U.S. Catholic Leaders Signal Resistance to Pope’s Agenda

By Ian Lovett and Francis X. Rocca

(The Wall Street Journal) BALTIMORE—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops chose a conservative archbishop for a key post Tuesday, signaling resistance to Pope Francis’s vision for the church among the Catholic hierarchy in the U.S.

Archbishop Joseph Naumann, of Kansas City, was elected chairman of the committee on Pro-Life Activities. In a vote of 96 to 82, he defeated Cardinal Blase Cupich, of Chicago, who is seen as a liberal in the church and a close ally of the pope.

The vote breaks a longstanding tradition of the position being held by a cardinal—an unusual lapse of deference in a highly rank-conscious body—and suggests that Catholic leaders in the U.S. remain largely resistant to the changes Pope Francis is trying to bring to the church.

Some experts said that the slim margin of the vote shows growing support for Pope Francis’s agenda; others said it mostly reflected the tradition of a cardinal holding the post.

Like all the bishops, Archbishop Naumann and Cardinal Cupich are both strong opponents of abortion and euthanasia. Archbishop Naumann said that he would keep the committee focused on those two issues, as it has been in recent years.

Cardinal Cupich, meanwhile, indicated that he would have broadened the committee’s focus to include other issues like the death penalty, health care and poverty—a list more in line with the priorities Pope Francis advocated for.

“It is clear since 2013 that a majority of them sees the message of Francis’ pontificate, esp. on life and marriage, as not adequate for the Catholic Church in the USA,” Massimo Faggioli, a theologian at Villanova, said on Twitter after the vote Tuesday.

Stephen Schneck, a former director of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at the Catholic University of America, said the vote indicated the continued resistance to Pope Francis among the U.S. bishops... (continued)

Read More Here

Link:

• U.S. Catholic Leaders Signal Resistance to Pope’s Agenda

16,000 births, 18,000 abortions in San Francisco

(California Catholic Daily) On Friday, March 21, 350 admirers filled the Patrons Hall of San Francisco’s St. Mary’s Cathedral in support of one of only two crisis pregnancy centers in the City. The event was a fundraiser for Alpha Pregnancy Center, located in Mission Terrace. For those unfamiliar with San Francisco, that is not one of the neighborhoods President Obama visits during his frequent fundraising trips. Attendees included Father John Jimenez, who recently celebrated Mass in front of San Francisco’s Planned Parenthood to kick off this year’s 40 Days for Life; a number of 40 Days volunteers; and many veterans of the pro-life cause, including the beloved and elderly Bea Smalley, one of San Francisco’s first pro-life activists...

The final speaker was Alpha’s executive director Chastidy Ronan, the story of whose personal trials, overcome by trust in Jesus, cannot be summarized here. She eventually found and married a good man, and in 2006 they decided to move to San Francisco, where a job was waiting for both of them—or so they thought. In 2006 Chastidy found herself out of work and facing an unplanned pregnancy. She was gripped with fear, and thought every day how much easier it would be to abort the child. She recalled going through the aisles of baby supplies at Target and crying because everything was so expensive. She went to Alpha for help—and she received it. In 2008 she began working as a counselor at Alpha, and within a year become the executive director. She said:

“I feel I was set in this place and in this time and in this season to do what God wants me to do. Like in Nehemiah we must restore our city to a place where God’s people understand the value of life. In this city there are 7 abortion clinics and only two pro-life clinics. Every year in San Francisco there are 16,000 births, but there are 18,000 abortions. When my mother was beaten to death, I learned that the neighbors had heard screams but had not wanted to get involved. I vowed then that I will never ignore the cries of those who need help. We are called to seek the welfare of this city, of our wonderful city. We will not ignore the cry of the 18,000 killed every year and we invite you to join us!”

Link:

• 16,000 births, 18,000 abortions in San Francisco

Related:

• Jim Jones’ sinister grip on San Francisco

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

“In ancient Rome, there was a potestas patria or the right of the father to dispose of a child. In our modern day, there is the potesta matria or the right of the mother to dispose of a child. In between pagan Rome and pagan today there was, and still is, a group of God-loving people who will protect those who are incapable of independent existence because they sense in their own frailty the mercy of God and, therefore, resolve to extend it to others."

~ Fulton J. Sheen: Bishop Sheen Writes, (January 25, 1975).

h/t to ChurchMilitant.tv

Related:

• ChurchMilitant.TV
• Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
• Investigation concludes on alleged Fulton Sheen miracle
• New Beginnings: RealCatholicTV Moves Studio, Changes Name
• Archbishop Fulton Sheen and the Faith - The Vortex With Michael Voris From RealCatholicTV
• Diocese Takes Next Step for Sainthood for Sheen
• Militant vs. Nice
• Archbishop Sheen's cause for beatification 'on track'
• Bishop Sheen Quote
• Man and Woman
• Don't forget to make your morning offering to God every day this Holy Week!
• Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen on the Blessed Virgin Mary
• Remembrance, and Maybe Sainthood, for Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
• A Dispute between Archbishop Sheen and Francis Cardinal Spellman
• EWTN: Mass to Remember Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
• The Crisis Must Come
• Bishop Anthony Taylor's Claims About the Pre-Vatican II Church not Being "What Jesus Taught" - Michael Voris Responds
• What's my Line? Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
• The Annunciation: When Freedom and Love Were One
• Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen on Fatima
• The Mass
• Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen Discusses Angels
• Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen on Loneliness

PERRY SIGNS SWEEPING TEXAS ABORTION RESTRICTIONS

BY WILL WEISSERT
ASSOCIATED PRESS

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed sweeping new abortion restrictions on Thursday that could shutter most of the state's clinics that provide the procedure, a final step for the Republican-backed measure after weeks of sometimes raucous protests at the state Capitol.

Supporters credited God's will and prayer as the governor signed the legislation, with protesters' chants of "Shame! Shame! Shame!" echoing from the hallway. Opponents have vowed to fight the law, though no court challenges were immediately filed.

"Today, we celebrate the further cementing of the foundation on which the culture of life in Texas is built upon," Perry told an auditorium full of beaming GOP lawmakers and anti-abortion activists. "It is our responsibility and duty to give voice to the unborn individuals."

The law restricts abortions to surgical centers and requires doctors who work at abortion clinics to have hospital admitting privileges. Only five of the 42 abortion clinics in Texas - the nation's second-largest state - currently meet those new requirements. Clinics will have a year to either upgrade their facilities or shut down after the law takes effect in October.

The law also bans abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, based on the disputed notion that fetuses can feel pain at that point of development, and dictates when abortion-inducing drugs can be taken.

Supporters argue the new law will ensure high-quality health care for women, but opponents view it as over-regulation intended to make abortions harder to obtain.

Similar measures in other states have been blocked by federal judges, and opponents in Texas said they'll pursue a similar course.

"The fight over this law will move to the courts, while the bigger fight for women's access to health care in Texas gains steam," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement.

The action fund is the political arm of Planned Parenthood, which announced later Thursday that it would close its clinics in Bryan, Huntsville and Lufkin by the end of August. The group cited years of state budget cuts to women's health programs, not the new law. Only the Bryan facility offers abortions.

"In recent years, Texas politicians have created an increasingly hostile environment for providers of reproductive health care in underserved communities," said Melaney A. Linton, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast.

Perry and other top Republican leaders made passing the law a top priority, in part to please the most conservative wing of the party before the primary election in March. But it touched off weeks of protests that saw thousands of activists on both sides of the issue descend on the Texas Capitol in an outpouring of activism unseen in at least 20 years.

After the regular legislative session ended May 27, Perry added passing the abortion measure to lawmakers' agenda for a 30-day special session. But on the last day to pass bills, Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis staged a more than 12-hour, one-woman filibuster hoping to talk past a midnight deadline and kill the legislation.

Republicans used parliamentary objections to silence Davis, but just before midnight hundreds of bill opponents in the Senate gallery screamed and cheered so loudly that all work stopped on the Senate floor below until it was too late. It launched Davis into an overnight political sensation.

But Perry called lawmakers back for a second special session - setting up the bill's final approval last week.

"When Governor Perry signed the bill, he signaled a clear break with Texas families," Davis said in a statement Thursday. She said Perry and his party's elected officials "have now taken sides and chosen narrow partisan special interests over mothers, daughters, sisters and every Texan who puts the health of their family, the well-being of their neighbors, and the future of Texas ahead of politics and personal ambitions."

The signing ceremony was moved from Perry's office on the second floor of the Capitol to a basement auditorium, surrounded by dozens of state troopers who tightly controlled who entered and braced for potentially hundreds of activists. Instead, only about two dozen showed up, clutching coat-hangers and signs that read "My Body, My Choice" and "Shame!"

Perry drew applause for warmly greeting and shaking hands with Dem. Sen. Eddie Lucio of Brownsville, the only Senate Democrat who supported the bill.

As the governor and other lawmakers spoke, protesters repeatedly chanted "shame!" loud enough to be heard. Once the bill was signed, they hooted and then sang Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It!"

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who oversees the state Senate, blamed "intentional chaos created by the radical left" for the bill not passing sooner.

That was a common sentiment among supporters. The Catholic Association said in a statement: "Rick Perry is a brave man for standing up to the mob tactics of the abortion lobby and has earned the respect of pro-life women and men across the country."

Republican Rep. Jodie Laubenberg, who sponsored the bill in the Texas House and mistakenly suggested during debate that emergency room rape kits could be used to terminate pregnancies, said: "It really was the hand of God" and prayer that helped make the signing possible. Laubenberg told Perry, who announced last week that he wouldn't seek a fourth full term as governor next year, that: "Your eternal legacy will be as a defender of life."

Sen. Glenn Hegar, a Katy Republican who sponsored the bill in the Senate, called it "a very proud day in Texas history."

"This will literally change the lives of millions of Texans," Hegar said. "Not just today in 2013, but for eternity."

Link:

• PERRY SIGNS SWEEPING TEXAS ABORTION RESTRICTIONS

Justice Antonin Scalia Wears Saint Thomas More's Hat to Inauguration

From Fr. Zuhlsdorf at WDTPRS:

Kevin Walsh of the University of Richmond School of Law writes:

The twitterverse is alive with tweets about Justice Scalia’s headgear for today’s inauguration. At the risk of putting all the fun speculation to an end . . . The hat is a custom-made replica of the hat depicted in Holbein’s famous portrait of St. Thomas More. It was a gift from the St. Thomas More Society of Richmond, Virginia. We presented it to him in November 2010 as a memento of his participation in our 27th annual Red Mass and dinner.

Wearing the cap of a statesman who defended liberty of church and integrity of Christian conscience to the inauguration of a president whose policies have imperiled both: Make of it what you will.

Link:

• Closely related to the biretta…

Publicly Calling Abortionists to Repent

By Fr. Frank Pavone

11/10/1997

(Priests for Life) One of the most effective ways to stop abortion is to dry up the supply of abortion providers. This happens to a large extent by itself, as the already relatively small band of abortionists grows older and young doctors seem more reluctant to use their skills to destroy babies. However, the abortion industry aggressively recruits doctors for its purposes. Incidentally, this is a major reason for their push toward chemical abortions.

There are a number of things the pro-life movement can do to see to it that although abortion is legal, fewer and fewer people will be willing to provide it.

One of those things is actually a very old practice in the Christian world: admonish the sinner. This is one of the spiritual works of mercy. An aspect of charity is to alert the sinner to the harm that sin does to him/her, as well as to the victim. In fact, the Second Vatican Council, in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, says that crimes like abortion do more harm to those who practice them than to the victims themselves!

Abortion is a public activity, and is publicly advertised. There is nothing against charity to publicly call for prayers for the abortion provider, by name, and to publicly call upon the abortionist to repent.

The demands of charity in this case include being absolutely sure that the person in question does in fact provide abortions, and saying nothing untrue about the person. They also include making it clear that we in the pro-life movement and the Church always have the door open to those ready to repent of child-killing, as so many have already done. Approaching the individual, and providing opportunities for confidential dialog, are activities that also need to be included.

Besides the repentance of the individual, however, there is another side to the activity of publicly admonishing abortionists that the Church cannot afford to ignore. Even when a particular abortion provider does not repent, the public identification of that person as an abortionist sends a clear signal to other abortionists and to those in medical school who might consider becoming abortionists: Perform this activity, and you will face the spotlight, with all the discomfort that entails! We have evidence that this works in dissuading actual and potential abortion providers.

One thing the abortion movement can never do is to remove the stigma from abortion. When we point out that specific people perform abortions, we capitalize on the biggest weakness of the other side.

It is interesting that many who perform abortions do not want to be called abortionists. Those who practice psychology are called psychologists. Those who practice neurology are called neurologists. There is nothing unusual, therefore, if we call those who practice abortion abortionists. The difference, of course, is that abortion carries a stigma which no amount of money or power can take away. That is a fact we should use to our advantage.

Link:

• Publicly Calling Abortionists to Repent

Bishops in Uruguay Excommunicate Lawmakers Who Legalized Abortion

By Steven Ertelt

(LifeNews.com) Catholic bishops in the small nation of Uruguay, which will soon become only the second in South America to legalize abortion, have excommunicated members of Congress who voted to do so.

Bishop Heriberto Bodeant, secretary for the Uruguayan bishops’ conference, said the lawmakers essentially excommunicated themselves by voting for abortion.

“Automatic excommunication is for those who collaborate in the execution of an abortion in a direct way,” he said. “If a Catholic votes…with the manifest intention that he thinks the Church is wrong about this, he separates himself from the communion of the Church.”

“Excommunication means you are not in communion with the ecclesial community to which you openly claim to belong by doing something that puts you outside communion, and therefore you cannot participate in the Eucharist,” he added.

The Uruguay Congress approved the law and it now awaits President Jose Mujica’s signature, though he voiced support for the measure while it was under consideration. Deputy Pablo Abdala of the opposition National Party vowed to promote a popular referendum to overturn the law, assuming Mijica allows it to become law...

Link:

• Uruguay: Bishops Excommunicate Lawmakers Who Legalized Abortion

Do Aborted Babies Go To Heaven?

By Ann Barnhardt at Barnhardt.biz

It is getting progressively harder and harder for me to leave the house. Not because I'm threatened or under surveillance or anything like that. It's because every situation or conversation I enter, or even just OVERHEAR or OBSERVE, is potential fodder for this bizarre website. It's as if I am eavesdropping on and then plagiarizing the world or something.

(Pause for moment of scruple-driven angst.)

Aaaaannnnddd......I'm over it.

So, I found myself in a discussion, the base of which was the question of what happens to babies who are killed in abortion. Do they go to heaven?

The answer is NO, they do not.

If you are recoiling in disgust and red-faced rage at this point, I would urge you to humble yourself and receive instruction, as this is a nuanced yet incredibly important bit of theology - and a lesson in logic. When you're done reading it, I guarantee you will have learned something. If you are Catholic, you will see how shallow and inadequate your catechisis has been, and if you are Protestant you will see how much you are missing.

1. The Church teaches and has taught from day one that baptism is essential for salvation. This comes straight from Our Lord Himself:

He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
Mark 16:16

This is repeated throughout the four Gospels and in the epistles. Baptism, baptism, baptism. Go forth and BAPTIZE. Don't just talk. BAPTIZE everyone you possibly can. With water. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In fact, baptism is so non-negotiably essential that ANYONE can baptize - even a non-Christian. As long as the baptism is with water, and the form is correct, meaning in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit), then an atheist could baptize. A musloid could baptize. A Jew could baptize. A Hindu could baptize.

(*The notable and particularly relevant caveat to this is if the baptizer says the right words, but consciously means something completely different by the words "Father", "Son" and "Holy Ghost". I'm talking about the cult of Mormonism here. Did you know that Mormons teach and believe that God the Father is one of many "gods" who came from another planet and just happens to be the "god" of this particular planet, and that "God the Son" was once a non-divine mortal man, and that satan was his brother, and that the man they call "Jesus" at some point achieved divinity and was made the god of this world? Further, Mormons teach that when they die that they will also become gods and be given their own "celestial kingdoms" to rule? Mormons also teach that the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost are two completely separate and distinct beings. 

Bottom line: Mormons are NOT, NOT, NOT Christians and Mitt Romney is NOT, NOT, NOT a Christian. Does that piss you off? Wow. I SO don't care. It is the truth. Deal with it. 

Oh, and for the record, Obama is not baptized either. One of the huge selling points of Jeremiah Wright's Trinity "church" is the fact that he DOES NOT baptize muslims. Thus, muslims who are engaging in the war tactic of KITHMAN, that is pretending to be non-muslim while infiltrating a culture for stealth jihad, flock to Wright's "church" because they can pose as Christians while avoiding the sacrament of Baptism. If you don't believe me, just call Trinity and ask them yourself. Their number is (773) 962-5650. Be polite. 

Not that this election is real, and not that the First American Republic still exists, but I do think that it is VERY interesting and telling that NEITHER candidate is Christian, which would be a first, and is certainly apropos.)
 
2. What is heaven? Heaven is nothing less than indwelling INSIDE the Trinity, contemplating the Trinity for all eternity. This is hard to understand from the "outside", but we know that this is the case from the words of Our Lord Himself:

That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee; that they also may be one in Us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.
John 17:21

This is called "the Beatific Vision", which could perhaps be simplistically stated as "seeing and contemplating God from the inside."

3. Who DESERVES the Beatific Vision as a mere corollary to their existence? Nobody. Not even the Angels. The Angels had to choose to serve God even before the creation of the world. They were created by God, and then shown the plan of Salvation History before the Big Bang (Let There Be Light). Those who chose to serve God were granted the Beatific Vision. Those who chose not to serve God, specifically the Second Person, the Divine Man, Whom they resented as being "beneath them", were cast out of heaven, never having seen the Beatific Vision, and never to see it. Satan and demons are real.

Even the Blessed Virgin Mary doesn't DESERVE the Beatific Vision merely as a corollary to her existence. She says so in her Magnificat:

And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior. Because He hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because He that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is His name. And His mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear Him.  

Luke 1:46-50

Given these realities, does an unborn baby DESERVE the Beatific Vision? The answer is obviously "no".
4. But an unborn baby (Or even a born and yet unbaptized baby) has committed no sin. Their fate can't be hell. So where do they go? The answer is, they go to a "place" (for lack of a better word) called Limbo, specifically The Limbo of the Innocents. There is another Limbo called the Limbo of the Fathers which was filled with the righteous people who died on earth before Christ opened the gates of heaven on Calvary. The Limbo of the Fathers no longer exists - Christ emptied it while He was in the tomb.

At this point many are screaming, "BUT THAT ISN'T IN THE BIBLE!"

Oh, yes it is. If you bother to READ IT. And again, from the lips of Our Lord, no less:

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell.
Luke 16:22

Abraham's Bosom is NOT the Beatific Vision. When Our Lord spoke these words, the Gates of Heaven were yet closed because He had not yet opened them. Abraham's Bosom was the Limbo of the Fathers.
The proof for the Limbo of the Innocents actually comes from the very first scripture I quoted above:

He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
Mark 16:16

Read that VERY carefully. Note that the second phrase does NOT tie non-baptism to condemnation. Condemnation (hell) is for those who reject Christ, but the baptismal state is left open. Note that in the first phrase that baptism is only tied to the Beatific Vision. What does this tell us? It tells us first that a person MUST be baptized in order to reach the Beatific Vision. It also tells us that those who die unbaptized and yet without any sin (which can only mean babies, both pre-born and born, and children who have not reached the age of reason, and therefore cannot be guilty of sin) DO NOT GO TO THE HELL OF THE DAMNED.

Makes sense, huh? And remember, NOBODY deserves the Beatific Vision.

So, the "place" these innocent yet unbaptized babies and children go is the Limbo of the Innocents. The Limbo of the Innocents is a "place" wherein these souls experience MAXIMUM NATURAL HAPPINESS, but do not experience the SUPERNATURAL happiness of the Beatific Vision.

Let's think about this. Maximum natural happiness. Guys, you have never, ever experienced anything even close to maximum natural happiness. In fact, if you were given the gift of five seconds of maximum natural happiness, I'll bet that you would swear up and down that you had just seen heaven and that there is no way that there could be anything better. You would be wrong. Heaven, the Beatific Vision, is so far above Limbo that Limbo is considered to be at the edge of hell by comparison, simply because it is outside the Beatific Vision. But it is still better than anything you have ever experienced.

