Posted on 12/13/2008 10:34:36 AM PST by wagglebee
I just thought of something. One of the reasons people like him (and others) are pro-abort is because they ultimately have a world view that this world is here for everyone’s enjoyment. It is not “enjoyable” to be a parent of a severely disabled child. There are many troubles and hard work and sorrows. And of course the baby suffers.
But this world is not meant to be a Disney World of fun fun fun. It is a testing ground, meant for spiritual purification and learning, to get closer to God.
Killing children in the womb because the parents and the child would suffer is based on a false, materialistic and non-religious or spiritual view of the purpose of life.
And, of course, utterly rebellious of the position of the Catholic Church, which is reprehensible for Catholics in general and priests in particular.
(If Catholics will forgive me for commenting on their church.)
Very well said!
Yhank you for pinging so many informative (if hair raising) articles. Too bad there are so many of them...
I’m getting a bit freaked out right now.
He just liked playing God. He was slipping on the slippery slope and justifying every decision with his God complex.
Well, Maryknoller Bourgeois finally got his walking papers, perhaps Father Prieur will follow along.
Given the legalistic hairsplitting in the article, I wonder if Fr. Prieur is a Jesuit.
The big break occurred in the 1930s, when the Anglican (Protestant) church approved artificial birth control, which then led to all the Protestant churches doing likewise. And this is a slippery slope: once children are regarded as a sort of optional addendum to sex, and not a very welcome one at that, abortion becomes the easiest way of dealing with this. Protestants approved of abortion way back when - I remember meeting many Protestants in the 1960s in New York who were working to get the NY anti-abortion law overturned.
The big problem in the Catholic Church has been the rise of the "dissident Catholic," who of course disagrees with all Church teachings but is sought out by the press as an authority and is rarely called out by the bishops. This is because many bishops appointed in the 1970s, fortunately the older ones who are dying off, are very liberal and either agree or are too timid to oppose this thinking.
I would say the bishop of this diocese may have had suspicions about this hospital, but he was too lazy or timid to act on them. And of course, they found a liberal priest to come forward and defend it, and the bishop, wanting to keep his invitation to the nice dinner parties and press events, either didn't care or was too scared to say anything.
You are obviously a good, orthodox Christian who would not have been a member of one of the many Protestant churches that worked - and still work - to spread abortion. But the doctrine on this comes from way back when, before the existence of Protestants, and that is what you are drawing your moral courage from.
I know this thread will be very difficult for many to read and digest. Some good people who learn about such terrible betrayal might have their faith seriously shaken. Never give up. We have to remember that Christ Himself warned that great evil will be around us till the end. We all can do something to help with pro-life.
“You Can Save Someone’s Life Today”—Dozens of Suggested Activities for Everyone [PDF Format] Priests for Life http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/youcan.html
Pro-Life Activism What You Can Do to End Abortion
http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/whatyoucando.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic hospitals commit – and U.S. bishops condone – live-birth abortion
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40465
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: September 15, 2004 1:00 am Eastern
By Jill Stanek © 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
The news was a real bummer. A reporter named Tom Szyszkiewicz, who writes for the Catholic publications, Our Sunday Visitor and the National Catholic Register, was calling to tell me he had discovered two Catholic hospital systems were committing the induced-labor abortion procedure – live-birth abortion – on handicapped babies.
The bad news warped to bizarre when Szyszkiewicz said these hospitals were waiting until babies were 23 to 26 weeks gestation before aborting them – i.e., until they were of viable age – so they could say these weren't abortions at all, but simply labor inductions and, thus, sanctioned by the Catholic Church.
"That's crazy," I thought. Most hospitals I'm aware of that commit LBA do just the opposite: They make sure to abort babies before 23 weeks – the most recent viability cutoff date according to the American Heart Association and American Academy of Pediatrics – to avoid the ethical and legal dilemmas of deciding whether to resuscitate a baby they just tried to kill.
The Catholic hospitals' abortion strategy seemed even more risky when taking the Born Alive Infants Protection Act into account. It states that live-born babies, no matter what their gestational age or circumstances of birth, are "persons." According to the 14th Amendment, "persons" born in the United States are automatic citizens who cannot be "deprive[d] ... of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor den[ied] ... equal protection of the laws."
This means live-aborted babies can't be cast aside to die in hospital soiled utility rooms, or drowned in buckets of water, or sealed to suffocate in biohazard bags. They must be medically assessed and cared for just like wanted babies.
Last week, I contacted both hospital systems to make sure I wasn't missing something. I wasn't.
Loyola Health System in Chicago, and Providence Health System on the West Coast and Alaska, both commit live-birth abortion.
But they don't like the word, "abortion." They call what they do, "early induction of labor."
Webster's Dictionary defines abortion as, "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus."
So now "termination of pregnancy" is called "early induction of labor." Euphemisms ... what would abortion proponents do without them?
Other Catholic hospitals may also be involved. Szyszkiewicz reported in the March 7, 2004, Our Sunday Visitor that Providence is the 10th largest U.S. Catholic health system, and "spokespersons for the other nine ... were either vague about their hospitals' practices or did not return calls."
Loyola and Providence say they are acting in accordance with the 2001 U.S. Bishops' Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services that states, "For proportionate reason, labor may be induced after the fetus is viable."
Theologian James LaGrye from the bishops' doctrinal office said the term "proportionate" is used "for situations in which some grave risk would be incurred if an action were not taken to avoid it," wrote Szyszkiewicz, who added, "LaGrye said the mental health of the mother 'is a reason' to perform early induction."
In addition to having "mental health" concerns, Fr. Jack O'Callahan, staff ethicist at Loyola, said they are trying "to ward off the physical complications of bringing to term a child who is not going to live anyway."
But, euthanizing one's handicapped child is not the solution to maintaining mental health, nor do handicapped babies normally spread voodoo vibes to make their mothers sick.
What about the physical and mental complications of abortion?
Even fatally ill babies, left to develop until term, give their mothers the gift of lowering their risk of breast cancer. Contrarily, mothers who abort dramatically increase their risk.
Aborting mothers also stand a much greater chance of ending up in hospital high-risk maternity departments next time they get pregnant. Their forcibly stretched cervixes will have difficulty keeping subsequent babies inside until full term.
But I digress.
The Aug. 19 New England Journal of Medicine reported that the smallest known surviving preemie just celebrated her 15th birthday. In 1989, Madeline Mann was born at Loyola Hospital at 27 weeks, weighing 9.9 ounces. She is now a violin playing, roller-blading, high-school honor student.
Doctors at Loyola delivered Madeline early by Caesarean section after determining she might fare better in their care than in her mother's uterus.
Oh, the irony.
In 1970, Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn observed:
“Let us not forget that violence does not and cannot flourish by itself; it is inevitably intertwined with lying. Between them there is the closest, the most profound and natural bond: nothing screens violence except lies, and the only way lies can hold out is by violence.”
The more odious the violence, the greater the deceit is needed to justify it. Therefore, the defense of partial-birth abortion has required an inexhaustible store of lies.
*http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/programs/rlp//97rlpwil.shtml
LBA is murder ... a child born alive is a human being member of the citizens of this nation, so killing these struggling little ones via purposed neglect is in fact murdering an American citizen. Barack Obama worked hard in IL to protect that evil, wicked man that he is.
Anyone who does what 0bama did on LBA certainly would be opening themselves up. At the least we can say “he sold his soul” for a fleeting moment of power, relatively speaking. Eternity lasts much longer.
I think you are very likely correct.
I just read the first sentence of you comment - will read the rest in a minute. I did not express myself clearly!!! I didn’t mean that the Church holds an utterly rebellious position, but the priest and any others who are supposed to represent Christ’s teachings as expressed through the teachings of the Church are rebellious, by allowing, condoning and authorizing abortion.
Sorry I was so muddy. I will read the rest of your comment now.
I knew my “utterly rebellious” comment wasn’t clear enough...
Actually I am a follower of Hindu Dharma but simultaneously revere the teachings and person of Jesus Christ, as the truth is the truth. I am (I will admit) particularly attracted to Catholic tenets and practice more so than Prostetant although I have dear friends here and elsewhere of both stripes, because the Catholic teachings are more close to the principles I follow. Especially in regards to the teachings on sexuality.
I consider all faithful theists my dear family members.
Some Canadian Catholics got flaky for a while there. Sounds like the folks running this hospital were part of that.
That is sad and sick.
Ping to this linked post.
My second-favorite, BTW, is a good pro-life Vaishnava in Oakland who keeps trying to get me to stop being a carnivore. His vegan ideas are foreign to Catholicism in general, though not unehard-of in a Cistercian kitchen! For my part, I'm stickin' with my pork fried rice. Kosher or not. :o)
I’ve always hsard that if you’re ever flat on your back in a hospital bed, and see the bespectacled pink face of a bioethicist hovering over you, don’t make any sudden moves but reach slowly for your gun.
These inductions are particularly wrong-headed because the 'proportionate reasons' mentioned in the Bishops' Directives must relate to the physical well-being of BOTH mother and child. For instance, if a pregnant mother has uterine cancer but could carry the baby until, say, the 27th week, they can induce labor at that time in order to save BOTH mother and baby, i.e. the baby, unharmed, goes to Neonatal Intensive Care and the mother gets the hysterectomy or chemo or whateve she needs to treat the cancer.
It is absolutely illicit and prohibited to do such a thing for the mother's emotional reasons, in the case of a Trisomy 13 or other afflicted baby. For one thing, the mother in this case does not have a medical condition which can be treated by via induced labor; for another thing, there is no evidence that such a procedure has better psychological outcomes for the women.
And why would it? Having a baby that you can hold, care for and love for its expected short life is a challenge and a heartache, but it is not traumatic: certainly not if the family has adequate support. But deliberately ending the baby's life IS traumatic: it adds to the mother's distress the very real guilt of having killed her child. It's the difference between caring for a dear one who has reached the end of his natural lifespan, and murder.
David Reardon and other post-abortionr esearchers have found that the mothers who fare worst, psychologically, after abortion, are those who abort a wanted child under pressure from someone else (a husband, a doctor, a 'bioethicist'), and/or who do so late in the pregnancy.
The final point, which is the fundamental ethical point ignored by these unfaithful Judas priests and their pathetic bioethicists, is that in this case the death of the child is directly willed: that is, it is not an undesired "double effect." If inducing labor routinely resulted in the child living just as long as full-term babies with the same genetic or chromosomal condition, they would never induce. Why would they? The death of the child is not collateral: it is the directly intended effect.
Here’s my priorities - once humans stop killing humans*, then I’ll work on getting humans to stop killing animals... ;-)
(And if anyone’s interested, I’ve got great vegetarian recipes stuffed with protein!)
*Other than just executions and necessary wars, of course.
PS to Mrs. Don-o - thank you for your kind words.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.