End of Summer, Feed Is Working Again, and The French Revolution

Monday, September 1, AD 2014

It’s the unofficial end of Summer and it’s my annual gratuitous post of myself day.  The pic below was taken in mid-July, but I waited to fix the feed to The American Catholic in order celebrate the Summer.  Needless to say, it’s fixed and the Summer is almost over.

During the Summer I asked my fellow blogger Don for some book recommendations for the French Revolution.  Of the few he did mentioned, I picked up Simon Schama’s ‘Citizen’.  The reading is in-depth, interesting, and balanced.  I’m a bit over halfway finished of the 948 pages and am so far impressed.  Considering that we are in the post-Cold War era, I wanted to know a bit more on the French Revolution since their errors have already engulfed Europe and has almost metastasizing here in the United States.  The book is good and if there is any criticism of Simon Schama’s work it’s that he views Christianity, in particular the Catholic Church, through a materialistic lens.

My opinion on the subject is that the French Revolution is the confluence of anti-Christian ideas emanating from the so-called era of enlightenment.  These very same ideas unleashed the short-term devastation of the rape of nuns, the execution of priests, and the degradation of houses of worship.  The long-term affects have furthered the cause of eliminating God from all aspects of life blossoming further in the Communist Revolution in Russia and continued to bear the fruit of death in World Wars I & II.  From this compost grew what we now call modern liberalism & democratic socialism.

End of Summer Tito Edwards Simon Schama Citizens 500x625Happy Labor Day!


Continue reading...

36 Responses to End of Summer, Feed Is Working Again, and The French Revolution

  • The best histories of the French Revolution probably remains those of two Catholic historians, Hilaire Belloc and Lord Acton.
    Belloc brings out the central rôle of Carnot, the War Minister and effective head of the Committee of Public Safety and gives full credit to the “generation of genius,” Kléber, Moreau, Reynier, Marceau, and Ney commanding the army of Sambre et Meuse, Hoche, Desaix, and St. Cyr on the Rhine and, above all, Bonaparte and Masséna in the Appenine campaign.
    Acton rightly divined the underlying political motive. “The hatred of royalty was less than the hatred of aristocracy; privileges were more detested than tyranny; and the king perished because of the origin of his authority rather than because of its abuse. Monarchy unconnected with aristocracy became popular in France, even when most uncontrolled; whilst the attempt to reconstitute the throne, and to limit and fence it with its peers, broke down, because the old Teutonic elements on which it relied – hereditary nobility, primogeniture, and privilege — were no longer tolerated. The substance of the ideas of 1789 is not the limitation of the sovereign power, but the abrogation of intermediate powers.”
    The love of equality, the hatred of nobility and the tolerance of despotism naturally go together, for, If the central power is weak, the secondary powers will run riot and oppress The Empire was the consummation of the Revolution, not its reversal and Napoléon’s armies gave a code of laws and the principle of equal citizenship to a continent.

  • Thanks Michael!

    Those recommendations are going on my Reading List for next Summer, awesome!

  • Simon Schama’s ‘Citizens’ was published for the bicentenary of the French Revolution. It is regarded as the best work on the subject in the 20th century. The French hated it, calling it ‘Thatcherite history’. Its main thesis, that the violence of the Revolution was inherent, particularly upset them.

    In particular, Schama makes the point that pre-Revolutionary France was not an ossified feudal society but one that was obsessed with modernity. He also stresses that when the revolutionaries destroyed the Church they destroyed the social welfare system with drastic results in the 1790s.

    People tend to mythologize their revolutions. Englishmen did so regarding 1688; Americans still do over theirs (even though many of the mythologizers are well-educated) and the French are no exception.

  • Odd that Michael Peterson-Seymour (who sounds as if his ancestors fought at Waterloo) should be an unreconstructed Bonapartist. All the more so since one assumes that he is a Catholic.

  • I find a 948 page book to be daunting.

    I am eagerly awaiting the shortest book in history: subject what Obama did right.

  • I want to clarify that the criticism of Simon Schama’s book, Citizen, is my own. He refers to nuns and monks and unfulfilled citizens, it, not meeting any of their potential because they are cloistered. I am not sure if he was be sarcastic, which would be fine, or serious, which would explain my criticism.

  • Pingback: Why Secular Humanists Can't Cope With Islam - BigPulpit.com
  • My complete recommendations to Tito:

    “In regard to the French Revolution a good starting point is Citizens by Simon Schama:


    Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France still cannot be beat as an analysis of the early Revolution and is eerily prophetic. Carlyle’s History of the French Revolution is quite dated, and written in his usual odd style, but has valuable insights overlooked by many modern commenters.

    The late Henri Lefebvre, although a Marxist, did valuable work on both the French Revolution and Napoleon and I recommend his tomes. His style is dry as dust, but his research is impeccable.”

  • Um, what beach was that?

  • Tito Edwards: I expected you would look more like Padre Pio. You look happy.

  • Tamsin,

    An undisclosed location on the gulf coast of Florida.

    Mary De Voe,

    LOL. Very happy, my wife was there with me, but she had to take the picture. 🙂

  • My brother Mike lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida. Say “Hi” to him for me.

  • Thank you for fixing the feed!

  • Tito, I share your view of the French Revolution. It lives on in the Social Radicalism that permeates so much of our politics. Social Radicalism is a phenomenon that bears close scrutiny. It transcends the individual with a mindset all its own. If not scrutinized and moderated the mindset morphs into moral chaos. This can happen in slow creeping fashion or with the rapidity of revolution. The French Revolution is a signal example. It started with the whole nation seeking to justly address a financial crisis but rapidly resolved into open rebellion and uncontrollable rage. Carlyle describes it thus: “On a sudden, the Earth yawns asunder, and amid Tartarean smoke, and glare of fierce brightness, rises SANSCULOTTISM, many-headed, fire-breathing, and asks; What think ye of me?” Do I engage in hyperbole when I compare the presentable, well-clothed and well-intended modern social radical with the maddened mob of Paris? Yes but to make a point. I cross a Robespierre and risk the guillotine, the loss of my life. The modern well-dressed social-radical only asks that I risk my soul. Who does me less violence?

  • John Nolan wrote, “Odd that Michael Peterson-Seymour (who sounds as if his ancestors fought at Waterloo) should be an unreconstructed Bonapartist. All the more so since one assumes that he is a Catholic.”
    Another Catholic, G K Chesterton described the tragedy of England:
    “A war that we understood not came over the world and woke
    Americans, Frenchmen, Irish; but we knew not the things they spoke.
    They talked about rights and nature and peace and the people’s reign:
    And the squires, our masters, bade us fight; and scorned us never again.
    Weak if we be for ever, could none condemn us then;
    Men called us serfs and drudges; men knew that we were men.
    In foam and flame at Trafalgar, on Albuera plains,
    We did and died like lions, to keep ourselves in chains,
    We lay in living ruins; firing and fearing not
    The strange fierce face of the Frenchmen who knew for what they fought,
    And the man who seemed to be more than a man we strained against and broke;
    And we broke our own rights with him. And still we never spoke.”
    Hilaire Belloc, too, another Catholic, whose grandfather served in the armies of Napoléon, declared, “Those who ask how it was that a group of men sustaining all the weight of civil conflict within and of universal war without, yet made time enough in twenty years to frame the codes which govern modern Europe, to lay down the foundations of universal education, of a strictly impersonal scheme of administration, and even in detail to remodel the material face of society—in a word, to make modern Europe—must be content for their reply to learn that the Republican Energy had for its flame and excitant this vision: a sense almost physical of the equality of man.”

  • William P Walsh wrote, “It started with the whole nation seeking to justly address a financial crisis but rapidly resolved into open rebellion and uncontrollable rage.”
    Certainly, it did start with a bankrupt government, but here is the curiosity: this bankrupt nation found itself able to sustain twenty years of war against the whole of Europe and to raise and maintain an army to fight it. For most of that period it had 700,000 men in the field. As for “open rebellion,” it crushed it wherever it showed itself, in Brittany, in Lyons, in the Vendée. It takes something rather more than “uncontrollable rage” to do that.

  • “It takes something rather more than “uncontrollable rage” to do that.”

    1. Mass murder against opponents.
    2. Mass repudiation of the debts of the Old Regime.
    3. The military genius of Napoleon and some of the other generals and marshals that rose to the fore as a result of the Revolution.
    4. Total War-no longer was war the sport of kings but rather the preocupation of peoples.

  • Donald R McClarey

    “3. The military genius of Napoleon and some of the other generals and marshals”

    I would certainly agree with that. There is a sense in which Napoléon, Dumoriez (despite his later defection), Kellerman, Hoche and Kléber were the French Revolution – It is their legacy.

    “4. Total War-no longer was war the sport of kings but rather the preoccupation of peoples.”

    The levée en masse and all that it entailed was the achievement of Carnot, but we sometimes forget what an astonishing achievement it was. The army was increased from 645,000 in mid-1793 to 1,500,000 in September 1794. The unbroken succession of victories, from Fleurus in June 1794 to Marengo in June 1800 were all, in a sense, his. He was ably seconded by Lindet, in effect, minister of food, munitions and manufacture.

    The political will and administrative skills needed to raise, equip, train, discipline and provision armies on that scale was enormous and quite without precedent. Much of the credit must go to the Committee of Public Safety, which was, in effect, the War Cabinet and to the brilliant innovation of seconding the “Deputies on Mission” from the National Assembly, as political commissioners to the armies.

  • Michael points out my inattention to the economic situation in France. I admit to a lack of formal study of that dismal science. I have yet in mind the diabolical ingredient of revolution. The first revolution starts with Lucifer’s “Non Serviam” and every revolution carries that sentiment in its bloodstream. The laws of economics are swept away when everything can be stolen from rightful owners. The State can be most efficient when it can murder the opposition. “If God does not exist, all things are permitted”. The Social Radical who looks so benign in his well-tailored clothing can do great injustice with a pen-stroke. If the end justifies the employment of any means, we are living in a state of moral chaos. We are then lunatics pulling down our house upon us. But I sing to the choir, as I sort out my thoughts.

  • I can assure Tito that Schama when referring to cloistered religious is not giving us his own opinion, but that of the revolutionaries whose construct of what constitutes a ‘citizen’ is an important theme of the book.

    I am an admirer of Belloc but he was fundamentally wrong on two counts – all his life he believed a) that the French Revolution was a ‘good thing’ and b) Dreyfus was guilty.

  • John Nolan
    I think both Belloc (and Chesterton, too) wrote a great deal in reaction to the way the Revolution and Napoléon were portrayed in England.

    There is a print, which can still be seen in the bar parlours of some country inns, of the handshake of Wellington and Blucher after Waterloo. They must have been produced by the million


    Chesterton summed up the whole business pretty well.

    “Our middle classes did well to adorn their parlours with the picture of the “Meeting of Wellington and Blucher.” They should have hung up a companion piece of Pilate and Herod shaking hands. Then, after that meeting amid the ashes of Hougomont, where they dreamed they had trodden out the embers of all democracy, the Prussians rode on before, doing after their kind. After them went that ironical aristocrat out of embittered Ireland, with what thoughts we know; and Blucher, with what thoughts we care not; and his soldiers entered Paris, and stole the sword of Joan of Arc.”

    To both Belloc and Chesterton, the fall of Paris to the Allies could only be compared to the sack of Rome by the Goths.

  • An interesting summary of an enormous matter,re. the French Revolution: “It started with the whole nation seeking to justly address a financial crisis but rapidly resolved into open rebellion and uncontrollable rage.” – William P. Walsh
    However, from whence came the bitterly murderous hatred of the Catholic Faith and its individual servants, only the abyss could cough up that demon.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    Chesterton wrote ‘The Crimes of England’ in 1916. It’s a polemic, brilliant in parts, but it ain’t history. The author’s unreasoning ‘Teutonophobia’, his withering scorn for Pitt, Castlereagh and Peel (in contrast with his hero-worship of Charles James Fox) and his take on the French Revolution and Bonaparte simply parade his prejudices. Comparing the Allied occupation of Paris in 1814 with the sack of Rome by the Goths takes hyperbole to new heights, especially since French armies had looted and plundered their way across Europe for the previous twenty years. Historical method requires conclusions to be based on evidence. Both Belloc and Chesterton were counter-historical, if not positively anti-historical. They rightly challenged the consensus of the Whig historians, but what they put in its place was too intuitive and subjective. Since it did not rely on evidence it could be sometimes right, but more often wrong.

    Simon Schama’s book is revisionist, not least in that he uses the narrative approach which was unfashionable in 1989 (Orlando Figes does the same in his study of the Russian Revolution ‘A People’s Tragedy’). But both men are historians; Belloc and Chesterton, for all their brilliance, were not.

  • The errors of the french revolution came from somewhere!
    The protestant reformation shaped Europe and the world in ways we are still discerning. That “reformation” preceded the Enlightenment, which came to the “spirit” of revoltion of the 18 and 19 centuries everything from the very un- “reason”able reign of terror to marx to the culture kampf– and what follows in russia and mexico and china and on and on and on

  • John Nolan wrote, “Comparing the Allied occupation of Paris in 1814 with the sack of Rome by the Goths takes hyperbole to new heights…”
    Hardly. In both cases, the capital of civilisation fell to the barbarians from beyond the Rhine.
    Belloc’s evaluation of the Revolution is not all that different from the great French historian of the Revolution, Louis Blanc. Blanc, one recalls, during his exile in London (he had fought on the barricades during les journées de juin 1848), had access to Croker’s unrivalled collection of manuscripts and pamphlets.
    Acton summarises Blanc’s principle: ”He desires government to be so constituted that it may do everything for the people, not so restricted that it can do no injury to minorities. The masses have more to suffer from abuse of wealth than from abuse of power, and need protection by the State, not against it. Power, in the proper hands, acting for the whole, must not be restrained in the interest of a part.” That was also the view of the great Dominican, Lacordaire, “Between the weak and the strong, between the rich and the poor, between the master and the servant, it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free.”
    This was a principle Belloc and Chesterton would have heartily endorsed. It is the negation of Liberalism and its doctrine of laissez-faire.

  • “In both cases, the capital of civilisation fell to the barbarians from beyond the Rhine.”

    Please. Even as hyperbole that is over the circus top. The French Revolution was a complex historical event, but by the time Napoleon fell it had devolved into one of the first military dictatorships in modern times, one with delusions of grandeur. It was a very good thing for the peace of Europe that Napoleon fell in 1814 and that he was soundly thrashed in 1815 at Waterloo which brought an end to his “Golden Oldies” attempt at a Bonaparte revival.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “[B]y the time Napoleon fell it had devolved into one of the first military dictatorships in modern times.”
    That is to misunderstand the nature, both of the Republic and the Empire. Napoléon was no more a military dictator than Augustus or Charlemagne. As Chesterton said, “French democracy became more democratic, not less, when it turned all France into one constituency which elected one member.”
    Elizabeth Barrett Browning (Swinburn’s “Sea-Eagle of English feather”) understood:
    “And kings crept out again to feel the sun.
    The kings crept out — the peoples sat at home.
    And finding the long-invocated peace
    (A pall embroidered with worn images
    Of rights divine) too scant to cover doom
    Such as they suffered, cursed the corn that grew
    Rankly, to bitter bread, on Waterloo.”

    Those “carrion kings, unsheeted and unmasked,” described by Michelet, the great historian of the Revolution.

  • “That is to misunderstand the nature, both of the Republic and the Empire. Napoléon was no more a military dictator than Augustus or Charlemagne”

    Augustus was a military dictator, the last man standing of the ambitious warlords/politicians who murdered the dying Republic. Charlemagne was not a military dictator but the scion of a family that had been running the chief of the Frankish states for some time. Napoleon owed his position to his military brilliance and his willingness to use military force against civilian rule and nothing more.

    “French democracy became more democratic, not less, when it turned all France into one constituency which elected one member.”

    That quote always had my vote for the dumbest thing written by Chesterton.

  • M P-S, the ‘barbarians from beyond the Rhine’ produced Lessing, Schiller, Goethe, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, to name but a few. I’m sure those German citizens, living in their peaceful towns and villages, often in the shadow of old-established monasteries on which the local economy depended and which were soon to be destroyed, were overjoyed at the arrival of Revolutionary French armies with their portable guillotines. Germany in the eighteenth century was civilized in the real sense that the local ‘civitas’ enforced its own laws for the benefit of the citizens. It is telling that the incidence of capital punishment in the German states was far lower than in France or England.

    Michael, get off your hobby-horse and face facts. Bonaparte has a good record when it comes to establishing (or more correctly re-establishing, since the Revolution had destroyed much) institutions in France; but he also erected a police state. His hubristic lust for conquest led (as in the case of Hitler, with whom he has much in common) to eventual nemesis. And France only recovered its 1789 levels of foreign trade in the 1830s by which time Britain had far outstripped it.

  • “I can assure Tito that Schama when referring to cloistered religious is not giving us his own opinion, but that of the revolutionaries whose construct of what constitutes a ‘citizen’ is an important theme of the book.”
    The sovereign personhood of the newly begotten human being (His body and his soul) constitutes the nation from the very first moment of existence. His absolute moral and legal innocence are the standard of Justice and the compelling interest of the state in its duty to deliver Justice and in protecting the newly begotten human being. Francisco Suarez says that: “Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights.”
    The newly begotten human being who constitutes the state from the very first moment of his existence and through his sovereign personhood endowed by “their Creator” is the citizen. At birth the new citizen is given documents to prove his citizenship and a tax bill.
    The French Revolution must have been dealing with the loss and denial of citizenship by the state as in “persona non grata”. Religious persons, priests and nuns, do not forfeit or surrender their God-given sovereign personhood and/or citizenship by answering their vocation. A higher calling, in fact, purifies their citizenship and brings “the Blessings of Liberty”.
    It is nothing less than communism, oppression, for another individual or the state to tell a person who is a citizen that he is not a citizen without indictment for a capital offense, treason. It appears that being a religious person in France during the French Revolution was treason, the absolute reversal of the truth.
    This same separation of citizenship and soul is happening here in America, where having a soul has become treason, treason in the land of atheism.

  • Donald R McCleary wrote, “’ French democracy became more democratic, not less, when it turned all France into one constituency which elected one member.’ – That quote always had my vote for the dumbest thing written by Chesterton.”

    And yet it was, in effect, endorsed by Walter Bagehot, a man politically poles apart from Chesterton. Writing of the nephew, that shrewd cynic observed, “The nature of a constitution, the action of an assembly, the play of parties, the unseen formation of a guiding opinion, are complex facts, difficult to know and easy to mistake. But the action of a single will, the fiat of a single mind, are easy ideas: anybody can make them out, and no one can ever forget them. When you put before the mass of mankind the question, ‘Will you be governed by a king, or will you be governed by a constitution?’ the inquiry comes out thus—’Will you be governed in a way you understand, or will you be governed in a way you do not understand?’ The issue was put to the French people; they were asked, ‘Will you be governed by Louis Napoleon, or will you be governed by an assembly?’ The French people said, ‘We will be governed by the one man we can imagine, and not by the many people we cannot imagine.'”

  • “The French people said, ‘We will be governed by the one man we can imagine, and not by the many people we cannot imagine.’”

    Preposterous. The plebiscite of 1851 was instituted only after wannabe Napoleon had instituted repression. It had as much validity as one of Stalin’s show trials in the thirties. Like his much greater uncle, wannabe Napoleon owed his imitation imperial title, eventually granted him officially through another plebiscite with an unimaginative 97% yes vote, to the bayonets he controlled rather than the ballots he manufactured in pretend plebiscites.

  • Donald R McClarey
    Louis Napoléon may not have been supported by a numerical majority of the nation, that’s as may be; but there is no doubt that he had the support of a determinant current of opinion—determinant in intensity and in weight, that is, as well as in numbers. That was true of his uncle also and it needed no plebiscite to establish this obvious truth.

  • “but there is no doubt that he had the support of a determinant current of opinion”

    Nope, like his uncle he had control of the military and crushed all opposition. Speculations about his “true” popularity among the people or the elite are meaningless when he made certain that his opposition had no voice.

  • Mary De Voe’s, “It is nothing less than communism, oppression, for another individual or the state to tell a person who is a citizen that he is not a citizen without indictment for a capital offense, treason. It appears that being a religious person in France during the French Revolution was treason, the absolute reversal of the truth. . This same separation of citizenship and soul is happening here in America, where having a soul has become treason, treason in the land of atheism.”, nails it.
    In America today, the newly begotten human being is no longer protected, the person who is religious, a veteran, a supporter of Constitutional rights is a potential domestic terrorist. Remember Andrew Cuomo’s saying that a supporter of the Second Amendment has no place in New York State. If he becomes President, that may apply to the whole country.

  • I started to watch Simon Schamas tv program about judiasm since i enjoyed his shows about England. I caught an episode in the middle and what amazed me was that the program seemed more of a rant against the injustices perpetrated upon the Jews by Christians than a true unbiased history of Judaism.
    I was a bit shocked but it may explain this “book is good and if there is any criticism of Simon Schama’s work it’s that he views Christianity, in particular the Catholic Church, through a materialistic lens “

Baby as Parasite

Friday, April 20, AD 2012



Over at the Huffington Post a diarist blogging under the name Sasharusa helps explain why babies in utero are treated like so much disposable garbage by so many people in our society:

This is Giardia lamblia. It is an intestinal parasite that is very common and is a pain in the ass to rid of.

I know, I know, it doesn’t look like a precious little baby. I know. It looks scary, and gross, and looks like it will bite your head off. But we’re not talking about looks. Who knows, maybe aliens think we’re ugly as f–k but this parasite would be labeled Miss Universe in their culture? Who knows! Anyway, I am sorry for plastering this as the very first thing in my diary. Consider this just like those exploited photos of miscarried late term fetuses that Anti- Choicers parade around.

Anyways, back to the whole fetus= parasite thing. That is how I see them. I don’t see them as cute and cuddly. I see them as terrifying and scary. I see pregnancy the same way.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Baby as Parasite

  • Time to weep. LIFE clothed in flesh. Pay it forward.

  • Clicking on that link to the Huffington Post would make me feel like I hit on a porn website, so I’m not going there.

    “Sasharusa” is indeed in need of prayers, but I don’t believe what this person posted. As for “anti-choicers”, those lamebrains are the true anti-choicers. Do you think they favor freedom of choice for schools? Or buying a car with a big V8 engine that runs on natural gas with room for a family? Or living where you want? Or choosing your own dmaned health care plan?

    No, Sasharusa and that ilk don’t believe in any of that. They live in an echo chamber and confuse opinions with intelligence.

  • Every sovereign person alive was begotten as an innocent virgin including this dreadful person writing terrible things that makes indecent individuals of those people invited to spend some time here on earth. Those pesons who renew the face of the earth with Joy, Justice, innocence and LOVE. These people (in utero) love because they have not been taught how to hate. If they are fearsome, remember man that you are fearsome and wonderfully made. These children make mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, community, nations and universes. Homo sapiens. Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights. The human being, called, accused falsely, of any crime, any insult, will triumph because of his virginity, innocence and JUSTICE.

  • The devil has no soul, because the devil has no body, no human body. This individual substance of a rational nature is GROWING according to the dictates of his immortal soul. Expalin that Sasharusa.

  • Every piece like that provides the contrast necessary for the lost to find God.

    Joseph reminded his brothers that their intended evil was used by God for good. I think that happens more than we realize because it is only in looking back that we recognize Providence.

    My read of history is that God uses decaying cultures in opposition to the City of God. So it was under the Roman Empire and so it is today. Sasharusa doesn’t know that her evil rant will be turned to good but I trust that it is so.

  • Beware whom you call a “parasite.”

    When I think of liberals, parasite comes to mind.

  • @ G-Veg:
    My read of history is that God uses decaying cultures in opposition to the City of God@

    Sounds like my compost pile. It is full of rot and cow poo but when it is spread out on good soil, it produces the most luscious fruit. We need to stand firm; God is working and His people are listening and preparing for the good fight.

    Lord, give us holy priests…shatter and bring to naught all that might tarnish the sanctity of priests, for you can do all things.

  • I have been involved with the Right To Life movement since before it became what it is today. These poor souls are out here. They have been out here since before R v W. Does anyone remember(if your as old as I am) being taught to “die for your faith”? At the time the sisters said, “there are many ways you will be called to die for your faith. You may not be brought before a firing squad, or burned at the stake. But you will be called.” As a young child I just thought that was sooo dramatic. Now I know what they meant. Yes, we may be brought befor a firing sqaud befor it’s all over. We are being called right now to die for our faith. We have had such a long period of wandering in the desert of not having the guidance, the leadership of our hierarchy. Many of whom fell right into the lock step of the progressive think tanks. Some who were a PART of them. I believe we are as close to losing our freedoms as we have ever been in the history of our country. If you want to get a thumbnail of how this has happened and how deceptively this movement towards communism has “snuck up on us”, which of course it has not, please read “Righteous Indignation” Excuse Me While I Save The World, by Andrew Breitbart. Starting at chapter 6 he really gets into a rundown of where and how this has been promulgated upon the masses. The beginning of the book is boring but it does lead up to this very good outline. At the time of the first warning signs of abortion on demand in this country many of the original pro life activists learned of these things. It was virtually impossible to talk about at that time. The response was always,” Oh that’ll never happen in America!” Well it did, and “they” are very close to achieving their goals. There is only one way out now, Pray Pray Pray, and yes be prepared to “Die For Your Faith” and the unborn.

  • I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the Church is routinely accused of writing Modest Proposals in regards to Jews, women, dissenters, social liberals, et cetera. I will not pretend that traditionalist Catholics are innocent. I have looked all around and I have seen unpleasant facts.

    Look at the burning of Giordano Bruno. Look at the right-wing firing squads in Spain and Latin America. Look at the shoveling of Jews into ghettos. Look at the demonization of women as temptresses and witches who need to be silenced. Haven’t these and other facts repulsed people? Haven’t these and other facts led people to believe that the Church erases humanity?

    How can people see the Culture of Life in the Church? Please do not assume that I am an enemy of the Church. I have a complicated spiritual journey. I am trying to find truth and goodness wherever they are found, mainly in the Church.

    P.S. Paul, are you referring to liberals as parasites? Aren’t liberals human beings? Furthermore, I have yet to see every single liberal referring to unborn children as parasites. I have yet to see any serious liberal referring to pregnancy as a disease.

  • It seems to me that if one takes the idea that fetus = parasite seriously, and additionally finds pregnancy ‘terrifying and scary,’ then one would certainly want to avoid any sexual interactions, given that this terrifying state only comes about by that means.

    After all, if one knew that one had a high likelihood of contracting an actual parasite by eating a certain thing or walking barefoot in a certain place or whatever else, it would be perfectly reasonable to avoid all those scenarios- we might call such precautions and abstinence a mark of intelligence, whereas if someone deliberately continued to engage in them there would be little else but to presume them a fool.

    So if this analogy is going to have any currency, and if the parasitic nature of pregnancy is so remarkably terrifying, those who profess such an understanding should be (one would think) on the forefront of abstinence practice and endorsement.

  • Perhaps I should have added this. I abhor referring to unborn children as parasites. I also know that there may be much more to the history than what I related. The point that I wanted to raise was that the Church has MUCH baggage. I do hope to see the Church given the grace to face that baggage head-on. Why have I not left the Church? I do try to find Jesus in the Church.

  • Brian Cook: I have yet to see any serious liberal referring to pregnancy as a disease.

    How about as a punishment?

  • I do not debate or otherwise have dialogue with liberals, but perhaps Dr. David L. Schindler’s “The Repressive Logic of Liberal Rights: Religious Freedom, Contraceptives and the ‘Phony’ Argument of the New York Times” at Communio News would rebut the assertion, “I have yet to see any serious liberal referring to pregnancy as a disease”:


    Because liberals (being secular atheists or otherwise of that temperment) believe man is evolved from ape, and hence an animal, of course to them might makes right and an embryo is simly a parasitical collection of cells. But a truly authentic Christian realizes that man is created in the image and likeness of God Almighty, and that implies and necessitates responsibility and accountability. The liberal, being liberal, thinks he / she may engage in sexual intercourse like a wild baboon in heat without any consequence for his / her action, and nanny government is supposed to pay for his / her contraception or abortion (or failing that, the government may compel the Church to so pay). A truly authentic Christian on the other hand knows that God will hold him / her responsible and accountable, and knows that all human life derives from that same God from moment of conception to death.

    Other than that, I have nothing to say to the liberal.

  • “but the Church is routinely accused of writing Modest Proposals in regards to Jews, women, dissenters, social liberals, et cetera.”

    Yes, by people who do not want to focus on what really bugs them, which generally boils down to the fight of the Church against abortion and the refusal of the Church to bend and say that homosexual sex is morally good. The Church has been around for 2000 years and critics can find plenty to point to where Catholics have not lived up to the teachings of Christ. However, the critics usually have an appalling lack of knowledge of the history involved, often are quite comfortable with the enormities of our day while passing judgment on those of the distant past (beam and speck problem) and are simply not being intellectually honest. If what bugs a critic is the belief of the Church in the sanctity of life then battle us about abortion and don’t babble about the Albigensian Crusade or the “oppression” of lesbian nuns in 13th century Perugia.

  • “I have a complicated spiritual journey. I am trying to find truth and goodness wherever they are found, mainly in the Church. ”

    Stick around and read and comment Brian. The search for truth and goodness is a necessary pursuit and you may find some here.

  • When, in Engel v. Vitale (1962) the Person of Jesus Christ was refused acknowledgment in the public square, the soul of Christ was denied to us, making of all persons, beasts of burden, parasites, anything the fallible state calls us, slaves of a fallible, mortal disease, punishment. Every person in this generation may be described by Obama’s definition as a “punishment”. To end the “punishment” we must return Jesus Christ to His proper place as Sovereign King in our hearts, our minds and in our country. Unfortunately, abortion, ending the punishment by ending our neighbor’s life, making war on the unborn, human sacrifice replaced love and charity and generosity.

  • Wow…I’m not a fan of pain myself, but for crying out loud, grow up, lady. Millions of women have done it before and will continue to. Your grandma and great-grandma and great-great-grandma before her weren’t sissies, or you wouldn’t be here.

  • enness. Let’s go over this again. When the person of Jesus Christ was denied to us, many of our brothers and sisters in the womb were denied their sovereign personhood and were murdered. With the return of the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ, our sovereign dignity will be acknowledged by the government and our culture. My ancestors had this same problem with the communists in Poland. Instead of welcoming a new life , the mother and child were HATED. There is no separating Jesus Christ from His people and this is being done to the detriment of the newly begotten. And as you say “women have done it before” but only their enemies ripped the child from their wombs. In America, our representatives rip the child from the womb, call our unborn punishments and diseases, as though the human soul does not exist and with our tax dollars. Why is that?

  • I think we have less to worry about from kooks like Ms Rusa who regard the infant as a literal biological parasite. After all, God/Nature/Evolution (take your pick) has devised absolutely marvelous mechanisms to see the mother and baby safely thru pregnancy. Those who decline to participate in the natural imperative to colonise the future are self-selecting out.

    But industrial capital capitalism and consumerism have transformed children from blessing to burden (economic parasite) and thence to luxury item. For the large percentage who “wait until we can afford children” IVF, surrogates, &c become necessary.

    Who knows? Perhaps new technologies will move economic activity back into the home where children will again be an asset.

  • I heard someone the other day on a chat TV show talk about the IVF procedure and the “host” carrier. Seriously folks, doesn’t this give you cold chills? Why, they even said sometimes the original egg producer could carry the embryo.

    How do you get this horse back into the barn?

  • Mr. Cook, I do not believe that you would want to get into a debate with me about the firing squads in Latin America – of whom I am sure you consider to be “right-wing”.
    The Spanish Civil War is a very complex time in history and the people Franco opposed and defeated were not as pure as the driven snow…far from it.

    Latin America has been a place of political extremism and violence since before the conquistadores set foot in the Western Hemisphere. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and were hated by the Indian tribes they ruled over. Cortez would not have overthrown the Aztec Empire without Indian help.

    Those who point out the Latin American firing squads are usually silent about Castro, the FARC or the Sendero Luminoso, the three who are to blame for most of Latin American bloodshed over the last half century.

    Babies are not parasites. Babies are not burdens. The fact that some people believe these lies does not make them truths. They believe they can have it all – the expensive imported luxury car, a high powered career, annual vacations in exotic places, etc. For them, a child is a burden. When they are old, they will be considered a burden to the younger taxpayers of that time.

  • “How can people see the Culture of Life in the Church?”

    Mostly in places and in ways that don’t get as much media attention as the bad stuff, and for the most part are spearheaded by lay people rather than priests or nuns (with some exceptions) so they aren’t as closely associated with “the Church” in the public mind. Are you familiar with the Sisters of Life religious order, or with the work of the late Dr. Jerome Lejeune, for example? Were you aware that one of the founders of NARAL, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, eventually became a Catholic and ardent defender of life, as has Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” in Roe vs. Wade?

  • Brian CooK: “I do try to find Jesus in the Church. ” IN the Blessed Sacrament on the altar.

  • Pingback: logic pro-choice pope benedict XVI cardinal ratzinger | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: Michelle Obama: Forget Our Unprecendented Attack On Religious Liberty We “Made History”

A Case Can Be Made For Auschwitz!

Sunday, March 18, AD 2012



Michael Moriarty as SS Sturmbannfuhrer (Major) Erik Dorf, in the riveting miniseries Holocaust (1978), attempts at 5:26 in the video above to convince the incredulous SS Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler that rather than concealing the crimes of the Holocaust the SS should stand behind them and and convince the world that the genocide of the Jews and others deemed “undesirable” by the “master race” was right and just.  He anounces to the astounded SS officers, Dorff being an attorney in civilian life, that “A case can be made for Auschwitz!”  He is speaking to mass murderers and monsters, but even they are repulsed by what he says.  They understand deep down that they have been involved in an unspeakable crime for which no excuse, no argument can possibly be made.

Would that most pro-aborts would have some such shred of moral sensibility remaining.  Alas, I am afraid that this statement of Jessica Delbalzo is much more common among pro-aborts, even if they rarely are this forthright:

I love abortion.  I don’t accept it.  I don’t view it as a necessary evil.  I embrace it.  I donate to abortion funds.  I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman has access to safe, legal abortion services.  I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom.  I love abortion.

Continue reading...

57 Responses to A Case Can Be Made For Auschwitz!

  • “We hold these truth to be self-evidnent that all men are created equal” created, not born equal. To be pro-abortion is to be against the laws of nature and nature’s God. To be pro-abortion is to be against the will of God, To be pro-abortion is to be pro-atheism and against all that America stands for. This is why America won WWII. God was with us. And relying on Divine Providence, God is still with us.

  • Well they certainly are trying their hardest to make their case:


    If society retains any moral outrage fanatical pro-aborts may just invoke it by pushing their godlessness too far.

  • I think two deficits in such persons’ consciences are humility and objective truth.

    Twenty-first century enablers of mass evil employ social justice as justification for all sin.

  • Another moral outrage report from Gateway Pundit:

    “Disgusting! Obama Administration Approves Using Aborted Fetal Brains in Lab Experimentation”

    It’s okay! Obama is Social Justice.

  • Another video could have made the point better. Moriarty’s words are a none too subtle smear job against Christianity and the West. I’d like to know which high churchmen called for a Judenrein Europe involving the mass destruction of Jews as opposed to their conversion. There is a class of propaganda inspired by Communists and their fellow travellers that persistently tries to involve the religion of Christianity and in particular the Catholic Church in the Nazi mass murder of Jews. This serves the double purpose of obscuring the heinous crimes of the Communists which over the years have swallowed more victims than the Nazis ever did. The Germans are an efficient and highly capable people; when led by an amoral technocratic elite it takes only a few men to organise the killings of vast numbers of victims.

  • I disagree Ivan. I think this is the perfect video for the point that I was making. Nothing of substance that Moriarty’s character says is meant to be taken seriously except as desperate attempts at self justification by a man lost in an abyss of evil that he has allowed his ambition to lead him into. Moriarty’s character is shown to be especially despicable in the miniseries due to his knowledge that what he is doing his evil and his unavailing efforts to convince himself otherwise. This point is driven home after his capture by the Americans at the end of the war. He commits suicide after an American interrogation officer shows him the pictures of some kids murdered at a concentration camp and tells him that if it was up to him he would allow any surviving parents of those kids to deal with him. As a side note Michael Moriarty has been an outspoken critic of abortion. No, the video makes my point well in this post, about evil and those who attempt to convince themselves that blackest evil is actually shining good.

  • I am reading Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg right now for the first time and every page has me saying, “oh my God!!” I came to a part where liberalism/progressivism is a fight against boredness(?) a trial of anything that if it works, do it!; religion is dammed for science. I can see where much of today’s ills are coming from. I trying to take this book with a grain of salt but my goodness this has been going on since Mussolini and the very late 1800s into the early 1900s and much is seen today. Mr Goldberg seems to take the argument very even handedly as well. Someone tell me I am wrong for believing this book.

  • Nothing of substance that Moriarty’s character says is meant to be taken seriously… – that is the higher critic speaking Donald. It does make your point.

  • There is a reason why God ordered the children of Israel to spare none of the Canaanites. Liberals like Jessica Delbalzo will never give up abortion – murdering babies. They will force the war on us the born in the same way that they have on the unborn, and they will do it using the same words that Maximillien Robespierre used as he led Catholic clerics and laity alike away to meet Dr. Guillotine’s merciful instrument of euthanasia: liberty, equality and fraternity.

  • Stranglehold of PC-ness.

  • The sadness and shattered-ness of this person; self-wounded – intellectualizing his soul’s conflict; searching for justification and redemption – despite his real inner knowing that he has been duped and has sinned tragically. I thought of Viktor Frankel’s Search for Meaning– from this side now.
    A very poignant scene as he walks away, still struggling, hearing the discussion behind him. And for me– also hearing that continuing conversation and knowing that today that same/different discussion/obfuscation still goes on.

    Placed side by side with the abortion lover and the infanticide “ethicists makes me feel almost helpless.

    I also hated to hear the reference to highly placed churchmen– afraid it is true– and at the same time afraid that it is yet another smearing strike at the Church; like all smears based on some truth.

  • And just recently two “ethicists” are trying to recommend “after-birth abortion” for parents who don’t care for what came forth. A clear sign of moral corruption is linguistic corruption, the flat refusal to state what one intends — in this case, infanticide. Even “abortion” was a piece of linguistic corruption. The word had meant “miscarriage” — think of an abortive flight. People wanted to “sell” the idea of abortion by calling it “induced abortion,” meaning “induced miscarriage,” when of course it was no such thing.

  • Go check out her facebook page, she has her picture up of her and someone dressed up as the devil. Very fitting…


  • Tony’s comment made me think of this:
    The Name Game (linguistic deception and rational judgment)

    a case can be made for anything people want to believe

  • Tony Esolen, ” A clear sign of moral corruption is linguistic corruption, the flat refusal to state what one intends — in this case, infanticide. Even “abortion” was a piece of linguistic corruption. ”
    The obliteration of a language is an obliteration of a people. A spontaneous abortion is a natural miscarriage, nature making its selection. An induced abortion is homicide.
    Hitler could not explain why the German race was superior, so he made up Ice Cosmology. The Germans came as frozen embryos from outer space by a space ship circling the planet. Stalin said:”killing one man is homicide. Killing 30,000,000 is a statistic.” In America, aborting 50,000,000 is a “political point of view”.

  • and they will do it using the same words that Maximillien Robespierre used as he led Catholic clerics and laity alike away to meet Dr. Guillotine’s merciful instrument of euthanasia: liberty

    By some creative misunderstanding this anecdote has become legendary:

    The impact of the French Revolution? “Too early to say.” – Zhou En Lai.

    We now have in the WH a man who has no problems with the murder of a baby who survived a botched abortion. Imagine the little fellow’s plight. His mother hates him. He has no father or uncles to protect him. Alone, the instruments of the state are deployed against his tiny frame. The doctors want to get over it and go on to their dinners and yet he refuses to die. And along comes the “constituitional expert” Obama like something out of Dean Swift, insisting that nonetheless the edicts of the Schreibtischtaters be carried out. Such are the benefits of a Harvard education. As the Lenten lamentations have it: if they do this when the wood is green, what will they do to dry wood?

  • Even though my chin was on my chest the whole time, I read it. I even strayed into the comments section.

    There, she says this, and it is a quote:

    “There is no [human] right to life support from someone else’s body, so there is nothing for me to mind seeing. Unless, of course, you want people to be forced into donating their spare organs…”

    To reiterate: “There is no [human] right to life support from someone else’s body”

    This gives us a valuable insight to the pro-death thought process:

    A) Since the first nine months of life are by nature the very act of one depending upon the body of another for life support, according to this logic, nobody has the right to be born.

    B) If nobody has the right to be born, those of us who were lucky enough to not be killed before birth exist only through either the arbitrary and subjective beneficence of somebody else, or because we are bred to a pre-determined utility. So . . .

    C) If our very creation is based solely on the beneficence or utilitarian purposes of another then our continued existence is at that same arbitrary and subjective beneficence or purpose. We then have no individual, natural rights at all, only those abilities granted or assigned by our progenitors. Things like liberty, self-determination the right to life itself are myths.

    D) If there are no natural rights at all, then, society is simply “survival of the fittest.” Control of society then devolves to those who can, through brute force, gain enough power to hold it.

    War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

    Sieg Heil.

    “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” – Joseph Stalin.

    The evil there cannot be any more obvious. We are dealing with Satan himself.

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: U.S. CULTURE WAR | ThePulp.it
  • All I can say is : Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20
    St. Michael, defend us in battle!

  • Donald McClarey: Your response to Ivan is perfect, defining the people. My thoughts follow.
    Jesus Christ said from the cross: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”When Michael Moriarity, as Erik Dorf gives his impassioned, albeit evil speech, about Auschwitz, he alludes to the Jews as “Christ killers” and to the Hitlerites as having “saved” Christianity and civilization for the world as though world domination were not at the core of Nazism. His rant is contradicted by the fact that all priests were summarily sent to Aucshwitz, where Maximillian Kolbe died, or were executed outright. Eric Bolt’s character exhibits the madness of the Madman, Hitler, himself. Christ’s plea for forgiveness from the cross: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” is not in their heart. They are the most miserable and vile of creatures. Saving the planet by murdering everybody who disagrees with them, pretending to be the JUSTICE of God, and yet, I am informed that the Soviets were more cruel, more savage. It is no wonder that Bolt committed suicide, as the Nazi did not accept the forgiveness of Jesus. Oberammergau is the village in Bavaria that was saved from the plague in the middle ages by the people promising that their whole economy would be based on promoting Christianity, most notably the Passion Play, and other art. After two hundred years, they became secularized and abandoned the Passion Play and the plague returned. The people resumed the Passion Play and the plague abated. Even now, the Jews content that the Passion Play depicts them as “Christ killers” but the fact is that it is what it is. Every human being, except the Immaculate Conception, bears the guilt and the glory of being saved by Christ’s crucifixion. The lesson is that without Christ’s forgiveness and the cross, civilization and humanity is not redeemed.

  • WKAiken:
    “nobody has the right to be born”. All men come into existence through God’s generosity. God is love. All creation and especially man exists through God’s love. God is existence. God is being. If nobody has the right to be born, then nobody has the right to human existence. The newly begotten sovereign being in the womb creates motherhood for the woman, grandmotherhood for her mother, great grandmotherthood for her grandmother and further. It is the same for the father to great grandfatherhood. HOPE AND CHANGE is what happens when a woman conceives and CHANGES into a mother. If this woman does not believe in human existence as being worthwhile she ought to give it back.
    The immortal, rational soul of the human being lives forever. The human being is composed of a rational, immortal soul and a human body. To redefine the human being as having no rational, immortal soul is a lie. Eternal consequences for an action of homicide will be taken into account by nature and nature’s God. If this evil person refuses to admit our Creator, then let her return her existence. Since she denies our Creator and our endowed unalienable right to life, she forfeits her sovereign personhood, her citizenship and her rational, immortal soul. The rational, immortal soul is the essence of humanity.

    “we are bred to a pre-determined utility” The compelling interest of the state in the newly begotten sovereign person in the womb is that the person constitutes the state by his being, being the standard of Justice for the state, perfect Justice, perfect innocence, virginity and virtue. The rational, immortal soul brought into existence by the will of God and by the procreative action of his human parents renews the face of the earth and the state. Unless this evil individual is going to live forever, the state needs the new human being to continue the state. Again, I say, if this evil individual does not like her existence she ought to surrender it back to our Creator. How can the state prevent reason? How can the state prevent God? “The fool says in his heart: There is no God”

    Thank you for the quote for Joseph Stalin: “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” – Joseph Stalin. Why would anybody in his right mind call the human race “ENEMIES”? ENEMIES

  • If human existence is a gift from God, then let everyone make himself useful. The act of free will in charity will set you free.

  • Mary – I share your incredulity. The idea that such concepts are now actually being put forward by some people makes me fear the worst is coming.

    Your arguments are extremely well-reasoned. I find it ironic that, in the logic which the pro-death crowd puts forward, they would also surrender their own so-called “right to privacy.” I suppose it is only naivete to believe that the fascists would be stopped by a logical fallacy.

    “Again, I say, if this evil individual does not like her existence she ought to surrender it back to our Creator.” Perfect.

  • You have to wonder if this women loves her child (the one she allowed to live) at all or if she is so narcissistic that the child exists as a vessel to spew her venom. Can you imagine looking at your living child and not at least wondering about the child you destroyed.

    I have two beautiful children that mean everything to me and I cannot look at them and think what if they had never been born? How much I would have missed…

    I pray her daughter realizes the evilness in her mother by denying her the love of her sibling.

  • I call BS on her story about her two-year old being disgusted with the idea of not having the ability to abort. I guarantee that is made up. I have two younger children who are naturally horrified/confused as to why someone would abort. Part of this is that we share with them ultrasounds of them (from their baby book) and their siblings and they recognize the obvious- I/sister was in mommy’s tummy. The idea that a two-year old would accept that the “fetus” is not a baby is silly. My guess is that she didn’t know what her mom meant when she switched from “Baby” when it was about having one versus “fetus” when she was talking about getting rid of it.

  • A case may be made here for Michael Moriarity playing Erik Dorf and Lila Rose playing a pimp.

  • I agree with david. Tell any two-year old that Mommy has a baby in her tummy and she is going to kill it, and you will see a classic example of natural law (i.e., law written on the hearts of men) at work. Call the baby a fetus you might get a different reaction, but only because they don’t understand what a fetus is.

  • WK Aiken: “I suppose it is only naivete to believe that the fascists would be stopped by a logical fallacy.
    “Again, I say, if this evil individual does not like her existence she ought to surrender it back to our Creator.”
    The reality of logical fallacy is if the individual has not surendered her existence back to our Creator and by an act of free will annihilated herself, she has at some point consented to her existence. The person cannot deny our Creator and assume her existence without contradicting herself. If the person exists, she cannot deny other persons who exist. If the person exists, she cannot deny the existence of God and other persons who exist.

  • This post is disturbing for two reasons, both of which have to do with the comparison of the Holocaust and abortion. First, you’ve chosen to use (as either a credible source or a means of drawing in readers) one of the most roundly dismissed and historically problematic Holocaust films ever produced. I encourage further reading about the mini-series “Holocaust.” It’s widely and rightly viewed as sensationalistic, extremely poorly researched, and an unethical and poorly executed mixing of fact and fiction (you’ve described Moriarty’s character here in the comments section, and while your description is accurate in terms of what’s depicted in the film, the historical record demonstrates that his character’s construction is a terrifically inaccurate representation). I recommend thinking twice before referring to this mini-series at all, let alone in conjunction with abortion.

    Second, I beg of you and all others to stop comparing the Holocaust to anything, let alone abortion. No one need shy away from their views of abortion in order to refrain from invoking the Holocaust to incite outrage. It’s absolutely unnecessary to connect the two and what’s worse, it’s fallacious. Using the Holocaust and its 11 million victims to make a point about anything only leads to inaccurate comparisons. Abortion may well be a horrifying epidemic. But it is *not* the Holocaust, or “a holocaust,” nor should one disturb the memories of millions to make a rhetorical point.

  • We have a holocaust of 54 million unborn babies since Roe v Wade just in these United States because men and women want to get their genitals titillated without taking responsibility for the consequences of engaging in sexual intercourse. World wide, the figure is surely much larger. So perhaps the comparison with the WW II holocaust of 11 million people murdered by the Nazis is unfair. Godless liberals in all countries are far, far worse than their Nazi forebearers.

  • “and while your description is accurate in terms of what’s depicted in the film, the historical record demonstrates that his character’s construction is a terrifically inaccurate representation).”

    Disagree Regina. The SS made a point of recruiting young professionals like the character portrayed by Moriarty. As depicted in the miniseries the SS took extreme pains to get rid of evidence of the Holocaust as best they could, with SS and other Nazi officials continuing to deny that the Holocaust occurred at all at the Nuremberg trials.

    In regard to the Holocaust and abortion, the comparison was between the attitude of the SS officials to the idea that there could be a public defense of the Holocaust and the pro-abort nutcase proclaiming her love of abortion. As for body counts, some 55 million kids have been done to death through abortion in this country. I pray that there may come a day when those deaths will cease. Until that time arrives I intend to draw whatever comparisons I deem relevant in pointing out the great evil that is celebrated as a constitutional right in our country.

  • The word holocaust doesn’t make sense when used in conjunction with abortion — the literal definition of this term isn’t applicable. Even if one wanted to believe that there are multiple holocausts, the historical (even Biblical) use of this term refers to a sacrificial death by fire. This makes some sense in terms of a place like Auschwitz. It does not make sense in terms of abortion. Moreover, numerous Holocaust scholars, historians, and survivors believe that it’s absolutely indecent to claim multiple holocausts. It’s their belief that there is only one, and it’s the capital “H” Holocaust, not the/a holocaust. I’m simply advocating that another term be located to describe the atrocity of abortion. That shouldn’t be too difficult, should it?

    Additionally, the claim that “Godless liberals in all countries are far, far worse than their Nazi forebearers (sic)” only further indicates an ignorance of history itself and to be frank, it’s a very ugly dismissal of the pain endured by those destroyed during the Holocaust.

  • What liberals do and say is an ugly dismissal of the pain liberals visit on the unborn as they dismember and vacuum out the remains from the womb, as they puncture skulls with scissors, as they throw the corpses in the trash.

    Godless liberalism. Godless, putrid, rancid liberalism. Worse than their Nazi and Communist forebearers. Crying the same as Robespierre: liberty, equality, fraternity. The only reason why someone cannot understand this is because that someone is liberal him/herself and believes in the right to chose to murder.

  • You do understand that it needn’t be *my* claim that Moriarty’s character is a ridiculous construction, yes? He’s an impossible fabrication and this is a claim that’s been verified by historian after historian. What more can be expected when not even one survivor was consulted during the filming of this mini-series… The notion that this SS officer would commit suicide and therefore acknowledge his own lack of morality is beyond dubious. Again, no need to disagree with me. I’m simply pointing out that a comparison built on factual inconsistencies is never going to be fruitful.

    I never mentioned body counts or comparisons of them — because it’s entirely beside the point. Those who claim that the Holocaust was unique don’t use body counts as the basis for their claims. There are many stellar scholars whom one could read for further information on this point and others.

  • Scroll down the web page here at Priests for Life to find links to pictures of babies torn apart by abortion – not for the faint of heart.


    This is what Hitler did. This is what Obama does. This is what Nazis diod. This is what liberal Democrats do.

  • “I never mentioned body counts or comparisons of them — because it’s entirely beside the point.”

    Until it’s your body! Or my body! You don’t get it, or worse, you refuse to get it.

  • “The word holocaust doesn’t make sense when used in conjunction with abortion — the literal definition of this term isn’t applicable.”

    Nor would it be in regard to the Holocaust if taken literally Regina, since I doubt if the Nazis were planning all of this as a burnt offering to God, no more than the abortionists who burn the bodies of their victims or simply dump them with garbage. In another sense, I guess it could fit both cases as the sacrifice is made to false Gods like racial purity, convenience, etc.

    “Moreover, numerous Holocaust scholars, historians, and survivors believe that it’s absolutely indecent to claim multiple holocausts.”

    Sadly Regina, killing innocent people in huge lots has not been rare in human history as the last century amply demonstrated. The Holocaust was a crime that cried out to God for justice. Alas, such crimes are many in the chronicles of human barbarity.

    “He’s an impossible fabrication”
    I would direct your attention Regina to Kurt Gerstein.


    “There are many stellar scholars whom one could read for further information on this point and others.”

    The claim that the Holocaust is unique Regina is a moral claim not a historical one. For a good overview on the subject I would suggest that you read “Is the Holocaust Unique?”


  • Paul, it’s clear that you’re impassioned. I can respect that. I can’t respect multiple ad hominem attacks. I’m only trying to strengthen a pro-life argument by stripping it of problematic fallacies. I’m sorry that you instead see this as some sort of personal deficiency or decision to champion evil. I just can’t engage further with your claims. I can only suggest that you read my comments free of the assumption that I’m a “Godless liberal.” Hopefully you’ll recognize a different motive in them. Be well and God bless.

  • Dial it back Paul. Regina and I are having a reasonable debate and there is no need to attack her.

  • Donald, I have to smile in response to your latest post. Yes, I’ve read Rosenbaum’s book. In response, I’d suggest that you read Alvin Rosenfeld’s The End of the Holocaust, which recounts the many ways in which the Holocaust has been misappropriated. I didn’t mean to initiate a discussion about whether the Holocaust is or isn’t unique. There has been a decades-long debate on that subject that involves far savvier voices than my own, all of whom present an incredible range of intriguing responses. My point was only that if such a respected body of Holocaust scholars, historians, and survivors find tremendous problem with the use of the term “holocaust” when referencing other tragedies (in part, at least for some, because of the belief that the Holocaust was unique), it shouldn’t be too difficult to refrain from making such an association. Surely, one needn’t invoke a separate tragedy to emphasize the tragedy that is abortion.

    I can’t tell — are you claiming that Gerstein is a representative example of SS officers? Look to an excellent review of “Holocaust” in Wiesel’s And the Sea Is Never Full for more on the ridiculousness of Erik Dorf.

  • “suggest that you read Alvin Rosenfeld’s The End of the Holocaust, which recounts the many ways in which the Holocaust has been misappropriated.”

    Read it and found it unconvincing.

    “My point was only that if such a respected body of Holocaust scholars, historians, and survivors find tremendous problem with the use of the term “holocaust” when referencing other tragedies (in part, at least for some, because of the belief that the Holocaust was unique), it shouldn’t be too difficult to refrain from making such an association.”

    Not difficult at all, but I simply disagree that historically the Holocaust is sui generis.

    “that Gerstein is a representative example of SS officers?”

    No Regina, and you knew that even before you typed that query out. You postulated that a conscience stricken SS officer was an impossible fabrication and I disproved your assertion.

  • Very interesting! I’m attending a conference in two months that will explore Rosenfeld’s book in more depth. I do find it to be persuasive, personally. I think you’ll find Wiesel’s approach to these topics dissatisfying (if you don’t already), given your review of Rosenfeld.

    Erik Dorf is an impossible fabrication for many reasons, inclusive of the general presentation that an SS officer (especially one who was responsible for so much — far too much to be believable) might normally have an attack of conscience. The review by Wiesel goes into great detail regarding Dorf’s historical inaccuracy. I happily grant you that there were exceptions to this rule. I think it’s disingenuous to present the exception as the rule.

    In my experience, it’s rare that a blogger will take as much time as you have to respond to a reader. Thanks for entertaining my concerns so genuinely.

  • “I think you’ll find Wiesel’s approach to these topics dissatisfying”

    Not dissatisfying, merely different from my own. Considering Wiesel’s horrific personal experiences in the Holocaust I can readily understand his position and if I went through what he did I would probably share it.

    “I think it’s disingenuous to present the exception as the rule”.
    That is not my contention. Most SS officers were well educated, cultured and, from all external evidence, conscienceless killers.

    “Thanks for entertaining my concerns so genuinely.”

    Thank you for the good debate. I am always eager to engage in a reasoned exchange of views, particular on historical topics, as history is my abiding intellectual passion.

  • Sorry, Donald. I should know better than to type when I am angry. Apologies to Regina, too. I still maintain, however, that there is no essential difference between the past Holocaust that the Nazis perpetrated and the current Holocaust that the liberal progressives are perpetrating, except that today’s numbers of those murdered are far, far greater. Yet the photographs of human misery and suffering – whether a dismembered unborn child thrown in the trash heap, or a Jewish prisoner victimized by surgical torture and starvation – are all the same.

  • Censorship and misdirection department.

    We little people can’t use the holocaust as a metaphor for abortion because our rulers have declared abortion is a human right.

    Even worse, we mere Catholics would trivialize 70 year-old mass murders.

    Irony department. I never read any holocaust books. But, I know that if it wasn’t for my father (RIP) and all my uncles (RIP), they would not be here telling you what you can’t write. Irony.

  • It is indeed accurate to say that most SS officers were extremely well educated, and also that in spite of their educations, they routinely made immoral choices. They just didn’t normally acknowledge that what they were doing *was* immoral. While Dorf does this, it doesn’t strike me as acceptable to present as the average experience. Ultimately, since most “pro-choice” people also don’t acknowledge the immorality of their beliefs and actions, I wonder anew about referencing this series.

    “Thank you for the good debate. I am always eager to engage in a reasoned exchange of views, particular on historical topics, as history is my abiding intellectual passion.” Agreed. Though it’s a discussion of unimaginable horror, I thank you for the dialogue.

  • Regina,
    I don’t think either the film or Don ever suggested that the Moriarty character somehow was presenting the “average experience” of an SS officer. What you seem to be saying is that exceptional experiences are implausible even if they really occur, which strikes me as untenable. And I agree with Don and others that the proposition that the Holocaust’s massive cruelty was so exceptional in human history that it alone can warrant the term is grounded in something other than fact. While a case can be made that use of the term to describe mass murder of the unborn shows insensitivity to our memory of the mass murder of the Jews, one can also make the case that such a proposition is based on the assumption that the former is not as horrible as the latter, which I doubt can withstand scrutiny.

  • The enemy has many names. Each has a connotation, but all have the same underlying essence. Evil is evil. Debating the shades of murder makes none any more palatable or relevant.

    Saint Michael, the Archangel, defend us in the battle. Be our protection against the malice and snares of the Devil. We humbly beseech God to command him. And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the powers of God, cast into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.

  • In functional terms the various Holocaust remembrances serve mainly as props for the liberal religion. So that, one can have all manner of recall in Europe but no one is supposed to notice that it is overwhelmingly the Muslims who make life a misery for the Jews there. This is a desirable state of affairs for the liberals and the tranzi set. As on the one hand the Europeans are prevented from taking effective action to secure their borders and adherence to their laws on the grounds that it is racist to do so, and on the other hand it is so far proved an effective tool to stymie any attempts by the Right to appeal to the nationalism of the Europeans to put their interests first. East Europeans have handled this naked attempt at mind-control better than the West, but there is no telling how long they can hold out in the face of well financed propaganda from the EU and Soros types.

    Now it seems to me that if the Holocaust is to be held in the same unapproachable light as Catholics are to hold the Eucharist, then at the minimum it behooves those who speak on its behalf to see to it, that it is not used to further partisan ends. But this is not what we see. No Catholic is allowed by mealy-mouthed rabbis to compare the worldwide plague of abortion to the holocaust, yet homosexuals get a pass to invoke its memory to further their agenda, forgetting that homosexuals such as Ernst Roehm were well represented in the Nazi Party. A thinking man cannot allow such blatant double standards to pass muster. Further, there was only one name that was worthy of blasphemy in the West and that is the Holy Trinity and its Persons. Blasphemy is passe now; why should the rest of us now replace the Trinity with the holocaust or the superstitions of the moment. I read the “Gulag Archipelago” when it can out in translation in the 70s and early 80s. Nothing that men are capable of has surprised me since. The Holocaust is neither unique nor unprecedented in scope or method then or in more recent times. There were the horrors perpetrated by King Leopold in Congo, the Armenian massacres, the millions who perished in the martyrdom of Tsarist Russia at the hands of the Communists many of them not incidentally Jews, the Ukrainian Holdomor, the mass induced starvations in Maoist China and the depredations of the Khmer Rouge. The perpetrators of all these genocides have by and large all gotten away with it. Kaganovitch, Molotov, Mao, Pol Pot and almost all their lieutenants all died in their sleep with little comment from the guardians of Holocaust memory. Yet no effort is spared to root out every last octogenarian Nazi holed out in some basement in Canada or Michigan. The Holocaust is of significance to Jews, it has none to me other than as a demonstration of the adage that God is on the side of the bigger artillery.

  • “The Holocaust is of significance to Jews, it has none to me other than as a demonstration of the adage that God is on the side of the bigger artillery.”

    Well Ivan it has a great deal significance to me, and I regret to say that I do not have a familial relationship to Christ. As for God being on the side of the bigger artillery, I think that is probably a bitter jest for Hitler and Stalin to ponder in Hell.

  • But you are adopted into the family, Donald.

    Romans 8:15

    For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

  • True Paul, and it is also true what Saint Ignatius Loyola said when advised that one of the members of his order had Jewish blood. “How wonderful for him to be related to Our Lord and His mother!”

  • The similarity between the Jews in the Holocaust and the unborn in the abotion holocaust, is that these persons were denied acknowledgement of their sovereign personhood. Deny the humanity of the person and everything becomes legal. Dorf’s argument was predicated on the propaganda that the Jews were not persons deserving of life. Hitler did his share of abortions: “Life not worthy of Life” General George Patton, shall I say beloved Gen. George Patton told his men going into battle: “Kill them with kindness”. Patton acknowledged the sovereign personhood of the enemy combatant and that of his own men. Grant and Lee respected the humanity of the other. You may not want to go back to Alexander the Great, but here too, was another leader who acknowledged his men as persons and respected them. Obama will not recognize and acknowledge the human person as being a child of God. Somewhere, oh, somewhere in the Old Testament, God calls man “lesser gods” small “g” I am still searching for the quote but if God is our Father, then, we, his children whom He has adopted are “lesser gods” aka sovereign persons. We are God’s INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Only our Creator has a copyright, a patent on the human being ” I AM.” (If man is not a person, he cannot be an animal. Animals are a different species. Man is homosapiens: Man of Wisdom)

  • WK Aiken: Will you be so kind as to explain to me what the picture is. I see a white bunny rabbit getting his teeth brushed.

  • I regret the callousness of my remark Donald. Thank you for your patience. Of course God has the last word: Stalin’s “How many divisions does the Pope have?” is well a known cynical quip. The steadfast Eugenio Pacelli’s reply “Tell my son Joseph that he will meet my legions in heaven” puts things in perspective and should be equally well remembered.

  • I love that quip of Pius XII Ivan! He said it to Winston Churchill who uttered another of my favorite quotes:

    “You ask what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war by sea, land and air with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road will be; for without victory, there is no survival.”

Obama’s Latest Fig Leaf is Not Acceptable

Friday, February 10, AD 2012

Update III:  The USCCB Pro-Life Director Richard Doerflinger and Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey agree with me that this “accommodation” or “compromise” is unacceptable.  Sadly Sr. Keehan of the the Catholic Health Associate found this “satisfactory”.  It looks like Obama will be happy that Sr. Keehan is on board.  Of course, Planned Parenthood and Sr. Keehan agree.

Update II:  Rumor confirmed.  Insurance, that Religious Institutions pay into, will provide contraception, ie, it is still a violation of the First Amendment.

Update I: Rumor is that “Hawaii” compromise will be offered, but the bishops have already rejected this.  So basically it’s a poor attempt at stalling and not really offering a solution.

The buzz this morning is that Obama is “caving in” to the pressure and will announce a “compromise” today at 12:15pm Eastern.

The news reports are saying that Religious Organizations won’t have to offer birth control, only the insurance companies that these Religious Organizations provide will offer birth control.

Yeah, that’s the compromise.

If these reports are true, this is dead on arrival.  Changing the meaning of the words won’t do it.

Continue reading...

34 Responses to Obama’s Latest Fig Leaf is Not Acceptable

  • It’s George Orwell’s 1984, except the date should be 2012.

  • …only the insurance companies that these Religious Organizations provide will offer birth control…

    And who pays premiums into the insurance pool? The Religious Organizations and in most cases, their employees. This is no compromise; it’s word-smithing.

  • Exactly Big Tex.

    I wish I were more eloquent and prescient as you were, but I wanted to get this out and digested before Obama did another Pravda Announcement.

  • Next, he’ll offer 30 pieces of silver, the price of a man.

    I’m insulted.

    He must think we are as stupid as he.

  • Pingback: . . .Breaking: Obama Compromise is No Compromise. . . | ThePulp.it
  • Politics at its worst. This administration is not caving in on anything. They are mandating and telling the insurance companies what product to sell and at what price to sell. Unconstitutional.

  • He’s on the run.

    Don’t accept the first.

    Counter with: “Resign tyrant.”

  • Let’s pretend that birth control is a health issue (hahahah, sorry — I’ll stop laughing now). Since when is the President qualified to ORDER medical treatments? Did he go to medical school or something?

  • Lord have mercy. Has Sr. Keehan have no shame? No conscience? Her bishop should have a friendly chat with her, remind her that part of the reason the Church and the entire country is in this mess is in part her doing, and then politely ask her to keep her mouth shut.

  • Unfortunately it may be that Sr. Keehan has no problem with contraception, sterilization etc.

  • She also has no problem in wearing anything but a habit.

  • HHS was The Institute of Medical Services idea. BO and KS said so.
    The change in payment was recommended by some Insurance Business Institute.
    One, quick little mention of ‘religious liberty’ being intact, so there you guys who are complaining so much.

    Contraception was the whole focus of what HHS means to USA, no mention of the laundry list of other ‘care’.

    Contraception is good for preventing women’s health problems. What about all the studies of causes for women’s cancer? Women, not girls, what happened to the 11 year olds that were going to be ‘cared’ for? Not PC for a noonday speech for Catholic listeners. Ugh. More questions than answers from he who was paid by a Catholic org. to do work.

    Contraception is the lowest common denominator of appeal for those who would trash Church teaching before letting go of complacency.

    No apology for using the word Mandate in olden times like yesterday. Now, it’s all about being the bearer of ‘good’ compromise for all concerned, especially those who want contraception. Politics, pandering to voters, and shutting up the Church.

  • I think Sr. Keehan has no idea how insurance works.

  • from he who was paid by a Catholic org. to do work.
    He said so.

  • Too busy today to do anything right now except to note that this is no compromise and anyone who thinks it is is either a fool or a knave. Obama truly does have nothing but contempt for those outside of his ideological bubble.

  • Who is this Senior Keehan?

  • Obama went out of his way to say that he supports freedom of religion, pointing out that one of his stints as a community organizer in Chicago was funded by a Catholic group.

    Gag me with a spoon. I wonder which Catholic group funded his community organizing. I wonder further if those funds made their way through the CSA.


  • There can be no compromise with evil.

    I would hold out for his resignation. That’s me.

  • Another great takedown of this duplicitous “compromise” over at Vox Nova.

  • Haha Paul. I’ll comment on that later. I’ll let others read the takedown first.

  • “Sister” Keehan is a traitor. If she approves of this, then it is not to be trusted. The road of compromise is never ending! Don’t take it. Time for Catholics willing to suffer persecution to stand up and be counted. If Obama wins this, it’s all over for Faith and freedom. Wake up America!
    Immaculate Conception pray for us.

  • I’ll update my post with that link, Paul. Good catch.

  • If the bishops will not or cannot make (Sr.) Keehan behave then hopefully the vatican will discipline her and her order. She is a disgrace to American nuns who are pro-life. In effect, she is giving comfort to the enemy and she needs to be stopped!!!

  • I clicked on the link thinking someone at Vox Nova had actually written something critical of Pharaoh Obama’s “compromise.” It seems most there are content to retreat into philosophical condemnations of American Democracy and other acts of mental onanism.

    I suspect MM is waiting for the Dem talking points.

  • Phillip:

    Kudos. I am afflicted with violent nausea by ravings of lunatics that believe in a vast array of dumb and illogical rubbish.

    Apparently, that pack of catholic Commies (adherents of the gospel of Mao) believe the destruction of the evil, unjust private sector justifies both the damnation of souls and the denial of basic human rights, i.e., religious liberty.

    Seems, they have bought into the tyrant’s alibi: the “welfare of humanity justifies enslaving humanity.”

    You are too kind and genteel. I would have waxed sort of alliterative: “acts of mental masturbation.”

  • The vn are not compromising with evil. They are evil.

  • There aren’t enough exorcists — are there?

  • I was going to rebuke T Shaw for going a bit too far, but he’s really not far afield. To rationalize this decision in such a way is just astounding. There really is no road low enough for these folks at VN. That said, I have to agree with Tony on one thing.

    Think of Romney attacking Obama when he did the same thing in Massachusetts!

    Well, at least that one was non-demented sentence in the rant.

  • How did Sr. Keenan get quoted? I understood this article was about what Catholics thought?
    Dan Malone

  • May God Change Sr. Keehan’s heart. We all should pray she converts and repents. She is truly a lost soul directing others to HELL.

  • The Catholic Church will never obey this mandate, not if all the powers of Hell were to shove it down our throats. I know that moral doctrine may seem a strange and ancient thing to your administration Mr President, but understand that as Catholics, we are required to disobey unjust law. Commanded. It is our duty. Do you understand the gravity of the ultimatum you’ve made? You have placed the faithful Catholic in a position in which he must choose between obeying your mandate and obeying God. To comply with the HHS mandate will be considered a sin. Regardless of how you view your actions, do not so easily ignore how the Church views your actions — as attacking her flock. Force the mandate on faithful institutions, and faithful institutions will shut down their services. Force it on our hospitals, our universities, our schools, and our convents and we will bear the consequences of looking you, Sibelius and all the rest in the eyes and saying “No.” As it turns out, the Church doesn’t give a damn what you think — She never has cared for the powers of the world — and will resist you with all Her might. To be briefer still, and to say what those bound by politics cannot: Bring it.

  • Me and my wife have been trying to have a child for over a year and we are seeing a fertility doctor who is putting my wife on birth control for one month to regulate her cycle (i.e., as part of a plan aimed at treatments during the following month). I don’t think this is a sin and I don’t see any problem with the Catholic Church providing those contraceptives if I worked for them. I don’t see the catch-22 Nancy describes because it seems the sin only occurs when contraceptives are used to prevent a pregnancy. Although contraceptives can be used in a sinful way, so can other health-related drugs, medical devices, or equipment. The most obvious examples are the use of many prescription drugs to commit suicide or to be abused. In the case of these other drugs, the Church doesn’t eliminate the drugs from their health plan but instead provides them and expects Catholics to follow its teachings and not use the drugs in the commission of a sin. Why are contraceptives different? They have a number of non-sinful uses, including use by non-Catholic employees or to regulate menstruation (i.e., in someone who is not having sex). I don’t see why providing these drugs would be any more a sin than providing Oxycontin or morphine. Would it be a sin for the Church to provide baseball bats because they could be used to commit a murder?

Susan G. Komen Foundation Did Not Reverse Course, But It’s an Epic P.R. Disaster on Their Part

Friday, February 3, AD 2012

The Susan G. Komen Foundation did not reverse course as many have thought, suggested, or commented all over the Interwebs today.

Even Austin Ruse President of C-FAM is not sure and has issued this press release:

Statement by Austin Ruse on the Susan G. Komen Foundation

“Today the Susan G. Komen Foundation made an announcement that appears that they have reversed themselves on funding of Planned Parenthood. While I do not believe they have reversed themselves, it may turn out to be the case. We do not know.

What happened this week was nothing short of a Mafia shakedown campaign by Planned Parenthood against the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

Planned Parenthood told the Komen Foundation “either give us money or we will destroy you.” They were aided and abetted in this hostage taking by the mainstream media.

At this point, pro-lifers should cease their support of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. We should wait and see what happens. We know there are five more Komen grants to Planned Parenthood in the pipeline. If any more come up, we will know we have lost and Planned Parenthood has won.

I do not regret the work I did over the past days on this issue, neither should any pro-lifer. I only regret we could not have done more to make Komen strong and able to fight off the thuggish abortion giant, Planned Parenthood.

What the week has shown is that Planned Parenthood, an organization that is under criminal investigation all over this country, will stop at nothing to maintain their stranglehold on organizations like the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

We should continue to pray for Nancy Brinker and all of her colleagues at the Susan G. Komen Foundation.”

The American Papist and Steven D. Greydanus agree with me on this one.

Look at it from Komen’s perspective, they’re taking a public relations hit by the punks and thugs from Planned Parenthood and their allies.  It’s a war, a Culture War out there!

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Susan G. Komen Foundation Did Not Reverse Course, But It’s an Epic P.R. Disaster on Their Part

  • Pingback: Komen Foundation Reverses Course, Promises to Keep Funding Planned Parenthood [UPDATED AGAIN] | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: . . .SUSAN G. KOMEN REVERSES DECISION?. . . | ThePulp.it
  • What no one’s picking up on is that Nancy Brinker isn’t just some ingenue who got taken advantage of by PP. Brinker has served on a Planned Parenthood board. She has accepted a personal award from PP. She has steered a fortune to PP, over many years. The woman is a savvy insider, not a well-meaning innocent who fell in with the wrong bunch. The Komen organization is fundamentally corrupt, infected with an anti-life ethos.

  • So, Lance Armstrong donates $100,000 to Planned Parenthood.

    On the exact same-day, the Obama Justice Dept., without explanation, drops its doping case against Lance Armstrong:


    Yeah, nothing fishy about that at all.

  • Re your postscript, hopefully NRTL is watching and adding to the boycott list.

  • Pingback: Komen knuckles under… | Catholic and Enjoying It!
  • Jay Anderson’s observation will sadly never find the light of day in main stream media.

  • Was’nt the woman herself, Susan G. Komen, Pro-Life? Susan G. Komen would have been ashamed to know that the foundation that bears her name is helping to support a business that provides abortions!

  • I guess the Susan G.Komen foundation found out what real political pressure is like.

  • Oh great. I once gave the LAF $100 out of my meager wallet. Cross him off the list too. What planet am I living on? Did the magnetic poles reverse and now we’re living in Bizarro World? All the donors are dogpiling on the one that doesn’t even DO mammograms!

  • A “mafia shakedown campaign by Planned Parenthood”? Really? We do ourselves no favors by finding hyperbole to delude ourselves. What it was a great wash of supporters from all over who reacted in knee-jerk opposition to what they saw as a hostile action.
    Planned Parenthood may act in some ways we strongly oppose, but blind demonizing and making them out to be the organized kingpin of some vast conspiracy only makes us the fool, and tools of those who have their own agendas. Austin Ruse is doing us no favors. Let’s keep a level head.

  • enness: I once admired Lance Armstrong very much myself. Then he hooked up with left-wing whacko Sheryl Crowe (who lectured us on the necessary of using only 1 square of toliet tissue per bathroom visit – to save Gaia) , which was a tip-off to Lance’s politics and ideology.

    I’m very happy I didn’t actually mail in a check to Komen the other day, although I considered doing so. Then I checked my bank balance. The few bucks I have to give to charity this month went to my parish and to the Scott Walker campaign (no, giving to a a political candidate isn’t charity, but it is a very good cause.)

    When my mother died of cancer back in the ’80’s, I, and my siblings began giving to the American Cancer Society. I haven’t sent them a check in years. I will again, but only after I look into them to ensure they aren’t relying on fetal stem cell research, or are aligned with some nefarious organization.

    If there is one lesson this whole nasty business has taught us it is: research your charities. I’ve been reading about the reaction to this on secular sites and there are plenty of pro-lifers who had given to SGK in good faith for years, without ever suspecting they were in league with PP. The only way I discovered the link was because of Catholic blogs.

  • Donna, ugh, I’d almost forgotten about that.

    I donated, taking the B.F. Skinner approach, as I’ve been calling it — heaping rewards on the smallest step in the right direction. For the briefest second I considered a chargeback, but I feel like that would be appalling ettiquette and I can’t bring myself to do it. I will say that I certainly would respect them more if they returned the money.

Fourth Trimester Abortions (Updated)

Thursday, September 15, AD 2011

One question that pro-lifers often pose to pro-choicers is how can they reconcile permitting abortion while still prohibiting the murder of newborns?  To put it differently, what is the substantive difference between a newborn child and a child in the latter stages of pregnancy?  For that matter, what is the difference between an unborn child at any stage of development and a born child?  Evidently this logic hit a Canadian judge pretty hard and she recognized the contradiction in distinguishing the born from the unborn.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Fourth Trimester Abortions (Updated)

Why Personhood Matters

Friday, August 26, AD 2011

Imagine you lost your mother, after an illness, at the hospital. In as much as any death is easy, hers is… and then it starts.

Months later, after much legal fighting, they finally give you her mortal remains– a couple of tissue samples in little boxes, kept behind the secretary’s counter for when you came in to get them for a proper burial. You’re handed the shoebox and told to sign here, here and here, be careful, those are bio waste.

Horrifying, isn’t it?

How about this:

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Why Personhood Matters

  • O Brave New World! Huxley was the prophet of the times in which we are living.

  • That is too horrid to contemplate. And, they’re (the guvmint) stealing your hard earned (those of you that still have employment) money to do it.

    Of course you are evil and filled with “ancient religious hatred” (phrase uttered by Clinton press sec’y Lockhart re: opposition to sodomy) if you oppose it.

    Earth shakes on Tuesday; hurricane hits on Sunday: we have it coming . . .

  • I was recently asked to consider contributing a paper to a group producing a series. The paper was to consider the importance of a “personhood amendment” to the U.S. Constitution – an amendment that would define a human being at all stages of life, from conception to natural death, as a “person”.

    After reading relevant Supreme Court cases (and doing so again for an undergraduate course I am teaching this Fall), I let the group know that a personhood amendment would not solve the problems in which we find ourselves. My reasoning is that the current crop of “personal liberty” cases involving abortion focus on balancing the mother’s “liberty” with that of the state, and in nearly all cases, the state loses. Why? It’s not because the unborn isn’t considered human, or even a person – rather, the court’s language indicates that the state has no ability to protect the life of the unborn prior to a certain time, and never under certain conditions, and that the woman’s choice is paramount.

    To use the language of Casey:

    “It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that Roe’s essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State’s interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman’s effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State’s power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger a woman’s life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.”

    And, of course, “health” in the jurisprudence is so loosely defined so as to mean “any reason whatsoever” – from the Roe justifications:

    “Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.”

    So, here you see the Court engaging in removing the problem of whether the unborn is a “person” or not, casting the language in that of self-defense and medical care. Even if the courts were presented with a constitutional amendment of personhood, this still would not undo the damage of Roe, Doe, and Casey. In addition, the instrumentalizing problems you suggest, I opine, are a result of a utilitarian calculus, whereby the means to a happy end are through horrors. A direct amendment of the constitution against abortion, fetal harvesting, cloning, etc., would be the most powerful statement, but a “simple” personhood amendment, I fear, would change nothing.

    Just a short aside on a thought your post sparked.

  • Jonathan –
    I didn’t know anything like all the specifics, but when I think about it I’m not surprised. Wasn’t there a ton of unwinding needed to undo all the precedent after slavery was abolished, not counting the attempts to get around the legal equality of former slaves/blacks?

  • Foxfier,

    Yes, and in the process, the Court and Congress created all sorts of wonderful things designed to enhance their own power.

  • A good scifi movie that explores a possible “clones for organ parts” scenario is “The Island”. Unfortunately it falls into the stereo type of all big corporations, governments and rich people being evil, but interesting movie nonetheless.

  • Pingback: SATURDAY EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Yes, science has steedily moved in this direction since the first decade of the twentieth century. Darwinism and evolutionary thought generally, led peopel to see human beings as expendible, and subject to scientific engineering. To the latest ideas regarding the greatest good or the individual’s desire. No longer are we seen as created beings responsible to our Creator, the Creator who has revealed his nature and will through scriptural revelation and who is believed on by faith.

  • Thanatos syndrome, yes, Walker Percy. I meant ot bring him up the last time, but I couldn’t remember his name. In one of his novels, Percy communicated that we really are at the center of hte universie, God and us, and that what concerns us is the story we’ve been given, the BIble. As always. Some things don’t change. Paradigms shift, but the fundamental concerns remain.

Archbishop Chaput and the Media

Friday, August 26, AD 2011

One of the most irritating aspects of life for faithful American Catholics over the past several decades has been how quiet most of our bishops have been in the face of outrageous attacks on the Church.  Too many of our bishops have acted as if they had their spines surgically removed upon consecration.  Fortunately there have always been a handful who have been willing to speak out and suffer the media attacks that then ensue, along with the ambushes of heterodox Catholics frequently eager to lend a hand to anti-Catholics in their ceaseless war against the Church.  One of the more outspoken bishops is Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, who has never been afraid to proclaim the truth, and to do so eloquently.  He is at it again over at First Things.

Continue reading...

32 Responses to Archbishop Chaput and the Media

  • “Some of the usual suspects on the Catholic Left are upset at the Archbishop for naming some of their cherished propaganda organs…”

    I think that’s true for some. I also think that for some on the Catholic Left the NY Times reflects their view of the Church or, perhaps more accurately, what they want the Church to become.

  • Well Phillip, over the years certainly some members of the Catholic Left have been far more faithful to the magisterium of the New York Times than they ever have to the magisterium of the Church!

  • “Some of the usual suspects on the Catholic Left are upset at the Archbishop for naming some of their cherished propaganda organs…”

    They’re also upset that the Archbishop didn’t call out their own fave Catholic publications – Commonweal, America, National Catholic Distorter – as good sources for Catholic commentary. Thing is, they’re not good sources for Catholic commentary, and the Archbishop knows this. The Distorter especially – a vanguard for all that is opposed to Catholic teaching.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • An excellent resource on this subject is the Get Religion blog, which examines coverage of all religions and religious traditions in the media and points out gaps or inaccuracies. In many stories, Get Religion says religion is present only as a “ghost” — an unnamed reference to people doing works of charity or attending rallies or “vigils” without mention of the fact that a religious motivation was behind it.

    From reading the mainstream media, you would think that thousands of people feed the hungry, travel to disaster zones, spend long hours at a sick or injured person’s bedside (doing what? PRAYING, maybe?), devote themselves to improving their communities, etc. for no apparent reason, other than, perhaps, some vague reference to their “values.”

  • “We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC for reliable news about religion. These news media simply don’t provide trustworthy information about religious faith”

    and CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, Wash. Post, Boston Globe, etc, etc, etc

  • We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC, NPR, Washington Post, Boston Globe, for reliable news about ANYTHING.

  • I would include as unreliable the Catholic News Service, which if I mistake me not, is a service of the USCCB. It gave a favorable review to the homosexual movie Heartbreak Mountain. Another disservice of the bureaucracy of the USCCB.

  • “It gave a favorable review to the homosexual movie Heartbreak Mountain”

    I take it you are referring to BROKEBACK Mountain?

    Aside from the movie reviews, whose suitability can and often will be disputed, whether or not Catholic News Service is a “reliable” source of Church news depends on how you define “reliable.”

    In the Catholic press, there is always going to be a tension between the need to promote and adhere to Church teaching and the need to realistically report what is going on in the Catholic world whether or not it is agreeable to Church teaching. I have to admit that I am somewhat biased in favor of CNS due to the fact that I once worked for a diocesan newspaper that relied heavily on CNS news, and some of whose personnel personally knew people from CNS.

    If you rely solely on traditional/conservative leaning publications, you may get the impression that conservative/orthodox/traditional Catholicism is a lot more popular and widespread than it actually is. On the other hand, if you rely on left-leaning sites like National Catholic Reporter, you get the impression that the “spirit of Vatican II” crowd still reigns supreme, which is also not the case. There still needs to be a reasonably middle of the road source of Catholic news which doesn’t actively promote dissent but doesn’t ignore its real-world impact, or ignore the fact that the Church still has a long way to go in getting most of its members fully on board with its teachings.

    While I understand the disillusionment many people have with the mainstream media, and yes they do often get things wrong, still, I think it is VERY dangerous to dismiss them completely and insist on getting ALL your news only from sources that agree 100% with your political or religious leanings. Balance is the key here.

  • Wow Elaine,
    It almost sounds like you should be writing for Vox Nova. 😉
    Well put.

  • Nah, Brett, if Elaine were writing for Vox Nova she would have to say something truly absurd like mentioning Chaput in mouth disease, and I doubt if Elaine would ever say anything like that. Finally, I doubt if Elaine could make it past the Vox Nova entrance interview:


  • You’re right Don, I would not get past Rule #2. I certainly would flunk out by Rule #5 (“Paul Krugman is the living embodiment of Catholic social teaching.”)

  • Don’t worry Elaine. They let me write whatever I want and I don’t even know who Paul Krugman is!

    Also Don, no one at VN has ever forced me to say anything “truly absurd.” Elaine wouldn’t HAVE to say anything of the sort.

    All peace and good,

  • “Also Don, no one at VN has ever forced me to say anything “truly absurd.” ”

    That is good to know Brett. Judging from Minion’s posts I assumed there was some sort of requirement.

  • I’ve got to agree with Elaine — the Catholic News Service (and even the movie reviews, though I certainly don’t always agree with them) serves a useful purpose, and I’ve never found it to be an organ used for questioning or undercutting the faith.


    To not even know who Paul Krugman is, you’d have to be skimming MM’s posts pretty thinly. After all, in the very post linked to here MM chides Archbishop Chaput for not listening to Krugman more:

    Why does Chaput not mention any of this? Is he so insecure that he cannot handle criticism of the Church in the New York Times, and must instead run to those who use the Church for their political aims? Does he see no nuance and complexity? Is he not aware that he can learn far more about the economic mess from Paul Krugman in the New York Times than anybody on any alternative media source?

    I mean, I agree with those who knock people like Voris for bishop-bashing at the drop of a hat, but this is, if anything, worse.

    I will say, though, that I’ve always enjoyed reading your posts, which are both fair and intellectually curious. (I just wish that you’d keep a separate blog like Kyle does, so that it isn’t necessary for those of us bullies who might be divisive pamphleteers of the verge of kicking off a new Reformation to wade through the main site to read your stuff.)

  • “Judging from Minion’s posts I assumed there was some sort of requirement.”

    “…I don’t even know who Paul Krugman is!”

    Brett is clearly not reading Minion’s paeans to Krugman.

  • The quoted bit from MM on Krugman hardly tells me anything beyond the fact that he writes about economics for the New York Times and that MM thinks he has some insight. Surely that is not enough for me to know whether he is “the living embodiment of Catholic social teaching,” or even if MM considers him to be such.

    Perhaps the very favorable recent posts linking to the Distributist Review should give certain people pause before they announce exactly whom the Vox Novans think accurately represents CST (or is Krugman a Distributist?) or that all Vox Novans must be of the same opinion on such matters.

  • Brett,

    VN is well known for being disobedient to the Magisterium and for attacking orthodox Catholics.

  • Tito,

    I don’t believe I’ve ever seen any of the current frequent posters on Vox Nova dissent from Catholic doctrine.

    That many of them do specialize in “friendly fire” towards other orthodox Catholics is arguably true, though.


    Well, unless the Distributist Review is not an alternative news source, it would seem that MM does believe Chaput could derive more benefit from reading Krugman than from reading the Distributist Review. (Actually, this is probably not surprising, as MM is probably too educated in regards to economics to be terribly impressed with the Distributists.)

    But to be fair, that hilarious parody dates back to when Henry, MM, MZ and Iafrate were the mainlines of Vox Nova. The place has, somewhat diluted its craziness since then.

  • Tito,

    I don’t believe I’ve ever seen any of the current frequent posters on Vox Nova dissent from Catholic doctrine.

    That many of them do specialize in “friendly fire” towards other orthodox Catholics is arguably true, though.


    Well, unless the Distributist Review is not an alternative news source, it would seem that MM does believe Chaput could derive more benefit from reading Krugman than from reading the Distributist Review. (Actually, this is probably not surprising, as MM is probably too educated in regards to economics to be terribly impressed with the Distributism, at least where economics is involved. Chesterton and Belloc were admirable in lots of ways, but their economic analysis was not necessarily great. MM is probably right to rely more on Keynes and Krugman than on Chesterton and Belloc when it comes to actual economic theory.)

    To be fair, though, that hilarious parody dates back to when Henry, MM, MZ and Iafrate were the mainlines of Vox Nova. The place has, somewhat diluted its craziness since then — in regards to contributors at least. (Oddly, the comboxes seem to have gone even further off the deep end — though perhaps that’s just a matter of the “other side” not bothering to show up much anymore. I suppose in some ways we’ve had an equal and opposite history here. Given the natural affinities of belief, it may be that political sites natural sort themselves into either right or left with few dissenting voices bothering to show up.)

  • Darwin,

    I wasn’t aware that killing children in the womb was part of Catholic teaching.

  • I’m not either, but I was giving them credit for the fact that Gerald L. Campbell hasn’t posted there in a very long time. (Though I agree it was disgraceful that everyone at the time defended his claim that being pro-choice was a legitimate exercise of subsidiarity.)

    People like MM and MZ do everything possible to support pro-abortion candidates, because those candidates happen to also be leftists, but they insist that they are not in fact pro-abortion themselves (and would vote for anti-abortion leftists if they existed) so I figure it’s fair to categorize them as unwise rather than dissenting.

    Ditto on the tendency to attack pro-lifers far more often than pro-aborts while at the same time claiming to be pro-life.

    Don’t get me wrong. I have no desire to defend them. I just want to be precise in my attacks. 🙂

  • OK, I’ll back track.

    Certain bloggers are disobedient.

    The rest of the bunch are essentially good guys and it would be nice to share a beer with them because it would make for interesting conversation(s)!


  • Precision is always appreciated. As is beer.

  • As for a personal blog, here you go:

    I’m only tempted to set up something a little more formal because I think “Ein Brett Vorm Kopf” would be a great name.

  • Can’t let a name like that go to waste!

    I guess I should just bookmark the category link. For some reason, it’s not possible to put the category links into an RSS reader.

  • It would be helpful though if those bloggers on Vox Nova who are not in dissent do correct those who post comments who are. That would make it appear less likely that they are dissenting.

  • “MM is probably too educated in regards to economics to be terribly impressed with the Distributism, at least where economics is involved. Chesterton and Belloc were admirable in lots of ways, but their economic analysis was not necessarily great. MM is probably right to rely more on Keynes and Krugman than on Chesterton and Belloc when it comes to actual economic theory.)”.

    Yes, as regards “economic theory”. But economics in practice? A good antidote to Keynes [Krugman is not worth the effort] is J.K. Galbraith’s ALMOST EVERYONE’S GUIDE TO ECONOMICS. He makes the point that economics is not that difficult to understand. Thus, in the controversy about raising the debt limit, it is not difficult to understand that you cannot keep writing checks on an account without money. Belloc understood this; GKC understood this. Even B. Obama as a senator understood this.

    In May 1939, shortly after learning that unemployment stood at 20.7%, Henry Morgenthau, the secretary of the Treasury, exploded: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” Morgenthau concluded, “I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”

  • From the other side of the pond, I rate the orthodoxy of your bishops according to extent that they are excoriated by the liberal media – Burke, Olmsted, Chaput et al. The fact that none of ours has yet to be targeted by the Tablet, the English equivalent of the National Catholic Reporter, is cause for concern.

2 Responses to Don’t Worry, Planned Parenthood Says It’s Not a Baby Yet

Narcissism in Music (or, “How Gregorian Chant can Save the World”)

Friday, May 6, AD 2011

Last week National Public Radio ran a story called “Narcissism on Rise in Pop Music Lyrics.” It opened up with,

On this very day in 1985, the number one song on the Billboard Top 100 was…”We Are the World” (“We are the world. We are the children.”)  Fast-forward to 2007 when Timbaland’s “Give It to Me” featuring Nelly Furtado topped the charts: “…love my a$$ and my abs in the video for ‘Promiscuous.’ My style is ridiculous.”

So more than two decades ago, we were holding hands and swaying to a song of unity, and these days, we’re bouncing to pop stars singing about how fabulous they are.  Psychologist Nathan DeWall has had the pleasure of listening to it all for research, and he found that lyrics in pop music from 1980 to 2007 reflect increasing narcissism in society. And DeWall is an associate psychology professor at the University of Kentucky.

Dr. DeWall proceeded to explain:

I was listening to a song that, really, one of my favorite bands, Weezer, had on one of their albums recently, and it’s called “The Greatest Man That Ever Lived,” and I kept wondering, who would actually say that out loud?  “I am the greatest man that ever lived. I was born to give and give and give.”

The ironic thing is it’s a song about how I’m the greatest person in the world, but it’s to the tune of “‘Tis A Gift To Be Simple,” which is a song about humility. And so what I wanted to do, instead of relying on self-report measures of personality like narcissism, I wanted to actually go into our culture, our cultural products, which are tangible artifacts of our cultural environment. And so, for that, I thought maybe song lyrics would be a very good jumping-off spot.

What we found over time is that there’s an increasing focus on me and my instead of we and our and us. So, for example, instead of talking about love being between we and us and us finding new things together, it’s mostly about how, you know, for example, Justin Timberlake in 2006 said, “I’m bringing sexy back. Yeah. Them other boys don’t know how to act. Yeah.”

There is no doubt that DeWall is correct.  Pop music is becoming more narcissistic.  The broader, age old question is: Does art imitate life, or does life imitate art?  The answer is probably some of both.  Our culture is increasingly narcissistic.  In the spirit of the NPR article, which was about music, I wish to propose a possible antidote for narcissism: the liturgy, specifically liturgical music.

Unfortunately, we must first distinguish between music that might be heard in any given liturgy and liturgical music, properly speaking.  While the Catholic Church has been plagued with bad versions of the four-hymn sandwich for decades, the fact remains that Holy Mother Church has given us a liturgical hymnbook: The Graduale Romanum,  In this book, one will find the ancient Gregorian chants.  But what many will be surprised to find is that the Church has given us specific chants for every Sunday of the year in the places that we currently sing “hymns.”  For any given Mass, there are prescribed chants for the Introit (think here of the “Opening Hymn” you are used to hearing), the Gradual (“Responsorial Psalm”), the Offertorio (“Offertory”), and the Communio (“Communion Song”).  Most of these date back more than a thousand years.  Of course, in the Graduale Romanum, one will find the chant written in Latin.  However, vernacular versions of these exist.  What is key is that the liturgical rubrics, while they permit hymns, call for a preference given to these chants.  Vatican II itself held that the Gregorian chant tradition should enjoy a “pride of place” in our liturgies.

Why do I see this as an antidote for narcissism?  The surest way to deal with this problem is to give people the sense that they are not the center of reality, nor are they the source.  The Cartesian turn to the subject has flipped classical metaphysics on its head so that people come to view reality as what is in their own minds rather than what their minds encounter on the outside.  The liturgy is a reality that is given to us, not one that is created by us.  In fact, it is in the liturgy itself that we find our own fulfillment.  When we go to Mass, we participate in reality itself, something that is much bigger than us.  If we see the Liturgy as something that we fit into rather than something that fits into our lives, we can come to understand that we are not the center of reality: God is.

The problem is, as has been observed on several observations over the past decade, there is an increasing narcissism even within the liturgy itself: both priests and people come to think that the liturgy is something that can be created and recreated with the fickle winds of changing culture.  In fact, the lack of narcissistic language in the new translation of the Roman Missal has been pointed out in comparison with the current, defective translation.  Currently, there are several places in the texts that seem to order God to do certain things and to give a primacy to the people over the divine.  The new translation, being more faithful to the Latin, has sought to correct many of these errors.  What remains to be fixed is the same problem in the hymns that are often chosen for Sunday worship.  Many of the modern hymns focus on man rather than God (think here of “Gather Us In,” or the ever-elusive “Sing a New Church Into Being”).  Quite simply, these hymns are self-centered rather than God-centered.

Contrast this with the use of the Graduale Romanum.  These chants have been given to us by the Church, each carefully constructed around sacred texts in order to serve as a sort of lectio divina for the readings of the day.  Indeed, when Gregorian chant is properly performed, it seems as if it is not of this world.  Part of that is due to the inherent structure of the music, for chant lacks a strict meter (though it has an internal rhythm of its own).  Unlike a hymn, which marches forward towards a climactic conclusion, chant allows the listener to rest in contemplation, a mirror of the eternity which we, God willing, will experience someday.  But another part is due to the words, which become primary (unlike modern pop music, where the words are often a later add-on to an already existing rhythm/chord structure).

Perhaps the most important point, however, is the fact that the music of the Mass inevitably (forgive the pun) sets the tone of the entire celebration.  It stands to reason, then, if we employ a music that is provided for us by the Church (not to mention encouraged by the rubrics), then the people will better understand that the liturgy itself is given and not created.  If they come to understand the liturgy, which is the objective center of reality, in this manner, then they will come to see that they are not the center of reality.  Thus, my rapid fire, probably incomplete, but hopefully coherent, argument that an antidote for the rise in narcissism is Gregorian Chant.  Save the liturgy, save the world.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Narcissism in Music (or, “How Gregorian Chant can Save the World”)

The Catholic Response to the Death of a Murderer

Sunday, May 1, AD 2011

An already busy weekend concluded with the surprise announcement by President Obama that Osama Bin Laden had been killed on Sunday morning, May 1 by a team of American forces in a compound in Pakistan.

There’s a lot to be digested, and a lot of questions for what this means for an already uncertain future in the Middle East. However, as the crowds pour into Lafayette Square with jubilation, it is important to remember how this day began. It began as Divine Mercy Sunday, the Second Sunday of Easter, which this year saw the beatification of John Paul II, an event which marked the holiness of the man. One cannot think about the holiness of John Paul II without recalling his powerful forgiveness of his would-be assassin. For Catholics, this day began as a testament to the powerful force of God’s love and mercy.

So it should it end the same way. Bin laden did much evil. He killed scores of innocents, contributed to the starts of several wars, and used religion to create a culture of hatred. For Americans, we watched as our brothers and sisters were killed, wounded, or separated from their families. If anyone deserved to be riddled with American bullets, it was he.

But “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” has no “but” clauses. The culture of life that John Paul II spoke from womb to tomb; the dignity and beauty of God-given human life is not diminished by one’s sins. God’s mercy and love has no exceptions; as Christians our mercy and love are to have no exceptions.

Simply put, God loved Osama Bin Laden and extended His mercy to him. It is our duty as Christians, as witnesses to the love of God to extend our forgiveness to Bin Laden and pray that he accepted that mercy and that we will be with us in paradise. The celebration around his death ought to make all Christians uneasy; even more so the many declarations that they hope Osama is burning in hell.

This is a difficult teaching to be sure, especially for those who lost a loved one due to Bin Laden. But the Church has never claimed that its teachings were easy. Instead, it has offered the grace and sacraments to live it out, as well as pointed to the examples of extraordinary human beings who lived it out. Today, the Church named a man blessed who knew deeply about the costs of love and forgiveness. So Blessed John Paul II, pray for us. Pray that our country can use this moment to emerge more unified. Pray for the world that we may escape an era of fear and hatred and violence. Pray for us that in this time, we can follow your example and use this moment to witness to the love & mercy poured out by our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Continue reading...

91 Responses to The Catholic Response to the Death of a Murderer

  • Michael
    I don’t see things that way. Bin Laden was killed with one shot while shooting at what he knew was either Pakistan military or ours. Ergo he was shooting at government forces. His only chance of making Purgatory is if God knew him to have a high functional insanity whereby he could function daily but was controlled by subconscious forces to do material evil without formal guilt. That is why we can’t judge him. But he was not repentant if he was firing at estblished forces. Judas according to Christ, Augustine, and Chrysostom but not our last two Popes…..is in hell right now. We don’t need an encyclical because we have inerrant scripture.
    Don’t worry. Those in hell had to reject much love from God to even get there.
    The New Testament says: ” If the just man will scarcely be saved, where will the impious and the sinner appear?”. That’s the Holy Spirit. You are correct though that outside Judas and other Bible figures, we do not know who is in hell because Trent said one could only know by revelation.

  • I’m not sure why you think Osama was killed by a single shot, but your theory assumes he committed mortal sin and was killed instantly. I hope that when he was shot there was enough time, perhaps even a split second, that the outpouring of infinite love & grace of our God touched his heart and that, like the thief on the cross, Osama stole eternity.

    If he never repented, then I shudder to think of his fate.

  • Pingback: The Catholic Response to the Death of a Murderer | The American … - Christian IBD
  • While it is certainly sinful to wish ill for someone, it is a good thing to rejoice at justice. Sort of like being happy about the victory at Lepanto, or thankful that the Turks were turned back at Vienna, and the Jihad stopped at Tours. That’s not a bad thing. It should be tempered, obviously, by a hope that their souls were somehow saved.

  • This is a wonderful response – beautiful in its wording and challenging in its content. I must admit, as an American Catholic, I am struggling with my own personal reaction. On one hand, I did not lose any loved ones on September 11th, so I have a great deal of difficulty even feeling like I have a right to ask for Osama’s forgiveness. To do so, on some level, feels like it would be an insult to all those who did lose loved ones on that day or in any of his orchestrated attacks. But, on the other hand, I do believe that God extends His mercy to all, and as Jesus told St. Faustina, “Let the greatest sinners place their trust in My mercy. They have the right before others to trust in the abyss of My mercy (Diary of St. Faustina, 1146).”

    All I know is this – the moment Osama Bin Laden died, my family was united, praying the Chaplet of Divine Mercy on the Feast of Divine Mercy for dying sinners, especially those most in need of our Lord’s mercy. The thought is heart shattering for me. I do not believe in coincidence when it comes to how God deals out mercy. Let us pray that people around the world, especially those most wronged by Osama Bin Laden, will be given the grace to find closure and peace in the human justice dealt today and, perhaps in God’s time, the grace to forgive him according to the Divine Mercy our Lord extended to Osama Bin Laden on the cross.

    Blessed Pope John Paul II, pray for us!

  • Single shot to the head after he was given the chance to surrender.

  • I never rejoice with the dead of anybody, and less when the person is killed, even when the person is a killer, himself. The Pasion of Our Lord, the Redemption, was for him too. God have mercy on his soul.

  • Sic transit gloria mundi.

    Osama had his day of infamy. As the Bard tells us, the evil that men do lives after them, and so it is with bin Laden. I cannot imagine there was much good to be interred with his bones.

    This man has been the rallying cry for much atrocity, pain and death in this world – I cannot imaging many mourning his passing, except perhaps those distorted and overtaken with his teaching.

    It is a good thing he is dead. It is not a good thing that there is a very strong case that he is eternally damned – God made all of us for Him and it is a cause for great sorrow when one separates himself from God by his own doing.

    Now we should prepare ouselves for the onslaught of hundreds who would step up to take his place.

  • Well said Don. I am saving some prayer time for those today and in the coming weeks who will inevitably be slain by adherents of the religion of peace in revenge for the fact that bin Laden has received long delayed justice.

  • “I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.” – Mark Twain

  • And, the Yanks and Mets won!

    Good thing: He will not be responsible for the murder of one more innocent civilian. Two: possibly this will reduce the massacre artists’ effectiveness. Three: it may demoralize mass murderers.

    Genesis: “Who spills man’s blood, by man shall his blood be spilled. For man was made in the Image of God.”

    “He who has no sword, sell his mantle and buy a sword.” Jesus

    Why would anyone ever attempt to live a good life if everyone will be saved no matter what evil they did?

  • I see nothing wrong with celebrating a military victory in a just war, which is what this is. Osama had the chance to live by surrendering. He chose not to. His soul is in God’s hands, and I trust that He will do with it what is both just and merciful. This will not dampen my celebrating. Our soldiers have accomplished a great feat, and an enemy has been vanquished.

  • Pingback: . . .OSAMA BIN LADEN DEAD. . . | ThePulp.it
  • This triumph of justice deserves to be celebrated.

  • This is written with the heart of the Church, our Savior Jesus Christ.

    You are a good man, Michael Denton.

  • I don’t normally take joy in anyone’s death, but Bin Laden got what he deserved. Although I do not believe in an afterlife, if there is a hell, then Osama will get a presidential suite along with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and Mussolini and Tojo.

  • In Lawrence of Arabia, Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif) sees the glow of heavy shelling across the desert. He says to Lawrence (Peter O’Toole), “God help the men that lie under that.” Lawrence says, “They are Turks” (i.e. the enemy). Ali continues to watch, and listen to the distant pounding of the guns, and says again, “God help them.”

    We can be happy for military victories but there is a difference between being thankful (and I’d say we should lean towards the thankful, rather than the joyful) for defeating a ruthless enemy, and saying things like “I hope you have fun in hell,” as a few had on their facebook pages. I am sad that anyone has to die in war, and I pray that it may not be so. From a military and intelligence standpoint, I’m impressed with this achievement–but I am never happy that someone was killed and I only hope capturing him was impossible.

    Thanks Michael for this piece.

  • Amen, Michael.

  • Why would anyone ever attempt to live a good life if everyone will be saved no matter what evil they did?

    I don’t see anyone saying OBL is saved despite his evil. Mr. Denton is simply pointing out that one can (should?) hope OBL availed himself of God’s grace which is made available to all. Whether he took advantage of that or not is between him and God.

    I don’t know if “celebrate” is the right attitude, but I think we can be thankful to some extent justice (at least to the extent it can be delivered by fallible human means) has been served.

  • You have got to be kidding me. An incredibly evil man was killed during a Just War. God certainly loved him, but he didn’t love God, which is why he ended up the way he did.

    This “mixed-emotions” response from the members of a Church that every October 7th celebrates a battle in which thousands of our enemies were killed is preposterous.

    St. Pius V, pray for us!

  • It’s oddly hard for me to have any strong feelings one way or the other on this one.

    I’m not really putting much energy in working up feelings of tenderness for Bin Ladin, since I think doing so would be more an exercise in show than anything else. (It meant something for John Paul II to forgive his assassin, it would be self indulgent for me to go around telling people that I forgave John Paul II’s assassin.) And though Bin Ladin can at a human level be a subject for human pity, so are lots of other people rather more worthy of consideration.

    That said, this is, sadly, probably not the military victory that Hitler’s suicide in the bunker was. Being the sort of movement that it is, I’m not sure how much of a handicap losing Bin Ladin is to Al Qaeda. I hope I’m wrong about that, but I fear it’s more a symbolic victory than a productive one.

    No cheers or tears for me.

  • Excellent column. I concur with Michael’s comments. In no way can we as believers wish damnation upon anyone no matter how evil their actions.

  • A brilliant, brave and theologically on target article…Thank you!! At times like this it is not easy to follow the guidelines our Catholic faith provides us. But it is in times like this that we can exercise our true faith and be an example to a terribly violent world.

  • “That said, this is, sadly, probably not the military victory that Hitler’s suicide in the bunker was. Being the sort of movement that it is, I’m not sure how much of a handicap losing Bin Ladin is to Al Qaeda. I hope I’m wrong about that, but I fear it’s more a symbolic victory than a productive one.”

    I suspect that is true. Al Qaeda has become decentralized and can act independently through a multitude of cells.

    A man who did great evil is now answerable to God. I pray for his soul. I give thanks that at least Osama’s involvement in evil has come to an end.

  • While most everyone’s celebrating, chances are this will only fuel more terrorist attacks and a new “bin Laden” will emerge to carry on jihad. I hope I’m wrong but wouldn’t be surprised if major retaliation in the form of mass murder doesn’t occur soon, possibly in America.

  • chances are this will only fuel more terrorist attacks and a new “bin Laden” will emerge to carry on jihad. I hope I’m wrong but wouldn’t be surprised if major retaliation in the form of mass murder doesn’t occur soon, possibly in America.

    You mean they have been saving their ammo for 10 years for a retaliatory demonstration shot?

  • All I’m saying is that the other shoe has yet to drop.

  • All I’m saying is that the other shoe has yet to drop.

    If al Qaeda has a shoe they can drop on us, I suppose they will, but I think we tend to overestimate their ability to suddenly achieve anything over here in the US by getting really mad these days.

  • Hello Michael,
    THANK YOU for posting “The Catholic Response to the Death of a Murderer “! It took courage and it is obvious that you are a Man of God..of faith! When I read the paper this morning, I wondered how many Catholics and other Christians would read the news of Osama’s death. You are so very right…as disciples of Christ..we must live the Message of Divine Mercy!
    The Dairy of St. Faustina says that the Lord calls upon the soul at the time of his/her death. Thank you for your act of faith and charity!
    I heard about your blog on “Women of Grace” EWTN program today, May 2nd. Will also like to share it on our TV/Radio weekly program in South Texas – “Catholicism Live!” on Catholic Television of San Antonio and Guadalupe Radio – grnonline.com.

  • Thank you for this column. It struck me when I heard the news that it was also Divine Mercy Sunday. I prayed the Divine Mercy Chaplet for Osama bin Laden and his friends as soon as I heard of his death. I hope he will be forgiven by God if not by his fellow human beings.

  • Of course, Atla, bin Laden, Hitler, Muhammed, Pol Pot, Lenin, Mao, Ho, Che, et al could be in Heaven.

    But, not so much anyone that disagrees with you.

  • Pingback: A Catholic Response to the Death of a Murderer « Dominican Laity; Saint Monica Chapter
  • I hope that Bin Ladin repented. If not there is nothing that we can do for him.

  • If Hitler is in heaven, the God really needs to review his Plan.

  • I will merely quote what Mrs Zummo said above, because I concur with it entirely:

    “I see nothing wrong with celebrating a military victory in a just war, which is what this is. Osama had the chance to live by surrendering. He chose not to. His soul is in God’s hands, and I trust that He will do with it what is both just and merciful. This will not dampen my celebrating. Our soldiers have accomplished a great feat, and an enemy has been vanquished.”

  • I’m glad the bastard is gone and it’s a feel-good day, I suppose. Never saw so much celebration of death. Now Obama is going to cash in politically by visiting Ground Zero on Thursday, and do his George Bush megaphone shtick. 9/11 is the new Pearl Harbor promised by the neo-cons needed to revive American patriotism and military spending. It’s working just great. Geniuses.

  • Neocons had nothing to do with 9-11 Joe and the man who had everything to do with it has been judged by God. It is a very good day.

  • Don, read “The New American Century” — the pre-9/11 blueprint that said that only “a new Pearl Harbor” would revive military spending, etc. Of course, I know you are skeptical of conspiracy theories and don’t need to see Obama’s birth certificate, Osama’s body, nor the wounds in Jesus’ side to believe. Some of us, however, prefer a bit more proof.

    Doubting Joe

  • Joe Green, what we need proof of is the ridiculous scenario you’re implying.

  • Joe, go here to their website:


    They were a public thinktank and you can read their publications on line. The suggestion that they had any involvement with 9-11 is bizarre, if that is the point you were trying to make.

  • Francis and Don: I’ve spent my life asking questions and, more importantly, questioning answers. I often do not accept things at face value. 40 years of journalism has given me a sense of objectivity that I find is missing from most people. More than most I know that the press separates the wheat from the chaff and prints the chaff.

  • Joe, Buddy!

    Do you “Swear there ain’t no Heaven, and pray there ain’t no Hell”?

    Er, are you a truther?

    Are you a journalist? I used to give interviews about “stuff” with which I was involved. None of them ever got it even close. I now see the reports misstated each week. I used to think it was simple dishonesty. Now, I’m moving towards arrogance and its sister, Stupidity.

    That would explain a great deal.

    MarkD: I am saddened you aren’t in Heaven, yet.

  • I’m just happy that the Loyal Order of Water Buffalos haven’t been called out.

    I may have said too much.

    Oh well.

  • Don, sorry to threadjack but was wondering whether you saw Andersonville directed by John Frankenheimer and what you thought of it.

  • Joe:

    As a soon to be journalist, your cynicism is extremely disheartening. Asking questions is great. Being a negative person really isn’t.

    This post really explains how we should view this event. It won’t be easy for anyone, but celebrating death is the last thing we should be doing right now – especially when have such a great opportunity for reconciliation and closure.

  • I think Joe brings up a very important point. Ever since I heard that Osama was killed (again, I thought he was already dead) I became more and more concerned that no one is asking any hard questions. This is too politically opportunistic for Obama. I am not saying that Osama wasn’t killed yesterday, but there is no proof and a great deal of questions that are not being asked and not being answered.

    Why was there a crowd of college kids mimicking a Tea Party to laud Obama as Bush III BEFORE the announcement was made? Why didn’t the secret service, the Marines and Capitol Police treat these people the way they treat everyone else including grandma in the same place? I live in enemy-occupied Northern Virginia, so i get into DC quite often; you can’t as much as sneeze in front of the White House without being questioned, especially if you are singing the anthem or displaying the colors. No one was molested and they were behaving like barbarians. Isn’t anyone else finding this odd? Why isn’t anyone wondering what that luatic Geraldo was doing in the middle of the crowd as a cheerleader? He is always ready to spit vitriol toward any Tea Party event or cheer anyone questioning the authority of the Church, why not these loons? I guess Fox thinks this is too good to pass up for their ‘conservative’ audience. No one is asking hard questions that celebrating the death of a bad guy who was impotent as a threat before he was killed. Al Qu’ida is still around. The Middle-east is more of a mess than ever. Jihadists are more ready than ever to strike. We will see a strike and the War on Terror will escalate and we will be pleased to become less free out out of fear.

    Additionally, did you notice that Obama’s focus-group studies had him correct his speech – He said our nation is under God – he has omitted that on numerous occasions recently. I would like to hope he had a conversion, but I doubt it. He also stuttered and stammered and usually he is so ‘eloquent’ and ‘articulate’. it seems he DOES have a conscience and it creates a tell in his speech when he disturbs it. He was lying – as usual.

    Before anyone jumps on me as a conspiracy nut job, I am not saying Osama was not killed yesterday; I am merely saying that we, at least our ‘free press’ should be asking harder questions. Would CNN and MSNBC and the NYT be as soft on Bush if he had declared that he killed Osama in October 2004? I just want more investigation – where’s the body?

  • Rose, life hardens some, softens others. In my case, cynicism has overtaken skepticism, I admit. The ideals of youth often are lost in old age. I wish you every success in your chosen field.

  • Knight, good to know I’m not alone in my skepticism of buying the White House line and media propaganda.

  • Joe, Buddy!

    Do you “Swear there ain’t no Heaven, and pray there ain’t no Hell”?

    Er, are you a truther?

    Are you a journalist? I used to give interviews about “stuff” with which I was involved. None of them ever got it even close. I now see the reports misstated each week. I used to think it was simple dishonesty. Now, I’m moving towards arrogance and its sister, Stupidity.

    That would explain a great deal.

    MarkD: I am saddened you aren’t in Heaven, yet.
    T. Shaw: A lie goes around the world in a minute while truth hasn’t even gotten off the starting line. As I write this, Obama is milking Osama’s death for at least the third time publicly, using a Medal of Honor presentation to 2 Korean War vets posthumously to blow his horn — unseemly to say the least — then getting a standing O at a congressional dinner by boasting about the assassination.

  • I don’t know quote how this post became a conspiracy theory thread. I don’t think its plausible that Obama waited to kill Osama till this very minute, b/c that story makes no sense. However, I am slightly distrustful of the White House accounts of the raids, as it seems they’re trying to hide the fact that this was a kill mission and that whether or not bin Laden was unarmed or the Seals had an opportunity to capture him the only goal was to kill Bin Laden. But we shall have to see as more information becomes available; I hope that the killing was done justly.

  • I think they went in to take him out. Capture would not have meant closure.

  • I don’t think this has become a ‘conspiracy’ thread. I and, I think Joe Green, are simply asking questions. I am not saying he wasn’t killed yesterday, I am also not sure he didn’t die several years ago. The fact is our reaction to this event has a moral dimension and although our reaction to it is not necessarily predicated on this being a true story or mass propaganda it has some relevance. Worrying if this was a just kill or not would be silly if this is merely a tool of mass psychology. I just find it odd that we seem to be more concerned with vengeance cloaked as justice that we aren’t asking the hard questions. Obama has a history of deceit and only seems to have any ‘principles’ when it comes to defending the legal right to kill babies. Am I a conspiracy nut for not trusting him? I don’t think so. I want proof of death and I want to know why this has happened, why now and why in the way it did. Those are fair questions.

    If I had to lean one way or the other, I don’t think we killed him yesterday – I think he was already dead and now that we have more dragons in the middle-east the Osama bogey man has lost his use as tool of mass psychology. All the monsters abroad are permitted to ‘threaten’ us so long as it serves the money and power hungry political class, as soon as they are crossed, bye, bye. Either way, I want the truth and I intend to make my moral decisions based on that knowledge.

    Either way, I find the jubilation distasteful. I am glad that, for whatever reason, Osama is no longer a threat, that is something to be thankful for. Jubilant, not so much. I felt the same way when they hung Saddam. He certainly had more time to repent. I was sad that he had made himself into such a monster and I was glad that he was not able to do anymore harm. i thanked God for ending his terror. But, when I saw the Iraqi’s cheering, it made me sick. The guy lost his life, perhaps forever – that is never cause for joy; it can be just, but not joyful.

  • “Would CNN and MSNBC and the NYT be as soft on Bush if he had declared that he killed Osama in October 2004? ”

    But it’s not October 2004 -or October 2012. Look, while I am no fan of Obama’s, if he cynically planned this to boost his chances of reelection, his timing is way off. Yes, some on the left are crowing that this makes him a shoo-in for a second term, but they are as wrong as – well, as they usually are. Bush I had a 90% approval rating after the first Gulf War. And yet, 2 years later an previously unknown Southern governor was taking the oath of office. The economy of 1992 was peaches and cream compared to what we are going through now.

    I am glad justice was done and Osama will kill no more. I am willing to give Obama credit, but I also give credit to Dubya and, above all, to the brave men and women in our military. I also know that Osama’s death will not make a trip to the gas station or the grocery store less painful for already hard-pressed Americans nor will it create jobs or make socialized medicine more popular. Baring some unforeseen event (which of course can always occur), I am willing to wager that the 2012 election will be largely about domestic issues – and the Prez is not doing too well in that department.

  • Oh and Mark D, when last I heard from you, you were singing the praises of the wonderfully idealistic candidate from the wonderfully idealistic city of Chicago. If I recall correctly you maintained that Mr. Obama would end the dastardly Bush-Cheney wars, close Gitmo and lo, there would be peace on earth and lollipops would drop from the heavens. Instead Gitmo is still open, we’ve opened up a third front and Palestinians are rioting on the West Bank, so chagrined they are over the death of their hero, the mass murderer of thousands.

    Things aren’t quite working out the way you predicted, eh, Mr. D?

  • Michael Denton said, “I hope the killing was done justly.” I am sure that it was done as justly as what Jael wife of Heber did to Sisera who was persecuting the children of Israel in Judges chapter 4 (albeit that God allowed this because of rebellion – I see lots of parallels here). Verse 21 says, “Jael wife of Heber took a tent peg and hammer, tiptoed toward him, and drove the tent peg through his temple and all the way into the ground. He convulsed and died.” And perhaps it was done as justly as when God sent to she-bears after the youths who taunted Elisha for being bald in 2nd Kings 2nd Kings 2:23-25.

    God does the same thing in the same way every time because He always does it right.

  • Oh, and one last thing – the US military has sent a mass murderer to God’s Judgment Seat, having first given him a chance to surrender, but he refused. And those with him used a woman as a shield, the news reports. So now they stand before the Almighty.

  • “I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

  • I deleted your last comment Joe. I enjoy a good rant more than the next man I think, but this is Michael’s thread and your lengthy rant would have taken it in any number of directions other than the topic of the thread, with the remainder of the thread being taken up in a back and forth between you and those responding to your rant. I would urge everyone to stay focused on the topic raised by Michael in his post.

  • Mea culpa.

  • My thoughts in short, if I may:

    1) Forgiveness doesn’t mean to allow one to escape punishment. Blessed Pius IX sent more than 200 people to the scaffold. Fortunately, he didn’t do third-rate Christianity. Osama got what he deserved, less than he deserved.

    2) I agree that it is not right to wish hell to anyone. I do not wish hell even to Stalin or Pol Pot. Still, one is allowed by his religion to make an educated guess, and I think that in this case the educated guess contains a terrible warning.

    3) I am all in favour of forgiving OBL after he has got his two bullets in the head. “Forgiving” doesn’t mean that he was right, but the we do not wish him more punishment the one God in his justice will consider adequate for him.

    4) I have prayed for him, after some effort (and have blogged about it). I can’t reproach those to whom this would smack of goodism or hypocrisy. That the man is in hell is objectively so probable, that one is justified if he doesn’t feel like praying for him.

    5) It is right to jubilate and be merry (and I am going to blog on this, too). He was a military target and his demise is the equivalent of military victories of the past. Provided one doesn’t pollute his joy with hatred, I think it is perfectly fine to rejoice.

    6) Allow me, as a European, to express my warmest thanks to – and admiration for – the only Country which still has the guts to pay the price – in money, and in lives – to defend our liberty.

    You should be very proud of being Americans.



  • Michael, thank you for this Christian view. It is so hard for us to understand our call, and it is exactly in these difficult moments that we must continue to witness to Christ and make him present. I have been quite uneasy at the celebration – and while it is REALLY difficult we must pray for our enemies.

    The celebrations where people were chanting USA as if it was an Olympic event demonstrated to me something very sad about our country. This was not the end of WWII, it was the death of a man. Perhaps necessary, even good, but that is not something of sport.

    To me it spoke of how Bin Laden’s hate has infected others. While understandable, it is difinitely not Christian.

  • I always get uneasy when people who are ostensibly American citizens don’t want to take any pride in their country or its armed forces when these forces send a vicious murderer (who was given the chance to surrender and refused) to the Almighty for final judgment. However…………that being said, Obama’s sanctification of the murder of the unborn is very bit as evil as Osama’s terrorism. If one doesn’t feel pride in America because of our own evil against the unborn, then I can understand that. But some previous comments seem to be more of a sympathy party for the wicked than a remorse for the sexual immorality and infanticide of the unborn that this country commits within its own borders on a daily basis, all of which makes the Presidential announcer of Osama’s death the biggest hypocrite of all.

    I suggest we repent and get holy before what happened to Osama happens to us. We don’t have hate of Osama infecting us as much as we have sin (idolatry, adultery, fornication, homosexual sodomy, murder, thievery, etc.) infecting us regardless of Osama bin Laden. If he was evil, then what are we?

  • Now we’re hearing Osama wasn’t armed, was using a cane, had kidney disease and didn’t use a human shield. Stay tuned for more updates on our never-ending wall-to-wall coverage of the death of the “world’s most dangerous terrorist.”

    Meanwhile, let’s hear from Joseph Goebbels:

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

  • Joe,

    Do you have web links to reputable web sites substantiating your assertions? No news report I have seen too date has made the claims you have made. Furthermore, being a liar, “Joseph Goebbels” would lie as much for the conspiracy theorist who believes everything that is truly American is damned as he would lie for an American propagandist who believes that everything isn’t American is damned. The key word here is “lie.”

  • Pingback: RootDoom
  • Hmmm….One’s definition of a “teputable web site” would depend on whether the views and opinions expressed therein comfort with one’s own, wouldn’t it? I confess to swimming against the tide, Paul, and for that I am willing to suffer the strong currents I encounter. Each of us is free to believe or disbelieve that which we perceive to be the truth of matters.

    More to your point, as I am not sure to what “claims” you are referring to inasmuch as I have made many, I am unable to respond in the particular.

    As for Goebbels and his ilk, I believe it’s not unreasonable to think that we have much to learn from history’s errors, although so far mankind as shown little ability to grasp such lessons.

    One can always hope.

  • Joe,

    I’m actually not interested in opinion, just the facts. What substantiation is there for the assertion that Osama, 54 years of age, was walking with a cane and had kidney disease? Are their photographs of him with a cane? Are their medical reports of some kind concerning his kidney disease? Or is all this just another claim made in the swarm of confusion over this event and its aftermath?

    BTW, history indicates Hitler had some form neurological disease that caused uncontrollable shaking on one side of his body, and had other afflictions as well. None of that stopped him from his evil. Furthermore, just because someone is physically sick doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t reap what he has sown.

    I wouldn’t be quick too damn all that is American with the exception that I noted in a previous comment.

  • Paul, the Osama info was a “crawler” on Fox News an hour ago. Is that “reputable” enough for you? Other corporateland state-owned media, including CNN and AP, have reported that no human shield was used despite first reports. So, from the first bulletins of the Seals facing a blaze of gunfire from bin Laden, we now are being told that he was defenseless and lame. Perhaps then, as the story and legend unfold, it would do well to wait until all the “facts” are in.

    “History indicates”? I’d need better sourcing than that. But conceding the point, if a neurological disease could be classified as a mental disorder than perhaps Hitler, with a good lawyer, might have made a decent defense on insanity grounds and would have wound up with a lesser sentence than a firing squad. (grist for a novelist)

  • Joe Green,
    Your self-righteous posturing as a martyr for truth is plain silly. I think I’m paraphrasing Chesterton when I say that one effect of unbelief is not that the unbeliever believes in nothing but that he’ll believe anything.

  • Francis, I take vast comfort in the fact that I am virtually alone in my position. I thanks whatever gods that be that we are on opposite sides.

  • Joe, what if Francis has chosen God’s side? Where does your statement then leave you? I am not accusing you or judging you, but your remark indicates atheism or at least agnosticism: “whatever gods there may be”. There is only ONE God – Yahweh – and His Son Yeshua gave His life so that you and I may be free of sin (which really is the ONLY freedom that ultimately counts). If you don’t believe that, then I do NOT rejoice that we are on opposite sides of the fence. Rather, I would grieve for you (if I understand you correctly). How could I NOT want Heaven for everyone? Even you (bad choice of words I suppose)? But that requires repentance (which evidence indicates Osama did not possess, but we don’t know for 100% certainty, just a 99% likelihood).

    And no, I do NOT presume to suppose I am on the fast track to Heaven. Personally, I’ll be happy to make it to a 1000 years in Purgatory because I know what I deserve, but mercy is not getting what you do deserve. OK, enough of a divergence. I suppose this is off topic. Sorry.

  • Oh! Oh! Is the catholic Liberal Intelligentsia coalescing in outrage over the murder of Usma bin Laden? Seems not so much coagulating goes on over 45,000,000 abortions.

    Furthermore, Obama made three major speech trumpeting this war crime and unlawful invasion/violation of Pakistani National Sovereignty.

    Meanwhile, I’m writing an endorsement for his nomination for a second nobel peace prize.

    hahahahahahahaha . . .

  • You guys are something else if not entertaining. I give up. At this point, I concede everything. You are all right and I am all wrong. It is my sincere hope that this will gladden your day and end any further discourse in this thread.

  • Joe, we’re not the ones who are supposed to be recognized as right. Rather, Jesus is right. Concede nothing to us. Concede everything to Him.

  • I’d take that under advisement.

  • Mundabor wrote:

    “Allow me, as a European, to express my warmest thanks to – and admiration for – the only Country which still has the guts to pay the price – in money, and in lives – to defend our liberty.
    You should be very proud of being Americans.”

    Thank you for your kind words.

  • I’m appalled that some of you are praying for this man’s soul, as if he deserves the benefit of the doubt of damnation. Man up, my friends, and put your money where your mouth is – ask your priest to offer a Mass for Osama bin Laden. When he laughs you out of the church, I hope you realize that you’re not responding to this like the Church should.

    God’s mercy is endless and all things are possible with God. However, that mercy has to be responded to in order for someone to be saved. We cannot place any individual in hell, but we have a duty to act decently. Placing Osama bin Laden in the same camp as a dead, misguided, anti-Catholic family member is very indecent.

  • To the poster who mentioned our rejoicing (without prayers for dead Turkish invaders, I might add) over Lepanto – Thank you. You couldn’t be more on target.

  • God’s mercy is endless and all things are possible with God. However, that mercy has to be responded to in order for someone to be saved. We cannot place any individual in hell, but we have a duty to act decently. Placing Osama bin Laden in the same camp as a dead, misguided, anti-Catholic family member is very indecent.

    This makes no sense to me. You have the same evidence of repentance for Bin Laden as you have for a family member. Why is indecent then? We hope all people, even the disgusting ones, accepted God at the end. That’s not the same as saying they are just as likely as Osama. I would say it unlikely that Osama did whereas most people we know are more likely to have done so.

    I don’t think that’s indecent; I think it’s hopeful & realistic.

  • It now looks like Osama wasn’t involved in a firefight. Was it still a just action if it were an execution? Even if Osama could’ve been taken alive safely?

  • Assuming that the SEALs were engaged in a fire fight with anyone in the compound, bin Laden as the presumed commander would have been a target on sight unless he immediately announced his surrender. This of course leaves aside a consideration that I am sure would have been in the minds of the SEALs: is bin Laden wearing a suicide belt rigged with explosives, a trick engaged in by so many of his minions in the past. This was far from a normal military operation against a conventional foe.

  • The Commander in Chief has ordered a standing kill order on Osama, so whether armed or not, the kill was justified.

  • Let’s talk hypothetically then.
    Bin Laden is in his compound alone. He’s naked with nothing in his hands.
    Would killing him still be justified?

  • The proper authority, George W. Bush, as Commander in Chief, gave a justified standing kill order for a mass murderer that attacked innocent lives in a cowardly act. To my knowledge his successor did not rescind that order. Any member of the US military is justified in carrying out that order irrespective of the conditions at the time.

    Bin Laden could have turned himself in anytime in the last nine years and then we would have been under obligation to take him into custody alive.

  • “He’s naked with nothing in his hands.
    Would killing him still be justified?”

    Yes, so we wouldn’t have to look at his ugly butt.

  • I’m impressed with the professionalism and training of the SEALS. I could not have hit anything while laughing my head off.

    Does anyone know what were Obama’s last words?

  • T. Shaw:
    Wednesday, May 4, 2011 A.D. at 11:18am

    I’m impressed with the professionalism and training of the SEALS. I could not have hit anything while laughing my head off.

    Does anyone know what were Obama’s last words?

    “Ever hear of knocking?”
    “Please!!! My real name is Moses Goldstein!”
    “If you’re the police, where are your badges?”
    “I was just gonna make some espresso.”
    “Virgins, here I come!!”

  • GENEVA (Reuters) – The United Nations’ top human rights official called on the United States Tuesday to give the U.N. details about Osama bin Laden’s killing and said that all counter-terrorism operations must respect international law.
    “This was a complex operation and it would be helpful if we knew the precise facts surrounding his killing. The United Nations has consistently emphasized that all counter-terrorism acts must respect international law,” Pillay said in a statement issued in response to a Reuters request.

    Here is one response that says it all:


  • Perhaps the administration should’ve simply said, “Bin Laden was killed in a firefight. These are are the details we’ll give.”

    But I suppose the media and the public are too curious for that to be sufficient.

  • I don’t have a problem with OBL being in heaven some day with me (assuming I make it) because I trust not only in our loving God’s mercy but also his justice.


Wednesday, January 19, AD 2011

Every now and then we need a reminder that true evil exists in this world.

An abortionist arrested in Philadelphia faces eight counts of murder, one for the death of a patient, and the other seven for killing babies who survived his botched abortions.  The district attorney alleges that Kermit Gosnell used a pair of scissors to sever their spinal cords.

Ed Morrissey links to the Grand Jury report.  It is truly gruesome.

One woman, for example, was left lying in place for hours after Gosnell tore her cervix and colon while trying, unsuccessfully, to extract the fetus. Relatives who came to pick her up were refused entry into the building; they had to threaten to call the police. They eventually found her inside, bleeding and incoherent, and transported her to the hospital, where doctors had to remove almost half a foot of her intestines.

On another occasion, Gosnell simply sent a patient home, after keeping her mother waiting for hours, without telling either of them that she still had fetal parts inside her. Gosnell insisted she was fine, even after signs of serious infection set in over the next several days. By the time her mother got her to the emergency room, she was unconscious and near death.

A nineteen-year-old girl was held for several hours after Gosnell punctured her uterus.  As a result of the delay, she fell into shock from blood loss, and had to undergo a hysterectomy.

One patient went into convulsions during an abortion, fell off the procedure table,  and hit her head on the floor.  Gosnell wouldn’t call an ambulance, and wouldn’t let the woman’s companion leave the building so that he could call an ambulance.

And to cap things off: the state did nothing to stop this.

We discovered that Pennsylvania’s Department of Health has deliberately chosen not to enforce laws that should afford patients at abortion clinics the same safeguards and assurances of quality health care as patients of other medical service providers. Even nail salons in Pennsylvania are monitored more closely for client safety.

The State Legislature has charged the Department of Health (DOH) with responsibility for writing and enforcing regulations to protect health and safety in abortion clinics as well as in hospitals and other health care facilities. Yet a significant difference exists between how DOH monitors abortion clinics and how it monitors facilities where other medical procedures are performed.

Indeed, the department has shown an utter disregard both for the safety of women who seek treatment at abortion clinics and for the health of fetuses after they have become viable. State health officials have also shown a disregard for the laws the department is supposed to enforce. Most appalling of all, the Department of Health’s neglect of abortion patients’ safety and of Pennsylvania laws is clearly not inadvertent: It is by design. …

Starting at page 99, the Grand Jury report details of the killing of viable babies.  I do not recommend you read this unless you have a very strong tolerance.  In short, these murders were so awful that even staff began to question the practices of this doctor.

These killings became so routine that no one could put an exact number on them. They were considered “standard procedure.” Yet some of the 100
slaughtered were so fully formed, so much like babies that should be dressed and taken home, that even clinic employees who were accustomed to the practice were shocked.
I’m not going to paste it here, but look at the opening paragraph on page 101 and tell me that Satan is not at work in this world.
Continue reading...

29 Responses to Monsters

  • We read things like this and yet are told that the “rhetoric” in the media and society are what is wrong with it. That somehow words cause people to do “bad” things. Yet, as you correctly state, evil exists and actually pervades in our country through the grusesome killing and eradication of babies.

    As you state, “Satan is at work in the world…” and yet we, the conservative and Catholics, are blamed for “rhetoric” which leads to “hate.” Battling against evil is not the problem… the problem is the evil. Swords are not evil… the monsters that they slay are the things that are evil.

  • Some people wonder why God created Hell; I admit that I have never had any questions at all on that score due to evil of this magnitude.

  • Don’t we hear from the pro-aborts all the time that Roe v. Wade saved women from unsafe conditions and “back-alley butchers?” I didn’t read much of the report because I don’t have the stomach for it, but how many “respectable” members of the Philly medical community realized what this murderous quack was up to and kept their mouths shut, or even worse, referred their own patients to him to do the filthy work they wouldn’t do? Just nauseating.

  • Obama was happy to consign the little fellows who survived to such a death.

  • Donna,

    The “back alley butchers” just hung out a shingle after Roe – decent doctors don’t perform abortions, and never will.

  • And this happens in the United States of America, today. We hold ourselves up as a shining beacon for the world to follow, but we do this… The good news is he’s being prosecuted, but the bad news is if he had simply killed the babies before delivery, there would be no basis to do so.

  • Wow. Absolutely sickening indeed.

    Not only is the content of this report gruesome indeed, but it is written very plainly, not couched in legalese or euphemisms — calling what happened baby killing and not merely “pregnancy termination”.

    I have to hand it to the members of the grand jury in this case — they state at the beginning of the report that their personal convictions about abortion differed (i.e. some were pro-life and others pro-choice) but they all did their duty under the law, and did not hesistate to name those responsible for these horrors.

    They also did not hesitate to state WHY this quack was allowed to go on as long as he was — because his victims were mostly poor and nonwhite and because pro-abortion politicians didn’t want to be accused of placing any “obstacles” in the way of women seeking abortions.

    The report also notes that when Gov. Robert Casey (pro-life Democrat) was in office the health inspection laws covering abortion clinics were properly enforced; but when Gov. Tom Ridge (pro-abort Republican, who later became the first Homeland Security director) succeeded him, that is when the lax inspection policy that permitted butchers like Gosnell to flourish began.

  • Pingback: Abortionist Charged With Murder | Blogs For Victory
  • They also did not hesitate to state WHY this quack was allowed to go on as long as he was — because his victims were mostly poor and nonwhite and because pro-abortion politicians didn’t want to be accused of placing any “obstacles” in the way of women seeking abortions.

    Elaine, from what I read in the report,Gosnell had two different standards – one for his usual poor minority patients and another well-to-do white women from the suburbs who went to him when they were so far along that nobody else would dare to perform an abortion. (Gosnell had a sliding scale – the more advanced the pregnancy, the more he would charge). The wealthy white women were “cared for” in cleaner rooms, and their anesthesia was not left in the hands of untrained high school students. Yes, tell me how much the pro-abort left cares for the poor and disadvantaged.

    I’ve visited a few of the newspapers reporting on this and the comments are maddening: “How terrible that one nut is making all abortion providers look bad.” It escapes a large percentage of the population that the end result of what happened in Gosnell’s clinic – murder – is what happens in every abortion mill, even the sterile, upscale ones with soothing music and aromatheraphy candles.

  • How is it that a country indifferent to religion – the UK – allows abortion only in the first trimester? Because they took a realistic look at late term abortions and saw what they saw, something not good, even evil.

    How is that an atheist professor at Harvard and MIT thinks that people who considers later term abortion to be merely a medical procedure, and not the killing of a human, are fooling themselves?

    These non-religious people believe that human life begins with the appearance of brain waves, roughly at the end of the first trimester. Thus abortions after that point are wrong, abortions before that point are allowable. Of course they also believe in birth control.

  • “How is it that a country indifferent to religion – the UK – allows abortion only in the first trimester?”

    Because the UK does not have a Supreme Court that confuses itself with a Council of Platonic Guardians. Without Roe, abortion would still be banned in many states and heavily restricted in most of the others.

    “How is that an atheist professor at Harvard and MIT thinks that people who considers later term abortion to be merely a medical procedure, and not the killing of a human, are fooling themselves?”

    A stopped clock being right twice a day? It is not remarkable holding that position. What is remarkable is holding any other position on that question.

    “These non-religious people believe that human life begins with the appearance of brain waves, roughly at the end of the first trimester.”

    Actually brain waves begin at six weeks, which deep sixes virtually all abortions, assuming that one is foolish enough to believe that human life does not begin at conception and instead believes that brain wave activity determines if an unborn child may be disposed of like a piece of unwanted garbage.

  • The true face of “safe, legal and rare”.

  • “Safe, legal and rare” my a$$. Only one of those has been achieved.

    As for the atheists apparently getting at least some of it – it’s only common sense. Anyone not blinded by ideology would see life begins at conception. No religious education or belief needed.

  • Will there be any indictments of the Pennsylvania DOH officials who looked the other way while this was going on?

    I’m not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

    But at least this grand jury report sorta places the DOH in the position of being an “unindicted co-conspirator”.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Monsters | The American Catholic -- Topsy.com
  • I’m already seeing this being blamed on pro-lifers, and the (under current law) murdered children ignored.

  • …And not a peep out of pro-abortion Obama, who hypocritically lectures the Chinese leader about “human rights.”

  • Lecture?

    All I heard was him praising the murdering SOBs for their great improvements in human rights.

    At least this is illegal, here, and we don’t force abortions.

  • Fox, Chinese took it as a rebuke, but you’re right that from our vantage point it was damning with faint praise, or praising with faint damns. Hardly a “lecture” in the strictest sense.

  • The grand jury seems to clearly fix blame for the total lack of clinic oversight on pro-abortion politicians who didn’t want to be accused of restricting the right to abortion in any way.

    But that raises another question. Could someone who was genuinely pro-life and worked for the Department of Public Health or the Department of State (which licenses physicians and other health professionals) even participate in the process of attempting to regulate these clinics — for example, by performing the health inspections or writing up the reports? Wouldn’t it be sinful cooperation in abortion for them to do so? And if that’s the case, then wouldn’t the task of regulating clinics, by default, have to be left to pro-aborts, who would more likely than not rather keep the issue as far under the radar as possible?

    The abortion industry seems to be the one exception to the general rule of the state or federal governments wanting to regulate industries and businesses as much as possible.

  • Interesting question Elaine, and I’m not sure what the answer is. I posed this to the Brothers in my K of C Council, and one jokingly suggested, “well, I guess if they regulate them out of business they can.”

    Technically I don’t think you would be co-operating with evil, and you’re not really giving sanction to the existence of the clinic. So my hunch is that it wouldn’t be immoral to work as a regulator of the clinics, but it is a murky issue.

  • Even some pro-aborts are beginning to have second thoughts after learning of this:


    “The most disturbing thing I have read is the Philidelphia DAs statement:

    “I am aware that abortion is a hot-button topic,” said Williams. “But as District Attorney, my job is to carry out the law. A doctor who knowingly and systematically mistreats female patients, to the point that one of them dies in his so-called care, commits murder under the law. A doctor who cuts into the necks severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies, who would survive with proper medical attention, is committing murder under the law.”

    He’s apologizing to his deep-blue/far-left constituency for having to prosecute the guy for killing hundreds of live babies! That he feels he needs to apologize for prosecuting this case speaks volumes about the left’s extreme and irrational attitudes towards abortion regulation.”

  • How bout the death penalty for this guy? He seems to be death-eligible under Pennsylvania law: http://seeking4justice.blogspot.com/2011/01/serial-killer-abortionist-death-penalty.html

  • I would not have any problem with that at all Tom. If this fellow does not deserve the death penalty, I would have a difficult time imagining someone who does.

  • And let’s not forget that it was a pro-choice Republican who stopped the inspections of Pennsylvania abortuaries…keep that in mind the next time someone says we need to have such “moderates” around.

  • Pingback: Gosnell, Abortion and Reality | The American Catholic

Sacred and Holy?

Sunday, September 5, AD 2010

And they cried with a loud voice, saying:  How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? Apocalypse 6:10

If you listen closely you can hear the attendants (which include the mayor of our fine city of Houston Anise Parker) at this “dedication” commenting on their newly “sacred and holy” ground. They are speaking of the largest abortuary in the United States.

If we are moving toward, or already in, a post-Christian civilization then should we be surprised that those who promote and support abortion and other anti-life policies impart a religious sheen on their actions?  After all, human sacrifice was present in almost all pagan religions to some extent with the Aztec sacrifices being among the most infamous.  These people are willing and proud worshipers of Baal and, unless we pray, fast and offer Masses in reparation for these sins, we will only allow this evil to grow and ever more innocents slaughtered at the altar of “Choice”.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Sacred and Holy?

  • Walter,

    Thanks for posting this.

    It’s a crying shame that the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston has the largest abortuary in their backyard.

    I’d like to know if there was a Catholic priest present at the ceremony and what is his name. I only say this because the attendees were reading from a pamphlet that said “holy and sacred ground”. Sounds very Catholic to me.

    That and Carol Alvarado, a Catholic state representative is shown prominently in this video. She is also (or was) on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood of Southeast Texas (Houston).

  • Yeah thanks for posting this.. I get sick listening to that mayor and state rep – notably misguided by a passion that can’t see the truth… Please people from Houston vote them out…

  • “holy and sacred ground” sounds very Catholic to me”

    It could just as easily be Episcopalian, since a lot of their liturgy “sounds Catholic” too (in some cases, more Catholic than the current Novus Ordo).

  • McClarey posted some homilies by Cardinal Newman this past Lent that addressed the neo pagan-atheism that will plague our times.

    It seems we may be experiencing that right now. Secularization of society, practical atheism, and a president with an ideological bent toward socialism, liberation theology, collective salvation and Mohammadism (he may not be a Muslim, but he is certainly sympatico).

    Add that to Human child sacrifice (abortion), use of magic potions (drug and alcohol abuse), sexual rites (cohabitation, pedophilia, pornography, sodomy, homosexualism, ‘gay marriage’, incest, polyamorous unions, etc.) and a generally hedonistic culture.

    We, orthodox Catholics, are nothing more than a remnant in a culture that is more pagan and evil than pre-Christian Rome.

    Time for the saints to rise up.

  • I noticed that the woman in red was clearly embarrassed and did not want to pronounce the word “abortion”.

    They perfectly well know what they are doing and desperately try to delude themselves into thinking that they are not murdering anyone.


Surprise! ObamaCare is Going to Pay for Abortions

Wednesday, July 14, AD 2010

In a completely predictable move, ObamaCare will pay for abortions.  Lifesite News is on the story:

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new “high-risk” insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.

Continue reading...

33 Responses to Surprise! ObamaCare is Going to Pay for Abortions

  • So, his response to “recycled scare tactics” is recycled excuses?

  • The abortion catholics that voted for Obama are worse than hitler.

  • The abortion catholics that voted for Obama are worse than hitler.

    I’m unclear how “gullible” or “self-deluded” or “making poor moral/political judgments” translates to “worse than hitler”. Such uses of polemic rob history of any meaning.

  • Here endeth mention of Hitler in this thread.

  • What about Himmler? Can I mention Himmler?

  • How about “worse than the people who elected” the person who is not to be named in this thread?

    And while it may be charitable to mark up the support for Obama by the “abortion catholics” to their being gullible, self-deluded, or having made poor moral/political judgments, I think it is probably more the case that they just don’t give a rat’s @$$ about abortion when weighed in the balance against all the other leftist goodies that the Democrat Party has on offer.

  • lol, Blackadder.

  • “I think it is probably more the case that they just don’t give a rat’s @$$ about abortion when weighed in the balance against all the other leftist goodies that the Democrat Party has on offer.”


    “What about Himmler? Can I mention Himmler?”

    No, nor any other members of the Third Reich. This is a Nazi free thread. 🙂

  • Bart who? Oh yeah, that congresscritter from Michigan. I thought he was already residing in the Where Are They Now File. Looks like all he got for his allegedly historic compromise was 15 minutes of fame and an early retirement.

  • For the life of me, i can not understand why this informatiion suprises anyone now, we all knew what was going to happen when the so called compromise was made. Our President modus operani has always been to appease someone with a promise and then make a political move. Like he promised the Seniors that they would have more coverage and better medical care because of his health bil and would not get hurt. What a joke and AARP bought it and they can say goodbye to mnay members. Wait til the Seniors find out how badly they have been had. The wanted change and boy are they going to get it.

  • Jill Stanek has good coverage linked below:


  • The really sickening thing about this is to realize it could have all been avoided had a good portion of misled “Social Justice” Catholics and the USCCB who were more dedicated to political correctness than Biblical truth and more fearful of Federal lawmakers than the voices of their flocks. And in particular one Doug Kemeic, (now Obama’s appointed ambassador to Malta) who used his status as and elitist in catholic doctrine to conger a guilt complex on any of the faithful who would waste a chance to vote for a minority president regardless of his lack of experience or his vague past and highly questionable background and associations.
    There were many prominent catholic leaders who were duped either by the Obama media or their own shallow catholicity who joined the false Hope and Change brigade in some sort of self chastisement to relieve or remove a dark shadow they believed existed within their conscience. The accolades and support filled the catholic media and were hand picked to blast all over the mainstream press and television. But none more so than (Ambassador) Doug Kemeic who just could not heap enough praise on the anointed One or criticize and admonish Catholics who took pause to question his credentials or values.

    I write for any and all the Church’s faithful who remember this and feel the betrayal imposed on us as our nation slips deeper into the culture of death and corruption.

  • I just want to know how I can ensure that when I pay my taxes – my section of that money does not go to that funding… If I can’t how can I even justify paying my taxes at all?

    Side note (No member of a Socialist Party in Germany during WWII was harmed during the making of this comment)

  • We need to take a whole life approach to health care which looks out for those who are out of the womb as well as those in the womb.

    Really, we should all take these wise words to heart. How many Catholics do you know who claim to be pro-life and yet neglect provide food and shelter for their children? If you’re like me, the answer is “a whole lot.” I forget how many kids I have because they’ve all been born already, but the other day one of the younger ones, I think, got hit by a car. I think he’s all right, but I probably ought to check on him. I’ll call up the city council, who should be handling these kind of cases, and find out what hospital he’s in.

  • Pauli, you are the Catholic Iowahawk!

  • Can we call them “Catholics for Voldemort?”

  • The really sickening thing about this is to realize it could have all been avoided had a good portion of misled “Social Justice” Catholics and the USCCB who were more dedicated to political correctness than Biblical truth and more fearful of Federal lawmakers than the voices of their flocks.

    You hit the nail right on its head.

    The USCCB is partially responsible for the fiasco we are in now.

    Cardinal George pulled out all the stops to get pro-lifers to vote but remained mute and silent when Bart Stupak surrendered to the Culture of Death.

  • Pingback: Rampant Dishonesty Continues « Vox Nova
  • “Can I mention Himmler?”

    No, nor any other members of the Third Reich. This is a Nazi free thread.

    I’ll do my best.

  • “Can I mention Himmler?”

    No, nor any other members of the Third Reich. This is a Nazi free thread.

    What about Sergeant Schultz or Colonel Klink? General Burkhalter? Major Hochstetter?

    No? I know nothing! Noth-thing!

  • We are being told two completely different stories about this, and I for one would like to know which story is accurate. Vox Nova has challenged you. Please answer their charge that you (and NRLC) are spreading lies:


  • I’ll allow fake comedic Nazis but only beause I’m a sucker for Colonel Klink:

  • The abortion catholics that voted for Obama are worse than hitler.
    This doesn’t leave anything for the so called Catholic blogs that spend most of their time defending and shilling for the democratic party’s love of abortion.

  • Vox Nova has challenged you

    If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still made a sound?

  • If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still made a sound?

    The laws of physics dictate that it does. Whether the sound is missed or is of any consequence or not is another thing.

  • Pingback: HHS Statement on Abortion Funding « The American Catholic
  • UPDATE, 4:03p: I’m told on high authority from someone who saw it that the Obama administration issued a statement last night stating the $160 mil wouldn’t cover abortions and then pulled it back. I’m told a new or revised statement is in the works.


    Apparently M.Z. “doesn’t believe his readers are worthy of knowing the truth.” The “Rampant Dishonesty Continues”

  • The Oxford Dictionary of Current English gives the following definitions for “sound”:

    1. sensation caused in the ear by the vibration of the surrounding air or other medium. 2. vibrations causing this sensation. 3. what is or may be heard.

    The tree would not make a sound under the first two definitions, but probably would under the third.

  • July 14, 2010

    The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

    200 Independence Avenue, S.W.

    Washington, D.C. 20201

    Dear Secretary Sebelius:

    We have recently learned that the Pennsylvania application to administer a federally subsidized Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (also referred to as a high-risk pool) for individuals with pre-existing conditions contains a provision that allows federal funding for abortion in virtually any case except sex-selective abortion. Similarly, we understand that a draft summary of benefits for New Mexico’s Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan explicitly lists elective abortion as a covered, and therefore subsidized, service.

    Both of these cases will result in funding for abortion in direct contradiction of longstanding U.S. policy against federal funding of abortion or abortion coverage. Unfortunately, statutory language prohibiting such funding was not included in the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Instead of a statutory prohibition, the President assured Members of Congress by signing an Executive Order that claimed to ensure that abortion would not be funded under the authorities and appropriations provided in PPACA. However, further details regarding how this assurance would be implemented and enforced have not been released.

    In light of the newly discovered information about the Pennsylvania and New Mexico Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans and the paramount importance of this issue, we would request the following information no later than close of business Friday, July 16, 2010.

    1. A list of all states and the District of Columbia that plan to administer federally funded high-risk pools at the state level, including the following for each:

    a. whether an application has been submitted,

    b. whether an application has been approved, and

    c. a copy of any application that has been either submitted or approved.

    2. According to the HHS website (http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/initiative/), “HHS has contracted with the Government Employees Health Association (GEHA) to administer the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan” that will provide high-risk insurance to individuals in 21 states. Please provide a list of the states that have indicated they intend to opt into the GEHA program rather than establish their own state program, and a copy of the complete contract with GEHA including any language regarding abortion.

    We look forward to your prompt response.


    [Signed by John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, Joe Barton, Darrell Issa, Chris Smith, and Joe Pitts]

  • Actually I would say that number is 2 the most relevant. It doesn’t mean there needs to be an ear detecting it. Wiki:

    Sound is a travelling wave which is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations.[1]

    I don’t think anyone disputes that sonar is the use of sound waves to measure. Typically the human ear doesn’t even pick up the sound waves.

  • From Life News:

    “Meanwhile, Bakus claimed the state web sites containing information about the high risk pools, that provided the information NRLC used to verify the abortion funding, will be updated in the next couple of weeks to show they will not fund elective abortions.

    “If HHS does now issue new directives to keep abortion out of this particular program, it will be because NRLC blew the whistle on them,” Johnson said. “The Obama Administration shows a pattern of relentlessly pushing pro-abortion policies through the federal agencies and on Capitol Hill, whenever they think they can do so under the public radar — and then scurrying for cover when the spotlight comes on.”

    That both states reported they would cover elective abortions is not a dispute, although both appear to be backtracking after Right to Life uncovered the abortion funding.

    The Associated Press reported Wednesday that New Mexico “initially listed elective abortion as a covered benefit” but then “reversed course” after AP inquired about the coverage NRLC discovered.

    Michelle Lujan Grisham, deputy director of the New Mexico Medical Insurance Pool, told AP that the state’s contract with HHS stipulated the plan must follow federal law but did not spell out details on limits to abortion coverage.

    “As a result, New Mexico included elective abortion as a covered benefit, following what it was already doing with its own state health programs,” AP indicated.

    NRLC identified how the Internet site describing the New Mexico plan listed “elective termination of pregnancy” as a covered benefit and noting how it would pay for 80 percent of the cost of the abortion after the insured woman met the $500 deductible.

    Grisham initially told AP the state would follow through on that plan but then called the news outlet back later Wednesday saying otherwise: “We are in the process of correcting the package so it will not have elective abortion coverage.”

    Pennsylvania officials are backtracing as well, with Rosanne Placey, a spokeswoman for the state insurance department, telling AP the high risk pool will now not cover elective abortions: “That is not part of the benefit package.”

    Backus also said the Obama administration would ensure any abortion coverage under the new national health care program would be limited to cases when the mother’s life is in danger or rape and incest — which the Hyde Amendment limits funding of abortions to regarding other funding from the federal government, but which does not apply to the new health care law.

    Johnson ultimately told LifeNews.com: “I can and have been asked, can the Administration be trusted? Sure, they can be trusted — to try to expand federal support for abortion every sneaky chance they get.”

    “Everybody needs to constantly watch what people in this Administration are doing, not what they are saying,” he concluded.”


  • Pauli, you are the Catholic Iowahawk!

    Answering that accusation with specificity is above my pay grade.

  • I just want to look into the eyes of my supposedly pro-life friends who supported this, and scream at them, “How could you not have known? How could you possibly not have known that this was the inevitable consequence of giving men and women who have proven themselves dishonest and pro-abortion, controll over life and death in America? You know what, let me answer that for you: you did know; some where inside you did know, but you just didn’t really care!”

American Bar Association Considering to Support Same Sex Marriage

Wednesday, July 14, AD 2010

The American Bar Association will be considering supporting same-sex marriage at their next meeting in San Francisco.

It urges state, territorial and tribal governments to eliminate laws restricting marriage between same-sex partners.

Supporters say the adoption of the measure would build on past ABA policies supporting protections for gay couples and their families. The House of Delegates in 2004 approved a recommendation opposing efforts to enact federal legislation preventing states from allowing same-sex marriage. “Everyone who worked on it is hopeful,” said Michele Kahn, a partner at Kahn & Goldberg who chairs a New York State Bar committee on gay rights. The State Bar in June 2009 came out in support of same-sex marriage, dropping its support of civil unions or domestic partnerships as alternative measures.

Kahn said so far no formal opposition has come forward against the measure.

What I find amazing is that there is no formal opposition.

I know a lot of pro-life and practicing Christian lawyers, how can this be?

Continue reading...

17 Responses to American Bar Association Considering to Support Same Sex Marriage

  • There are a lot of pro-life doctors, too, yet the AMA and the ACOG are officially pro-abortion. There are pro-life teachers, but nobody would ever know that if the NEA were the only voice of that profession.

    It’s not about what the average professional wants. It’s about who is in power.

  • There may well be formal opposition to this within the legal profession, but it may not be widely known.

  • You’d be surprised by how many pro-lifers are for gay marriage, especially among the young. I think polls bear that out. I’d suspect that there are more among lawyers. Today, even pro-choice lawyers will concede that Roe v. Wade was a weak decision. The legal case for gay marriage may be stronger. The government interest in preventing abortion is stronger than in banning gay marriage. If you separate procreation from marriage as we have done in the US, there’s little reason to ban gay marriage.

  • Lawyers aren’t required to be members of the ABA to practice. So I oppose this kind of stuff the ABA does by simply not joining it.

  • I’m a member of the ABA but haven’t a clue how to express “organized opposition.”

    The ABA isn’t like the K of C. There aren’t any local monthly meetings in which policy is discussed. Instead, you are regularly invited to events like meet-and-greats or seminars – all useful to an aspiring lawyer but not a venue for expressing discontent with ABA support of particular political or social issues.

    In other words, her statement seems to me to be a misrepresentation since it presumes that there is a venue for such discussion – that ABA members are asked whether they support same sex marriage policies or not. This simply isn’t so.

  • The ABA is a completely voluntary association. About 29% of all American attorneys are members. I have never belonged simply because the ABA, like most professional associations in this country, has long been dominated by leftist activist members.



    A good alternative for conservative attorneys is the Federalist Society.


  • I agree with Don. The sort of lawyers who are strongly pro-life and opposed to same-sex marriage aren’t the sort of lawyers who would involve themselves in the ABA.

  • I quit the ABA years ago. It has a terrific Tax Section that is very valuable to tax lawyers, but I could not stomach the lefty politics. Most tax attorneys lean conservative and ignore the liberal politics of the ABA. I just couldn’t take it. Unfortunately I do not believe that the Federalist Society has a tax section.

  • Many of us left when it adopted a pro-abortion position in the early 90s. I had the privilege of resigning twice. My firm inadvertently re-enrolled us the year after I first resigned. I got the chance to write a second letter of protest and resignation.

  • A very similar thing happened to me, ctd.

  • I don’t disagree with the analysis of the ABA’s policy stances. Indeed, there are few law schools that are not as far Left. However, there is a caveat that need be stated: new lawyers cannot afford to paint targets on themselves by publicly stating their politics.

    The Bush Administration was not the first to use the internet to vet CVs and resumes and will not be the last. The present administration – in all of its departments down to the lowest level that hires attorneys – looks for the writings and affiliations of applicants to determine whether the prospective attorney has the right “temperment” to be hired. This is true for non-profit and for-profit corporations as well. Certainly the law firms are doing the same.

    Unless new attorneys wish to go right into their own practice – a choice that few can afford to make – newly minted lawyers should, in general, not donate money to campaigns, join organizations that betray their political leanings (e.g. like the Federalist Society or the St. Thomas Moore Law Society), or become active in local politics. They SHOULD join their local bar association, if nothing else than for the contact opportunities and in order to get notification of Continuing Legal Education opportunities. The ABA also provides these opportunities and the new lawyer ignores it at their own peril.

    Some would say that this position suggests a lack of conviction. Such a view is short-sighted.

    In order to have conservative judges, justices, prosecutors, and the like, there must first be lawyers that can find a job after passing the bar. Rashly putting one’s politics out there is foolish. I would even go so far as to say that first year law students should be advised by thier administrations to take down their social networking sites and adopt a pseudonym when commenting anywhere on the net.

    Such is the world we live in.

  • Well since i am only a pre-baby lawyer i can’t say too much about the ABA. I haven’t joined the organization and my only dealings are with Model Rules. I agree with G-Veg. I am weary of the internet and posting my views until i figure out the job plan. I don’t want to burn bridges before I get into the practice.

  • I don’t know how to respond to B-Veg’s rather sober assesment as a general matter, but I will say that at my law firm (which has decidely more Dems than Repubs), we hire plenty of lawyers with STM Federalist Soc memberships on their resumes. Thankfully, very few of my lib partners are intolerant of conservatives and vice versa. We disagree plenty, but are seldom disagreeable about our differences. I have a hunch that this is true at many other large law firms, but can’t really for sure.

  • Very sorry for my clumsy typo, G-Veg.

  • I think G-Veg outlines one of several possible approaches new lawyers can take. It really depends on the individual. As far as I know, my friends in both the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society listed those affiliations on their resumes. I listed STM, but not FedSoc or (for obvious reasons) ACS. None of my classmates relayed any horror stories or uncomfortable conversations in the interview process as a result of listing those affiliations; although a fellow summer clerk said he had once been treated to a lengthy lecture by a left-leaning partner who saw FedSoc on his resume (and a swiftly sent rejection letter).

    With regard to blogging and social networking, I think prospective new lawyers would be well-advised to make sure they monitor their Facebook pages, and comment under a pseudonym or handle of some type while blogging(although that may just be because I occasionally wish I could take back something I wrote, and wouldn’t want a prospective employer evaluating me based on that). Blogging and social networking are somewhat informal, and carry greater risks than a simple listing of membership on a resume.

  • I wish that “liberals” would actually be liberals and live up to the standards of their “coexist” bumper stickers. Aren’t they opposed to marginalization? Here we have the ABA marginalizing some lawyers; there we have the University of Illinois outright dismissing a professor. I just read a story in the local rag about eHarmony moving its corporate HQ out of Pasadena; the local hopenchangers are absoulutely giddy to be rid of that “homophobic” company.

    Where’s the tolerance? Where’s the love, man??

  • I never have joined the ABA although they keep calling me every couple years to sign up. Why would I pay $$ to a group that supports abortion and now, apparently, gay marriage?

    I just politely tell them I cannot join because of their pro-abort position. I guess I will now be able to add anti-marriage as well the next time they call.

    Not being a member of the ABA hasn’t hurt my career at all. You are better off (at least as a litigator) joining groups like your local bar associations.

Lyon Cathedral: Pious Young Catholics Face Down Militant Gays

Tuesday, June 22, AD 2010

From Father Zuhlsdorf:

Prepare to be disgusted and then edified.

This from LifeSite with my emphases and comments:

Catholics Defend French Cathedral de Lyon During Homosexual “Kiss-In”

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

LYONS, June 17, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Approximately 200 young Catholics came to the defense of the Cathedral of Lyons, France, during a “kiss-in” protest held by homosexuals in front of the building last month.

The homosexuals reportedly came on the eve of the “World Day Against Homophobia” in May to kiss each other in front of the cathedral, [vile] presumably in protest against the Catholic Church’s 2,000-year-old condemnation of homosexual sex acts[I believe the condemnation is in the Old Testament as well.  It is also written into our being as images of God.]

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Lyon Cathedral: Pious Young Catholics Face Down Militant Gays

Sorry Charlie, Crist Vetoes Florida Ultrasound Bill, Bottom Line – More Babies Will Be Killed

Saturday, June 12, AD 2010

The following is from Florida Right to Life Organization:


HB 1143 was a pro-life and a pro-choice bill. It required that an abortionist give an ultrasound test before an abortion. 82% of the abortion clinics in Florida already do, but they do not all give the woman the option to see or discuss the ultrasound.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Sorry Charlie, Crist Vetoes Florida Ultrasound Bill, Bottom Line – More Babies Will Be Killed

  • Mr. Crist seems to be showing his true colors, hmm?

  • A sad day for our most vulnerable, precious, and innocent unborn babies. Praying for Crist’s soul…

  • The only way to properly frame this issue is to realize that the two sides have different prospectives.
    Pro-lifers see it as a just and moral cause to protect women and their children from harm.
    That’s good enough for discussion and debate but far short of the response needed to stop the slaughter of the innocent lives as pictured in this article.
    The abortionist and their subjects who go under the banner of Pro-Choice are not interested “causes”; they are far beyond that stage. They have declared WAR with any and all opponents of their religion and the “industrial complex” which powers the advance of their “Crusade”. They are rich and powerful and unfortunately know for the most part that the enemy’s main weapon is simply conversation which can be matched word for word.
    We have to likewise be willing to adjust to the conditions of war. The many of faith must become Christian Soldiers and march into battle willing to give more than voices to a cause. How you say?
    It would only take 10 to 20 thousand tax paying citizens refusing to file next year united and willing to go to jail unless all public funding for abortions be stopped immediately by say “executive order” followed by proper legislation. That, I’m afraid, is too much to expect. And there would be Bishops against it sighting “civil disobedience”.

  • Crist has left the Republican party as I explained in this post:


    He realizes he has no chance of getting pro-life Republican votes against Marco Rubio in the Senate race, so he is going after pro-abort votes.

  • Marco Rubio responds to the veto:

    “Republican U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio said Crist’s veto was coldly calculated politics, not compassion for poor women faced with paying for ultrasound exams.
    “Once again, Charlie Crist has put politics ahead of principled policy-making,” said Rubio. “This veto will now make it harder for Florida to fight Obamacare, since the bill would have enabled our state to opt out of the abortion coverage mandate in the federal health care law.”


    Here are the responses of the the two Democrats vying for their parties’ nomination in the Senate race:

    “Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Kendrick Meek, D-Miami Gardens, called the veto “a no-brainer.” But he agreed with the Republicans that Crist was trying to move back to the political center after a political lifetime of opposing abortion.
    “The governor wants to put politics ahead of public policy,” said Meek.”

    “Democrat Jeff Greene, also running against Crist for the Senate, said the governor should have “opposed from the start” Hudson’s bill.
    “The fact that Charlie Crist even had to think about whether or not to veto this bill is just more evidence that Crist is a flip-flopper,” said Greene.”

  • Is the political center pro-abortion?

    Bottom line: you vote for Dems more babies will be exterminated, and almost certainly you will not get into Heaven.

  • I have an update to my post to include something from National Geographic’s “In the Womb” documentary to assist those who are actually on the fence in this debate- those who could be persuaded by facts like pictures of the end products of abortions and video of actual children in the womb and making their tiny presences known in very impressive and dramatic effects.

    If it is beneficial to show the world the realities of birds stuck in an oil spill and dead or dying, or innocent victims of a controversial just/unjust war- why would objections come from the political Left over the raw footage of Life and Death in the womb or I should say when the womb is turned into a killing field? I admire that the Left will go to great extremes to analyze a military action which may or will kill foreign persons- but where is that interest in determining the validity of the Life claims made by those who know something about the lives of the unborn children?

    Before my first child was born, I really didn’t fully get what was going down- I had no idea that that tiny life I first glimpsed on a grainy ultrasound would end up being a child that I would consider more valuable than all the material wealth of our entire planet- more valuable than a million of my own lifetimes- her value completely transcends all of this- at one point in my early 20’s I joined with others to counsel a good friend to have an abortion, and even sat in the clinic waiting for her while her boyfriend went back to his life a thousand miles away- literally. She and I eventually came to our senses, came to become Catholics, and we both were just full of extreme sorrow and guilt over what went down- both of us blaming ourselves for our roles more than putting blame on the other. I only wish I had been the man I am now back then. I can’t, and my friend has since passed away, childless, except for the child no one thought should be coming into our world. Forgiveness came to both of us in Confession, and in Repentance- I still actively pray with and through my friend and her child in ways I need not describe to fellow Catholics. Part of my own Repentance is to take a very aggressive position on Abortion- as some kind of Woman’s Right. I am a pro-Woman, pro-Child, pro-Humanity, pro-Environment, pro-humane treatment of Animals kind of Catholic watchdog- I do not shy away from those who want to tar me as anti-woman because I care about women in tough spots- I am all for mobilizing the culture and economic forces to help every women in the situation of bringing a child into the world through her own precious body. I simply do not value the opinion that it is ever, the right decision to kill an innocent child- if that makes me a Right Wing Catholic extremist in the eyes of pro-Death Choice believers then So Be It. I know the score, I aided the process of one demonic abortion- I am forgiven, but in my mind I have some serious work to do to help make this whole situation of the genocide against unwanted, unborn children- come to a rapid conclusion. I have no truck with the “state’s rights” pro-life strategists and mainstream politicians because I don’t see that as an incremental strategy, I see it as a tragic end game legal strategy- one where even if you win it, you lose the war for the unborn.

    My advice is for the Catholic priests and Catholic Sisters to begin a bold movement- since they do not have spouses and children they are more free to conduct some very intense non-violent non-cooperation exercises by praying in front of abortion mills until the authoritites drag them off- and if Catholic parishoners want their Jesus on Sunday- they will have to find their priests or demand that the system changes to end the genocide going on in our collective names. The Catholic clergy must hold the laity to a minimal standard, just as we must hold the Catholic clergy to a minimal standard- the laity should not tolerate the legal and systemic killing of unborn children, and the clergy should never tolerate the molestation of a single child.

  • I await the sophists over at Vox Nova to tell us why this is a great thing that Crist has done, and how Tim is more evil for putting that picture up…

  • How many wars, tornados, earthquakes, and other natural disasters is it going to take for America to wake up to the fact that abortion is murder?

  • Sydney,

    My thoughts too, at least on the picture.


  • The sophists over at Vox Nova inadvertently “hit on” a Catholic principle – possibly first time ever.

    One of the Corporal Works of Mercy is:

    Bury the dead.

    Let’s say the pro-life Democrats (HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!) enact a law that exterminated babies be accorded Christian/Jewish burials, as appropriate?

    Pro-life Democ . . . (I’m about to bust a gut).

    I can imagine a vegetarian hyena. I cannot, in my wildest hallucination, imagine a pro-life Dem.

  • Well, perhaps you’ve never met a pro-life Democrat.

  • T. Shaw,

    I’ve known some very principles pro-life democrats, though sadly it may be a lost cause when it comes to actual candidates for high office in the party.


    I agree that it’s important that people see those kinds of images — though I must admit that I also appreciate your moving that one below the fold. I sometimes have my kids around when I’m reading down the TAC main page, and at their ages I’d rather keep the full depravity of our nation concealed from them a little longer.

    God forgive us…

  • Most probably, these tiny ones, considered pathological waste, are incinerated, turned into ash, and taken to a landfill. Thus, not only is the child murdered and disposed of in such a cruel manner, but it has also been denied the opportunity to love and be loved. It has been denied sleeping peacefully in its mother’s lap, of being playfully tickled and cuddled, of taking its first steps and learning its first words under the guidance of its father. Everyone in its family, including grandparents, has been denied the opportunity to experience divine love. Some Catholic cemeteries are setting aside land for memorials in remembrance of these tiny ones. One cemetery has the statue of Rachel, who is weeping, to give comfort to those who have experienced the tragedy of abortion. Like the poster above, I wonder how much longer God will bless our country with blue and sunny skies while this vile darkness covers our nation like a shroud. I really do think we are on the precipice of destruction. Charlie Crist has made a heinous decision to try to gain earthly treasure, but the eternal heavenly treasure may just elude him.

  • I expect the debate over the use of graphic pictures of aborted children will continue- my own decision is based on a consistent standard- I agree with the Left when they wish to show the realities of war, and to put up posters of baby seals being clubbed to death or birds dying soaked in BP Oil- that is fine in my book- but if the Left objects to the use of real pictures of aborted children then I would call them out big time- didn’t they claim that George W. et al was keeping photos of dead soldiers and Iraqi civilians from public view because of his fears of public opinion turning against his policies? Well- ok then- why would it be so wrong to use undoctored photos of aborted children to convey the truth to try to convince people of goodwill that their taste for pro-choice politics is the wrong choice?

    Now within the pro-life community- as Darwin brought up- what about the stray child who takes in the aborted children pictures? I found confirmation from Fr. Pavone of Priests for Life who understands the dilemma- first- the pictures are effective, it is akin to seeing those dead bodies stacked up in the Nazi concentration camps- it is chilling but it is educational- helps solidify the ideal- “Never Again”. And why does the media keep showing video of oil soaked pelicans in the Gulf- as Brian Williams et al says things like- “these images are tough to watch”- so why show them when children may be watching- it might make them cry or have a nightmare? Well, Fr. Pavone added that his contacts with mental health counselors has given him assurance that the disturbing images will only leave some negative residual feelings for children who are left to themselves after viewing the graphic sorrowful images- if parents don’t use the image exposure as a teachable moment and explain why something is really bad, and should be stopped- then all bets are off as to what effects will linger in that child.

    For me, my wife and I have had a difference of opinion on this when we have driven down the road with out kids and sometimes there is an elderly couple out holding up a huge sign with an aborted child picture on it- my wife opposes abortion obviously, but she is thinking that children shouldn’t be exposed to these nightmarish images- my take on it was along the lines of Fr. Pavone’s even before I heard his view. I say to my kids when they see those signs- “sweathearts- those pictures are abortions- children inside their mama’s bellies are killed by the people who are supposed to be their protectors- this is why mama and papa are fighting against abortion- do you understand?”. Children get that abortion is evil, insane, unbelievable once they see a single picture- it is that obvious- only deceitful adults can find ways to cover up or explain away such brutishness. I think it is along the lines of how we are to become like little children, and the wisdom of the world is not on par with the truths transmitted through the Gospels.

    Now my experience with my kids who have seen big photos of dead children in these street protests has fit with what Fr.Pavone described- they aren’t traumatized, they speak with a firm conviction about the right to life for all babies- they are interested in knowing more and even wanting to help save babies. They know from the experience at home- how we are so careful about the unborn child and mama when she is pregnant- as she is right now- due very, very soon- how we are praying for the little guy and mama at every meal, and in our night prayers, how we are all stepping up to do more work at home and have better attitudes all to help make life more peaceful for mama so she can focus on being healthier for the sake of the baby and for herself. This is the way that should be normal- as Peter Kreeft writes about in his – Philosophy of Jesus- humanity has become abnormal- Jesus is the one who is truly normal- we become more human, more ourselves when we become more and more like Jesus- with the Holy Spirit enabling us. Human families should be modeled on the Holy Family in the openness to life – even in unusual or threatening conditions- and to love unto death, not cause the death of a loved one- as the warped logic of pro-choice would frame it.

  • Darwin & Tim S.,

    I moved the pic below the fold so the YouTube video could get some exposure.

    At first it was an accident as I was trying to embed Tim’s link into the post, so I miss-embedded it at the top.

    It looked good that way so I rearranged the pic below the fold.

  • No problem Tito- I trust your judgment on that- I want people to see the juxtaposition of beautiful life on latest ultrasounds with the hideous reality of abortion- this should maybe tame some of the outrageous celebatory comments being tossed around on mainstream Democrat blogs and facebook pages- I mean really- you want to cheer for Abortion? When I was a serious Pro-Death Choice guy back in my 20’s at least I could say I was completely clueless about fetal development and what abortion even did- it was just a reflex reaction to what seemed cool and smart in liberal secular circles- which was my world then. When I first saw “Silent Scream” I was pretty much blown away- cold, hard facts hitting me in the face of my conscience- but before I even got to the point where I was introduced or open to seeing something like “Silent Scream”, it took several people I knew and trusted- many of them women- to get me thinking twice about the whole pro-abortion choice idea. I pray this posting gets viewed by at least some who have not already converted to a pro-life comprehension. Come Holy Spirit!