5. Now, we have to answer the question, "Why can't unbaptized babies go straight to heaven?"
It is a great question, with a great answer. On the surface it sounds "unfair" that a baby, especially a baby that was murdered in cold blood by its own mother, couldn't go straight to heaven, especially when we consider the fact that the mother could sacramentally confess her sin and die in a state of grace and achieve the Beatific Vision herself.

Boo! Not fair, the critics say.

Again, let's think this through. WHAT IF all aborted babies went straight to heaven? How would the logical truth table from that false premise play out?

Well, if all aborted babies are GUARANTEED heaven, but a born person who lives to the age of reason runs the risk of living a life wherein they reject Christ and end up in hell, wouldn't it be an act of charity and mercy for every mother everywhere to abort every child they conceive so that the child will absolutely, positively spend all of eternity enjoying the Beatific Vision?

Let's put a context to it. Let's say a poor woman who lives in an urban slum gets pregnant. She looks around and sees a terrible environment. She knows that her child will be raised fatherless. She knows that the odds of her child escaping the grasp of the gangs and the Marxist overlords are very slim. What should she do? If all aborted babies go to heaven, then the young mother should kill the child in utero, thus guaranteeing her child heaven and sparing it the risk of life in this world and thus the high risk of being lost to hell. In fact, it would be selfish and uncharitable for her NOT to abort the child....

Do you see what happens when we try to form a logical truth table off of a false premise? We end up with abortion as a charitable act of mercy. And satan SQUEALS with delight.

6. Now the question must be answered, "Why SHOULD the young mother allow her child to be born even with the high risk of the child eventually being lost to hell?"

The answer comes from Lesson Number One in the Catechism:

Q: Why did God make you? 

A: God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.
 
Every person is made by God with the desired end of the Beatific Vision. If the mother aborts the baby, the baby can never see the Beatific Vision, which is what God created the child for, and nothing less. In order to achieve the Beatific Vision, a person must be born and baptized, and die in a state of grace. Because remember, NOBODY deserves the Beatific Vision. Nobody.

No matter how long the odds seem, that baby is born with the Beatific Vision within grasp. Human beings CAN NEVER deprive a child of that chance.

And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.  

Matthew 19:26

7. What about miscarriages?

True miscarriages and stillbirths are God's will, and remember, those babies, like the aborted babies, are granted maximum natural happiness in the Limbo of the Innocents. We must trust God in these matters. It is possible that God in His omniscience and Divine Providence allows miscarriages and stillbirths in order to bring about the best possible outcome for the child. This is a very difficult idea to face, but again, it comes straight from Our Lord Himself:

The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of Him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born.
Matthew 26:24

It would have been better for Judas Iscariot to have been miscarried because then he would have the maximum natural happiness of the Limbo of the Innocents. Instead, Judas betrayed Our Lord, doubted His mercy and never sought forgiveness and instead committed suicide, thus choosing the hell of the damned for all eternity.

But remember, ONLY GOD can make that call. No man can ever, ever play God and induce miscarriage, which is to say MURDER a pre-born child.

8. Why have I never heard anything about any of this up until now?

First, if you are Catholic and under the age of 60 or so, it is because the Church has been infiltrated by Marxist-homosexualists tasked with destroying the Church from the inside. Their father, satan, wants to convince as many people as possible that abortion is "morally neutral" or "contingent on the circumstances".

Beyond that, satan actually does want people to believe that aborted babies go to heaven so that eventually he can convince people that abortion can be a MORAL GOOD. Satan gets two things out of this. He maximizes the number of people who murder their own children and then DO NOT REPENT, thus dying in mortal sin and going to hell. The second thing satan achieves is keeping as many human beings from achieving that which he himself rejected and RAGES against: The Beatific Vision. Satan is willing to compromise and cut his losses. He'll take the baby going to the Limbo of the Innocents, never seeing the Beatific Vision PLUS the damnation of the unrepentant mother AND the damnation of the apostate priests, nuns and clergy who told the woman that her abortion wasn't a sin because "the baby is in heaven."

If you are Protestant, it is because Protestantism is intrinsically stupid and insipid. That's it. Superfun Rockband church. Jimmy Swaggart. Brain dead Methodist "we're just here to keep up appearances". Don't believe me? Okay. Ask your pastor on Sunday if aborted babies go to heaven, and after reading this, stand back and bask in the bumbling ignorance of his (or her, shudder) answer. Yep. You can almost visualize it right now, can't you?

UPDATE:  Limbo Citations

By Ann Barnhardt

This is just excellent. I'll pick out just a few of the 24 reasons. Do read the whole thing.

Source Link HERE.

24 Reasons Why Not To Reject Limbo 

John Vennari

Limbo is in the news. A new document from Rome's International Theological Commission [ITC], released on April 20, states that Catholics may virtually ignore the teaching on limbo and may have "many reasons for hope" for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

Practically every major newspaper carried the story. Headlines such as "Vatican Abolishes Limbo;" "Vatican Report Rejects Limbo;" and "Concept of Limbo Now Assigned to Oblivion" appeared throughout the world.

Yet despite this latest study, many intend to hold to the conventional teaching that the souls of infants who die before Baptism do not attain Heaven, because they have not obtained the remission of Original Sin that only Baptism provides. They go to Limbo, a place of natural happiness wherein they suffer no pain of punishment since they are guilty of no personal sin.
Listed below are 24 of the chief reasons why I, and thousands of Catholics the world over, will not reject the Catholic doctrine of Limbo:

1. Because Pope Pius VI, in a formal magisterial decree, denounced the rejection of Limbo as "false, rash, slanderous to Catholic schools";

2. Because the ITC's study on Limbo is neither a papal document, nor a magisterial document, but a modern theological exercise that does not bind the conscience of Catholics in any way;

4. Because it is an unchangeable article of Faith, taught infallibly by the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence that the souls of those who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision;

5. Because Pope Sixtus V taught in a 1588 Constitution that victims of abortion, being deprived of Baptism, are "excluded from Beatific Vision," which is one of the reasons Sixtus V denounced abortion as a heinous crime;

7. Because to reject Limbo strengthens the implicit denial of Original Sin, a chief error of our age;

http://www.catholicessentials.net/limbo.htm 

I. The Limbo of the Fathers - A place and state of rest wherein the souls of the just who died before Christ's ascension were detained until he opened Heaven to them; referred to as "Abraham's Bosom" (Luke xvi,22) and "Paradise" (Luke xxiii, 43) and notably in Eph. IV, 9 and I Peter iii, 18-20.

II. The Limbo of Children - It is of faith that all, children and adults, who leave this world without the Baptism of water, blood or desire and therefore in original sin are excluded from the Vision of God in Heaven. The great majority of theologians teach that such children and unbaptized adults free from grievous actual sin, enjoy eternally a state of perfect natural happiness, knowing and loving God by use of their natural powers. This place and state is commonly called Limbo. (Definition from A Catholic Dictionary, 1951)
References in Scripture:

"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell" Luke 16:22
"Now that He ascended, what is it, but because He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth" Ephesians 4:9

"Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that He might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water." 1 Peter 3:18-20

"And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when Thou shalt come into Thy kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with Me in paradise" Luke 23:42-43

Church Teaching:

"Moreover as Christ was true and perfect man, He of course was capable of dying. Now man dies when the soul is separated from the body. When, therefore, we say that Jesus died, we mean that His soul was disunited from His body. We do not admit, however, that the Divinity was separated from His body. On the contrary, we firmly believe and profess that when His soul was dissociated from His body, His Divinity continued always united both to His body in the sepulchre and to His soul in limbo. It became the Son of God to die, that, through death, He might destroy him who had the empire of death that is the devil, and might deliver them, who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to servitude." Catechism of Council of Trent, The Creed, Article IV

"Q: What are we taught in the Fifth Article: He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead? A: The Fifth Article of the Creed teaches us that the Soul of Jesus Christ, on being separated from His Body, descended to the Limbo of the holy Fathers, and that on the third day it became united once more to His Body, never to be parted from it again". Catechism of St. Pope Pius X, The Fifth Article of the Creed

"The fourth and final reason is that Christ might free the just who were in hell [or Limbo]. For as Christ wished to suffer death to deliver the living from death, so also He would descend into hell to deliver those who were there". Also, "The reason they were there in hell [i.e., Limbo] is original sin which they had contracted from Adam, and from which as members of the human race they could not be delivered except by Christ. Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, The Creed, The Fifth Article, Reasons for Christ's Descent

"The limbo of the Fathers and the limbo of children, without any doubt, differ as to the quality of punishment or reward. For children have no hope of the blessed life, as the Fathers in limbo had, in whom, moreover, shone forth the light of faith and grace. But as regards their situation, there is reason to believe that the place of both is the same; except that the limbo of the Fathers is placed higher than the limbo of children, just as we have stated in reference to limbo and hell." Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas, Whether the limbo of children is the same as the limbo of the Fathers?

"Suarez, for example, ignoring Bellarmine's protest, continued to teach what Catharinus had taught -- that unbaptized children will not only enjoy perfect natural happiness, but that they will rise with immortal bodies at the last day and have the renovated earth for their happy abode (De vit. et penat., ix, sect. vi, n. 4); and, without insisting on such details, the great majority of Catholic theologians have continued to maintain the general doctrine that the children's limbo is a state of perfect natural happiness, just the same as it would have been if God had not established the present supernatural order" 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Limbo Summary
Contrary to what some Catholics have come to believe today, the doctrine of Limbo is mentioned in Scripture (albeit by a different name) and as we can see above, has been taught century to century by the Catholic Church. To deny its existence is not Catholic.

Link:

• Do Aborted Babies Go To Heaven? 

Related:

• 24 Reasons Why Not To Reject Limbo
• Limbo
• CDF - Request for Canonization for Abortion Victims is “Doctrinally Problematic.” 
• Could Limbo Be 'Abolished'?
• On Benedict’s silence about limbo and on his theological method
• The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized
• Limbo of the Children - New expiration date: 2008

Romney says won't pursue new abortion laws

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney carries a child after speaking at a campaign rally outside the Cuyahoga Falls Natatorium in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio October 9, 2012.  REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

(Reuters) - Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, in an apparent fresh move toward the political center, said on Tuesday if elected he would not pursue specific legislation targeting abortion.

"There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda," Romney told the Des Moines Register's editorial board during a campaign visit to Van Meter, Iowa.

Romney's comment could be construed as reassuring some women voters who have had reservations about his candidacy. In recent weeks he has taken some steps toward the political center as he tries to attract independent voters before the November 6 election.

Some conservatives would like legislation aimed at limiting abortions, which were legalized in the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

Reacting to Romney's comments, President Barack Obama's campaign sharply criticized the Republican, saying he had previously pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
"It's troubling that Mitt Romney is so willing to play politics with such important issues," said Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith.

Romney told the newspaper that he would issue an executive order to reinstate a ban on U.S. foreign aid money being used to pay for abortions in countries that receive the assistance. Obama had dropped the "Mexico City" policy on such aid shortly after taking office.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul, asked to comment on his remarks, said the Republican is "proudly pro-life, and he will be a pro-life president."

(Reporting By Steve Holland; editing by Philip Barbara)

Link:

• Romney says won't pursue new abortion laws

Morocco denies entry to Dutch "abortion ship"

By Souhail Karam

 

(Reuters) - Morocco blocked a Dutch "abortion ship" from entering one of its harbours on Thursday during a campaign group's first attempt to visit to a Muslim country to raise awareness about safe methods of abortion.

The Women on Waves ship, which already has visited traditionally Roman Catholic countries Spain, Portugal and Ireland at the invitation of local women's groups, had planned to arrive at Smir, northern Morocco, but was denied entry.

"The harbor is totally blocked by warships so no one can get in, and there are a lot of police here," said Marlies Schellekens, a doctor from Women on Waves who had gone on shore.

"We're now working on an emergency plan but we have opened up our hotline so women can call for information about the abortion pill."

The group, which was invited to Morocco by rights group Alternative Movement for Individual Freedoms (MALI), wants to spread awareness on land about the use of pills for a medical abortion and said it would carry out abortions aboard the ship in international waters.

Like in other Muslim countries, abortion is illegal and punishable by up to 20 years in prison under Moroccan law, but hundreds of illegal abortions are carried out daily in clinics or using herbal medicines, sometimes resulting in death or injury.

"In Morocco, between 600 and 800 abortions are done every day, but only about 250 are done by doctors, so they are safer, while the rest are taking risks," Schellekens said.

There was no immediate comment from officials on Thursday, but on Wednesday Interior Minister Mohand Laenser, a secular member of the government led since December by moderate Islamists, said the ship would not be allowed to reach Morocco.

"The organizers have never contacted us to seek permission to visit Morocco," Laenser told Reuters. "Plus, we are not going to let them in."

Each year hundreds of single mothers are forced to abandon or give up their babies for adoption because of the stigma linked to abortion and pre-marital pregnancy.

The Moroccan Association Against Clandestine Abortion said in June that the legislation on abortion was disconnected from the social realities of the country and the number of unsafe abortion required a political commitment for a change.

Organisers of an all-gay cruise in June blamed Moroccan officials for the cancellation of what would have been the first visit of its kind to a Muslim country.

Link:

• Morocco denies entry to Dutch "abortion ship"

Obama Voters and Hell

Democratic Convention: Cardinal Dolan Prayed for God to Protect the Lives of Those “Waiting to be Born”

h/t the Blaze

Non-Physicians Allowed to Perform Abortions in California

Life Legal Defense Foundation Says Bill Morphed from Boat Paint to Humans

>Contact: Tom Ciesielka, 312-422-1333, tc@tcpr.net
 
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Sept. 4, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ -- The California Senate voted last week to pass a bill allowing non-physicians to perform aspiration abortions. Senate Bill 623, introduced by Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego), extends a program run by the University of California, San Francisco, in which nurse practitioners, midwives and physicians assistants are trained to perform abortions.

"This bill was originally created to regulate boat paint," said Dana Cody, Executive Director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation. "Now it's regulating and destroying human lives."

Ms. Kehoe claimed that the bill was necessary to fill gaps in the availability of abortion caused by the shortage of doctors in parts of the state. The bill went through three attempts before passage. Ms. Kehoe "gutted and amended" the bill after its introduction, which raised some protest from other members of the Senate. This spring, a Senate committee rejected an attempt to pass a broader bill allowing non-physicians to perform abortions. In the end, a narrower version of the bill was passed. Rather than opening abortion to non-physicians generally, the bill focuses on extending a U.C. San Francisco program training physicians assistants and others to perform first trimester abortions.

For months, the Life Legal Defense Foundation has been tracking down information on the U.C. San Francisco program. Earlier this year, they filed a Writ of Mandate to compel disclosure with a public records request for complete information. "There have been numerous attempts to resist records requests, leaving us wondering what they have to hide," said Katie Short, Legal Director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation. "It is important for Californians to find out what is being done in this training program -- who are the abortionists conducting the training? How many women are being injured by these non-physician abortionists?"

The Life Legal Defense Foundation also created a fact sheet about non-physician abortions.

Link:

• Non-Physicians Allowed to Perform Abortions in California

MSNBC Host: “Get Your Abortions Now In Case Republicans Win”

By Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com

 Touré Neblett, a co-host of The Cycle on MSNBC, is garnering criticism from pro-life advocates today after sending out a re-tweet on Twitter encouraging women to get abortions in case Mitt Romney defeats President Barack Obama in November.

“Girls, get your abortions NOW in case the Republicans win,” the re-tweeted message said.



Neblett, according to Wikipedia, is “an American novelist, essayist, music journalist, cultural critic, and television personality based in New York City. He was also a contributor to MSNBC’s The Dylan Ratigan Show and serves on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Nominating Committee. Toure currently hosts The Cycle on MSNBC with political strategist Krystal Ball, conservative columnist S.E. Cupp, and MSNBC’s political writer Steve Kornacki.”

The re-tweet immediately came under fire from pro-life people on Twitter.

Link:

• MSNBC Host: “Get Your Abortions Now In Case Republicans Win”

Pro-Abortion Democrats Scream at 11-Year-Old Pro-Life Girl at Convention

By Bryan Kemper | Charlotte, NC | LifeNews.com

I want you to meet my friend and fellow abortion abolitionist, 11-year-old Zoe Griffin. In a world when grown adults ignore, deny or just don’t care about the abortion holocaust that has claimed over 55 Million of Zoe’s generation, she is willing to take a stand no matter what people think. Zoe joined her mother and friends to lay thousands of roses outside the site of the democratic convention and pray for the babies, the politicians and this generation.

While Zoe was praying, pro-abortion activists who claim to stand up for women began to belittle and scream at Zoe for her stand for life. What is so sad is that one of the women who did this to Zoe, Sunsara Taylor, is a well know anti-porn activist who claims to be against the degradation of women. I guess just not 11-year-olds who believe that women should not be dehumanized by the abortion industry. Sunsara Taylor’s Blog http://sunsara.blogspot.com

I could write a lot about this and how much I am sickened by what happened, but I wanted to let Zoe tell you in her own words how what happened and why she will never quit being a Stand True Activist. Praise God for young women like Zoe, she is why this is the generation who will abolish abortion.
Here is Zoe’s account:

“Hi, I’m Zoe. Something happened Friday night that a friend wanted me to blog about. I don’t have Facebook or Twitter or anything like that so I’m borrowing my mom’s page for now.
“What happened was a pro-life rally. We had showed up when only 4 people were there. I guess we were supposed to get there early. As more and more people came, a car arrived. A woman came out and opened the trunk. There were 3,300 carnations in the back of that car. We started to unload and unwrap the flowers. Lily, Bella, and I started to write pro-life statements with chalk on the sidewalks when some pro-abortionists came.

They were holding signs and chanting: “A baby’s not a baby till it comes out, that’s what birthdays are all about!” They were blowing whistles and jumping around acting like 5-year-old children. I was so sad that these people were so blinded I started crying. Then we started laying down the flowers all across the sidewalk. When we finished, the line of carnations was probably a mile long. A pro-life woman let me hold a crucifix that she had. I started clutching it close to my heart. My knees were shaking, so were my hands.

“The pro-abortionists turned to us and started pointing at different people, saying, “You’re a person! You’re a person! Fetuses are not!” Then the woman saw me crying and said,” You are making this girl cry with your bull____”. I couldn’t stand any more of those lies. They pushed it too far. In the highest-pitched voice I have ever spoken in, I screamed, “THEY ARE NOT THE ONES MAKING ME CRY! YOU ARE! WITH YOUR DARK HEARTS, YOUR DARK MINDS TURNED AGAINST GOD!” My mom ran over to me, put her hand on my shoulder, and calmed me down. Then she went up to them and said, “HOW DARE YOU ATTACK A CHILD LIKE THAT!” While she was yelling, pro-lifers came over to me to calm me down. My whole body was shaking. Our friend, Mrs. McKinney, took me, Jack, and Bella to a CVS that was nearby. We got water and chips and went back. I sat down on a bench when a man from the Charlotte Observer came over to me and started interviewing me. Once he was done, a man came over and gave us ice cream. While I was eating, the pro-abortionists left. Then we started to clean up.

“On the way home I felt sorry that I yelled at those people. I told my mom, and she said, “Do you know why you feel that way? It’s because you have a heart. You have a conscience, and you know what’s right and what’s wrong. Those people attacked you like that because they don’t have a heart.”
I will never, ever forget what happened last night. I had a dream that night that they all converted to pro-life activists. I hope that dream becomes a reality.”

Link:

• Pro-Abortion Democrats Scream at 11-Year-Old Pro-Life Girl at Convention

Catholic Voter Quandary - The Vortex With Michael Voris

By Michael Voris

Hello everyone and welcome to The Vortex where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed. I’m Michael Voris.

A big question has erupted lately around the question of how should Catholics vote. The choice for faithful Catholics isn’t between Obama and Romney. The idea of voting for Obama is simply off the table.

No the choice is between voting for Romney or not. Under the “or not” category that could mean either just not voting for president at all, voting for a 3rd party guy or writing someone in.

Now immediately – the knee jerk and valid response on the part of many is – what do you mean; not voting at all IS a vote for Obama because your vote isn’t able to be used to cancel out a vote FOR him.

And that is absolutely true and valid. As a matter of fact, in every presidential race I have voted with the exception of Ronald Reagan, I have for voted for the guy I did so that I could vote AGAINST the other guy.

This strategy is often referred to as “choosing the lesser of two evils”. And it is a very logical short term strategy. In the case before us in this current election .. we have a man who is enemy of life, morality, and truth. It is unthinkable that may Catholic could cats a vote for Obama.

So the thinking goes – then we have to hold our nose and vote for Romney .. not because he’s Romney, but because he’s NOT Obama.

Let’s look at this a little more deeply. Faithful Catholics don’t want Obama because he is a conduit for evil – no doubt about it.

But think of this .. if/when a faithful Catholic goes into the voting booth and pulls a lever for Romney – he is pulling the lever for a man who supports same-sex civil unions and has stated that he thinks such couples should be able to adopt. In short, the dilemma is a guy who supports a heck of a lot of evil, or a guy who supports a little less evil. Man, that’s our choice.

And here’s the root of the problem. Faithful Catholics and other political conservatives have been used and abused by the Republican Party establishment for decades. In five of the last 8 presidential elections, a republican has won. Abortion on demand is still the law of the land and America has continued her downward moral spiral, granted at varying speeds depending on which party is in control.

But that’s just the point – it boils down to a question of just how fast we are rocketing to hell. Warp speed if the democrats are in charge, cruise control if the Republicans are.

BUT THERE IS NEVER A REVERSAL OF COURSE.

At some point, Catholics and other like minded moral people, who believe that the number one issue with  America is not the economy but moral rot, have got to get out of this box of vote for the bad guy OR the REALLY bad guy.

Moral conservatives have been neglected and thrown crumbs from the table paid lip service for decades by the GOP establishment EXACTLY like African American voters have been abused and thrown crumbs from the table and paid lip service by the Democratic establishment for those same decades.

Million of children are still being aborted and the much of African American community is still mired in crushing poverty. How many elections does it take to realize that the establishment of both parties are conning their base for votes. Just as the primary season began heating up .. leading republicans were putting the word out that all the moral values talk should stop – that we needed to concentrate on the economy and nothing else. They got quote the backlash for that.

The talk quickly died away, but it was revealing. It revealed where the heart and mind of party leadership is. And it ain’t with the moral agenda.

Now .. granted .. there’s nothing at this late stage .. less than 90 days before the election that can happen to change the way this whole sorry game of money and influence and back-scratching is played .. not right now that is.

But there will be another election .. presumably and it is in the run up to the next one that serious moral conservatives .. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, have to take a good hard look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are really gonna keep supporting the party that takes us to hell at a slower pace.

Moral conservatives get treated this way because the party leadership knows at the end of the day .. most, practically all will choose the “lesser of two evils” option and therefore, the party establishment never has to give an account because they never have to suffer any consequences.

Now there are good moral conservatives within the party, both parties as well as some fringe parties. Polls continue to show that around 40 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservatives. That probably varies on a range depending on what issue comes up specifically.

But nonetheless, these numbers are not small. Imagine what would happen if all the moral conservatives from both the republican and democratic parties .. not just supporters, but leaders as well, elected office holders, movers and shakers, the influence leaders who are sick of the status quo, but have resigned themselves to it, imagine if immediately after this election .. in preparation for the next .. said, “that’s it. Nothing ever really changes. A new party is needed where men and women from within the current party establishments leave the old game and start an entirely new one? What would be the possibilities?

Right now the system is set up within each party to simply hold on to power. What is done with that power – the moral good – is held hostage to the desire for power at almost any cost just for its own sake.

This would require a bold move .. motivated by conscience and a desire to see the moral good prevail .. on the part of current leaders. The rank and file joe average voter doesn’t have the ability to pull this off. But leaders within the parties do. What’s to prevent them from getting on the phone with each other and talking about this idea. It’s the country and culture that’s at stake after all – their political careers are of no consequence.

If they try and lose, so what? They would have gone down in a blaze of glory fighting for the good, the true and the beautiful. But one thing is clear and it is this – moral conservatives, Catholics and others simply cannot be content to keep going into the booth and voting for FEWER intrinsic evils and expect that anything is gonna besides the SPEED with which we are morally decomposing.

Its highly doubtful that Obama supporters .. the tens of millions of them that will vote for him in a few weeks are undergoing any such moral dilemma and self-examination. They back him precisely BECAUSE of the evils he supports .. abortion .. same-sex marriage and so forth.

Until moral conservatives can back a candidate with the same conviction and eagerness ..

instead of this lackluster “hold your nose” approach, America will continue to disintegrate. It’s nothing else than a matter of speed, that’s all.

In order for the political order to change, the political process must change. When each party has become morally corrupt and only differ in degree, it’s time to hit the reset button.

GOD Love you,

I’m Michael Voris

Links:

• ChurchMilitantTV
• ChurchMilitantTV Facebook
• ChurchMilitantTV Youtube

Related:

• Catholic Priests Donate More Money to Obama or Romney?
• "President Obama to be honored guest at Al Smith Dinner"
• Romney says Ryan won't oppose abortion in rape cases: How does the GOP base accept that?
• Mitt Romney Told Catholic Hospitals to Administer Abortion Pills
• Mitt Romney's Planned Parenthood Questionnaire
• Mitt Romney: Jesus Will Reign in Missouri and Jerusalem  
• Mitt Romney Supports Homosexual Boy Scout Leaders, Homosexual Adoption
• Mitt Romney Punts on Chick-fil-A: "Not part of my campaign"
• Mitt Romney hires openly gay spokeman
• A choice between Satan and Beelzebub

Which Babies Should Get the Death Sentence?

By Terry Jeffrey

(Town Hall) Americans witnessed a remarkable drama this week when some of our most exalted politicians frantically scrambled to reassure voters that they, too, believed that the United States ought to permit the deliberate killing of at least some innocent human beings.

They apparently did so to persuade the public they are caring, compassionate and -- above all -- reasonable people.

The drama started when Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee in the U.S. Senate race in Missouri, expressed his view that no innocent human being ought to be deliberately killed.

However, that was not the only thing Akin expressed.

"What about in the case of rape. Should it (abortion) be legal or not?" Charles Jaco of KTVI in St. Louis asked Akin in an interview broadcast over the weekend.

"Well, you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well, how do you slice this particularly tough ethical question," said Akin. "It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."

Akin's answer had two distinct parts. In the first, he made a claim about the physiological likelihood of a rape victim conceiving a child as the result of the criminal act committed against her. In the second, he made a policy statement about whether aborting such a child ought to be permitted.

The first part of Akin's answer was worse than gratuitous. It made a claim he could not back up and did so in language that itself raised questions.

But what about the second part of Akin's statement -- that rapists ought to be punished but not children conceived through rape?

Is this a logical, morally defensible, even laudable and courageous position?

A good place to find the basic premises for conducting that analysis is on the website of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. It includes a statement explaining Romney's position on abortion.

"Mitt Romney is pro-life," says the first sentence of this statement. "Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view," it further says. "Because the good heart of America knows no boundaries, a commitment to protecting life should not stop at the water's edge. Taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens," it also says.

"Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us," it concludes. "As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect America's values of preserving life at home and abroad."

Now, I have not quoted here every word from Romney's campaign statement on abortion. But the term "rape" does not appear in it anywhere.

So, here is the syllogism a logical person might begin to construct from what Romney's campaign say about Romney's position on abortion: 1) "Life begins at conception," 2) "taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens," 3) "Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us," and 4) "Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect America's values of preserving life at home and abroad."

Therefore?

Given Romney's premises, what would be the logical position for Romney to take on whether American law should permit the taking of an innocent human life conceived through a rape?

"Gov. Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg told multiple news organizations on Monday.

This has been Romney's position ever since he declared himself pro-life. "I am pro-life," Romney wrote in a July 26, 2005, op-ed in the Boston Globe. "I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape and to save the life of the mother."

So, if abortion is not the "wrong choice" in cases of rape, what kind of choice is it?

Who exactly benefits when the government permits the deliberate killing of an innocent child conceived through rape?

"And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America," says the abortion statement on Romney's website.
Do those same consciences think permitting the deliberate killing of some innocent children can be squared with the good heart of America -- as long as it is only certain categories of children, such as those conceived through rape?

Rep. Todd Akin's substantive position that we should protect the right to life even of those conceived through rape -- who are themselves a second victim of that evil act -- is not only in keeping with the good heart of America, it is plain and simply right.

Link:

• Which Babies Should Get the Death Sentence?

Related:

• Romney says Ryan won't oppose abortion in rape cases: How does the GOP base accept that?
• Mitt Romney Told Catholic Hospitals to Administer Abortion Pills
• Mitt Romney's Planned Parenthood Questionnaire
• Mitt Romney: Jesus Will Reign in Missouri and Jerusalem  
• Mitt Romney Supports Homosexual Boy Scout Leaders, Homosexual Adoption
• Mitt Romney Punts on Chick-fil-A: "Not part of my campaign"
• Mitt Romney hires openly gay spokeman
• A choice between Satan and Beelzebub

Woman who rammed pro-lifers with car was Catholic Relief Services employee

By Patrick B. Craine

 
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 21, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As Catholic Relief Services responds to criticisms over its partnerships with pro-abortion anti-poverty groups, LifeSiteNews has discovered that the aid organization also has a history of hiring employees with strong ties to pro-abortion and pro-contraception organizations.

One CRS employee lists the pro-abortion Pro-Choice Resources and Institute of Women and Ethnic Studies as former employers on her LinkedIn resume, while another was hired by the Catholic aid organization directly from the pro-abortion Population Services International.

Another former employee was convicted of assault last fall after ramming her car into a crowd at the DC March for Life in January 2011 as the pro-lifers traversed a crosswalk.

The latter employee, Charisse Espy Glassman, was a Democrat candidate for the DC school board as well as a legislative assistant with CRS-Haiti. Despite assault charges, she remained at CRS until August 4th, 2011. In a statement on Facebook responding to queries, CRS said they had “operated on the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty.” A victim of the assault, who suffered two herniated disks, reported that Glassman had seemed to laugh as she drove into the crowd.

CRS employee Dr. Amy Ellis joined the Catholic organization in October 2011 after working three years at Population Services International, a major advocate of population control through abortion and contraception.

Ellis, CRS’ Regional Technical Advisor for Health & HIV in Asia, represented PSI even after she had started working for CRS, giving a presentation on “global contraceptive needs” at the International Conference on Family Planning in Senegal from Nov 29 – Dec 2, 2011.

In May 2012, Ellis represented CRS at the Women Deliver conference in Bangladesh, a regular gathering of pro-abortion activists focused on achieving “universal access to reproductive health.” The session she joined included a focus on “revitaliz[ing] family planning.”

Ellis also worked at the Population Council, another pro-abortion population control organization, from 2001-2002.

Daphyne Williams, who has worked for CRS since 2008 and currently serves as the East Africa Regional Technical Advisor, interned at the Minneapolis-based pro-abortion group Pro-Choice Resources in 2001-2002, according to her LinkedIn page. The group is dedicated to expanding abortion access through programs such as the Hersey Abortion Assistance Fund, which provides “no-interest loans” and “grants” to help poor women pay for abortions.

From 2003-2004 Williams worked at the Sixteenth Street Community Health Center, which offers “the full range of reproductive health services including contraception.”  And from 2004-2005 she worked in STD prevention at the Institute of Women and Ethnic Studies, a national public health organization that advocates for abortion access and links to leading pro-abortion and pro-homosexual groups.

Dr. Pun Sok, CRS’ Health and HIV/AIDS Program Manager in Cambodia, joined the Catholic relief organization in 2008 after years working at CARE. A longtime partner and grant recipient of CRS, CARE has opposed restrictions on abortion and partnered with Marie Stopes International as well as promoted contraceptive initiatives in the Third World.

In 2011, Sok represented CRS on the steering committee of MediCam, an organizing body for Cambodian health NGOs that promotes contraception and abortion. He also joined a discussion of MediCam’s 2011 Position Paper as a member of the steering committee. The paper advocated expanded access to abortion and abortifacient contraception.

Notably, CRS’ Board of Directors includes Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, who famously defied the U.S. Bishops in 2010 when she endorsed Obama’s health care plan despite the bishops’ judgment that the plan included funding for abortion.

CRS communications director John Rivera did not respond to questions on the organization’s hiring practices by press time. However, on their website CRS explains that it “considers all applicants on the basis of merit without regard to race, national origin, religious beliefs, gender, age, marital status or physical or mental disability.”

Link:

• Woman who rammed pro-lifers with car was Catholic Relief Services employee

Related:

• USCCB Catholic Relief Services Special Report Episode of the Vortex
• ChurchMilitantTV's Response to the USCCB's Catholic Relief Services Demand For a Retraction
• Investigative Report on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development’s Grants for the year 2010-2011
• Social Injustice: The USCCB-run Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD)

Romney says Ryan won't oppose abortion in rape cases: How does the GOP base accept that?

 

By James Rowen

(Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel) Odious remarks by GOP Missouri Senate candidate Cong. Todd Akin about how few pregnancies result from "legitimate rape" have done more than outrage people across the country and doom Akin's bid to move up from the House.

It motivated the Romney campaign - - already trailing among women voters in recent polls - - to distance itself from Akin by assuring voters that Romney and Paul Ryan - - the "Romney-Ryan administration" - - should they win in November, would not oppose raped women's access to abortion.

"Governor Romney and Congressman (Paul) Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said... (continued)

Link:

• Romney says Ryan won't oppose abortion in rape cases: How does the GOP base accept that? 

Related:

• Mitt Romney Told Catholic Hospitals to Administer Abortion Pills
• Mitt Romney's Planned Parenthood Questionnaire
• Mitt Romney: Jesus Will Reign in Missouri and Jerusalem  
• Mitt Romney Supports Homosexual Boy Scout Leaders, Homosexual Adoption
• Mitt Romney Punts on Chick-fil-A: "Not part of my campaign"
• Mitt Romney hires openly gay spokeman
• A choice between Satan and Beelzebub