psalm123

 By Christian Newswire  Thursday, December 24, 2009

WASHINGTON, Dec. 24 /Christian Newswire/—In response to this morning’s passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act introduced by Senator Harry Reid (D- Nev.), Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:

“On Christmas Eve, the U.S. Senate gave Americans a gift no one wants: abortion for all, at taxpayer- expense. Even more tragic, they can thank self- described ‘pro-life’ senators like Ben Nelson, Bob Casey, Jr., and Harry Reid for paving the way for legislation that will open the floodgates for the greatest expansion of government-backed abortion since Roe v. Wade.

“Today’s vote was a career-affecting vote. The senators who voted to advance this legislation should consider themselves on notice. Votes have consequences, and the Susan B. Anthony List will use all the resources at our disposal to educate their constituents about today’s result. As this debate moves forward, pro-life House members would do well to consider the impact of their own votes. Abortion is never good for women, and it should never be a legitimate aspect of any ‘health care’ debate.

 

( Read more... )

Does it surprise me that on Christmas Eve, our government could be voting on health care reform which would impose tax payer funded abortions on American citizens? Of course not.  With this administration, I could see it coming from a mile away.

The Obama administration is inching closer to using my tax dollars to fund abortion. If you want to live in a state of moral blindness, that's your business. Actually, abortion is everyone's business but I digress. Don't use my money to pay for the killing of babies in the womb.

We'll see how this turns out. As was expected, the politicians (especially those entrenched in the culture of death mentality) are purposefully  making the abortion issue a lot more complicated than it needs to be

http://www.jillstanek.com/


Thanks to Sebelius for explaining how public funding of abortions will work under the Senate healthcare plan, equally paid by all...

Let's go over that again. When reading the transcript bear in mind Sebelius was talking about the very same abortion compromise Ben Nelson claims to have negotiated...

 

( Read more... )

When a politician says that he/she has taken the issue of abortion to "prayer" and then goes and votes to support killing unborn babies, I have to ask, what god did they pray to? and what exactly does "prayer" mean to them?

Here's a slippery slope for you. See just how far toward insanity we have allowed ourselves to get?  I shouldn't be hearing any bit of outcry from the pro-abortion crowd.  "My body, my choice" right?  Inside the womb or out, it's all about "choice" right?

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otr.cfm?id=5182

A woman in Virginia suffocated her newborn last week. Because the mother and child were still connected by the umbilicus and placenta at the time the former dispatched the latter, the act is considered no different from clipping a toenail. You go, girl!

Momma is free as the breeze:

“In the state of Virginia as long as the umbilical cord is attached and the placenta is still in the mother, if the baby comes out alive the mother can do whatever she wants to with that baby to kill it,” said Investigator Tracy Emerson. “She could shoot the baby, stab the baby. As long as it’s still attached to her in some form by umbilical cord or something it’s no crime in the state of Virginia.”

The news story attributes the authorities’ inability to prosecute the murder to a “loophole in state law.” But it isn’t a loophole. It’s a carefully crafted legal fiction whose sole purpose is to establish the unborn child as something less than human in order to permit its mother to kill it. The logic is no different from that of the D&X (Partial Birth Abortion) procedure, whereby four-fifths of the baby is delivered outside the birth canal while the skull is confined inside the cervix in order to empty its contents. Surgically.

Note that if a woman wanted to give birth to a healthy child and her obstetrician did what the murderess did in the Virginia episode or what the abortionist does in a D&X, that obstetrician would be sued if he acted through incompetence or charged with murder if he acted in malice. What makes a human person a human person, according to our law, is whether its mother wishes it to be -- at least up to such time as it's alive and kicking apart from and independently of her.

Let me put it simply. No one present at a birth and gazing at the emergent flesh -- not the nurse, not the doctor, not the recorder, not the father -- knows whether he's looking at a baby or looking at surgical waste. No one knows whether it’s a new patient, citizen, child (which he has to tend to), or whether it's a mass of superfluous tissue (which he has to dispose of). Until the arbitrary law arbitrarily kicks in, it's acey deucy: mother’s choice decides all.

Our society tolerates the gross incoherence of these legal fictions because the fictions themselves are necessary lies, necessary to the public justification of abortion. You'll notice that even the journalists find the business difficult to report without knotting themselves in contradictions. Of this case they write, "Because the mother and baby were still connected by the umbilical cord and placenta, state law does not consider the baby to be a separate life." They're saying, in short, state law does not consider the baby to be a baby.

Put that way, something looks wrong.

"Folks get fidgety and indignant because you may be attempting to trample on their “rights” and “choices” with this kind of talk. But when a soldier in Iraq has an 80% higher chance of making it home from war than a Black baby has of making it alive out of his mother’s womb, I have to speak on it."

"silly concept that who gets to live outside of or die in the womb is a matter of ‘choice’."

African-Americans and Abortion: Navigating the Mine-Field of the Black Woman's Womb

by Malaka Grant
December 13, 2009

LifeNews.com Note: This column from Malaka Grant was originally published on the Georgia Right to Life web site and is reprinted with permission.


When I was growing up in Ghana in the home of a Black radical (my mother) and a regular dude (my dad), I was taught by my mother and other radicals of her ilk that “civilization was carried on the womb of the black woman”, that her children were “kings and queens”, that her “feet were shod with truth and beauty."

You get the picture; and anyone who was born between 1968-81 and raised in a home of “Black consciousness” knows what I'm talking about. For a short stretch of time, it was a good and honorable thing to raise a Black family with two parents, some kids, maybe even a dog.

There was a time, and not too long ago, that if a Black man wanted to have sex with a Black woman, by God he was going to have to marry her. We had that much respect for ourselves, our bodies and the concept of family.

I turned the page of this Black book and suddenly being “Black” in the new century means a life style of promiscuity, immaturity and irresponsibility. If you turn on BET, it’s like our women have fought for exclusive rights to exhibit whoredom. Sex is pervasive in our community, and generally when people have gratuitous and unprotected sex, they make a baby.

It gets to be a slippery and dangerous slope when you begin to discuss abortion amongst feminists and black folks, but that’s exactly where I'm headed.

Folks get fidgety and indignant because you may be attempting to trample on their “rights” and “choices” with this kind of talk. But when a soldier in Iraq has an 80% higher chance of making it home from war than a Black baby has of making it alive out of his mother’s womb, I have to speak on it.

Before I get started, I'll tell you I've heard all the arguments before:

( Read more... )

Because I am too tired from my job and schoolwork (final exams coming up) to write anything, here is some American Papist! More twisted pro-abortion logic.

http://americanpapist.com/blog.html

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Profiles in Callousness: Senators Feinstein, Boxer and Mikulski

This is the kind of twisted thinking that is not only scary to try and comprehend, but it is also deceptive and harmful to the women who while in a state of crisis buy into this lie. Oh, btw for an extra 100 bucks, you can have a same day abortion. Now that's love!

I hate to focus on the negative, but stories like this are rarely talked about in an intellectually honest way by the mainstream media. I long for the day when stories like this are no longer a part of daily life here in the USA or anywhere else.

By James Tillman

DETROIT, December 4, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Northland "Family Planning Centers" of Michigan are now advertising their services with a video calling abortion "sacred work."

Set to soft, upbeat piano music and themed with pink pastel shades, a recently uploaded video entitled "Every Day, Good Woman Choose Abortion," assures prospective customers that deciding "to have an abortion is a normal experience," and that the decision is a good decision. The video's spokeswoman continues: "Goodness is courage, honesty, wisdom, risking for what you believe is right for you, making choices that are good for yourself."

"Goodness is not perfection, it is not obedience, and it is not martyrdom."

The staff at Northland, the narrator continues, believe in the "essential goodness" of abortion. The narrator speaks of a sign hanging at the Northland abortion facility that reads: "We do sacred work that honors women and the circle of life and death. When you come here, bring only love."

The video showcases a quotation from the recently murdered late-term abortionist George Tiller, which states: "Abortion is not a cerebral or a reproductive issue. Abortion is a matter of the heart. For until one understands the heart of a woman, nothing else about abortion makes any sense at all."


( Read more... )

Quote of the day: "In 2007 taxpayers gave PP $349.6 million; in 2007-2008 PP had record net assets of $1.014 billion. Also in 2007, Planned Parenthood reported performing 305,310 abortions, and referred less than 5,000 women to adoption services. Because they care about women."

No surprise that the ACLU would be getting their hands dirty in trying to shoot down a personhood initiative.

"To me it's clear evidence we're doing the right thing, because they only found out about this a month ago, and they're already suing. They're afraid it might protect the unborn,"

By Kathleen Gilbert
ANCHORAGE, Alaska, December 1, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the latest in a string of court proceedings against personhood initiatives nationwide, the Alaskan branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is backing a lawsuit against state officials for giving voters an opportunity to decide on a ballot initiative that would declare all human beings "persons."
The suit alleges that the proposed language does not adequately present to voters the possible consequences of its enactment, such as the outlawing of abortion, and thus Lieutenant Governor Craig Campbell should not have approved it. Plaintiffs, including Vic Fisher, a former Alaska Democratic legislator, argue that the signature-collecting process should be halted immediately.
The proposed ballot measure states: "All human beings, from the beginning of their biological development as human organisms, including the single-cell embryo ... shall be recognized as legal persons in the state of Alaska."
The office of Alaska attorney general Daniel Sullivan in October issued an opinion favoring introduction of the initiative in its current form, saying that whatever impact it may have on existing state law would be left to the interpretation of state courts. The initiative's backers will begin collecting signatures next month, aiming for a spot on the 2012 ballot.
Alaska Civil Liberties Union executive director Jeffrey Mittman called the initiative "insane," and argued that the personhood language could have unforeseen consequences such as requiring unborn children to receive Permanent Fund dividend checks.
Christopher Kurka, the initiative's sponsor, countered that his opponents were employing absurd scenarios to muddy the issue. He pointed out that dividends can only go to citizens, not just persons, and that therefore the persons in question must be born.
"To me it's clear evidence we're doing the right thing, because they only found out about this a month ago, and they're already suing. They're afraid it might protect the unborn," Christopher Kurka, the initiative's sponsor, told LifeSiteNews.com Monday.
"It seems the American Civil Liberties Union is not concern with protecting the civil liberties of unborn children," he added. "It's tragic."
Kurka acknowledged that one of the plaintiffs' cited fears was true: should personhood win voter approval, Kurka says he would challenge legislators to change abortion laws to recognize the measure.
The personhood initiatives in both Missouri and Nevada also became the subject of lawsuits by pro-abortion advocates earlier this month.
In 2007, Colorado's Planned Parenthood and ACLU also sued officials in that state for its personhood initiative, the first in the nation at the time. The initiative nonetheless made it onto Colorado's ballot the following year.

I don't think so. Here is quick take on the silly argument that Catholics Bishops are trying to legislate Catholic doctrine. You have to look at the big picture here.

"Is abortion the killing of a human being? The answer to that question depends entirely on scientific fact, not religious dogma. And the scientific facts settle the question clearly in the affirmative."

"The Church condemns abortion in the same way that the Church condemns racism. It is wrong not just for Catholics but for all people, at all times, for reasons that everyone should understand."

By Phil Lawler | November 25, 2009 3:32 PM

The many vocal critics of Bishop Thomas Tobin-- from Chris Matthews to the Boston Globe editorial page and beyond-- are complaining that (as the Globe put it) "the bishop is insisting that the congressman use his position to enshrine church teachings into public policy." Not so.

Opposition to abortion is not based on some sectarian doctrine accepted only by the Catholic Church. The only "teaching" in question here is the ancient directive: "Thou shalt not kill." That moral imperative was written into Mosaic law, and advanced separately by Hippocrates, long before the Catholic Church was established on earth.

Is abortion the killing of a human being? The answer to that question depends entirely on scientific fact, not religious dogma. And the scientific facts settle the question clearly in the affirmative.

So when he says that Patrick Kennedy cannot vote to support the slaughter of the innocent unborn and remain a Catholic in good standing, Bishop Tobin is not demanding that the Congressman write Catholic doctrine into civil law. He is simply saying that a legislator cannot engage in grossly immoral public activity and still present himself as a good Catholic. The offense that Kennedy has committed-- and vows that he will continue to commit-- is a violation of a universal natural law, applicable to all men.

The Church condemns abortion in the same way that the Church condemns racism. It is wrong not just for Catholics but for all people, at all times, for reasons that everyone should understand. If it was wrong for Bishop Tobin to chastise Patrick Kennedy, then it was wrong for Archbishop Rummel to excommunicate the segregationist Leander Perez in Louisiana in 1962. Anyone who thinks that Pope Pius XII should have spoken out more forcefully against Hitler's racial policies should applaud Bishop Tobin for speaking out today. And those who criticize Bishop Tobin should-- if they are consistent-- believe that Pope Pius should have maintained an absolute silence about the Holocaust, to avoid the perception that he was trying to "enshrine church teachings [against racial genocide] into public policy."

News like this is always good to hear. What we continue to see in the pro-life movement is a growing number of very enthusiastic, educated, and dedicated young people. The American youth of today can look back at 40 years worth of abortions ( nearly 50 million dead babies) and all the hardships that come along with it. They realize that this country cannot continue another 40 years of the unjust slaughter of its children if it is to avoid a total decay of morality and justice.

Washington D.C., Nov 28, 2009 / 03:54 am (CNA).- The National Conference of Students for Life of America, scheduled to be held on Jan 23, 2010, has already sold out.
“I was amazed to see our national conference sell out so quickly this year. It is a true reflection of what my staff has been witnessing on college campuses for the past several months,” Kristan Hawkins, the Executive Director of Students for Life of America, told CNA.
The conference will be an opportunity for students across the U.S. to receive training on how to be effective advocates for life, be educated on all of the current issues affecting the pro-life movement, and meet and network with other pro-life students from across the country. It will be held at the Catholic University of America on January 23, the day after the March for Life in Washington, D.C.
“Pro-life students are tired of the some old politics as usual in Washington, D.C. and on their campuses. They are activating like never before to provide resources to women facing unplanned pregnancies in their communities and are standing up to the culture of death policies of Congress and the current presidential administration,” Hawkins added.
The conference's website assures readers that next year's conference will be held in a larger venue. But for the 778 participants lucky enough to be registered, the day itself will feature talks on “Knowing Your Rights on Campus” and “How Abortion Affects Real Women and Men.”
The afternoon will host a number of breakout sessions aimed at helping students become better and more effective ambassadors to their campuses. The sessions will discuss a variety of topics ranging from stem cell research and bio-ethical reform to sidewalk counseling and breaking through apathy on their campuses.

More information on the conference and the host organization can be found at www.studentsforlife.org

I haven't had a chance to read the whole declaration but my immediate thought was that I like the coming together of all Christians to push back against a culture of death that is leading this world into dark times. These issues should be addressed directly and firmly using reason and debate. A sense of charity should always remain.

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 20, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A group of prominent Christian leaders and scholars unveiled a manifesto Friday declaring firm opposition to current and future laws infringing upon the sanctity of life, marriage, faith, and liberty.
The 4,700-word "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience" was drafted by Dr. Robert George, Dr. Timothy George and Chuck Colson and signed by more than 125 Orthodox, Catholic and evangelical Christian leaders, including Focus on the Family Dr. James Dobson and National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson. 15 Roman Catholic bishops, including Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York and Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., were among the signatories.
The declaration issues a clarion call to Christians to adhere to their convictions and informs civil authorities that the signers will not - under any circumstance - abandon their Christian consciences.
For more information: http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/

"We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right - and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation - to speak and act in defense of these truths," reads the declaration.

"We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence."

The document lays out the groups' arguments against anti-life, anti-family, and anti-religious public policy as contravening "foundational principles of justice and the common good," in defense of which the group says they are "compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act."

In asserting Christians' right to conscientious objection to such policy, the declaration says it is "ironic" that those who advance as "rights" various immoral practices "are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage."

"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family," it concludes.
"We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

Co-author Timothy George, who is founding dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University and a senior editor of Christianity Today, said the Manhattan Declaration "represents an ecumenism of the trenches that has been going on for a number of years among many denominations and confessional traditions."

"While we recognize that many important differences of doctrine and discipline still divide us, we nonetheless earnestly seek that unity for which Jesus prayed when he asked that his disciples be one in their love for God, for one another, and for the world," said George.

On his radio show BreakPoint Wednesday, Evangelical leader Chuck Colson called the Manhattan Declaration "probably the most important document I've ever signed."

This has been a big story recently. Actually, the content of the story seems to date back a few years. Apparrently, the story was made public by Rep. Kennedy and not Bishop Tobin. This is another case of someone who is Catholic in name only who is either ignorant of the teachings of the Church or they have diminished doctrinal issues into the realm of personal opinion. The issue of abortion is a moral issue. Abortion is what the Church calls an intrinsic evil. There is no wiggle room for subjectivity in relation the the major moral implications involved here. No Catholic in good standing can participate in or directly and knowingly support abortion. To think you can willfully support an intrinsic moral evil and still remain 'in good standing' with the Holy Roman Catholic Church is to admit ignorance of your own so-called Catholic faith. In this case, you need to swallow your pride and do some homework.

"While some critics of Bishop Tobin invoke Thomas Jefferson’s phrase about the “wall of separation between Church and State,” Roff said this line appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson was out of the country when the Constitution was written and the phrase is his own opinion as president in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut."

Washington D.C., Nov 25, 2009 / 04:40 am (CNA).- A non-Catholic political expert says Bishop Thomas Tobin’s request that U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy refrain from receiving Holy Communion is “eminently reasonable” and an “appropriate” encouragement of the Congressman to examine his commitment to his faith.
Rep. Kennedy, a Rhode Island Democrat and son of the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, was criticized by Bishop Tobin of Providence for his attacks on the Catholic bishops’ opposition to abortion funding in health care legislation. Recently, Kennedy revealed that Bishop Tobin had asked him to refrain from receiving communion because of his public contradiction of Catholic teaching.
Peter Roff, a senior fellow at the Institute for Liberty and a former senior political writer for United Press International, wrote at FoxNews.com that Americans look to “our institutions of faith” to define moral issues like abortion. Though not a Catholic, he said he understands the hierarchical nature of the Church and the role doctrine plays within it.
Speaking with “the greatest respect,” he said that the Catholic Church is not a place where “free thinking” about doctrinal issues is encouraged.
“There is such thing as absolute truth and not all things are relative or left to the discretion of the believer,” Roff continued. If Rep. Kennedy wishes to consider himself Catholic, he should “show appropriate deference to church teachings” about life beginning at conception and about abortion being a sin.
“By asking Kennedy to act of his own volition, rather than threaten to deny him the sacraments or ordering those subservient to him in the church to refuse to offer them, Bishop Tobin is encouraging the Congressman to consider his commitment to his faith -- something one should argue is the appropriate role for a member of the clergy,” Roff commented.
He said the issue is being “spun” as a case of a church trying to impose its will on politicians who represent a “cross-section of the world’s religions.”
While some critics of Bishop Tobin invoke Thomas Jefferson’s phrase about the “wall of separation between Church and State,” Roff said this line appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson was out of the country when the Constitution was written and the phrase is his own opinion as president in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut.
Nowhere does Jefferson suggest that the church should be “prohibited from enforcing its own disciplines within its own walls among its own members, even where matters of public policy are concerned.”
The purpose of the First Amendment, in Roff’s view, was to “protect the faithful from coercion by the state,” not to protect the state from “interference from the church.”
However, he said, it is hard to see how Bishop Tobin’s request is interference.
“If Congressman Kennedy wishes his church to consider him a Catholic in good standing, then he best pay attention to its concerns and act accordingly,” Roff’s essay at FoxNews.com concluded.

Euphemism of the day: "voluntary termination of an unwanted pregnancy"

Meaning in reality: Intentional killing of an innocent/unwanted human person through the act of abortion.

Images like this always disturb me. It's not that I don't know there are people like this out there, rather it's more of an astonished feeling that so many people are utterly blind and deceived on the issue of abortion. I know that the pro-abortion crowd represents a minority view in this country but there is still a lot of work to do. Don't people realize that the signs they boldly carry which read "ABORTION IS A RIGHT!" means in reality "I HAVE A RIGHT TO KILL MY CHILD"? "My Choice" in this context has no more validity than a parents "choice" to kill their unwanted 2 year old.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Angry and upset that the House-approved health care bill contains the Stupak amendment to ban virtually all abortion funding, pro-abortion activists have mobilized for a protest day on December 2 at Congress that could see tens of thousands of people attend. That has pro-life advocates worried. As LifeNews.com reported last week, the main pro-abortion organizations Planned Parenthood and NARAL have recruited their friends in the labor union and gay rights movements to help turn out participants.
They are following the tried-and-true game plan of the pro-life community that uses buses to bring in thousands of people to the March for Life and they are working overtime to bring in massive amounts of donations for their efforts.
Last week, pro-abortion leaders from 20 different organizations met for a strategy summit at Planned Parenthood's office to talk about next month's "National Day of Action" and map out lobbying tactics.
In new comments to Roll Call magazine, the heads of pro-abortion groups say their members are furious at the prospects of a health care bill that stops the government from forcing taxpayers to fund hundreds of thousands of abortions.
Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, outlined the anger and frustration her members feel.
“We're not out there enough. We have to demonstrate this is huge. I have been getting calls from people who are just beside themselves," she said.
( Read more... )

While "the Church cannot judge their subjectivity," he added, those who "directly collaborate" in or promote abortion incur excommunication.

Nancy Pelosi and other 'pro-abortion' Catholics really should pay attention to their Bishops (assuming their Bishops have done their jobs). Receiving Holy Communion while in the state of serious sin is itself a grave sin. I don't suppose a pro-abortion Catholic would follow that teaching either.

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
MADRID, November 13, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The secretary general of the Spanish bishops' conference, Auxiliary Bishop Juan Antonio Martinez Camino of Madrid, warned that Spanish Catholic legislators who vote in favor of a bill to liberalize abortion which is currently before parliament would publicly place themselves in an "objective state of sin" and therefore may not receive Communion.
"Excommunication is provided in the Code of Canon Law for those who cooperate actively in the practice of abortion," Bishop Martinez Camino stated in an AFP report.
He said Catholics cannot support the legalization of abortion and if they do "they will objectively find themselves in a public state of sin and may not be admitted to Holy Communion."
While "the Church cannot judge their subjectivity," he added, those who "directly collaborate" in or promote abortion incur excommunication.
At the same time, Bishop Martinez Camino said the Church reaches out to women who have had an abortion or who are tempted to abort.
Encouraging those who have aborted to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation, he said, "Those who have not gone to confession are encouraged to do so because God wants to offer them a solution and deep peace."
The Church "is not merciless towards those who fall into sin," he continued, and while she "defends the rights of the innocents," she is "conscious of the problem that [abortion] entails."
The bishop then praised doctors and health care workers who promote the cause of life and conscientiously object "with civic and moral courage" to participate in abortion. Warning against the "grave manipulation" of portraying abortion as a medical procedure, he said "abortion is never a cure because pregnancy is not a disease."

"Perhaps the Chicago law professor forgot about Rev. Martin Luther King, the minister who took to the pulpit and lobbied for civil rights in the name of free speech and religious liberty. Should King have been muzzled as well? Or just today’s bishops?"


CHURCH’S CRITICS WANT GAG RULE

November 13, 2009

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

Getting Nancy Pelosi to accept a health care bill that bans federal funds for abortion was the greatest victory scored by U.S. bishops in a generation. It also unleashed an unprecedented attempt to censor them. Their latest enemy is Geoffrey Stone writing in the Huffington Post.

Stone finds it troubling that the bishops are so vocal. He yearns for a time when JFK was president, a time when separation of church and state met his approval. Perhaps the Chicago law professor forgot about Rev. Martin Luther King, the minister who took to the pulpit and lobbied for civil rights in the name of free speech and religious liberty. Should King have been muzzled as well? Or just today’s bishops?

As the following list discloses, Stone is hardly alone in trying to censor the bishops: Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Rep. Diana DeGette, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, Frances Kissling, Planned Parenthood, Feminist Majority, Catholics for Choice, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Organization for Women, and many others favor a gag rule. On Nov. 12, Nancy Snyderman of MSNBC spoke for many when she said that “This is going to be a Pollyannaish statement. The Catholic bishops appearing and having a political voice seems to be a most fundamental violation of church and state.” Brilliant.

The following is a partial list of religious groups that want abortion coverage in the health care bill: Rabbinical Assembly, Women’s League for Conservative Judaism, Episcopal Church, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, Union for Reform Judaism, Central Conference of American Rabbis, North American Federation of Temple Youth, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, Unitarian Universalist, Presbyterian Church (USA), Women of Reform Judaism, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Church of the Brethren Women’s Caucus, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, Lutheran Women’s Caucus, Christian Lesbians Out, YWCA.

So why don’t Stone and company want to gag these groups as well? Let’s face it: they don’t have a principled bone in their collective bodies.

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” (Congressman Patrick Kennedy)

We hear different versions of this statement among Catholics worldwide from high ranking politicians to the regular pew-sitters like you and me. Statements like this admit to a perceived detachment between what the Church teaches officially and what the faithful are obliged to follow. Nobody is saying that you can't intellectually disagree with some teaching of the church. Although most disagreements toward church teachings seem to be emotionally or morally based rather than intellectual. People don't want to change the way they live their lives. Nobody is saying to follow blindly. What is important is that you follow official teachings. You may disagree with Church teaching on contraception for example. Well, you are still expected to follow what the church says. In the meantime you need to explore the reasoning behind the teaching so that you can come to understand better why the church teaches what it does. Put in the time and do the research. This is the part that many Catholics refuse to do. The result is a cafeteria approach to the faith where people pick and choose what they want to believe. Usually they do so with an ignorance of the reasoning and full understanding of church teaching. Personal beliefs then trump what the Church founded by Christ Himself teaches. Yeah, you can see the problem.

This is a Bishop doing what he is supposed to do. As the local leader of his flock, it is his job to call attention to and correct the scandalous public behavior of this wayward "catholic" politician. Politicians who call themselves Catholic and yet publicly dissent from official teachings of the church such as with abortion need to be corrected.  This will go a long way in at least sparking discussion among Catholics who feel it's perfectly acceptable to pick and choose which Church teachings they want to agree with while still remaining "faithful" or " in good standing with the church". It doesn't work that way. There is no room for 'cafeteria catholicism'.  People need to explore why the pick and choose approach to the faith is false. The Catholic Church is the Church given the task of proclaiming the truth of Christ. If you disagree with the church on doctrinal issues, ultimately you disagree with Christ.  That's a hard pill for some people to swallow but it's the truth.  Here we see the Bishop pointing out error with love and genuine compassion.

http://americanpapist.com/blog.html

Fireworks: Bishop Tobin escalates episcopal correction of Rep. Kennedy

 

Congressman Kennedy picked the wrong Bishop to mess with.

The back-and-forth between Congressman Patrick Kennedy and Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, RI has been interesting to watch, especially because Kennedy has attempted to defend himself with every old, tired argument in the liberal playbook.Because I'm a spoiler, I'm going to quote the last part of Bishop Tobin's public letter to Kennedy - but you should take the time and read the whole thing:Next step: official censure or excommunication. Rep. Kennedy has now been publicly rebuked and invited to convert and offer repentance.Unfortunately, at this point, Mr. Kennedy has broken off his planned meeting with Bishop Tobin. Whatever Kennedy may be thinking, that's not the right way to set things right.

"Am I killing?" Boyd said. "Yes, I am. I know that."

At least he's honest and there is no ridiculous denial of the obvious. The question remains why do we allow this in our country?  I have yet to hear a convincing argument. There is no argument that can justify the killing of innocent children. Notice the twisted 'religion' the abortionist subscribes to. He said he prays often "I'll ask that the spirit of this pregnancy be returned to God with love and understanding,"  Here ya go God, I murdered another of your innocent children, please accept them into your kingdom with love and understanding. Yikes. Pray for this mans conversion of heart and mind. 

Dallas, Texas, Nov 8, 2009 / 07:12 pm (CNA).- An abortionist who says he know he is “killing” has opened a late-term abortion clinic in North Texas, prompting local pro-lifers to express their dismay that such a clinic was absent for only 14 months. However, they also affirmed their resolve to peacefully end the “grave evil” in their community. Dr. Curtis Boyd, who opened the first abortion clinic in Texas in 1973, is the only doctor in North Texas who will perform abortions on women up to six months pregnant.

"We see patients from Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana and across Texas," he said, according to WFAA TV.

"Am I killing?" Boyd said. "Yes, I am. I know that."

Boyd reported that he was ordained a Baptist minister and is now Unitarian. He said he prays often.

"I'll ask that the spirit of this pregnancy be returned to God with love and understanding," he said.

A group called the Catholic Pro-Life Committee gathers outside his office to try to persuade women away from abortion.

"Well, we're certainly disappointed to hear any unborn child will be killed by abortion,” said Karen Garnett of the Catholic Pro-Life Committee. “But, to hear it's a late-term abortion in Dallas, once again, it's particularly devastating."

Boyd opened the Southwestern Women’s Surgery Center last week. By law, he must have a surgery center in order to abort an unborn child more than 16 weeks after conception.

He told WFAA TV that he has been troubled because of the torment he says drives patients to seek his services.

"The hardest ones are the young girls," he said, reporting that girls as young as nine and ten have come to his clinic.

( Read more... )