Why Abortion Is Preeminent

Since high school theology teacher Rich Raho decided to call out Bishop Strickland, I decided to give him a little attention. (Before I start – parents, if you have kids in his school, find another school, your money is wasted.) I don’t mean to besmirch Raho’s educational accomplishments, but a BA in Psych and a Master of Divinity don’t make him equal in knowledge of the Faith to the likes of Bishop Strickland. So, when I see Raho trying to take Bishop Strickland to task, I have no choice but to point out that he is not in the same league.

Raho has fallen prey to pride in the same way as the America Magazine or National catholic Reporter folks. They’re trying desperately to quiet those who champion an end to abortion, and in doing so try to paint those who do as somehow opposed to Pope Francis.

Let’s first take a look at Raho’s latest folly:


My response?


Let me help Rich out and explain the whole “preeminent” language voted on by the USCCB, because he really doesn’t seem to have a clue. Sadly, Cardinal Cupich and Bishop McElroy have aided and abetted his confusion, too.

“Preeminent” has nothing to do with valuing one life more than another. This is what the dissenting liberals (who really couldn’t care less about stopping abortion) try to tell you. “Preeminent” has every thing to do with who is in the most danger of death at the time. Barring a miraculous event, ever single baby who goes through whatever abortion procedure is chosen will die if that procedure takes place and they cannot fight for their lives. This is not the same for any other tragedy, although I suspect out and out euthanasia is on the horizon. Does this mean that any life is worth less than any other? Nope. It means that the danger of death is assured for this evil like no other. Homelessness, hunger, poverty, etc., etc., etc., are all tragedies, but death is not assured. Should we fight to help all? Absolutely! But, seriously, it is ridiculous to downplay the fact that thousands of children are being killed every day in this country simply because there are other tragedies going on.

Rich would have some serious issues proving the “preeminent” wording of the USCCB is in any way deficient or falling short of anything. Always wonder if he actually knows what the definition is.




  1. surpassing all others; very distinguished in some way:

Being proximate to death makes abortion THE preeminent issue of our world. Rich hasn’t answered my little question to him on Twitter, though. Why? He knows he can’t, because I’m pretty darn sure he might have a heart and would save the child in danger of death first. That admission blows his lame argument out of the water. I’m pretty sure Pope Francis would do the same in that instance. That’s the reality of abortion.


America: Challenge Roe v. Wade, Just Not So Much

As usual, “The Editors” at America Magazine are all over the map but miss the mark.

The Editors: Roe v. Wade has made abortion politics impossible. It needs to be challenged.

The recently passed abortion laws in Georgia and Alabama have raised the temperature of the national debate nearly to the boiling point. The law in Georgia, keyed to the detection of fetal cardiac activity, would restrict abortion after about the sixth week of pregnancy; it also defines human beings in the womb, at any stage of development, as “natural persons.” Alabama’s law bans abortion at any stage of pregnancy. While these laws allow exceptions for cases where a woman’s life would be endangered by carrying the pregnancy to delivery, neither law has exceptions allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest.

And there should be no exceptions. How a person is conceived doesn’t change the fact that they are a person.

Much discussion of these bills has described them as “extreme,” while almost universally neglecting the most significant cause of such “extremism.” Many commentators recognize that these new laws are designed to mount a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade—but they fail to notice that these laws’ blunt restrictions are a mirror image of Roe’s broad rejection of any practical or effective limits on abortion. When abortion rights advocates defend Roe in order to reject any proposed restriction of abortion, they are taking an extreme position. That leaves no ground open for any compromise on less extreme laws. Pro-life legislators are going to meet the same tooth-and-nail opposition whether they aim to ban all abortions or, as recently seen in the U.S. Senate, attempt to require that infants born alive during an abortion receive medical care.”

The laws in Georgia and Alabama aren’t “extreme,” and they’re certainly not “extreme” because of Roe Vs. Wade. The laws are right (or at least on the right track in the case of those states trying to limit before they ban) because abortion is killing a child. There can be no compromise on that. There is no room for compromise and there never was. America Magazine wants to paint this as a war of extremists, but this is a war of right and wrong. Even if nobody gets it, we are still right to try to ban all killing of children. And America Magazine acts as if minor, incremental moves haven’t been tried since 1973. They seem to want us to keep the status quo we’ve had for decades.  No thank you.

And, because people are going to bring up the areas where both mom and baby “are sure to die!” let me address that. The closest thing to that a situation like that is an ectopic pregnancy, and maybe an advanced cancer of some sort. Let’s look at those before we go on. The Church, and as far as I can tell, Alabama, have the same position on “indirect abortions” as far as treating the diseased parts of the body goes. What does this mean? Ireland used to be spot on in this, which is why they had one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world. It used to be that in every pregnancy in Ireland, a doctor acted as if there were two patients and did his best to save both. Yes, on occasion, there is a “no-win” situation where at least one will die if the diseased part of the body isn’t treated. The Church doesn’t say we can’t treat that diseased part of the body, but the BABY is never considered the disease and this is exactly how it was handled there.

Now let’s use the old “no win” situation of an ectopic pregnancy for those who have never really delved into the issue. It used to be thought that the baby was stuck in the tube and would die, and if the tube should burst or infection occur, the mom would also die. First of all, there have been miraculous “extra-uterine” pregnancies where the baby actually does escape the tube but never quite makes it to the uterus and all turns out well after a c-section delivery. However, the usual course is that the baby will indeed die, and without removal of the tube with baby, mom will also die. The Church has concluded, in a case like this, that a doctor can treat the diseased part of the body and remove baby AND tube to prevent the tubal rupture from causing infection and killing mom. They are not allowed to directly and purposely abort the child (remove from tube) to try and save the tube. That would be a direct abortion. So, in short, the Church has always provided for seemingly impossible situations. I could pitch a number of situations that fit this bill, but it should suffice to say that when there are no plausible treatments for a situation that will save both patients, doctors are allowed to employ a myriad of treatments to save the mother by treating the diseased part of the body (again, not the baby) even if it results in the baby dying. Hearkening again to countries like Ireland, they spent a lot of time figuring out the best ways to treat both patients with fabulous results. We should have been doing this, too. Unfortunately, the status quo here has been “Just save yourself and you can try again later!”.

Consistently over decades, polls show that a significant majority of Americans support stricter restrictions on abortion than allowed under Roe, yet not as stark as those established by these new laws. American public opinion on the legality of abortion is conflicted and contradictory. According to one poll conducted this month, half of voters believe that the six-week “heartbeat laws” are either “just right” or even “too lenient;” another poll found that two-thirds of U.S. adults oppose overturning Roe. But under Roe and its successor decision, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the abortion limits many voters want, even while abortion remains legal, are rendered unconstitutional. About 60 percent of Americans support legal abortion during the first three months of pregnancy, but far fewer—less than one-third—support it up to six months. But Casey’s “undue burden” standard disallows abortion restrictions anytime before fetal viabilit (around six months), which is not what most Americans would choose.

Blah, blah, blah. Morality has nothing to do with polls. It has to deal with truth, and as many have said as of late, truth is still truth even if nobody believes it. America Magazine spews polls left and right as if Catholics believe in moral relativism.

There is a large gap between what Roe requires and what Americans believe about abortion. But addressing this gap remains politically unimaginable for pro-choice activists, as long as they present the possibility of Roe being overturned as an acute political crisis. In reality, the reverse is the case. The ongoing political crisis is a consequence of the persistent failure of Roe and Casey to settle the abortion question and the failure of the Supreme Court to offer any sign that these cases ever will.

We don’t need to address “gaps.” We need to address good, stand up to evil, and embrace truth. We don’t need to worry about polls. Thankfully, many states seem to be recognizing this more and more. They finally realize playing the numbers game didn’t really work. I think “The Editors” realize this, too. I think they get it just fine. They’re just hoping you don’t.

In her majority opinion upholding Roe in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that “the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” On the abortion question, this call has manifestly and expressly failed for more than 45 years, while distorting national politics and contributing to national division. The wreckage of these cases needs to be cleared for the country to move forward.

“Oh, division. It’s so evil.” Listen, there’s three ways this can go down. We can be united in the killing of children, we can be united in the protection of children, or we can be divided over this. I’m happy if everyone picks door number two, but I am willing to live with door number three because I’m sure as heck not going to pick door number one just for the sake of unity. Unity is only grand if it’s moral, and making exceptions to killing children isn’t moral.

The Alabama and Georgia laws are far from perfect. They should have been accompanied by equally vigorous support for women struggling with pregnancy. They will almost certainly be suspended by injunction before they are implemented, and whenever they eventually reach the Supreme Court, they are unlikely to be upheld in all the details of their current form. If these laws are upheld and Roe is overturned or limited, they will need to be modified in order to be practically and justly enforced. But the legislative work of answering the challenging moral questions about abortion will at least be possible. While that will not end political divisions over abortion, it would allow us to engage them more honestly.

Aaaaaaand there’s the usual seamless garment logic. It’s akin to “No, Mr. Fireman! Don’t go in to save people in that burning building until homelessness has been cured!” I’m wondering if America Magazine realizes that there are 38ish crisis pregnancy centers in Alabama, and it was just reported that they have a HUGE adoption rate from foster care, too. Can more be done? Always. Do we have to stuff bills with ever conceivable social ill before we stop killing children? Absolutely not! Start with keeping as many children as possible from being slaughtered and their moms from being irreparably harmed. “The Editors” at America Magazine want you to think that’s “far from perfect.” Does this surprise anyone?


NOW Can Somebody Silence Fr. Reese?!

With some people, you just know you’re going to cringe when you read their writings. Fr. Thomas Reese (I love how he doesn’t even use the “father” part) is one of those people.  How one person can consistently get it so wrong is beyond me. This one, however, really takes the heretical cake.

Irish vote shows need for new pro-life strategy

By Thomas Reese  | May 27, 2018

 (RNS) — The overwhelming vote in Ireland in favor of allowing access to abortion shows that the pro-life movement needs a new strategy. Trying to preserve anti-abortion laws or trying to reverse the legalization of abortion is simply not working.

Yeah, this probably has nothing to do with the fact that the Church in Ireland has screwed it up so badly that barely anyone practices their faith anymore. But, yeah, let’s blame it on the pro-life strategy that’s kept Ireland abortion free longer than almost anyone else.

In almost every country where abortion has been on the ballot, abortion has won. Rarely have pro-choice laws been reversed. This trend is not going to change. To think otherwise is simply ignoring reality.

Look around America, Fr. Reese. The tide is turning, albeit slowly. We’ve made some great strides in the past year. I know it’s killing you, because you’ve been suggesting that we vote for death on a fairly regular basis, and instead spout out ridiculous ideas like helping the poor is more important than trying to stop the slaughter of innocents, all the while acting as if nobody is trying to help the poor. If nobody is taking care of the poor and downtrodden, then it’s likely the problem is the evangelization of the people in the pews by people like you, not the pro-lifers who usually are doing multiple things at once.  While people certainly have focused on the issue where they can do the most good, I rarely run across a pro-lifer who doesn’t advocate taking care of the poor as well.

The American pro-life movement still holds out hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse Roe v. Wade, but even if that does happen, most Americans will still live in states where abortion is legal. Those who don’t will be able to travel to a state where it is, just as Irish women have long traveled to Britain.

So you’re saying we shouldn’t have hope? I thought with God all things are possible?  Seriously, if we can’t hope for the end of the slaughter of innocents, why should we hope for the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, etc., to be taken care of, “Father”? Why should David have ever beaten Goliath? Honestly, your reasoning on the matter is why the Church fails.  It’s not because of the pro-lifers. Your idea is to give up the fight because “one can’t possibly win this.” Is that what the slavery abolitionists thought? You’re far more like the disciples who walked away than you are like Christ.

The reality is that most Americans think that abortion should be legal even if they think it is immoral. There is no indication that this thinking will change. In fact, opinion is moving in the opposite direction, thanks to the attitudes of younger generations. The Pew Research Center shows Americans under 50 are more likely than their elders to support abortion in all or most cases. Likewise, in Ireland, younger people voted more strongly to change the law. Time is on the side of the pro-choice movement.

Pope Benedict XVI has famously said, “Truth is not decided by a majority vote.”. Not too surprised this does not roll off your tongue. You don’t give in to what’s evil. You fight for what is right, good, and true.

If making abortion illegal is an impossible goal, what should be the pro-life strategy for the foreseeable future?

The answer is simple and obvious: Work to reduce the number of abortions.

And the pro-life movement has accomplished that, but it’s not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is to reveal the truth of the atrocity of abortion and save women and their babies – ALL OF THEM!

When women are asked why they are having an abortion, the main reasons given are that having a baby would interfere with their education, their work or their ability to care for the children they are already raising, or that they simply cannot afford another child at the time.

The main reasons? Really? Yeah, kind of evident you don’t spend much time fighting it.  Try: they are terrified of going it alone and afraid of what people will think. This is why a good chunk of fighting abortion has been to provide support to these women and to make sure they are not going it alone. It’s clueless to think that the pro-life activists simply seek to change laws. This is the pro-abortion line of thinking. They never point to the actual help of the Catholic Church, Gabriel Projects, crisis pregnancy centers, crisis nurseries, those pushing to help student moms, etc., etc., etc.

Pro-life activists must take these reasons into consideration when developing a new strategy.

Pro-life advocates should strongly support programs that give women a real choice — increasing the minimum wage, free or affordable day care for working and student moms, free or affordable health care for mothers and their children, parental leave programs, education and job-training programs, income and food supplements, etc.

Yeah, because we never, never do that. Duh. Thanks, Fr. Reese. What would we do without your pearls of wisdom? 

In short, the pro-life movement must support any program that lessens the burden on mothers and their children.

Really? Any program? Complete bunk. We do not need to support “any program” that does this. We only need to support ones that are ethical and moral in all of their programs. And, oh yeah, we do.

No longer should Republicans be allowed to call themselves pro-life if they vote down programs that would help mothers and their children. In the early 1990s, Republicans in the New Jersey Legislature voted not to increase benefits for women on welfare if they have additional children. Thus, a mother with two children would have to take care of three with no increase in support. The consequences were quick and predictable: an increase in the number of abortions among women on welfare.

OK, a few things here. Let’s look at this case of which he speaks. http://articles.latimes.com/1992-01-22/news/mn-513_1_welfare-recipients

Let’s knock out the first fallacy of Fr. Reese: “Republicans can’t call themselves pro-life if they vote down programs that would help mothers and their children.”  (Insert big buzzer sound). If Democrats wanted to attach birth control and abortion to legislation for such programs, they most certainly can. In fact, Democrats love attaching evil onto other plans just so they can get that evil passed. That’s why Republicans often fight for line item vetoes and “clean” bills which don’t have things like Planned Parenthood funding attached to them.

Then there’s Fr. Reese’s next fallacy:

If abortion is never going to be illegal, pro-lifers must consider voting for candidates, even pro-choice Democrats, who will reduce the number of abortions by supporting programs that help mothers and their children. It is no accident that the number of abortions went down during the two most recent Democratic administrations, according to the CDC. (Clinton: 1,330,414 abortions in 1993 to 857,457 in 2000; Obama: 789,217 in 2009 to 652,639 in 2014).

Pro-life voters must choose between Republican rhetoric and Democratic results.

Wow! This one is a whopper. Even liberal snopes.com called this a falsehood:  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/abortion-rates-presidencies/  Not only that, the Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood’s research arm, even if they say they’ve parted ways) gives quite a different explanation of why the trend is down: 

Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (2011–2013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (2001–2010).

Totally contradicts your premise, Fr. Reese, that abortion has gone down because of social services enacted under Democratic regimes. Oops.

Churches must also step up. In today’s world, an unwed woman willing to give birth should be treated as a hero, not a whore. She is not the only unmarried woman in her age group who got pregnant, let alone the only person having sex. Yet, she is the one brave enough to choose life. Shame on the Pharisees who try to shame her.

I have mixed feelings about this comment. How about not treating the woman as a hero or a whore but simply as someone who needs help? Choosing the scary and hard path is a heroic act, and certainly not making a child pay for life’s mistakes is a laudable move.  The big question is, who is trying to shame her? It ain’t the pro-lifers. In fact, you’re going to find far more shaming and fear-mongering going on in the pro-abortion Democratic world than you are in the pro-life world. 

Schools, too, must do more to help these women. Universities today talk much about diversity, but one of the most underrepresented groups on campuses is single mothers. Universities, especially Catholic universities, must design programs and housing to meet their needs. Such programs would benefit not only the mothers and their children but also other students. Perhaps they’d learn that “it takes a dorm to raise a child.”

While I don’t want a dorm raising anyone’s child (they can barely creep out of their safe-spaces), I do support directing women to help, and there certainly is help. That said, when the world is so intent on telling them what they can’t possibly do, they fail to provide any real alternatives to killing their child. Seriously, sometimes all it takes is a pastor who is spending a little more time giving real, moral, viable alternatives than “vote for Democrats and everything will be great,” like the pastor in this story did: https://wsvn.com/news/us-world/mother-of-5-overcomes-obstacles-graduates-with-honors-from-law-school/ This is a lot of what crisis pregnancy centers, Gabriel Projects, and similar groups do. They connect women with the resources they need to take care of themselves AND their children.

Besides supporting programs to help mothers and children, the pro-life movement also has to support birth control as a means of avoiding unwanted pregnancies. Planned pregnancies do not get aborted; many unplanned pregnancies do.

Oh my gosh! Well, kudos for just coming out and saying it, Fr. Reese! While still evil, it’s almost refreshing than the typical beating around the bush that your partners in crime do all the time. Unbelievable. He’s not going to be silenced for this load of evil?  Wow.  Good job, Jesuits. This guy just pitched for Satan, but you’re all going to look anywhere but at him.

Those who consider artificial contraception to be wrong must also recognize that abortion is a greater evil. When forced to choose, one must choose the lesser of two evils.

No. No. No. And no! You’re going to really try to go with “Let’s do evil so that good might come of it?” You can’t stop evil by committing evil. Catholic 101. Common sense 101. Just so people can’t claim Fr. Reese isn’t peddling a load of hooey…

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Using your logic, it’s just fine to target civilians if it will mean ending a war, right? Oh yeah, in that circumstance you will foam at the mouth, but when it comes to abortion you’re going to suggest that we commit evil to stop evil. Yes, it is the exact same principle. Artificial birth control always brings about death, whether it be spiritual, mental, or physical. There is ZERO way round it. And, hey, Fr. Reese, there’s actually another way to stop abortions. In fact, there are many of them that will have lasting effects that aren’t evil. And, by the way, we aren’t stuck with birth control or abortion by any stretch of the imagination. I’m starting to feel you have completely lost it.

The contraceptive mandate of the Obama administration will do more to reduce the number of abortions than all of the legislative gimmicks of Republican legislators.

This argument has been made ad nauseum since the dawn of birth control. Are you really naïve enough to think that a) abortifacients don’t exist and b) that there’s not a myriad of serious irreparable health issues to the users that you are pretty much now promoting???? Do you know what a SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE is??? Only one type of birth control stops those -abstinence. All the others do a poor job of most everything. So, yay! Let’s promote artificial birth control as the solution for everything, Fr. Reese, so we can see how many more people can be spontaneously aborted, scarred , and die due to the long-term side effects of artificial birth control. Can you really be this much of an idiot? THESE are the results of trying to stop one evil with another and this is what you’re promoting for society. Banner.

If European Catholic institutions can pay money into national health programs that perform abortions, then American Catholic employers can pay for insurance programs that pay for birth control.

People can do all sorts of stupid things. This doesn’t make them moral, just, or sane.

And while I would be happy to see Planned Parenthood put out of business, closing clinics that provide health care and birth control to women before replacements are up and running is irresponsible and counterproductive.

Planned Parenthood is totally and utterly unneeded and irrelevant. There are far more free health clinics that are truly helping people with diseases and screenings than Planned Parenthood ever did without trying to cause more of them. That’s what Planned Parenthood does, it creates new clients. Their business model is the bomb. Evil but brilliant. You’re either brainwashed, stupid, or evil here, Father. Which is it? All three?

The goal of supporting mothers and children and decreasing the number of unplanned pregnancies should receive bipartisan support. While many people doubtless support these programs as ends in themselves, there is no reason the pro-life movement should not support them as means of reducing abortions.

First of all, pro-lifers do support decreasing unplanned pregnancies and supporting mothers and their children. We just don’t believe in doing it by giving a woman a loaded revolver and telling her to pull the trigger. That’s you.

The number of abortions in the United States peaked in 1990 at 1,429,247. Working together, we could reasonably get abortions down to under 100,000 per year — far too many, but an achievable goal and better than where we are today.

Maybe if all of our priests instead taught the Truth we’d achieve something. There’s something that hasn’t been tried.  Unfortunately, as long as the likes of you are allowed to run unchecked by your order, we won’t know. #silenceThomasReeseSJ #CatholicCyberMilitia #reformtheJesuits

Red Card for Fr. Brian D’Arcy!

What do you have to do to deserve a silencing, defrocking, or at the very least, a rap on the head?!?!  Personally, defrocking would be too good for this one.  Can we just hit him with the trifecta of silencing, defrocking, AND excommunicating?  I mean, this guy is advocating the murder of children.  Oh, did I mention he’s a priest?!?!?!?!


We must be help Irish women with abortion costs, says rebel priest D’Arcy

By Allan Preston

Please.  Rebel priest?  More like evil priest.  Rebel is a tad bit too classy for him.

An outspoken priest from Northern Ireland has said Irish women travelling to England for abortions should be helped with the costs of repatriation.

Fr Brian D’Arcy made the comments in the second part of an interview with Hot Press magazine published today.

Thank goodness I missed the first part of this interview.  My gag reflex is already in full swing.

The Enniskillen cleric says he has had “countless conversations” with mothers faced with the sometimes heartbreaking decision of having to travel to England for a termination.

“I have sat with mothers, night after night after night. And I have always said to mothers, ‘Whatever you choose is the right choice’,” he said.

Awww…what a guy.  Do you think he says that to the guy considering killing the 5-year-old? How about helping her out of a tough situation?  Words are cheap, Fr. D’Arcy, and yours are bargain basement cheap.

“I always say that to mothers. My own view is that we should try to save all lives.”

I wonder if he ever considered using the words of the Church that abortion is EVIL?  Not only that, it’s intrinsically evil, which means NO situation could ever make it not evil.  What a fool!  Actually, I’m reasonably sure that he knows exactly what he’s doing and it’s evil.

While insisting his views are still pro-life, Fr D’Arcy has backed the proposal to cover repatriation costs in abortion cases involving fatal foetal abnormalities, in order for the remains to be brought back to Ireland and buried if the woman has been forced to travel to Great Britain for an abortion.

Please!  This helps a woman how?  I’m sure there is more than one organization in the Catholic Church in England that would bury aborted babies.

“Whatever about the abortion, I have no problem at all having respect and love and care for the little infant whose life didn’t get a chance,” he said.

You just told a woman that allowing her child to be killed was a “right choice”, and now you think you are the one with respect and love?  You’re part of the reason children are being killed, Father.

“So, whatever we should do to make the mother and father of that infant good, so much the better. I have no problem with that. In fact, I think it’s a good thing to do be compassionate and loving in that situation.”

I could repeat this a thousand times: YOU just told the mother killing her child is a “right choice.”   The compassion and loving thing is NOT to do that, you moron!

The rebel priest believes it is inevitable that the Irish government will repeal the Eighth Amendment to the State’s constitution – originally passed by referendum in 1983 – which gives the unborn an equal right to life with mothers in all circumstances.

Yeah, with priests like you allowed to roam this planet without a good censure, I wouldn’t be at all too surprised if you are correct.  This is the epitome of “The smoke of Satan.”

Fr D’Arcy has admitted his views may mean his days as a priest are numbered.

Please let this prophecy be fulfilled!  I suppose I should be praying for a change of heart, but then I think of all of those women he tossed a rope to, the ends of which weren’t anchored to anything.  He might as well have shot them and their children in the head.  They asked for loaves and he gave them stones.  Bravo, father!

The Passionist priest also said he supports gay couples adopting, would have no problem giving his blessing at same-sex marriages and has called on Pope Francis to allow divorced people to re-marry in the church.

No surprise there.  I’m reasonably sure ANYONE could have guessed that.

In the first part of the Hot Press interview published earlier this month he claimed to know that a number of women committed suicide after suffering abuse at the hands of Ireland’s most notorious paedophile priest from Belfast, Brendan Smyth.

So, what you are saying is that priests who don’t follow Church teachings harm their flock?  My gosh, man!  Get a grip.  Brendan Smyth wasn’t devout in any sense of the word.  He was, well, a lot like you. 

He also had harsh words for Cardinal Sean Brady, who was aware of children being abused by Belfast-born Fr Smyth, but chose not to go to the authorities.

“Priests molest, so feel free to kill your children!” Uh, hello!  They have zero things in common, other than disobedient priests.

“The one thing you will always say about Sean Brady is that he’s a decent man,” he said.

“But he would probably know himself now that the system had him so brainwashed that he didn’t do the right thing. He was wrapped up in this whole secrecy thing.”

Again, has ZERO to do with you saying that it’s ever OK to kill a child.  This is a very nice red-herring, father, but don’t you dare point to another’s sins to justify your own.

In the latest interview Fr D’Arcy states that half of his own congregation are in second marriages or relationships.

What does that say about their pastor, Father “Whatever you choose is the right choice” D’Arcy?

Having faced censure from the Vatican once before for his views, Fr D’Arcy speaks about risking his vocation. “I could get the second yellow card and be silenced forever,” he said.

Red card, Your Holiness!  Let’s go straight for that one.  To put it in other-than-soccer terminology, eject him from the game!

The interview also airs Fr D’Arcy’s opinions on the way women are treated in the Catholic Church, his experience of being stalked by a female admirer and of threats made to his life.

Oh, boo-hoo!  Sorry!  I have little sympathy for your hardships.  Now, your immortal soul?  I’m really sympathetic, because, from outward appearances, it’s looking mighty dicey.  Children are dying, but please tell me about your stalkers and threats to your life. 



No, the Pope Did Not Say Sin No Longer Exists!

No, the Pope did not say abortion was OK or that the Church gives blanket forgiveness for it. I’m sure this has been said enough times, but for the really, really ignorant in the media (NcR – that means you!), I’ll say it again:

Basic Catholic knowledge to have: Abortion is an excommunicable offense in the Catholic Church. Absolution of excommunicable offenses are usually either reserved to the Pope or to the local bishop, depending on what the offense is.

What the Pope said is that CATHOLIC WOMEN, DOCTORS, CLINIC WORKERS, ETC., WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN ABORTION OR HAVE MATERIALLY COOPERATED IN THE PROCUREMENT OF ONE, AND WHO ARE CONTRITE (this should be obvious) CAN NOW APPROACH ANY PRIEST WITH FACULTIES (faculties have now been granted now to SSPX priests, we must assume that other priests still need the faculties from the local bishop unless danger of death where emergency faculties are granted to any priest) TO GO TO CONFESSION AND ASK FOR ABSOLUTION. In other words, the Holy Father has made it easier for a these people to wash their souls. There are no free passes or change in doctrine involved.

What the Holy Father DIDN’T say is that priests should simply walk around the neighborhood saying, “You are forgiven, you are forgiven, and you are forgiven.” He didn’t wave a magic wand and say, “Abortion is not longer a sin!” Nor did he say, “All people involved with abortion are just peachy!” Nor, “Abortion isn’t as bad as it used to be!” Please see previous paragraph.

It’s really sad that we even have to explain this, but seeing the media reports, it is definitely needed. There are steps that we must take to have our sins forgiven according to Christ’s Church (the one that binds and looses).

So let’s recap for ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and the rest of them…

1) There is no change in doctrine about abortion or the Sacrament of Confession.

2) Abortion is still an excommunicable offense (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm to learn about excommunication).

3) It used to be that those suffering from the sin of abortion could only receive absolution from a bishop. Pope Francis has said that absolution for the sin of abortion can now be given, at least during the Year of Mercy, by any valid priest (again, this is not a change in doctrine, but simply a change in discipline).

4) Abortion is still a grave sin.

5) To be absolved for the sin of abortion during the Year of Mercy

  •  the person seeking absolution must be seeking absolution from a valid priest with faculties
  •  the person seeking absolution must be contrite for sin (and resolving to sin no more
  •  the person seeking absolution must confess their sins to the priest in person (Skyping and  emailing not allowed)
  • the penitent must confess all grave sins they can remember since last confession or anything grave sin skipped in previous confession
  •  the priest must actually say that the penitent is absolved

I think that about does it. If not, I’m sure somebody will point it out.

The only difference now is to whom the person can confess. Other than that, all pretty standard. Find the teachings on confession here (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm) and here (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3F.HTM).

It’s really not that hard news people! At least try to find one knowledgeable Catholic reporter in your crew!