Archive for abortion

Catholic Hypocrites

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , on August 13, 2021 by andelino

Fraud-In-Chief Joe Biden got the bad news earlier this year. Ice Cream Queen Nancy Pelosi got the word, too. You cannot have it both ways, said the respective Archbishops to the two Democrat catholic hypocrites. You cannot claim to be Catholic, receive the Sacraments, and support a woman’s decision to murder her unborn child by abortion.

The following is the condemnation Pelosi received this week in response to her criticism of the Hyde Amendment.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, Pelosi’s home diocese, criticized her stance on the Hyde Amendment. “Let me repeat: no one can claim to be a devout Catholic and condone the killing of innocent human life, let alone have the government pay for it,” he told CNA. “The right to life is a fundamental — the most fundamental — human right, and Catholics do not oppose fundamental human rights.”

The Hyde Amendment, a federal policy since 1976, prohibits funding of most abortions in Medicaid. The amendment has been debated since its inception. Democrats are against it, and Republicans have always supported the amendment since its inception in the 70s. The argument by Democrats is that by not affording payment for abortions via Medicaid, we are discriminating against low-income women.

There has never been a concern for the unborn infant in the Democrat’s argument, which is the issue here. The Catholic Church, as well as nearly every Republican, believes that life begins at inception. Anyone who favors abortion under almost any instance violates the belief of the Church and puts you in the position Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi find themselves today. They disavow their faith and are therefore forbidden from receiving the Sacraments of the Church.

This statement is a bold stance by the Archbishops and is long overdue. Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden have been using the label of Devout Catholic to their advantage for years. Doing so allows them to play both sides of the fence. Their belief in the right for women to have an abortion and have it paid for by the government aligns them with the Pro-Choice folks. Claiming they are True Catholics places them in good favor with the evangelicals who can overlook the abortion support. Catholics and Pro-Life supporters have always found this hypocrisy abhorrent. 

We are thrilled that someone like these two Archbishops finally dared to speak out and take on these two influential people. The question now is what is the Church going to do to support these two Church hypocrites? Hopefully, the Priests who serve the masses that Biden and Pelosi attend will be onboard and refuse to administer the Sacrament of Holy Communion when they approach the altar. This is the only way the condemnation has any validity.

If they are still allowed to receive the Sacrament, then it is all just meaningless dialog. There is a movement in the country to tighten the restrictions on abortions which kill over 800,000 unborn infants each year in the United States. This move by the Catholic Church is overdue but still welcome by most Catholics.

To put the Abortion statistics in perspective, 2018 showed the lowest number of abortions in a year since Roe vs. Wade. People are appalled at the number of COVID-19 deaths, which is roughly 600,000. That was for one 15 month period. Nearly one million abortions are done every year. It may be on a decline, but it is still far too many.

We on the Right hope the trend continues and welcome the Church to help continue the fight for the life of every unborn child.

Amen.

An Embryo’s Lament

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , on April 15, 2021 by andelino

Unborn baby inside the mother’s womb.

Meditation of an embryo.
By Fr. Augustin-Marie

I can’t see the daylight yet. I am nestled inside my mother, who is carrying me. I am tiny: but the man who is to be exists within me already. I am an embryo. The man and the woman who gave me life, my father and mother, were embryos before me. An embryo exists to grow, and to become a man or woman. Once I am fully grown, I shall be able in my turn to give life to new embryos. I am a link in the chain of being.

My life hangs by a thread — the bond which binds me to my mother. All I receive comes through this thread. Like a fish in an aquarium, I live in a liquid which surrounds and protects me. I am safe, curled up in my mother’s womb.

I am all hunched, my eyes and fists tight shut. Yet slowly, and minute by minute, I unfold. Gradually, I perceive things; I hear something of the world outside my mother. I grow, mysteriously, in this silent, secret room where none but muffled noises reach me, as if I were wrapped in cotton wool. Already I know the difference between high-pitched sounds and deep ones. There is a world outside; I am getting ready to conquer it! When I have grown, this is the world I shall discover.

Yet the thread by which I hang is too thin. My being is too secret, my presence too unknown. How can I defend myself, with my eyes shut and my little hands still closed? I cannot even cry out. I am too small; I am tiny. I am only an embryo.

I am here, but no one sees me. I am here, but no one wants me. I hurt no one, but they seek my life. I do nothing, and already I am dangerous. I am innocent, but already condemned.

The world outside has decided that I was not expected and that I am unwelcome. I am in here, but no one out there can be bothered with me. No one wants anything to do with me. Tiny though I am, I upset their plans. I don’t shout, I make no noise, and I hardly move, but even so, I trouble them.

My life will end while I am still inside. The outside is forbidden me. They will do away with me, kill me. I don’t know why; I didn’t ask to come into being. And now that I exist, they want to send me back into nothingness. They want to break the chain. I don’t understand — I am just an embryo whom the world does not want. I shall stay in the dark. I shall never see daylight.

Help me!

The above meditation of an embryo was published by Fr. Augustin-Marie of the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer at Le Salon Beige and has been translated with permission from the author.

America is too young To Die

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , on March 13, 2021 by andelino

We Can Kill Our Children And Change Our Sex
by Shane Idleman

Almost a year ago, I wrote an article with a similar title when the so-called “Reproductive Health Act” passed in New York with thunderous applause in the state Senate chamber. I could not believe what I was reading: “People actually applauded the slaughtering of children.”

Was I having a dream . . . a nightmare? Was this real? “Who freely strut about when what is vile is honored by the human race.” (Psalm 12:8).

Regardless of your political views, we should all be “heartbroken” at the state of our nation today. For example, by supporting certain candidates, many are cheering that healthy 9-month-old babies can be removed “limb-by-limb.” You may say, “But I’m not cheering abortion.” If you support those who support it, you are—let that sink in.

You’re also cheering that children can be influenced by “transgenderism” and be encouraged to change their sex, which is not possible by the way.

Cheering that Congress will attempt to remove all “male pronouns.” The list of insanity that you’re supporting is endless.

Granted, these issues have been in America for years, but there is a huge difference between a politician who encourages “perversion and murder”, and one who fights against it. And I’m getting very frustrated at those who say, “But the Republicans haven’t done much to stop abortion either.”

The reason is that “adversaries” in the House and Senate have “fought” for abortion rights, namely Catholic hypocrites Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, to mention a few. The enemy of our soul has done a great job “preventing” the shutting down of “abortion mills” and silencing churches via “silent” pastors. The view that Republicans haven’t done much is really just an “excuse” and a straw man argument.

I’m not writing this from a political party standpoint—I’m writing this from a God-fearing standpoint. When human life is “devalued”, atrocities such as the “Holocaust, slavery, sex-trafficking and abortion occur.” God help us when we ignore our calling to “confront” evil. But how did we get here and what can we do?

As I said in a recent sermon and article, both titled, “The Great Reset of the Church” Jesus warned the lukewarm church in Laodicea. “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing. But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.” (Revelation 3:15-17)

I believe that the church in America resembles the Laodicean church more than at any other time in our history. Sadly, “conviction” is replaced with “complacency”, and God’s “glory” is often replaced with “gimmicks and marketing” ploys. Just look at the top sermons viewed on “social media” today. The preachers are “motivational” speakers, not voices “crying in the wilderness.” It’s about being bigger and better instead of holier and humble.

Like many today, the Laodiceans thought that they were in the center of God’s will. They were large, wealthy, and involved in the community. They looked at numbers, but Jesus looked at the heart and said that they were “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.”

His strong words were meant to “convict and challenge”, not “coddle and comfort.” In order to confront the massive cultural shift mentioned above, the church must be revived: “Will you not revive us again, that your people may rejoice in you? (Psalm 85:6)

How did we get here? “A deathlike, deep slumber, has overtaken the church and God has allowed the complete breakdown of society. The beacon of light has faded, the salt has lost its savor, and the message of the cross has been edited out of most sermons. We have lost our fervor for the truth.”

Consider the following and how they may have played a role in where we are today—applauding murder and perversion:

“The media is influencing the church. The politically correct police are on high alert. You can mention God as long as you don’t mention His absolute truth. You can mention Jesus as long as He was just a good teacher. And you can embrace religion as long as it’s all-inclusive. Pastors are required to be politically correct rather than biblically correct to be accepted. The trend in churches is to be welcoming, but primarily affirming. Sermons are designed to tickle the ear but not convict the heart. God help us.”

Additionally, many Christians enjoy programs about the “occult, vampires, witches, zombies, illicit sex, and other perversions of the truth.” A Christian should not be entertained by darkness. If we are, our heart needs spiritual resuscitation. “The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace.” (Romans 8:6).

The church cannot be political . . . unless it’s “politically correct.” I’m often reminded of God’s words to Jeremiah, “I have not sent these pastors but they ran. I have not spoken to them but they spoke. But had they truly stood in My counsel, they would have turned the people from their evil ways” (paraphrasing Jeremiah 23:21). I agree with Leonard Ravenhill here: “We need more prophets in our pulpits and less puppets.” God uses true prophetic voices to confront and convict.

I make no apologies for the “controversial” content of this article. When we fail to confront, we confirm. When we fail to confront destructive ideas and philosophies, we are, in essence, confirming them. To state the obvious, we become part of the problem. We cannot change what we will not confront.

As I often say, this battle is for the very soul of our nation. It’s our choice—“stand or fall.” Watch the video on defending the faith below.

Joe Biden & Abortion

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , on February 4, 2021 by andelino

Catholic hypocrite Joe Biden.

The day was a Thursday, June 6, 2019. It was the “75th Anniversary of D-Day.” And for “Sniffy” Joe Biden, it seems in retrospect a kind of personal D-Day, marking a fateful pivot for this lifelong Catholic “hypocrite” who steadily but surely over the decades has moved further away from his Church’s pro-life teachings.

In a big announcement that day while campaigning in Atlanta, candidate Joe Biden, clinging desperately to maintain his position as the Democrat presidential front-runner for 2020, said: “For many years as a U.S. senator, I have supported the Hyde Amendment, as many, many others have, because there were sufficient moneys and circumstances where women were able to exercise that right to abortion; women of color, poor women, women were not able to have access. But circumstances have changed.”

Just like that, “Chomo” Joe Biden’s 40-plus years of support for the Hyde Amendment was gone. It had been the only remaining vestige of any Biden pro-life position. He abandoned it, obviously for political reasons. In response, the crowd of liberal women went wild, cheering ecstatically.

It was a sad moment to behold for any pro-life Catholic, and especially for pro-life Catholic Democrats praying that at long last they might have a party nominee who wasn’t quite as extreme as the party’s recent nominees on the abortion issue. This is not to say that Joe Biden was pro-life (quite the contrary, given his history), but he wasn’t as terrible on abortion as other Democrats, such as Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren.

And yet, think about what Joe Biden said — that is, the rationale offered for his flip, and to the roaring approval of his progressive crowd: He reversed his long-held position in support of the Hyde Amendment, which long banned forced taxpayer funding of abortion, allowing for religious-conscience exemptions, so that “women of color, poor women” can have their abortions publicly paid for.

He was changing specifically because of women of color and poor women. He wants to make sure money isn’t an issue to them. He wants no obstacles for them in securing their desire to abort their children. This change is prompted wholly on their behalf: “women of color, poor women.”

Of course, if Donald Trump had staked such a position with such a cold rationale, how long would it take before liberals screamed and denounced him as a “racist and murderer” at the top of their collective lungs? But when it comes to abortion, the most race-focused progressive will look the other way.

Look at how they’ve long looked past Margaret Sanger’s “racial transgressions”, from her work for the “Negro Project” to her May 1926 speech to the women’s chapter of the “KKK” in Silverlake, New Jersey.

As Catholics — that is, the faith “lying” Joe Biden professes to follow — we believe every human being has sanctity and dignity and is made in the image of God. That most certainly includes children of women of color and poor women. We do not take extra steps to ensure that they, specifically, receive taxpayer support to guarantee their children are aborted with our money.

Of course, the fact is that abortion already victimizes minorities by leaps and bounds. The national figures show that the proportion of abortions by Black women far outpace white women. Some civil-rights leaders, including Alveda King, have called this Black Genocide.”

“Sniffy” Joe Biden smelling hair and body aromas of little girls.

Well, “Sniffy” Joe Biden wanted America’s minorities to know he wants to make sure they get free abortions. He’s hardly alone in his switch.

The Democratic Party as a whole once supported the Hyde Amendment, which more than 40 years ago was passed and supported by a Democratic House, Senate and president. But that Democratic Party no longer exists. Today, you can count on literally one or two hands the number of pro-life Democrats in the House and Senate.

Today’s progressives tell us that on this issue they have progressed. They have evolved, moved forward to a new era and new thinking. Hyde itself must be aborted, this thinking goes, so Americans can support abortions for poor women, women of color, Black women, Hispanic women, White women, Asian women. Matter of fact, any women.

Patti Solis Doyle, who had served as Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign manager in 2008 and who has worked for Biden, put it candidly: “The problem is: The Hyde Amendment affects poor women, women of color, Black women, Hispanic women.” In her view, that’s bad.

Of course, it’s especially bad for “Planned Parenthood”, Margaret Sanger’s organization, which counts on minority women as major customers. At the time of Biden’s D-Day moment, Leana Wen of Planned Parenthood had said: “Happy to see Joe Biden embrace what we have long known to be true: Hyde blocks people — particularly women of color and women with low incomes — from accessing safe, legal abortion care.”

It sure does block them. And Joe Biden wants to lift all obstacles.

Perhaps most disappointing is that Biden succumbed to this reversal under political pressure from his party rivals, particularly Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California. Warren had a fit over this issue. Choking back tears, filled with anger, she insisted to an emotional audience that Hyde be reversed. “Understand this,” said Warren, voice trembling. “Women of means will still have access to abortions. Who won’t will be poor women.” As for Kamala Harris, click here to watch her on July 31, 2019, attack Biden for supporting Hyde, which she said was “unacceptable.” Biden by then had flipped on Hyde, but Harris was still fuming.

In a display of political-personal cowardice, Joe Biden allowed himself to be browbeaten by these strident abortion activists in his party. He abandoned the unborn (and taxpayers) he had once defended through Hyde and abandoned the teaching of his Catholic faith as well, to appease Warren and Harris and angry progressives.

Joe Biden, ironically, had once stood out among a pack of rabidly pro-choice Democrats for having at least once been not quite as reprehensible as the rest on the abortion issue. Of course, he was firmly “pro-choice,” but at least he stood to the right of the likes of Warren, Harris and Hillary Clinton.

But for Biden, that all changed on June 6, 2019 — his “D-Day.” On that date, by “abandoning” his support for the Hyde Amendment, Biden “abandoned” pro-life Catholics and pro-lifers generally. For those among them who didn’t personally like Donald Trump, and were willing to consider a vote for Biden (who, after all, at least supported the Hyde Amendment), well, that was gone.

And then it was really, really gone when, in a stunning move, one of the women who browbeat Biden on Hyde — Harris, who has been awful toward Catholic pro-lifers (from David Daleiden to Brian Buescher) — was chosen by Biden to be his vice-presidential running mate.

June 6, 2019, was a fateful turn in Joe Biden’s long drift away from his Church’s opposition to abortion. It marked a clear political-personal pivot, a moral pivot — perhaps a point of no return.

What remains to be seen is the extent to which a President Biden further abandons pro-lifers and, above all, the unborn.

Democrats Have Limited Options on Abortion
Biden Has Ties to Five of the Major Tech Companies Censoring YOU

Just a Single Issue

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , on November 23, 2020 by andelino

Abortion Is More than Just a Single Issue

“Progressive” politicians condescendingly brand pro-lifers as “single-issue voters” and abortion as a “single-issue.” This straw man subtly dismisses pro-lifers as simplistic, fanatical, and naïve, and abortion as “one among many” on the electoral laundry list. Once the elephant in the room is pushed aside, SJW candidates feel empowered to tout the “real” issues of economic equality and climate change. Yet abortion is far from being “just a single issue.”

Abortion is the master key that releases Pandora’s box of radical calamities. If your own child is an undue burden who may be terminated, what about the critically ill, the handicapped, the infirm? If the unborn baby is construed as an unwelcome intruder to be removed, as in the infamous violinist thought game, why not any unwanted Other — the unmasked passerby, the white privileged, the MAGA-hatted, the gun-owner, the religious believer, the maligned police, the vilified president? If you justify spilling innocent blood, why not that of those labeled bigoted, undesirable, or unfit? If the ultimate cancellation is a “right,” toppled statues, burnt flags, vandalized buildings, looted stores, and banned media outlets are but paltry collateral damage.

And you, politician: If you do not stand for innocent human life, what do you stand for? Should it be a surprise that the governor who confined COVID-19 patients to nursing homes as pandemic solution had cheered, merely a year before, codifying abortion until birth? That bill declares that “every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion.”

“Every individual”? “Fundamental right”? No slippery slope here. Just connecting the dots. The totalitarian mindset behind abortion taints thought, language, and action.

The abortion apparatus links to socialism, communism, and fascism are no secret. In these ideologies, the state subordinates the individual person; adults’ interests override the child’s. The abortion machinery in communist China and Nazi eugenics is but Exhibit A. The godlike prerogatives behind the state suffocating the person, and the adult crushing the unborn, also lurk behind the impetus to create a new world order.

Euthanasia as “mercy killing” and “death with dignity” is cut from the same tortuous rhetorical cloth of abortion as “pro-choice” and “essential health care.” Similar twisted threads underlie the narrative of medical kidnapping as “social services,” gender ideology indoctrination and homeschooling restrictions as “education,” critical race theory as “higher education,” arbitrary mandatory vaccinations and lockdowns as “public health.”

Violent riots as “peaceful protests,” biased and deceptive propaganda as “free press,” spying on political opponents as “foreign intelligence,” and population control as “sustainability” or “poverty relief” follow the same warped language game.

Abortion informs (deforms) education, health care, social services, international affairs and foreign aid, and environmental policies, to name a few. It determines priorities and defines what is “essential.” It affects the amount and use of your tax dollars. During the COVID-19 emergency, abortion facilities are kept open, but churches are closed.  Denying the person hood of the unborn justifies their status as marketable commodities to be readily used in experimentation and production.

The proposed “Green New Deal” prioritizes non-human “rights” while stifling human rights and livelihood.  The “Equality Act” (H.R. 5) adds, as protected classes (under the Civil Rights Act), “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” These ill defined rights would include “pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition,” which “shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions.”

Consequently, hospitals and medical professionals, regardless of religious or conscience objections, would be forced to commit abortions or face punishment for “discrimination.”  Joe Biden, in accord with the Democratic Party platform, has vowed to implement the “Equality Act” and “Green New Deal” like measures.

The anti-Natalist philosophy has shaped the nation’s landscape. Consider the demographic, socioeconomic, and cultural impact of the loss of 61.7 million Americans since Roe v. Wade. Reckon with the laughter, the labor, the songs, the love lost. Calculate the physical, psychological, and spiritual aftermath. Assess the opportunity costs of funding Planned Parenthood and exporting the anti-life ideology.

One’s stance on abortion is the litmus test that determines federal justices (district and court of appeals) and Supreme Court picks — a Supreme Court that has not shied away from appropriating legislative powers and exercising them at will. Their judicial idiosyncrasies and activism rewrite constitutional provisions and erode state powers, undermining basic tenets of the American republican system.

State laws meant to curtail abortion on demand, dubbed “blatant violations of Roe v. Wade” by Biden and other pro-abortion politicians, are scrapped by like-minded judges. The election or appointment of district (state) attorneys is also led by the abortion agenda. Many of them go on to release violent criminals and dismiss fake “hate crime” cases, but they vigorously prosecute pro-lifers who pray outside abortion “clinics” or expose the wrongdoings of the abortion industry.

Labeling abortion a “right” has corroded the meaning and moral basis of this term, now subject to victim-hood entitlement, interest group preferences, and lobby power. Claiming a grievance erects a right. Particular rights multiply. New “rights” are created and “old” ones rewritten. This overlooks the reality that, since anchored in human nature and natural law, fundamental human rights are universal.

Yet, as the supreme “right” of the leftist canon, abortion trumps parental rights, freedoms of speech, religion, and conscience. Demoted to inconvenient “values,” any right standing in the way of reproductive “rights” must be swept aside. Ethical argument devolves into the “my body, my choice” relativistic mantra. Abortion as intrinsic evil is deconstructed into just another option.

Abortion is not “just a single issue.” It is not “just a Christian issue.” It is the queen bee of the leftist beehive. It is a cluster issue. It is the termite issue steadily gnawing at the moral and civic foundations of our society.

Catholic Voters

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on October 26, 2020 by andelino

One of the more distressing sights in recent years has been to pull into a Catholic Church parking lot on a Sunday morning and see a bumper sticker for hypocrites Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris or some local politician who also supports abortion or its euphemistic twin, “choice.”

As John Gerard Lewis makes clear in his compelling new book, Catholic Voting and Mortal Sin: How You Vote Can Endanger Your Salvation, the priest who shepherds that parish has betrayed his flock. Had he done his job, parishioners would not have supported a “pro-choice” politician.

And even if they did, they would dare not sport such stickers in the parking lot for fear of having their cars keyed. Although we are all sinners, this is rare sin about which many Catholics seem downright boastful.

Lewis makes the inarguable case that not only is it intrinsically evil to participate in an abortion, but it is also evil to support political candidates who enable the abortion industry. Lewis identifies five other current non-negotiable political issues in play today, “euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, homosexual marriage and abortion,” but he argues persuasively that abortion is the most lethal and evil of them all.

“Catholic Voting and Mortal Sin” is a livelier read than the title suggests. Lewis serves up an engaging and illuminating study of the history, politics, and philosophy that have led to the slaughter of sixty million innocents in the United States alone since the passage of Roe v. Wade nearly 50 years ago.

This book is essential for all Catholics, especially pro-life activists, and an absolute must-read for priests, teachers, and other Church leaders. Those who read “Catholic Voting and Mortal Sin” and absorb its content will never hesitate to argue the cause of life again.

Better still, they will win every argument.

Moral Equivalency

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on January 1, 2020 by andelino

Chicago archbishop Blase Cupich has once again downplayed the centrality of “abortion” as moral and political issue, insisting it must be seen as just one element of “a consistent ethic of life.”

In an op-ed in “Chicago Catholic”, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Chicago, Cardinal Cupich repeated arguments against “prioritizing” the abortion issue when considering “how our faith should inform our politics and our voting decisions.”

The cardinal faced off against leaders of the U.S. bishops conference who insisted that the faithful must understand that abortion is the “preeminent priority” when decided on whom to vote for. Having lost that battle, the cardinal wrote his “own op-ed” to keep pushing the idea that “abortion is no worse than any other social issue.”

On average, over 2,700 unborn children are “executed” in the womb every day in the United States. One can only wonder what Cardinal Cupich would say if 2,700 migrants were rounded up and “killed” on a daily basis. Would this become a “preeminent issue” or would he insist that it must be “contextualized and balanced” against other social issues?

To back up his argument, Cardinal Cupich cited a former archbishop of Chicago, the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who is credited with creating the “seamless garment” moral theory, which approached all social evils as part of a “unitary whole” rather than addressing them individually.

A consistent ethic of life “joins the humanity of the unborn infant and the humanity of the hungry; it calls for positive legal action to prevent the killing of the unborn or the aged and positive societal action to provide shelter for the homeless and education for the illiterate,” Bernardin wrote in 1984.

Bernardin argued that his approach “will not erode our crucial public opposition to the direction of the arms race; neither will it smother our persistent and necessary public opposition to abortion,” but in point of fact, that is exactly what happened.

By introducing a series of elements that could not garner unanimous support, purveyors of this approach “debilitated” the Catholic pro-life effort in the United States by “splintering” the movement into factions. Those who had been united in their monolithic opposition to the “evil of abortion” found themselves divided on other issues such as “capital punishment, healthcare, welfare, gun control, national defense and the minimum wage.”

Although couched in “moral” terms, Cardinal Bernardin’s theory was essentially political. He was a Democrat at a time when his party had moved to embrace “abortion on demand” while then-President Ronald Reagan had adopted an uncompromising “pro-life stance in defense of the unborn.” Only by extending the definition of what it meant to be “pro-life” could Bernardin defend the Democratic platform as a viable “moral option” for serious Catholics.

The new standard-bearer for the “seamless garment” approach to life is Bernardin’s successor as archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Cupich, another self-serving “toady” for the Democratic Party.

In a signed 2015 op-ed in the Chicago Tribune, Archbishop Cupich listed a series of “social ills” that people should find just as “loathsome” as ripping apart “unborn children and selling their organs.”

“As appalling as it is to speak freely of crushing a child’s skull to preserve valuable body parts, we should be no less appalled by the indifference toward the thousands of people who die daily for lack of decent medical care; who are denied rights by a broken immigration system and by racism; who suffer in hunger, joblessness and want; who pay the price of violence in gun-saturated neighborhoods; or who are executed by the state in the name of justice,” Cardinal Cupich wrote.

By insisting on the “moral equivalency” of many different societal problems, Cupich reduced the heinous offense of “slaughtering the unborn and trading in their body parts” to just another social ill, no worse than “unemployment or a broken immigration system.”

The archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles J. Chaput, was quick to offer “fraternal” correction to his “misguided” brother bishop, penning his own essay titled “There Is No Equivalence.”

“Attempts to equate the intentional taking of human life through abortion with other social justice issues, such as poverty, racism, and unemployment, are wrongheaded and deceptive. The deliberate killing of innocent life is a uniquely wicked act. No amount of contextualizing or deflecting our attention to other issues can obscure that,” Chaput wrote.

Nearly all Catholic dioceses in the United States, including his own, spend far more time and talent on providing “social services” to the poor rather than on “opposing” abortion, Chaput noted, yet the fact remains that “children need to survive the womb before they can have needs like food, shelter, immigration counseling and good health care.”

“Humanity’s priority right – the one that under-girds all other rights – is the right to life, and being ‘right’ on other matters of social justice can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life,” Chaput argued.

As Archbishop Joseph Naumann, chairman of the “U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities” stated in 2017, abortion is the great “moral crisis of our time,” overshadowing “immigration, health care and capital punishment.”

 While many other “moral” issues merit attention from the bishops, Naumann said, it would be a mistake to “treat” them as if they had the same weight, noting that the “vast majority of bishops” understand that abortion is the preeminent “moral crisis” of our time.

In an interview with an Italian-language Jesuit journal, Pope Francis says the Catholic Church has grown “obsessed” with the issues of “abortion, gay marriage and contraception.” In an effort to redirect the church’s focus, he has decided not to speak publicly about these issues, he adds.

As reported by the New York Times, the pope told La Civiltà Cattolica: “It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. We have to find a new balance, otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”

But this does not mean that the pope’s views on these issues, or the Catholic Church’s teachings, are changing. The Catholic Church’s positions against “gay marriage, abortion and contraception” are still clear to him as “a son of the Catholic Cult.” 

Where is the Church on Planned Parenthood?
Pope Says Church Is Obsessed With Gays, Abortion and Birth Control.

Judicial Philosophy vs. Politics

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on December 23, 2019 by andelino

Even though the President of the United States is supposed to “appoint” Supreme Court Justices based on their “judicial philosophy and not their politics”, President Bill Clinton “admitted” that he chose Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg due to her “steadfast” commitment to upholding “abortion.”

Speaking at Georgetown University Law School, the former president said that protecting “Roe v. Wade” played a significant role in his selection of “Ginsburg” to the Supreme Court.

https://abcn.ws/2PtGHRb

“There is one thing that we did discuss, and I feel I should tell you, because it will illustrate why I thought I should appoint her. Abortion was a big issue in 1992 — the right to choose, I was one of the first pro-choice Democrats to run since Roe v. Wade, who actually benefited from Roe v. Wade. Now, she didn’t have to say anything about this. She knew this perfectly well that I was under a lot of pressure to make sure I appointed someone who is Simon-pure, which I had said was important,” Clinton said, as reported by ABC News.

No president has ever “admitted” to asking a potential Supreme Court nominee on how they would “rule on an issue” like abortion. In fact, when Justice Gorsuch was asked about such a meeting during his confirmation process, he said that would have walked out the door if President Trump pressed him to “overturn” Roe v. Wade.

Former President Clinton said he “inquired” with Ginsburg about the issue of “abortion” and admitted that his pick was “clearly pro-choice” after nominating her.

“I asked her the question and she talked about it just as if it was any other issue, no effect, this is what I think, this is why I think it. And she made a heck of a case,” Clinton said.

Bill Clinton’s frank admission about how he “selected” Ginsburg suggests she may have “lied” during the U.S. Senate confirmation hearing when she said it was “inappropriate for anyone to ask how a judicial nominee would rule on a specific case.”

“It is inappropriate, in my judgment, to seek from any nominee for judicial office assurance on how that individual would rule in a future case. That judgment was shared by those involved in the process of selecting me. No such person discussed with me any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning my position on such case, issue, or question,” Ginsburg said.

Ginsburg’s “pro-abortion” record on the Supreme Court is well-documented and often goes beyond “legal” jurisprudence and into “ideological” statements about “sexism and gender politics,” such as when she accused her male peers of “sexism” in the Hobby Lobby ruling.

“Do you believe that the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision?” Katie Couric asked Ginsburg in light of the ruling.

“I would have to say no,” she replied. “But justices continue to think and can change. I am ever hopeful that if the court has a blind spot today, its eyes will be open tomorrow.”

 More proof that “judicial philosophy and politics” go hand in hand despite what they “preach and want you to believe.”

If you wait long enough the “truth” eventually will set you free.

Cafeteria Catholic Pelosi

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on December 10, 2019 by andelino

Pro-Abortion Pelosi’s Convenient Catholicism
By Daniel John Sobieski

If House speaker Nancy Pelosi is a “practicing Catholic,” then Sen. Elizabeth Warren is an “American Indian.”

If she is a “practicing Catholic” then one hopes that one day she gets it right. You cannot be in fundamental “disagreement” with a fundamental “doctrine” of the Catholic Church and then wrap yourself in its vestments to proclaim you don’t “hate” anybody.

“Cafeteria Catholic” Pelosi doesn’t invoke her Catholic “conscience” when she supports her caucus’s “abortion-until-birth” infanticide policy, the ultimate “separation” of mother from child. There is no worse “brutality” than what an unborn child feels at the hands of a surgeon’s tools. It is a fact that forceps kill more children than gunsA detention center on the border or the deportation of those who have had their due process and have a deportation order lawfully issued by a judge doesn’t even come close.

“Cafeteria Catholic” Pelosi did not respect faith-based communities and other organizations, such as her Catholic Church, when it came to ObamaCare’s attempt to force them and the institutions they administer to provide insurance that pays for abortions and contraceptives. When it comes to Catholics and pro-life people acting on their “religious” conscience, she fights them quicker than you can say “Hobby Lobby.”

As LifeSiteNews reported during a recent abortion funding battle:

“Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi blasted Catholics for fighting for the right not to perform or fund abortions, describing their abhorrence for supporting abortions as this conscience thing,” in remarks to the Washington Post.

During a debate in the House over a bill to stop abortion funding in the health care bill and to strengthen conscience rights on abortion, Pelosi had described the bill as “savage,” claiming that it would allow doctors to let women “die on the floor” because they could refuse to perform an abortion.

In her remarks to the Post, Pelosi, who says she is Catholic, defended her statements against the Protect Life Act. While some “may not like the language,” she said, “the truth is what I said.”

“They would” let women die on the floor, she said. “They would!  Again, whatever their intention is, this is the effect. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it … but they have this conscience thing about abortion,” added Pelosi.

Apparently, this “conscience thing” may be invoked in the name of open borders, sanctuary cities and states coddling murderers of American citizens, and enforcing lawful deportation orders, but not when you are someone who believes life begins at conception and ends at natural death and not at the end of an abortionist’s forceps.

Heaven, as some have suggested, is a place with high walls and extreme vetting. And, we are told, once you have been judged, you are cast out — uh, deported. There is a big gate, which could be called a “port of entry,” but you do not get to climb over it or sneak around it.

Yes, Nancy Pelosi has children, but according to her, she had the right to “snuff out every one of their lives” right up to the moment of birth, perhaps even after, as the Democrat governor of Virginia said he is fine with.

You cannot serve the Catholic Church and Planned Parenthood:

“Speaker Pelosi’s attempt at claiming the moral high ground here is the peak of hypocrisy from a career politician. Our individual faith and beliefs are our own forces to reckon with, but Speaker Pelosi is far from a shining example of a strict follower of the church’s teachings, especially given her spineless rhetoric on abortion as the issue moves to the center of the ideological divide.”

As her party moves further to the left each day, especially on the issue of “abortion,” Speaker Pelosi has simultaneously remained silent while still claiming to be a moderate and a “faithful” Catholic. The mainstream Democratic Party, fueled by young progressives and far-left interest groups, has embraced “unlimited, late-term abortion” with open arms.

The Speaker refuses to condemn the abhorrent “abortion” laws implemented in New York and Virginia [Virginia’s proposed radical abortion law was not in fact implemented —ed.], which both go even further than third trimester abortions. She also turns a blind eye to the harmful rhetoric pushed by groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL, both of which provide substantial monetary donations to the Democratic Party, as they encourage American women to “shout their abortions.” 

After her announcement that a vote on President Trump’s impeachment will proceed, “Cafeteria Catholic” Pelosi melted down, saying, “I don’t hate anybody” when asked by Sinclair Broadcast Group reporter James Rosen if she hates President Trump:

“That has nothing to do with it. I think the president is a coward when it comes to helping our kids who are afraid of gun violence. I think he is cruel when he doesn’t deal with helping our Dreamers, of which we’re very proud.  I think he is in denial about the climate crisis. However, that is about the election. This is about the Constitution of the United States and the facts that lead to the president’s violation of his oath of office and as a Catholic I resent your using the word ‘hate’ in the sentence that addresses me. I don’t hate anyone. I was raised in a way that is a heart full of love and always pray for the president. And I still pray for the president. I pray for the president all the time. So don’t mess with me when it comes to words like that.”

Pelosi doesn’t “hate” nor “pray” for Trump, which is why she continues to bear “false witness” against him, participating in a “kangaroo” court proceeding based on hearsay and presumption. Why is it that you care about children killed by a gun and not for an unborn child killed by forceps or a suction machine or a shot of poison to the heart? Why do you care about children said to be seeking a better life in America when you want to deny American children the right to life, that unalienable right the Founders you so dearly love wrote about in the Declaration of Independence? The unborn have dreams, too, before they are ripped from their mother’s wombs.

Ironically, “Cafeteria Catholic” Pelosi is planning her impeachment vote virtually on Christmas Eve, when Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ — the baby King Herod, who had his own version of “Planned Parenthood”, hoped to exterminate. Perhaps “Cafeteria Catholic” Pelosi can explain why she has so often been rebuked by her own church:

“Pelosi has been repeatedly rebuked by bishops, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and Catholic groups like the Catholic League for her pro-abortion stance. She has returned fire, calling bishops ‘lobbyists’ — because they opposed an ObamaCare mandate that violates Catholic teaching — and she has taken on nuns ‘The Little Sisters of the Poor’ who sued to protect their religious freedom.”

A few years ago, when asked about legislation limiting abortions after 20 weeks, “Cafeteria Catholic” Pelosi “refused” to say when she thinks “human life begins” and is worthy of both “legal and moral” protection. She was roundly rebuked by the bishop of her diocese.

In an interview with CNS News, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco responded to “Cafeteria Catholic” Pelosi and rebuked her:

“It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. This has been established in medical science for over 100 years. Catholic moral teaching acknowledges this scientific fact, and has always affirmed the grave moral evil of taking an innocent human life. This has been the consistent teaching of the Church from the very beginning, a teaching already discernible in the natural moral law, and so a teaching from which no Catholic can dissent in good conscience.”

Ah, there’s that “conscience thing” Pelosi finds annoying. “Cafeteria Catholic” Pelosi is so “out of step” with Catholic “teaching and doctrine” that it would be proper to deny her the Sacrament of Holy Communion, as was done recently to Joe Biden. As the Christian Post reported:

Fr. Robert Morey confirmed with SC Now that Biden was denied the sacrament because of his advocacy for abortion rights…

“Sadly, this past Sunday, I had to refuse Holy Communion to former Vice President Joe Biden. Holy Communion signifies we are one with God, each other and the Church. Our actions should reflect that. Any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of Church teaching.”

The rebuke from Morey comes after Biden publicly objected to a proposal to outlaw abortions in South Carolina after about six weeks of pregnancy, including in cases of rape or incest.

He also noted that even though he personally opposes abortion, “I don’t think I have the right to impose my view — on something I accept as a matter of faith — on the rest of society.”

You cannot be only “personally opposed” to a moral evil as defined by Catholic Church doctrine. Biden can’t, and Pelosi can’t. Faith without works is dead, and “Cafeteria Catholics” like Pelosi are obligated to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. 

“Cafeteria Catholic” Pelosi cannot serve both her “imaginary god and Mammon.” Nor can she use her “Cafeteria Catholic faith” as a political weapon whenever it is “convenient” to do so.

Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

Definition of Pro-Choice

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on May 25, 2019 by andelino

 

Abortion has been a hotly debated “topic” in American culture at least for the past forty years. Proponents on both sides wave statistics and viewpoints that many sincerely believe to be the only right way. For the sake of clarity, let’s define the terms “PRO-CHOICE” and “ANTI-CHOICE.”

For the purposes of this post, “PRO-CHOICE” is defined as “the belief that a woman should have the legal right to abort her unborn child at any point in the pregnancy.” Pro-choice advocates believe abortion is a “personal” decision and should not be limited by the government or anyone else.

For the purposes of this post, “ANTI-CHOICE” is defined as “the belief that every human life is sacred and no one, including the mother, has the right to end an innocent life.” Anti-choice advocates hold the view that life from the moment of “conception” should be protected.

I’m not arguing the “morality” of PRO-CHOICE or the “venality” of ANTI- CHOICE because like everything else in life it depends on your “faith” believe.

If you are a Bible believing Christian, you are someone who has accepted God’s offer of forgiveness through Jesus’ death and resurrection. Salvation is a gift of God through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ (John 3:16-18; Ephesians 2:8-9; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9). What we believe about other things is a matter of growth, not of salvation. However, 2 Corinthians 5:17 says, “If any man/women be in Christ, he/she is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” When we give our lives to Christ, God begins to change us: “our way of thinking and our way of behaving” (see Isaiah 55:7). Our bodies become the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19). Our minds are renewed through the truth of God’s Word (Romans 12:1-2). Our attitudes, perspectives, and behaviors gradually change to be more like those of Christ (Romans 8:29; Galatians 5:22).

This transformation doesn’t happen overnight. Many Christians are still what the apostle Paul called “carnal” (1 Corinthians 3:1-3; Romans 8:6). Carnal Christians trust in Jesus for salvation, but they still think, act, and react like the world. Often, they are new to the faith or simply have not allowed the Holy Spirit free access to every area of their hearts. They are trying to live the Christian life in their own strength, while still being heavily influenced by the world’s way of thinking. The carnal mind has not been fully renewed by the Word of God and still seeks compromise with the world (James 4:4). Carnal Christians allow the persuasive viewpoints of the ungodly to sway their opinions on many things, including abortion. Spiritual growth requires us to shed our old ways of thinking as we become more like Christ. We begin to see things the way God does, and the closer to Him we become, the less we agree with the world’s system (Psalm 1:1-2). If a person continually refuses to allow the Word of God to transform his thinking, chances are great that he is not really a Bible believing Christian (Romans 8:14).

“Pro-choice” advocates state that the Bible does not address abortion, so the decision should be the individual’s. While it is true that the term “abortion” does not appear in the Bible, the principles about the “value of life” are there. In Exodus 21:22-23, God wrote into His Law protection for the “unborn.” If a pregnant woman was injured, causing her to lose her child, then the one who caused the injury was to be executed: “a life for a life.” The phrase “life for a life” says a lot. God considers the life of the “unborn” just as valuable as that of a grown person.

God said to Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” (Jeremiah 1:5). It was God who created him for a specific purpose. Psalm 139:13-16 gives us the clearest picture of God’s viewpoint on the unborn. David writes, “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. . . . My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret. . . .Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, before one of them came to be.”

The Bible is clear that all “human” life is created by God for His purpose and His pleasure (Colossians 1:16), and a Christian who truly wants to know the heart of God must align his or her viewpoint with God’s. When we start justifying “evil” according to our understanding, we “dilute” the truth of God’s Word. When we rename adultery an “affair,” homosexuality an “alternative lifestyle,” and murder of the unborn a “choice,” we are headed for serious trouble. We cannot “redefine” what it means to follow Christ. Jesus said we must first “deny ourselves” (Matthew 16:24; Luke 9:23). Part of denying ourselves is letting go of comfortable “lies” the world has fed us. We have to let go of our own understanding and allow God to change us (Proverbs 3:5-6).

Some “pro-choice” advocates argue that they are not “pro-abortion.” They say they hate abortion, but support a woman’s right to choose. This makes as much sense as saying that you personally hate “rape,” but support a man’s “right” to commit it. The rhetoric sounds nice—the mention of “choice” makes it more appealing—but underneath is a direct “conflict” with God’s viewpoint in Scripture.

“Pro-choice” advocates often state that their position is “compassionate” and that pro-lifers don’t care about the woman or her child. This argument is a “red herring.” Whether pro-lifers “care” or not is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant whether those opposed to robbery “care” about the banks being robbed. Robbery is against God’s “moral” law. So is abortion. And that’s the issue.

The Bible is clear. Since God is the “Creator” of human life, only He can determine who lives or dies. And every person who claims the name of Christ has the obligation to make certain his or her views line up with His Word. Is it possible for a born-again Christian to be “pro-choice”? Yes. Is it likely that such a person will remain “pro-choice”? Not if he or she is allowing God’s Word to “transform and renew” his or her mind (Romans 12:2).

Proper sexual “education” is the key in preventing “unwanted” pregnancies. If you’re “pro-life”, you should also be for all means necessary to prevent an “unwanted” pregnancy. As a Bible believing Christian I cannot make these wrenching personal “life and death” decisions for others. I believe that a woman has a right, responsibility, and requirement to choose: “a choice to keep her knees together or rear a child.” That personal, practical, and profound choice would “solve most of the abortion problems.”

Fyodor Dostoevsky,  author of “Crime and Punishment” said, “If God is dead, then nothing is morally wrong.” But God is not dead; I spoke with Him this morning. Those who kill the “innocent” will also meet with Him!

No, You Cannot be a “Pro-Choice” Christian

 

%d bloggers like this: