave at his Mass yesterday.  The full text is here.  Remember - this is on the Vatican's website. You can't blame the "big bad media" for taking the pope's words out of context. He spoke about docility to Amoris Laetitia the Holy Spirit.  Well, we can glean just what he meant.  Here is a key line.

"Do not resist the Holy Spirit under the guise of loyalty to the law."

Now what is this law to which the Pope so disdainfully refers?  Let's be blunt; it's the Sacred Tradition of the Church found in her dogmas, Sacred Scripture, canon law, moral precepts, etc.  Now from where did these originate?  From God Himself and that would also include the Holy Spirit.  So in light of these facts, let's rephrase that line.

"Do not resist the Holy Spirit because of loyalty to the Holy Spirit."

True docility to the Holy Spirit is not this "will o' the wisp" lark that the pope seems to embrace.  Remember his "god of surprises" schtick?  Where in all of Scripture or Tradition does anyone find precedent for that phrase?  We don't.  Some time ago there was yap and yammer from the pope about "change".  Not possible.  The Sacred Deposit of Faith and Tradition will not change.  Why? Because God, the source of the Faith is Himself immutable.  So if "loyalty to the law" renders you resistant to the spirit, keep resisting for that "spirit" is not the Holy Spirit.  Sacred Scripture in fact tells us to "test the spirits" for there are many out there that are malevolent.  One key way of doing that is to measure these "spirits" against God's already-revealed Word.

Do we have here yet another attempt at grooming the Catholic populace for seismic changes in "pastoral practices" that will be tantamount to de facto changes in doctrine.  Note I said "de facto" and not "de jure".  The pope can never change solemn Church teaching per se; but he and others can do immense harm by instituting "pastoral practices" that have the same spiritual effect.

Please pray.  Please be aware.

I'll now put up a clip created by my blogging colleage at AKA Catholic.

Thursday, April 14, 2016

The Air At Catholic News Services Is Now A Bit Cleaner

On Monday Lepanto Institute broke the news that Tony Spence, former Director of Catholic News Service openly shilled for the gay agenda.  Lepanto and many others called for his resignation.

On this occasion, reason and decency prevailed.  The bishops asked for Spence's resignation and he tendered it.  When we stand for the truth, things can happen.  Now let us pray for two things: 1) that the position will be filled by a real Catholic and 2) that Spence repents of his advocacy for mortal sin before it's too late.

More Analysis Of Amoris Laetitia

I've been unable to write during the past few days.  Others have written much, giving some food for thought.  Picking up where I left off in my reading, I noticed the following things.

Chapter 2 of AL goes through an entire litany of forces hostile to the family: poverty, drug abuse, violence, absence of fathers, unemployment, etc.  Only once do I see the word "contraception" mentioned (and I mean only once in the entire 264-page tome). That occurs in paragraph 42, but only to decry the forcing of the same on women by governmental authorities.  Nowhere is contraception itself condemned as the heinous moral evil that it has always been.  Yet Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae nailed it right on the head when he said that any engagement in the inherently sinful (mortal sin at that) practice of contraception would lead to the deconstruction of the family and ultimately civilization as well.  The ultimate consequence of course is the eternal damnation of those who engage in it.  In fact, as I read this, I see no mention of eternity.  There is only the focus on the situation of this temporal life, which is minuscule in comparison to eternity.  If choices impacting family life were made with the intention of furthering one's eternal salvation, many of the ills described in Chapter 2 would be greatly reduced if not eliminated altogether.

In Chapter 3 we look at paragraph 59 where it says, "Our teaching on marriage and the family cannot fail to be inspired and transformed by this message of love and tenderness; otherwise, it becomes nothing more than the defense of a dry and lifeless doctrine."  Dry and lifeless doctrine?  Beg pardon, but if by "dry and lifeless doctrine" it refers to the teaching of Jesus Christ through His Church, such a slur is nothing short of blasphemy.  And what's with all this sissified emphasis on "tenderness"?  Whatever else it may be, it is not an integral part of true charity - unless "tenderness" means tossing moneychangers from the temple, excoriating the pharisees as "brood of vipers", etc.

Last week a New York Times article appeared online entitled "The New Catholic Truce".  For something coming out of NYT, I thought the author did a reasonably decent job in detailing the harmful effects of AL  Here is one cogent quote:  What the church considers serious sin becomes mere “irregularity.” What the church considers a commandment becomes a mere “ideal.” What the church once stated authoritatively it now proffers tentatively, in tones laced with self-effacement, self-critique.

You can see that he notices that the pope is shying away from the commands of Jesus Christ.  The author seems to think that such is the language of "truce" and that the pope is trying to satisfy both progressives and faithful Catholics.  He might have a point.  What often happens when one tries to please everybody is that he pleases nobody.  Of course when we're talking of papal writings, one should hope that the pope would only be trying to please One Person, God Himself.

I left a comment on the facebook page where this originated.  Here it is.  There's no "truce". As long as evil dissent is allowed to fester in the Church, there damned well better be division in the Church for we cannot "unite" around a policy of appeasing evil. More often than not, conciliatory language of "truces" is satanic in origin.

Cardinal Burke recently penned a commentary on AL that appears in the National Catholic Register.  While he rightly states that AL is not part of the Magisterium of the Church, I believe he misses the mark when it comes to understating the real damage being done to people by that heresy-infested document.  With all due respect to His Eminence, his is not the first  attempt to  do "damage control" for the pope and to pretend that when his deliberately ambiguous statements cause confusion in the minds of so many souls, that it really isn't "that bad".

I've read writings of other papal apologists who suggest that we should all break out in thanksgiving because the Vicar of Christ did not overtly show himself to be an anti-pope.  Such writing is pathetic and is its own scandal.  Is that the best we should expect from the Church's chief shepherd?  How craven we have become when it is suggested by Catholic authors that we all wax lyrical when the successor of Peter doesn't spew forth too much spiritual poison.  Alas, with AL such flimsy hopes were not to be realized.  Read Steve Skojec's take on the matter, with which I wholly agree.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Head Of Catholic News Service Betrays His Faith And Fellow Catholics

It was almost a year ago when Lepanto Institute uncovered the scandal of the Catholic Relief Services harboring a sodomite within the ranks of their officials.  Since then he resigned from CRS.  We pray that he also quit his mortally sinful lifestyle.

Now the same Lepanto Institute has discovered that Tony Spence, Director of the Catholic News Service, has been shilling for the gay agenda on his twitter page.  He concurrently is working to submarine the rights of Christians to live by their consciences without being forced to do obeisance to the demands of gay activists.  Bear in mind that the Catholic News Service is the official news organ of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  Spence has occupied that position since 2004.

On its page, Lepanto has reproduced some of the heretical tweets.  When I went to Spence's twitter page I saw that the incriminating tweets had been pulled down.  Gee!  I wonder why!

Between these two and the head of CCHD who worked for Wendy "Abortion Barbie" Davis, the progressive bishops seem to have a penchant for placing flaming dissidents within the higher positions of their organizations.  That is no accident.  They know exactly what they are doing.

Recall that Estridge did resign when the spotlight shone on him.  Let's see if we can perform a similar service in the case of Spence.  We will not make any headway in fighting the culture of death until and unless we purge the Church of all the filth and corruption within its structures.

Sunday, April 10, 2016

Why Was Acts 5:40 Misquoted In Today's First Reading?

Having read the Bible through a few times, I noticed this immediately as the first reading was being read today.  Because the same misquote appears in my missal and the USCCB site, I realize that it originated from a national authority, or maybe even the Vatican itself.  I believe it goes back at least as far as Pope Benedict XVI and most likely even further back.

The entire sequence of Acts 5:27-41 describes an encounter between the Apostles and the Sanhedrin.  A large chunk of the account was already omitted; this is the section where the Jewish officials are discussing among themselves how they should proceed.  But for some reason verse 40 was distorted by those who chose the readings.  Here's how verse 40 was read: "the Sanhedrin ordered the Apostles to stop speaking in the name of Jesus and dismissed them."

Here's the verse in its entirety, from the Douay-Rheims: "And calling in the apostles, after they had scourged them, they charged them that they should not speak at all in the name of Jesus; and they dismissed them."

Verse 41 states: "So they left the presence of the Sanhedrin, rejoicing that they had been found worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name."

If we understand the insipid mentality of the "church of nice", it's not too hard to figure out why mention of the scourging was omitted.  We live in the days of Emory University, when mere chalking of the name "Trump" sends overgrown cry-babies scurrying for their "safe spaces" where they can cower and suck their thumbs.

The "church of nice" doesn't want anyone to feel the slightest twinge of discomfort - not even when it comes to issues of heaven versus hell.  It is uncomfortable for us to consider that perhaps our ongoing conduct may have us on the path to hell.  It is uncomfortable to admit that we're wrong, that we must confess our sins in the Sacrament of Confession, that we must make some uncomfortable effort to amend our lives.  However, if we're unwilling to face discomfort in this life, we will suffer pains in hell that will by far dwarf any discomfort that we experience now.

Too many of us are reluctant, and even refuse, to take on attendant discomforts in confronting our post-modern culture of death.  We don't want to admit that we must take up our crosses and follow Him.  That's not an option; that's a necessity.  We must face it.  Regrettably when our "church of nice" leaders obfuscate that message, as what happened in today's first reading, they do Catholics a gross disservice.

The Apostles understood the need to take up their crosses and they embraced them.  They rejoiced when they were found worthy to do so, as verse 41 states.  They rejoiced, not so much because of the finger-wagging that the Sanhedrin gave them, but because of the scourging.  I would imagine that it was somewhat akin to what Our Lord suffered, albeit on a greatly reduced scale since they were able to walk away.

Our God is merciful, but that mercy comes at a cost of repentance and taking up of our crosses.  I regret that the first reading did a gross disservice to that truth.  I also regret that Amoris Laetitia is doing even worse.

Saturday, April 9, 2016

Amoris Laetitia - The Postives Ain't So Positive

A friend sent to me this morning a commentary on the exhortation by Robert Royal.  I link to it here.  In his article, he starts off by lauding the thing for the "positive" restatement of various points of Catholic teaching.  I've seen in Facebook many Francis-groupees taking faithful Catholics to task for pointing out only the "controversial" parts.  I responded to one of them by asking why on God's green earth should a Church document ever contain "controversial" elements as they should always be the epitomes of the defense of Christ and His Church's teachings.

Let's look at the matter from another angle, and I'll use an analogy I've used before to deal with this "positive versus negative" nonsensical paradigm.  Say there's a lovely meal set before you.  The food is healthy, delicious and visually appealing.  There's just one teensy little problem.  You've received credible information that this lovely meal is laced with a bit of deadly poison. It's not enough to cause the meal to lose its sensory appeals but it's there.  Who in their right mind would take one bite of that otherwise healthy, delicious and visually appealing meal?

What is happening with Amoris Laetitia is exactly what I just described.  The only difference is that we aren't talking of bodily nourishment versus poisoning, but rather spiritual nourishment versus poisoning.  The latter is far more serious for that comes with eternal consequences.

"But does that discount the good in the exhortation?", I can hear the groupees whine.  Well, yes.  In fact, the so-called "good" in the exhortation becomes much less than good.  In the meal example, the offering of the otherwise healthy food becomes an evil act because of the evil motive of camouflaging the poison.  Recall from Catholic moral theology that an act that is of itself good or neutral can be rendered evil if the motive behind it is evil.

Therefore I put forth the very real probability that all the "positive" statements towards the beginning were done with less-than-noble intents.  It's quite probable that they were placed there in order to disarm the readers' critical thinking processes so that they would unwittingly swallow the spiritual poison that this exhortation does contain.  That in fact renders the presence of the so-called "positives" evil in and of itself.

So that is why we "mean-spirited", "rad-trad" bloggers focus on the "negative" in proclamations coming from the Church.  They should contain not one scintilla of "negative" (meaning variance and dissidence from Church Teaching) whatsoever.  Look at it this way.  If there was no "negative" in fact, you wouldn't have to hear from us meanies!  If what we tell gets under your skin, go to the source of the problem versus the ones who merely inform you of the problem.

Friday, April 8, 2016

Amoris Laetitia - Oozing With Heretical Gobblygoop

Here is a link to Amoris Laetitia as it appears on the Vatican website in English.  Please note that this English translation is on the Vatican's site.  There can be no claims to "poor translation"; the pope owns the mess.  So now let our Friday penance begin.

Paragraph 3 is a thinly disguised attempt to justify situation ethics.  Notice the line "each country or region can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs".  Wrong.  It is the eternal Teaching of Our Lord, manifested through Sacred Tradition, that is to take precedence over "local tradition".  Solutions must be based on Our Lord's words and Teaching - that and that alone, with no tweeking for the sake of "tradition".  When he evangelized Ireland, should St. Patrick have been sensitive to the "tradition" of druidic human sacrifice?  No less should our bishops today give any lenience to the mortal sin of adultery, which is what the divorced and "civilly married Catholics commit to the eternal detriment of their souls.

So that's only page 4.  We've got 260 more pages of this pig-slop through which we must slog.  But we will soldier on!  In paragraph 4 he said that the synod process was both "impressive and illuminating".  I might agree with him there, but I saw it to be "illuminating" for the heretical proclivities and strong-arming of faithful Catholics that it revealed.

In paragraph 7 he said that "everyone should feel challenged by chapter 8".  I think I will pop over there, but notice how he words his statement.  What does he mean by "challenged"?  Is this more of the "god of surprises" flim-flam?  Let's move to chapter 8.

At the end of paragraph 294 and going into 295, we hear talk of this "law of gradualness".  To wit:

"That is how Jesus treated the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 4:1-26): he addressed her desire for true love, in order to free her from the darkness in her life and to bring her to the full joy of the Gospel.  Along these lines, Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called law of gradualness in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”.

I read the passage of the woman at the well a number of times.  That conversation between Jesus and the woman occurred in a matter of minutes.  I don't consider that to be especially "gradual".  He got right down to the nitty-gritty and did not permit her to remain in her sin without direct confrontation of that sin.  What the pope is proposing in terms of addressing the needs of a cohabiting couple is - not to address their real need of immediate repentance, for as long as they remain in sinful situations they place themselves and each other in danger of hell.  If any of us realized that our loved ones were in a burning building, would we consider the "law of gradualness" or would we rush in to rescue them?

In paragraph 297 there occurs a curious and perhaps heretical statement: "No one can be condemned forever for that is not the logic of the Gospel".  Excuse me, but what does the pope think hell is?  Is he denying the existence of hell?  Among other things, it is the abode of those who are condemned forever by their own doing.  Then he talks about an "unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous mercy".  There is no such thing.  While God's mercy is unmerited, by no means is it "unconditional and gratuitous".  The necessary condition for receipt of God's mercy is repentance.  Repentance entails the forsaking of sinful conduct and near occasions of sin.

Paragraph 298 is not much more than an attempt to justify those divorced who are living in adultery.  With all the litany of sad circumstances, the fact still remains that as long as the couple are living as husband and wife when they aren't they place themselves and one another in mortal sin.  I wonder how they can claim to love one another and still jeopardize the eternal salvation of each other?  Or doesn't eternal reality factor into their considerations?

Paragraphs 299 and 300 are also full of blather seeking to justify adultery.  Paragraph 301 sees the pope being a bit more blatant about it.  Read this: "Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any irregular situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace."  Oh yes it can and it must.  What was once true is always true.  Those living in adultery are living in mortal sin.  Sexual sins are always grave matter and obviously consent is present.  Even with the lackluster catechesis in the church today there is often an intrinsic realization that adultery is sinful.

He tries to cite St. Thomas Aquinas as a source for this strange teaching by saying "Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well"  There's a vast difference between "not exercising any one of the virtues well" versus living in a state of mortal sin.

Paragraph 305 is an outright vilification of clergy who act in fidelity to the Tradition of the Church and who rightly hold that individual conscience must yield to that same Tradition.  He states that such pastors are "throwing stones at people's lives" and that they are of "closed heart of one hiding behind Church teaching".  How can it be wrong for one to "hide" behind God's word?  Would that all engaged in such "hiding", rather than in hiding behind progressive and humanistic justifications for slapping God in the face by regarding His commands with less than obedience.  As you read this paragraph, please take note of footnote 351 for therein you'll find both insult against the sacrament of Confession and a thinly-disguised justification for adulterers receiving Holy Communion.

Voice of the Family has an excellent treatment on this eighth chapter.  Rorate Caeli and AKA Catholic should also be studied.  I hope to put some more time into the reading of this thing but the consumption of 260+ pages of flim-flam is an onerous task.

Open Letter To Cardinal Wuerl Regarding Georgetown University's Latest Betrayal Of The Faith

Your Eminence, on Wednesday April 20th at 2:00 pm, Georgetown University will be hosting a presentation led by Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.  Indeed, the Archdiocese of Washington (under your leadership) issued a statement on March 7 that rightly criticized this horrible action of Georgetown's.

Regrettably this is merely the latest of many insults to the Faith that have been proffered by Georgetown over the years.  Nearly four years ago they invited pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius to deliver one of the commencement addresses.  In 2013 their Law School sent students to intern with National Women's Law Center, an abortion advocacy organization.  Theology professors there spout new age heresies non-stop.

We could go on and on with that list but I'm sure you don't have the time to read the entire litany of Georgetown-originated travesties.  Suffice it to say that if immediate action isn't taken, that litany will increase in length.

While it's true that Georgetown is controlled by the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), you, as the bishop of the area in which they are located, do have power and authority to take some corrective action.   Specifically, you have the ability to strip them of their affiliation with the Church.  Such actions have been taken by your fellow bishops in the past.  As recently as 2010, Bishop Thomas Olmsted stripped St. Joseph Hospital's Catholic affiliation when the hospital performed an abortion.  In 2003 and 2005, the Archbishop of New York stripped Catholic affiliation from two universities for hosting pro-abortion politicians..

In the face of very public criticism of their invitation to Richards, Georgetown University is adamantly refusing to reconsider.  Because of their disgraceful past and their ongoing disregard for the Catholic faith, we ask you, Your Eminence, to strip Georgetown University of its official affiliation with the Catholic Church.  Such a move appears necessary for the eternal salvation of all concerned; that includes the Georgetown leadership and Cecile Richards herself.

Thank you for your consideration.

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Shall We Resist At Georgetown?

Last month the Cardinal Newman Society announced the scandal of Georgetown University's plan to honor Cecile Richards this coming April.  At the time details weren't known.  Now (thanks to the Cardinal Newman Society) we know that the travesty will occur on April 20th (exactly two weeks from today) at 2:00 pm at the Lohrfink Auditorium.  This lecture is closed to all but GU students and security will be tight.

We all know that Richards, as president of the largest chain of baby-killing mills, directs the murders of thousands (if not millions) of helpless children.  The ruthlessness of Planned Parenthood is becoming more and more evident, as typified in the ransacking of the home of David Daleiden in California.  This travesty against justice was orchestrated by California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who seems to be in Planned Parenthood's back pocket.

Cecile Richards has no business being honored on a Catholic campus, even if the leaders of the school have long scorned their own Catholic heritage.

On Monday we heard from Bishop Gracida that it's way past time that we laity protested loudly.  We should do so on April 20th.  Who, especially those in the MD/DC/VA area, will be there to stand up to this insult of Our Lord being committed on Catholic grounds?  Again, I'll post as soon as details of a protest are clarified.

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Carhart Carnage Department - The Butcher Of Germantown Strikes For The Ninth Time

Yesterday, on April 4, late-term abortionist sent yet another woman to the hospital.  Operation Rescue has details with video from Maryland Coalition for Life.  That is less than one week after he caused woman #8 to be hospitalized.  This is the fifth woman in five months, now two in one week.

I remember how all the pro-abortion hacks chortled about making abortion "safe, legal and rare".  All they got right was the "legal" part.  They don't care about the other two for as long as baby-slaughter is aided and abetted by law, their bank accounts are padded quite well.

The Maryland Board of Physicians's phone number is (410) 764-4777.  Call them.  Melt their phone lines.  They must do their job and shut down the menace that is Germantown Reproductive Health Services.

Monday, April 4, 2016

Laity! It's Way Past Time To Resist!

Today the Vortex published an interview with His Excellency Bishop Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi.  The main theme of this interview is the need for the laity (meaning most of us) to rise up to save our Church.  As an historical example, he mentions the ancient Christians shouting down Arius as he uttered heresy from the pulpit (stating Jesus isn't divine).

What caught my ear immediately at the 5:28 mark was the bishop's declaration that it is "out and out heresy" to state that God's essential attribute is mercy, stating that this heresy was on a par with that of Arius.  Bishop Gracida outright condemns the Kasperite's claim, stating that God's main attribute is love.  His explanation was brilliant; while the Three Persons love on another, they don't have mercy on each other for mercy implies sinfulness of the recipient.

With that in mind, we must bear in mind Pope Francis' excessive focus on mercy to the expense of God's other characteristics (such as justice).  In fact, he wrote a book called "The Name of God is Mercy".  Consider all that is entailed in that whopper of a title.  To name someone or something is to exercise an authority over them; that's apparent throughout Scripture.  Adam names the animals.  A parent names a child.  So now Pope Francis names God??  Really???  I've written copiously about how the Pope seems to think that the Church has been deficient with true mercy; please read here for a review for I don't want to rehash all that in this post.

Getting back to the interview, the bishop says we need to stop "suffering in silence" (at 10:20).  We need to object - loudly.  Of course we'll create an uproar.  So what?  The late Mother Angelica stated that "if you're not a thorn in somebody's side, you aren't doing Christianity right".  I'll post the video beneath the jump break but I have more to say below that.

Saturday, April 2, 2016

Should Women Be Punished For Abortion? One Sidewalk Counselor's Perspective

Donald Trump's recent remarks on abortion, particularly in regards to punishment for women who procure abortions against their children, have caused quite a discussion in Catholic blogosphere (and other arenas as well).  In pro-life circles, a difference of opinion has been made manifest - to put it mildly.

On the one hand are those who hold only the abortionist culpable for the murder of babies, believing that the women themselves are also victims of abortion.  On the other hand are those who seem to hold that all women are culpable (maybe to varying degrees) for the murders of their children.  So where does the truth lie?

Those in pro-life leadership, particularly of the Catholic persuasion, do tend to ascribe absolutely no responsibility to any of the mothers who procure abortions.  I hold that to be erroneous, as this view does not admit that the woman has any freedom of conscience, that she is not a competent moral agent.  While such a view appears to be compassionate, I think it can be quite condescending and patronizing to the woman.  How can such a woman achieve any real healing if she doesn't accept any fault and thus receive authentic forgiveness through repentance and the Sacrament of Confession?  Moreover, there remains the question of justice for the child just murdered.  If his/her life is to be respected, then the demands of justice do require a punishment for the crime of his/her murder.

That is one extreme view from pro-life circles.  However, on recent blog posts from fellow bloggers whom I respect (see here, here, here, here) I'm starting to see manifestations of the other extreme viewpoint, namely, that most and even all women are culpable for their abortions and should therefore incur punishments (in varying degrees).  I think caution is needed there, too.

For close to twenty years now, I've spent most Saturday mornings in front of abortuaries with other Christians, seeking to offer life-affirming assistance to these women who are abortion-minded.  These women by no means fit into any "cookie-cutter" mold.  Some of them would most likely be very culpable for their children's murders.  They walk in hard as nails, sometimes followed by a man pleading for the life of his child.

On the other hand, there are those women going in who are obviously ambivalent or remorseful about what they are about to do.  Usually they are being coerced: either by parents or by their male companions (whom I refuse to call "men").  I've no doubt that some of these women have been threatened or even subjected to physical violence; at times we counselors have also been attacked ourselves by belligerent males or the parents (seems like the mothers are the worst).  I recall one case when it was a cloudy day and the woman and thuggish boyfriend hurried past us. He was literally dragging her.  She had her head down and was wearing sunglasses on a cloudy day; it didn't take a rocket scientist to understand why.

It seemed to me that such women were under duress and thus not fully culpable for the abortion due to lack of free will.  I looked into a book on Catholic moral theology for clarification.  It's called "Moral Theology" by Father Heribert Jone, first published in 1953 (German).  That means no one can ascribe to it any "spirit of Vatican II" contamination.  It's available from TAN.

What is evaluated in moral theology are human acts.  These are defined as "those actions that proceed from knowledge and free will".  For the time being let's look at the "free will" aspect for in many of these women "free will" is hindered.  One such hindrance is violence, defined in the book as "force brought to bear upon one against his/her will by some extrinsic agent."  It then goes on to say that "absolute violence destroys free will.  Therefore whatever is done under its influence is not imputable."  Ladies and gentlemen, too many of these women are dragged in under credible threats of violence.  As I said a few paragraphs ago, we counselors can attest to this because we've been on the receiving end of just a few seconds of that violence by thuggish parents/males.  These women live with those brutes.

Unless we've been living in cocoons, we've seen account after account of women being murdered by "males" precisely because they refused to abort their babies.  So these "males" murder not only the women but their own babies as well.  Where's the educational outreach to them?  But I digress.  Following this paragraph are some accounts.  If these don't constitute "absolute violence" as noted in the preceding paragraph, I don't know what does.
If you want to see more examples, just google "murder of women who refused to abort".

The fear that many of these young girls face is real.  If pro-lifers are going to wag their fingers at them, they'd better be prepared to assist them should these girls need help.  If they aren't regularly and currently spending time in front of abortuaries to offer assistance, I've no idea what constitutes their basis of opinions.

I said above that in order for justice to be done for the primary victim of abortion, that is, the child, then proper punishment must be inflicted on the perpetrator.  Who is the perpetrator?  I think common sense dictates that the perpetrator is the one who is seeking the abortion and controlling the woman's situation.  That may very well be the woman herself, but quite often that is not the case.  It's probably the guy, parents, teachers, etc.  A proper judicial system will take all that into account.  Unless a miracle of God is visited among us in His mercy, I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime.