'Jane Roe' of Roe v. Wade Airs Anti-Obama Ad

Cardinal Burke Says Attacks On Unborn Are Rooted in 'Contraceptive Mentality'

“The attack on the innocent and defenceless life of the unborn has its origin in an erroneous view of human sexuality, which attempts to eliminate, by mechanical or chemical means, the essentially procreative nature of the conjugal act,” the prelate, who heads the Apostolic Signatura (the Vatican’s highest court), told the McHenry County Catholic Prayer Breakfast in the Diocese of Rockford, Illinois on October 31st.

“A most tragic example of the lack of obedience of faith, also on the part of certain Bishops, was the response of many to the Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae,” he said.  “If the shepherd is not obedient, the flock easily gives way to confusion and error.”

But when the bishop is obedient to the Magisterium, he continued, “then the members of the flock grow in obedience and proceed, with Christ, along the way of salvation.”

“The shepherd must be especially attentive to the assaults of Satan who knows that, if he can strike the shepherd, the work of scattering the flock will be made easy,” he added.

“The so-called ‘contraceptive mentality’ is essentially anti-life,” the cardinal insisted.  “Many forms of so-called contraception are, in fact, abortifacient, that is, they destroy, at its beginning, a life which has already been conceived.”

“Through the spread of the contraceptive mentality, especially among the young, human sexuality is no longer seen as the gift of God, which draws a man and a woman together, in a bond of lifelong and faithful love, crowned by the gift of new human life, but, rather, as a tool for personal gratification,” he explained.

Correcting this “contraceptive thinking,” he said, is “essential to the advancement of the culture of life.”

The U.S. pro-life movement particularly is facing a “period of intense struggle,” he noted, as the U.S. government under President Barack Obama has chosen to follow “openly and aggressively a totally secularist philosophy with its inherent anti-life and anti-family agenda.”

He mentioned specifically a talk by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen for the abortion lobby group NARAL on Oct. 6th.  “It is profoundly saddening to note that [Sec. Sebelius] presents herself as a practicing Catholic, while engaging in public speech which is gravely injurious to good morals,” he said.

“Catholics in public office, who obstinately persist in advocating and providing for the most egregious violations of the natural moral law, are the cause of the gravest scandal,” he continued.  “They confuse and lead into error their fellow Catholics and non-Catholics alike regarding the most fundamental truths of the moral law.”

The Church needs to stand up - especially bishops - for life, resist the Smoke of Satan, speak out against abortion and make examples of those Catholics who are anti-life instead of allowing the Smoke of Satan to corrupt their souls as well as others.  

Franciscan University Abortion Clinic Outreach

Abortion is murder.  Prayers are needed for this holocaust to end. Prayers are needed for the conversion of those who believe in the culture of death.

Illinois Catholic Bishops Response To Gov. Pat Quinn's Formal Cooperation in Advancing Culture of Death

The Illinois Bishops statement is good. But did it go far enough?  Dr. Ed Peters is impatient like many other Catholics that the bishops didn't take more action in accord with Canon 915 - which prohibits the reception of Communion by the publicly unworthy - but doesn't see it as a failure that the bishops didn't go as far in their response as they could have.  This could be a good first step but I still think the governor should have been forbidden from taking part in the reception of Communion.  What do you think?

Here is Dr. Ed Peters article:
http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/gov-pat-quinn-and-illinois-catholic.html

Sunday Night Prime: On Dietrich Von Hildebrand's Fight Against Hitler

Since I am recovering from having surgery on Monday I will pass along this great show for you to watch. Enjoy!

Joe Biden and China's One-Child Policy

In the 1970's China instituted a one-child policy for population control purposes. China's one-child policy limits couples to one child in urban areas and limits couples in rural areas to two children if the first child is a girl.  Forced abortions and sterilizations are widespread across China.  


 Joe Biden said this statement on China's one-child policy: 


“But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China.  You have no safety net,” Biden said. “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family.  The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people.  Not sustainable.”


Why would Biden say that he fully understands China's one-child policy which forces abortions and sterilizations upon women if he really opposes this policy?  I know he was in China when he stated this but I believe he went a bit too far toward condoning China's one-child policy in his statement.  There was a statement released today which said that Biden is opposed to China's one-child policy but I am hesitant to believe it since I know that Biden is an abortion supporter. 


He shouldn't be condoning China's one-child policy in any shape or form.  Abortion is murder whether women make the choice or it is forced forced upon them. The Catholic Church is opposed to abortion and has declared that abortion is an intrinsic evil so for Biden to say the above statement is absurd and unconscionable.  Abortion is morally wrong in all circumstances. He is going against his faith, the Catholic Faith.  

Catholic Culture Clash Links 8-7-11

The Dept. of Health and Human Services has put forth a proposal which mandates that insurance companies must provide free contraceptives to women. But some prescriptions covered under this mandate are not only contraceptives but early stage abortifacients - Ella and Plan B both cause abortions. This mandate would also include abortion inducing drugs like Ella and Plan B which would violate the conscience protections and religious beliefs of those who believe that contraceptives are immoral and that abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. This is yet another example of the intolerance of liberals. This whole mandate is tyrannical in my opinion and violates our constitutional religious liberties. Hopefully after the Supreme Court hears the case challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare  it will be thrown out in the garbage heap of history. 
I found this response to the government mandate over at Fr. Z's blog, WTPRS. I always enjoy Father Z's commentary.

My emphases and comments:

HHS Makes In-Your-Face Effort to Undermine Constitution’s Religious Freedom

Health and Human Services must think Catholics and other religious groups are fools.

That’s all you can think when you read HHS’s recent announcement that it may exempt the church from having to pay for contraceptive services, counseling to use them and sterilizations under the new health reform in certain circumstances. As planned now, HHS would limit the right of the church not to pay for such services in limited instances, such as when the employees involved are teaching religion and in cases where the people served are primarily Catholic.

HHS’s reg conveniently ignores the underlying principle of Catholic charitable actions: we help people because we are Catholic, not because our clients are. [Do I hear an "Amen!"?] There’s no need to show your baptismal certificate in the hospital emergency room, the parish food pantry, or the diocesan drug rehab program. Or any place else the church offers help, either.

With its new regulation, HHS seeks to force church institutions to buy contraceptives, including drugs that can disrupt an existing pregnancy, through insurance they offer their own employees. This is part of HHS’s anticipated list of preventive services for women that private insurance programs must provide under the new health reform law.

The exemption is limited, to say the least. The pastor in the Catholic parish doesn’t have to buy the Pill for his employees, but the religious order that runs a Catholic hospital has to foot the bill for surgical sterilizations. And diocesan Catholic Charities agencies have to use money that would be better spent on feeding the poor tounderwrite services that violate church teachings.

Whatever you think of artificial birth control, HHS’s command that everyone, including churches, must pay for it exalts ideology over conscience and common sense.

Perhaps HHS is unduly influenced by lobbyists. No surprise there. Certainly a major lobbyist is Planned Parenthood, the nation’s chief proponent of contraceptive services. Contraceptive services make a lot of money for Planned Parenthood clinics, which (again no surprise) provide the “services” HHS has mandated.

HHS and Planned Parenthood are narrow in focus. Respect for religious rights isn’t likely a key concern for them. However, it ought to be a key concern for President Obama, who last year promised to respect religious rights as [wait for it....]he garnered support from the church community to pass the health care reform act. [Did you get that?  Remember that?] To assuage concerns, President Obama went so far as to issue an executive order promising that the health care reform act would not fund abortion or force people and institutions to violate their consciences. HHS is on its way to violating that promise. [What a surprise.]For the sake of basic integrity – the President’s keeping his word and for the protection of the right to religious freedom – President Obama needs to speak up now.

Cardinal Burke talked about the problem of moral relativism in our society during a speech at the Knights Of Columbus Convention. Here are some highlights from his speech.

From CatholicCitizens.org:

"We are witnesses of a society in which, in many respects, morality has ceased to exist," said Burke. "We are called ever more urgently to the new evangelization of our culture."

Cardinal Burke pinpointed the problem as "moral relativism," which he said "has even entered into the thinking of some theologians in the Church and which has provided an ideological foundation for a culture which is predominantly marked by violence and death."

The Pope, said Cardinal Burke, "described a moral relativism, called proportionalism or consequentialism in contemporary moral theology, which has generated profound confusion and deadly error regarding the most fundamental truths of the moral order."

He exemplified the erroneous thinking, saying:

We think, for instance, of the justification of the murder of the unborn child in the womb as the exercise of the right of the mother to choose, weighing other goods, whether to bring to term the baby she has conceived; the justification of the abhorrent practices of the artificial generation of human life and its destruction, at the embryonic stage of development, as the means to obtain supposed cures for crippling or deadly diseases; the justification of the so-called "mercy killing" of those who have the first title to our care, our brothers and sisters who have grown weak through advanced years, grave illness or special needs, as respect for the quality of their lives; and the justification of the sexual union of two persons of the same sex as tolerance of so-called alternative forms of human sexuality, as if there were a true form of human sexuality other than the form written in the human body and soul by God.

"Even as the first disciples faced a pagan world which had not even heard of our Lord Jesus Christ, so, we, too face a culture which is forgetful of God and hostile to His Law written upon every human heart," he said.

The "program leading to freedom and happiness" for each of us, said Burke, is "the holiness of life in Christ, in accord with our state in life and with careful attention to our 'time and culture'."

Burke described a holiness that would courageously proclaim Christianity despite the many voices seeking to exclude faith from public life.

"Religious faith and practice is important for the life of every nation, specifically for the right formation of the conscience of her citizens," he said. " When reason is not purified by faith in the political realm, the powerful and influential of the time exercise a tyranny which violates the fundamental rights of the very people whom political leaders are called to serve."

Bruke concluded: "Yes, we face a struggle with those who would falsely exclude the purifying and illuminating 8/service of faith to reason, those who would insist that, when it comes to civic life, we must bracket our religious faith, even to the point of violating our own conscience.

"But we know the truth about the critical service which our faith brings to political reasoning, and, therefore, we must remain steadfast in giving witness to it, even in the face of indifference and hostility."

Cardinal Burke is correct in emphasizing that moral relativism is a huge problem in our society with regards to abortion. The unborn child is an innocent human and under no circumstances is it permissible for the woman to murder her child intentionally.


   A priest made a bobble head doll of his bishop. This sounds kinda cool. Since the annual convocation was around Bishop Trautman's 75th birthday Father Detisch gave both the priests in attendance and Bishop Trautman each their own Bishop Trautman bobble head doll. The full story is here. 

Priests Force Rockford Abortion Mill To "Cry Uncle!" and Close For The Day

God Bless these priests in their mission to save innocent unborn babies.  

From Pro-Life Corner:

Rockford, IL – (ProLifeCorner.com) – On 7-15-2011 – by James - Last year seven Catholic Priests gathered around the Rockford abortion mill and prayed prayers of exorcism.  On that day two mothers choose life; the number of abortions fell by two thirds, and the abortion mill landlord was so unsettled that he stayed outside his abortion mill while the Priests were praying.  This year the powers that be inside the mill were taking no chances.  Instead of trying to remain open in the face of such spiritual power, they found it easier to close their doors for the day.  

The abortion mill landlord Wayne Webster, who seems to have a pathological hatred for Catholic Priests and has a history of skulking away from the abortion mill grounds when Priests are praying prayers of exorcism outside his killing center, was nowhere to be seen.  In his absence he did leave some quite vulgar signs in his abortion mill windows attacking Priests.

 

On this day in Rockford, the presence of Christ through His Priests and His people could be tangibly felt and experienced outside the building where over 60,000 human beings have been murdered.

 

On this day in Rockford, Satan fled; Christians stood united in faith and love, and no children had to face a brutal, vicious death inside the Rockford abortion mill. 

 

 Those inside the Rockford abortion mill, who have used demonic symbols such as devils masks in its windows, rubber chickens on crucifixes, and signs mocking God and celebrating the deaths of children by abortion, folded under the spiritual power of these men of God.

 

 

Let us pray for these priests as well as other pro-lifers as they battle against the evils of Satan. 

An Appeal to Defund Planned Parenthood

H/T Creative Minority Report 

Catholic Culture Clash Links 3-14-11

Shame on all the dissenters, those who would pervert both Church Teaching and the Truth, and those who undermine and go against the Magisterium. 

First, we have Kresta in the Afternoon exposing abortion supporters for the selfish barbarians that they are.  Yes, I call anyone who is willing to murder a human being out of pure selfishness a barbarian.  These people are so angry and need a biology lesson.  The supporters of Planned Parenthood are ignorant of the facts and are buying into our "feel good" culture, where according to society only a person's feelings matter regardless of reality and truth.

Then we have a dissident priest named Fr. Manel Pousa who finances abortions, has performed "blessings" of homosexual couples, and supports female "priests" and for some reason the priest has gone unpunished.  The Cardinal Archbishop of Barcelona has not reprimanded this priest.  This is outrageous! The two of them are making a mockery of the Catholic Faith.  This needs to be stopped! I know the Pope doesn't usually get involved with Bishops' decisions but when a priest is causing massive, grave scandal to our Faith and the Cardinal allows such scandal to go on in my opinion it is time for either the Pope or the Vatican to but in and stop the scandal.  


Third, Fr. Longenecker nails our pathetic, relativistic, feel-good culture to a T.  He talks about how the "little devils" (the words I'm using to describe them) in our culture have abandoned "Truth" for sentimentalism, for sexual promiscuity and anything under the sun that they consider to be "inclusive".   All the while these people are excluding the most important thing of all - the Truth. Yes, these people are closed-minded to the truth because they just might have to practice some self-control in their lives.  These people in our culture promote "tolerance"  and relativism while actually being the most intolerant of all.   You can read Father's great article here. 


Fourth,  we have the Left all in a tizzy over Rick Santorum's Catholicism.  Could it be because Rick Santorum spoke the truth and said that Sharia is evil?  Yes, the Left-wing press is making a big deal about Santorum's comment. The Politico used this title - Rick Santorum: Sharia ‘is evil’.   

From the article:

Santorum, a devout Catholic, warned about Sharia at CPAC last month, and his latest comments set up a stark contrast between his world view and President Obama’s efforts to court support in the Muslim world.

I agree with Lisa Graas that Santorum has a different - a much different - worldview than President Obama.  Their belief in politics and morality are pretty close to being antithetical to one another.  Heck, just look at the abortion issue.  We have Obama who is the most pro-abortion president ever, who thinks the killing of innocent human beings is okay while Santorum is pro-life, believes abortion to be murder, that the murder of innocents to be morally illicit or immoral and unethical.  Lisa Graas points out that Santorum believes the world to be better off without Sharia.  Does Politico believe that Obama has a different take on Sharia?  Do they think that Obama thinks we are better off with Sharia?  Lisa gives some examples showing exactly why Santorum is correct in describing Sharia as "evil". 

Realism vs Idealism

In a recent post I raised the question Is It Ever Morally Licit to Lie? with regard to the Lila Rose: Live Action debate occurring across the Catholic blogosphere.  The debate has continued on.  I recently came across an article by Dr. Peter Kreeft which takes up the same question.  He pins the realist point of view versus the idealist point of view.

Here is his article:

When I talk about abortion, I often surprise most of my audience, even some prolifers, by saying that not only is abortion always evil but that it is not a “complex issue,” that deep down we all know that it is evil; that Mother Teresa is very clearly right when she says “If abortion isn’t wrong, nothing is wrong.”

I want to say a similar thing about Live Action: not only (1) that its actions were right but (2) that they were very clearly right.

An immediate objection arises to my second point. If it was very clearly right, why do some sincere and intelligent pro-lifers insist that it was wrong?

This is not surprising, for many sincere and intelligent people disagree with the even more obvious truth that abortion is always wrong. Not all pro-choicers are insincere or stupid. Some are both sincere and intelligent, like the pro-lifers who disagreed with Live Action.

The controversy about Live Action probably is rooted in a controversy about method in ethics, specifically about which should have priority, (1) clear definitions of general moral principles and valid logical reasoning from them (“casuistry”) or (2) moral experience, instinctive moral judgments about concrete situations by our innate moral common sense. I think it is (2) and I think these critics think it is (1). I think they are so (rightly) afraid of moral relativism that they have (wrongly) fallen into moral legalism.

I teach Logic, I have written a Logic textbook, and I value logic very highly. On some other occasion I may take the time to argue logically against the serious arguments of the pro-life critics of Live Action, and about the proper definition of “lying.” But in this short piece I want to appeal to something that I think is prior in importance, in clarity, and in time, namely our immediate, intuitive moral experience. For that is what I find missing in their arguments.

The question of method in moral reasoning has a long and heavy history. Beginning with Ockham (Nominalism), exacerbated by Descartes (Rationalism), and even more by Kant (his ‘Copernican revolution in philosophy’), our concept of ‘reason’ has been increasingly separated from experience and narrowed to something more and more resembling what computers do. The Aristotelian and Thomistic (and, more generally, pre-modern) meaning of ‘reason’ is broader. It had to be, to justify the definition of man as ‘the rational animal.’ It included the immediate, intuitive understanding (‘the first act of the mind’ in Aristotelian-Scholastic logic) and intuitive judgment (‘the second act of the mind’) as well as inductive or deductive reasoning (‘the third act of the mind’).

CONTINUED

Catholic Culture Clash Links 2-4-11 -- Pro-Life Style

In light of all the undercover videos revealing that Planned Parenthood has both covered up and assisted sex traffickers Mike Pence will be introducing legislation to revoke taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood.  This is great news!  I hope that Congress is able to cut taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood.  How dare people force their moral depravity on others who know that abortion is murder and is morally illicit.

On Sanctity of Life weekend there were 4000 crosses that parishioners had placed outside Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Rancho Cucamonga in remembrance of the unborn babies who die each day from abortions.  

It has been uncovered and confirmed from the CDC that the Obama administration, the least transparent administration in history, 'is deliberately playing “hide the ball” on nationwide abortion statistics'.  For the first time in 40 years the CDC's annual  “Abortion Surveillance Report” wasn't published and there are no plans to release the data in the future thanks to the Obama administration.  After the revelation of numerous damaging disclosures of unconscionable practices the Obama administration may not want to disclose certain information. The most pro-abortion president in history may want to hide the truth about abortion.  As ordered by the Obama administration, now only the Federal government will be reporting on the abortion statistics.  

Has the Term 'Pro-Life' Become Passe?

Leo Hunt poses the question (entire article posted here), "Is it time to dump the term 'pro-life'?"  First, Leo thinks that the pro-life movement is failing to win hearts and minds.  I disagree.  There is evidence to the contrary.  I know that "contraception," in vitro fertilization, and experimentation that kills human embryos is the devaluing of human life and that it is loosely connected to abortion but I don't think that one can conclude legitimately that due to the ascent of these new challenges to the pro-life movement that pro-lifers are losing the abortion argument or even the pro-life argument.  Since the pro-life movement has mainly been focused on the abortion issue for the past 38 years and not the other aforementioned newer threats to life I believe in the area of abortion that the pro-life movement is in fact winning hearts and minds.  It has taken much time for the tide to turn and polls to show that 50% of Americans consider themselves to be pro-life.  It was only a little over 6 months ago that 47% of citizens stated in a poll that they were pro-life.  That is a 3% jump in just the past 7 or 8 months. Personally, I think that is pretty amazing!

What if some of those polled who claim to be "pro-life" believe that it is morally acceptable to have an abortion in cases of incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother?  They may not be 100% pro-life but I wonder what percentage of those who consider themselves to be "pro-life" were "pro-choice" under all circumstances before today?  I say Thank God for small miracles.  I believe that over time that those citizens can be talked to and persuaded to follow additional pro-life principles.  It sounds like Leo is letting pessimism takeover and seems like he is writing off small miracles.  Conversion can come in stages or in little spurts. We need to keep praying for these people to continue their pro-life conversion process.

Since Leo thinks that defenders of preborn human children are failing he asks 'Could part of the problem be with the very phrase "pro-life"?'  Should the term "pro-life" be refined to solely refer to protecting vulnerable unborn babies instead of the term in a broad manner additionally referring to being anti-war and anti-death penalty along with protecting unborn babies?  Personally, I think this is yet another term that has been hijacked by the liberals, specifically liberal Catholics, and perverted in order to assuage their guilt when they vote for pro-abort democratic politicians.  They want to relativize in their own minds that their politician is partly pro-life by perverting the term to mean something which it really doesn't.  Leo has suggested "pro-life" change to either pro-personhood, pro-human child, or pro-child. While I don't think that we are losing the pro-life argument, and even if I did I most certainly wouldn't conclude the cause of our losing the battle was due to the term "pro-life" I do think that it might be a good idea to change the term to specifically focus on the unborn child.  I believe the name change could help prevent the catholic Left from using the pro-life cover story in order to assuage their guilty conscience to legitimize the fact that they voted for pro-abortion or anti-child democratic politicians.

Fr. Barron Comments on the Shocking Number of Abortions Out of New York

Bishop Olmsted, St. Joseph's Hospital, St. Thomas Aquinas & The Doctrine of Double-effect

This is a continuation of an earlier post in which I discussed Bishop Olmsted, his threat to take away the Catholic hospital's Catholic status if they fail to meet certain criteria which includes being in compliance with Church teaching, and the complicated issues surrounding the health of the mother. USA Today notes that St. Joseph’s Hospital has stated this in defense of authorizing and performing the abortion: 

“St. Joseph's has since argued that the case was more akin to removing a pregnant woman's cancerous uterus, which is permissible under church doctrine, than to a standard abortion.”

As a justification for the hospital authorizing and performing the abortion the hospital is trying to apply the principle of double effect to this case. But, doctrine of double-effect does not apply in this case. In simple as simple terms as possible I am going to explain the principle of double-effect.


First, I would ask you to think about whether this abortion killed the unborn baby directly or indirectly? Was the unborn child dying a consequence of a procedure or medicine?


Thomas Aquinas is one of those philosophers who pretty much covered all the topics. Did you know that the Church got the doctrine of double effect originates with Thomas Aquinas? Yes, indeed the principle of double effect traces all the way back to Aquinas. Aquinas’ treatment of homicidal self-defense is the basis for the Doctrine of double-effect. He uses this principle to defend soldiers at war who kill their enemy. Here is the passage ( IIa-IIae Q. 64, art. 7 ) from the Summa Theologica:

“It is written (Exodus 22:2): "If a thief be found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die; he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood." Now it is much more lawful to defend one's life than one's house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kill another in defense of his own life.

“Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense." Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. But as it is unlawful to take a man's life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity. “

There is a distinction between intent and foresight. This can apply in cases found in military ethics, medical ethics, and social ethics. If the hospital staff had removed a tumor and the unborn baby had unfortunately been affected and died that would fall under the Doctrine of Double-effect since the intention was to remove the cancerous tumor and not to kill the unborn child. A person can have foresight of what the outcome will be as a result of removing the tumor but the intention is NOT to kill the baby but rather is to save the mother’s life by removing the tumor. But, the hospital staff directly killed the unborn child in order to save the mother’s life. This does not fall under the Doctrine of double-effect.


Here are the four conditions which must be satisfied before an act is morally permissible:


The nature-of-the-act condition. The action must be either morally good or indifferent.

The means-end condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.

The right-intention condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect.

The proportionality condition The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect. [Wkipedia]

Derived from these general principles are the specific criteria for double effect. You will notice there is a great deal of overlap between the above and what follows:


1. The nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;

2. The agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;

3. The good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm. [Wikipedia]


You can see that abortion, the direct killing of the unborn child, does not, even in the hard case of the mother with pulmonary hypertension, does not meet these criteria and cannot be considered justified according to the principle of double effect. Bishop Olmsted is correct in both his assessment and to ensure that a Catholic hospital adheres to the teachings of the Church.

Bishop Olmsted, Church Teaching and a Complicated Situation

Perhaps you remember last spring when there was controversy when Bishop Olmsted rebuked Sister Margaret McBride who served as the administrator of St. Joseph hospital, and on the hospital’s ethics committee, which authorized an abortion to save the mother’s life. It was an extremely complicated situation. The patient, a pregnant woman, had pulmonary hypertension which threatened her life. Unfortunately her pregnancy aggravated her illness and heightened her probability of dying from it. An abortion was procured at St. Joseph Hospital by the approval of Sister McBride. St. Joseph’s was (and as of today still is) a Catholic hospital, obliged to adhere to Catholic doctrine regarding abortion. Bishop Olmsted caught flack because people thought that he excommunicated Sr. McBride when that wasn’t the case at all. According to Canon Law Sr. McBride by her very actions excommunicated herself (latae sententia) from the Church by her action (Canons 1329 and 1398). She facilitated the direct killing of a human being. She may have saved the woman’s life, but that noble end does not justify the intrinsically evil means. Now Bishop Olmsted has said that he will strip St. Joseph’s hospital of its Catholic status if the hospital refuses to guarantee compliance with Church teachings. My praises go out to Bishop Olmsted for standing up for the Catholic faith and Church teaching and ensuring that a Catholic hospital abide by Church teaching.

From USA Today:
Two months of discussions followed but, according to Olmsted, did not resolve the question of whether the procedure was allowable. In the November letter, Olmsted said that he did not believe CHW intended to change its policies.


Olmsted's three demands were contained in a Nov. 22 letter sent to Lloyd Dean, president of Catholic Healthcare West. The bishop wants the hospital to give him more oversight of its practices to ensure it complies with Catholic health-care rules, provide education on those rules to medical staff and acknowledge that the bishop is correct in a dispute over a procedure the diocese says was an abortion.

"There cannot be a tie in this debate," Olmsted wrote. "Until this point in time, you have not acknowledged my authority to settle this question."
"Because of this, I must act now," he wrote, to ensure "no further such violations" take place at the hospital and to "repair the grave scandal to the Christian faithful that has resulted from the procedure."

The hospital personnel are using the principle of double effect to justify their actions but that does not apply in this case.  In my next post I will cover the principle of double effect.

Catholic Culture Clash 11-20-10

It's been a long while since I've posted a Catholic Culture Clash post so don't be surprised if I do multiple posts over the next couple of days in order to catchup on the news in our culture.

In Cardinal George's final address, he defends the bishops opposition health reform bill because of abortion being in the law:   

"Our voice was that of the bishops of our country for the past hundred years: in a good society, everyone should be cared for, especially the poor. The goal of basic health care for all continues to be a moral imperative, not yet completely achieved, but it is not now and has not been up to the bishops to decide the means to realize that goal. We have only very cautiously entered into details of public policy, for this is more properly the work of lay people, as it has been in the health care debate. Universal health care can be delivered using many means: everything publicly funded, everything privately funded or a mixture of the two. Any of these solutions could be moral, and it is up to lay people to decide which are the best means to see to it that everyone is cared for.


But once political leaders and health care experts decided to use government subsidized insurance as the vehicle, the means, for providing more universal health care, it was our moral obligation as teachers of the faith to judge whether the means pass moral muster, whether or not the proposed legislation uses public funds to kill those living in their mother’s womb. Consistently, and ever more insistently since the sin and crime of abortion was legalized in the United States, our voice has been that of the bishops of the Catholic Church ever since the first Christians condemned the abortion practices of the ancient Romans. The act is immoral; and the laws that have permitted now fifty million children of our country to be killed in their mother’s womb are also immoral and unjust; the laws are destroying our society."

“We should not fear political isolation; the Church has often been isolated in politics and in diplomacy,” he continued. In a likely reference to the Catholic Health Association and other Catholic supporters of the measure, he added, “We need to be deeply concerned, however, about the wound to the Church’s unity that has been inflicted in this debate and I hope, trusting in the good will of all concerned, that means can be found to restore the seamless garment of ecclesial communion.”

While I fully support Cardinal George and the other bishops reasoning for opposing the health care law I would still be opposing it even if it banned abortion funding because socialism fails, government-run health care fails, and this whole law (minus a few items like banning the ability for insurance companies to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions) is a debacle.  Congress used lies, distortions, and bribes to pass this nightmare of a law.  Plus, our representatives (who really didn't represent the will of the American people) only passed this law so that they can have more power and control over our lives, thereby limiting our freedom and liberties.


From MinistryValues.com: Stephen Ryan has a message for Bishop Robinson who wrote an article on the Huffington Post called  "How Religion is Killing Our Most Vulnerable Youths"  and writes that "An increasingly popular bumper sticker reads, "Guns Don't Kill People -- RELIGION Kills People!" In light of recent events I would add religion kills young people: gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender young people."

This is such nonsense!!  RELIGION DOES NOT KILL PEOPLE!!!  It would be really good if the liberal media stopped distorting the truth about religion.  The liberal media has made it known that they hate traditional Christianity.  Is the liberal media the ones who actually have blood on their hands?

There are promises of pushback from pro-life groups over a late-term abortion practitioner LeRoy Carhart who is hoping to expand his abortion business to Iowa and Maryland.  We must stop this state sponsored infanticide!!  God Bless the pro-life groups efforts to stop the murders of innocents.

While speaking on economic growth in the Philippines, former President Bill Clinton made a most remarkable statement: "You have a huge population, which is a positive..."  This is pleasntly suprising.  CatholicCulture goes onto to talk on the subject of planned pregnancies, unintended consequences, and Uncle Sam's bad image.  Population control is the problem.  In all probability the United States would not be experiencing such a dramatic shortfall in our deficit, debt, and in our funding of social security if we had had another population increase, like occurred during the baby boomer era.   Procreation is one solution which will help fix the problems in the U.S. as well as in third world countries.  

Silent No More: Debbi Shares Her Abortion Story

H/T Gloria.tv

Thoughts on the Deadly Siege at the Catholic Church in Baghdad & Voting

There was a siege at the Our Lady of Deliverance Catholic Church in Baghdad yesterday where at least 52 people were killed. Some Al Qaeda gunmen were holding about 120 Catholic parishioners hostage inside the church. The Iraqi security forces decided to be proactive and try and save the hostages. This is so tragic. Let us keep the wounded, dead, and other survivors in our thoughts and prayers as they cope with this traumatic event and horrible tragedy. In this tumultuous time, may God bring peace to all the survivors in Iraq. Let’s pray that God changes the hearts and souls of the terrorists so that they stop committing violence.


Cardinal-designate Burke has commented on Catholics duty to follow Catholic social teaching with regards to abortion - to advance the pro-family or pro-life agenda - and to vote for pro-life candidates. I believe that as Catholics it is very important that we follow Catholic social teachings and stop harming our souls by supporting intrinsic evils such as abortion and candidates who support the intrinsic evil of abortion. Abortion is murder. We cannot condone abortion (murder) by giving our approval to those political candidates who support the murder of innocents by supporting the legalization of abortion. Abortion is not a matter of choice but rather a matter of life. It is unfortunate that there are quite a few pro-abortion Catholic politicians and many Catholics who abandon their faith by voting for pro-abortion politicians. As a resident of Pennsylvania, I will be voting for Pat Toomey, Tom Corbett, and Tim Murphy who are all pro-life candidates.

Obamacare Effect: Three Catholic Hospitals Closing in Scranton & the Power of a Social Justice Nun

There has been much controversy surrounding the closing and sale of three Catholic hospitals in Scranton, Pa. The controversy includes: Kevin Cook - Mercy Health Partners CEO, three different statements, two Catholic Representatives, the Affordable Care Act - A.K.A. - Obamacare, and Obama’s nun.


- In Review

Sr. Carol Keehan, Obama’s nun, is the nun who dissented from Bishops and threw her weight to support Obamacare. She is the nun who used her clout as head of the CHA, falsely claimed that abortion wasn’t covered in Obamacare, and provided “legitimacy” for Bart Stupak and the rest of the so called pro-life Democrats to support and vote for Obamacare even though there were no safeguards protecting against abortion coverage and federal funding in Obamacare.  The Congressional Research Report Confirms this. She wanted us, as Catholics to trust our government over our Bishops’ prudential judgment on a matter related to morals. That sounds so nonsensical. Misplaced trust?

For anyone to think that our government is going to do the right thing in matters of faith and morals, look out for you and me, is complete and utter naivete when our government has sanctioned the murders of countless innocents since Roe v. Wade was enacted in 1973.

When Sr. Carol Keehan became a religious sister she took a vow of obedience and in fact has more of an obligation than ordinary laity to heed the Bishops’ prudential judgment with relation to abortion and Obamacare. Since the Church Teaching is that abortion is an intrinsic evil is Catholic Dogma has Sr. Keehan broken her vow of obedience by dissenting from the Bishops in order to support Obamacare?

The common good must not be pursued at the expense of the morally reprehensible murders of innocent human lives.


In his first statement Kevin Cook stated, "Health care reform is absolutely playing a role. Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely."

Notice that Cook stated “absolutely” twice.

48 hours later Cook said, sale discussion were being discussed "long before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The decision was due to many factors."

Perhaps, there was something occurring behind the scenes?

That same day Sr. Carol Keehan made this statement, "Reports that health reform is the primary motive behind the sale are completely false, misleading and politically motivated. Deliberations to sell the facilities began well before the Affordable Care Act became law and did not hinge on enactment of the legislation." Okay… Like she isn’t politically

Motivated to ensure her support for Obamacare isn’t for naught.

Then about a couple days later Cook announced: “Mercy Health Partners recently announced our intention to explore the sale of our facilities in Northeastern Pennsylvania. The rationale for our initiative has been mischaracterized by certain politicized media outlets and severely distorted by some special interest groups.”

Coincidental? Or Coordinated?

Perhaps, there was something occurring behind the scenes?

Would a social justice political activist nun misuse her power as CEO of the CHA to silence the truth in both instances with Obamacare and the main factor for this three Catholic hospitals closing? Did this Left wing activist nun “lower the boom” on Kevin Cook and force him to change his tune in those last two statements? Well, it kinda looks that way.

Oh - how could one forget? Since she bucked both the Bishops and the Catholic faith and instead staunchly supported Obama and his health care bill she was rewarded with one of the 21 pens that Obama used to signed the health care law. What a trade -- fidelity to Church teaching and to her vows sacrificed for fame, power, recognition, and on top of all that, a pen.

From The American Spectator - “One doctor in Scranton -- who was deeply disturbed by the announcement -- is certain he knows the answer. That answer? Mr. Cook was absolutely right the very first time he spoke to WNEP on camera. Hospitals, said this doctor -- frequently run a debt. "What's different? Why now?" he said in terms of the rationale for selling the Mercy hospitals. The reason is exactly as CEO Cook originally said it was. ObamaCare cuts in Medicare reimbursement have changed the rules so drastically for hospitals "you [Mercy Health Partners] are in an untenable situation," said this physician. Most hospitals have accumulating debt because of capital investments, says the doctor. But they can't deal with that debt if in fact their ability to earn money is cut off or drastically reduced over time.


Alarmingly, the doctor, with a lifetime of practice in hand, says that "hospitals close in clusters where there is decreased income in terms of relatively low Medicare reimbursement…because they are the most vulnerable." He adds that what is happening in Scranton, Nanticoke, and Tunkhannock with the Mercy hospitals "is just the beginning. It will happen everywhere because reimbursements will be reduced" under ObamaCare. Particularly, he adds, in areas where you have a high elderly population.”


‘The explosion, all recent with its implications of White House pressure and lost Catholic hospitals, is about to bring in media ads from CatholicVote.org. Says Communications Director Joshua Mercer: "Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney are Catholic and they both voted for ObamaCare." Citing the sale of the three Mercy hospitals, Mercer says that the pro-ObamaCare votes of the two "has had a real impact on the community." Mercer added a sentiment voiced as well by the Scranton doctor: "There are a lot of Kevin Cooks across the country…the CEO's of small Catholic hospitals are all facing the same realities of more [ObamaCare] mandates and regulations.”’

Seems like there is something fishy going on. I live in Pennsylvania, but unfortunately I don’t live in either of their districts, otherwise I would vote for the opposition.

Here is the political ad that CatholicVote.org has put out.



Cross posted at Teresamerica