You made the choice

In the wake of the killing of a pro-lifer, abortion advocates who like to style themselves "pro-choice" have thrown around the term "anti-choice activist" to describe the slain abortion opponent. There was also mention that there was "some displeasure with how open he was" since he "tended to carry big signs with very graphic pictures of fetuses."

Isn't it amazing how the abortion proponents will refuse to inform women of the serious medical risks of abortion, they may fiercely attempt to deny the obvious fact that abortion kills a human being, and they may even try to block a pregnant woman from having the right to see an ultrasound of her womb, but they claim they are for choice? Why is it they so virulently hate it when women see pictures depicting the end result of the "choice" they want them to make (i.e. a picture of an aborted baby)? Aren't they the true "anti-choice" advocates? An honest choice is made when all facts are considered, yet they want to hide facts from a woman faced with this "choice" so that she might "choose" an abortion.

Isn't it about time that pro-abortionists are called what they truly are - "anti-choice advocates" (or "pro-deathers") - since they are the ones who are preventing women from making a true choice - they really only want her to kill her baby. They have no other "choice" in mind.

Furthermore, it should be remembered by both sides that by the time a woman is pregnant, she already made a choice given the fact that - excepting modern technological monstrosities and the rare exception of rape - the only way to become pregnant is by making a choice - the choice to engage in an act whose very purpose is to cause pregnancy. This is where the true choice is made. If a woman makes this choice, consequences may follow. This is how the body is designed. Biology 101 you might say. The same pro-deathers might think it was wrong to enjoy the pleasure of food and then vomit it up to avoid the consequences, yet they will "fight to the death" for a woman to enjoy the pleasure of the marital act and then kill a child to avoid the natural consequences. Let them remember where the true choice is made. By the time a woman is pregnant, it was already made.

[9/12]

What's Next for L'Osservatore Romano - Praise for Satan himself?

A sampling of some of our recent news links highlights an alarming problem with the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. For example, consider these recent items:

* Unbelievable: Vatican newspaper gives mixed review to 'Angels and Demons' film; Calls anti-Catholic movie "gripping", with "splendid" camera work, and "dynamic and alluring" direction [5/6]

* Most "pro-abortion president in history" is not pro-abortion according to editor of Vatican newspaper [5/21] [previous news brief here]

* Vatican newspaper stirs it up again: Recently deceased "pop music legend" who was not known for promoting Christian values is praised by L'Osservatore Romano [6/27]

* Here we go again: Vatican newspaper praises arch-heretic John Calvin; Calls him "extraordinary" and a "Christian" [7/3] [Reality checks: (1) Heresy costs souls (click here for more information), and (2) Protestants are not rightly called Christian ("The very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the apostles and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded, and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian." - St. Athanasius, Doctor of the Church]

* Vatican newspaper does it again: L'Osservatore Romano praises new Harry Potter film which contains witchcraft [7/14] [Reality checks: (1) "Behind Harry Potter hides the signature of the king of the darkness, the devil" (Father Gabriele Amorth, Chief Exorcist of Rome), (2) "It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly" (Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI), (3) "Neither let there be found among you any one that shall...consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, nor charmer...For the Lord abhorreth all these things" (Deut. 18:10-12), (4) "Every form of sorcery is practiced with indirect or direct recourse to Satan" (TIA article). Also, remember that the more witchcraft is portrayed "positively", the more dangerous it is.]

What is going on over there? At this rate, it seems reasonable to fear that we'll soon see the paper publish praise for Satan himself. It's really not that much of a stretch when one considers that the publication has already lauded an anti-Catholic film, a pro-abortion president, a cr*tch-grabbing pop-star whose works include the albums "Bad" & "Dangerous", an arch-heretic, and now a film containing witchcraft. Really, at this point, such praise is but a very short step. [7/14]

Now we can be sure

If there was any doubt over Sotomayor's pro-abortion position, it may now be put to rest based on the following...

* Pro-abort President Obama is 'comfortable' with Sotomayor's abortion views

* Pro-abort Senator Boxer is also "comfortable" with Sotomayor's abortion position

* A former colleague of Sotomayor "guarantees" that Sotomayor is "for abortion rights"

* The president of a major abortion provider (PP) called Sotomayor's nomination a "strong signal" that Obama wants Supreme Court justices who "respect precedent"

* A large pro-abort organization (NOW) "celebrated" Sotomayor's nomination and will campaign for her "swift confirmation"

Did anyone really doubt that Obama would put forth a nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade, especially in light of comments he made during his campaign?

References: Obama 'comfortable' with Sotomayor's abortion views | Pro-abort Senator Boxer "comfortable" with Sotomayor's abortion position; Former colleague "guarantees" Sotomayor is "for abortion rights" | Pro-abort groups praise Sotomayor nomination

[5/30]

Obama not pro-abortion?

The Editor-in-chief of the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano has gone on record stating that Obama, the "most pro-abortion president in history" is "not a pro-abortion president." This comes as news to pro-lifers - and probably to Obama as well who has made no secret of his position on abortion. This puzzling statement would have been odd enough coming from a liberal newspaper's editor, but coming from the editor of the Vatican newspaper, it is even more shocking. If Obama is "not a pro-abortion president", then please explain why Obama...

* Repeatedly places persons with radical pro-abortion records in key positions

* Issues statements supporting abortion

* Forces American taxpayers to fund pro-abortion organizations

* Has taken steps to overturn conscience protections for health care workers who oppose abortions

* Funds embryonic stem cell research with taxpayer money

* Funds organizations which promote abortion overseas

* Allows an FDA ruling to stand which allows minors to purchase the abortifacient "morning after pill" over the counter, without parental notification

* Forces taxpayers to pay for abortions in the nation's capital

* Eliminates federal funding for abstinence-only education

* Etc.

In light of the above, what exactly would it take for the editor of the Vatican newspaper to consider Obama a pro-abortion president? [story here] [5/21]

The good & the bad, and the ridiculous

The following is a short summary of certain good & bad elements from Notre Dame's controversial commencement ceremony & the events surrounding it...

The Good

* Some pro-life students boycotted their own commencement ceremony

* Bishop D'Arcy boycotted the graduation ceremony & spoke to pro-lifers at a Notre Dame pro-life rally [story here]

* Around 100 pro-life students attended the graduation wearing a pro-life symbol; These students remained seated while Obama received standing ovations

* Courageous individuals risked arrest in support of the pro-life cause. Those arrested included an elderly priest, Alan Keyes, and Norma McCorvey (the "Roe" of "Roe vs. Wade")

* Pro-life hecklers disrupted Obama's speech on several occasions

* The pro-life rally held at ND was attended by thousands [story here]

* Bishop D'Arcy called the pro-life students who boycotted their commencement "heroes" [story here]

* A selfless lady declined a prestigious ND honor [see previous news brief]

The Bad

* The "most pro-abortion president in history", Obama, received an honorary law degree from the nation's "most prestigious Catholic university", causing great scandal

* ND's president disregarded the bishops' statement, his own bishop's condemnation, and the public scandal to go forward with his "pet project". Despite this, students seem to support him overwhelmingly.

* Obama enjoyed the support of thousands of students & received a standing ovation; Attendees even chanted Obama's campaign slogan in response to pro-lifers' heckling

* Radical pro-abortion Obama received ND's honor & affirmed his pro-abortion stance while wearing a robe containing an inscription to the Holy Mother of God, "symbolizing dedication of all Notre Dame's activities to the Virgin Mary" [story here]

* There was no formal condemnation of ND's honoring Obama from Pope Benedict XVI (Archbishop Burke criticized the decision, but this is obviously not the same as if a condemnation had come from Pope Benedict himself)

* Some fear that "Notre Dame will become symbol of Catholic dissent" [story here]

The Ridiculous (pathetic, absurd)

* Obama's ridiculous call to find "common ground" over the murder of the unborn. Would he advance "common ground" on racial matters or would he reject racism outright?

* Hypocrisy of Obama on "respecting" each others views on abortion considering that he has shown no respect to the views of pro-lifers (and, of course, it isn't possible for pro-lifers to "respect" the views of those who advocate the killing of children) [story here]

* Hypocrisy of Obama concerning "conscience rights"; on one hand he claims to honor conscience rights, but on the other he works to remove protections already in place [story here]

* Fr. Jenkins' laudatory treatment of Obama; Embraces him, pats him on the back, almost seems to campaign for Obama

* The Vatican newspaper's response to the event fails to include a condemnation of the scandal; instead claims Obama seeks "common ground" on baby killing [story here]

[5/18]

Thank a ND student

The scandal over Notre Dame's commencement, which will feature & honor Obama, "the most anti-life president in U.S. history", has not been entirely devoid of 'signs of hope'. Although ND's President continues to act in defiance of the U.S. Bishops - not to mention basic Catholic common sense - and, unfortunately, also with some backing of ND students, many others have been strongly on the side of truth and life. Since the news first broke, dozens of bishops have spoken out against the decision, the area's bishop will be boycotting the commencement, another bishop has already held a Mass of reparation, one lady selflessly turned down a prestigious ND honor, donors have withheld millions in donations, and there has been "national outrage". And, in the course of events, Obama's anti-life policies have been exposed to those who might otherwise have been unaware of them.

One thing this country typically suffers from is apathy. In this case at least - thankfully - apathy has not been as readily apparent. Although it appears that the commencement plans will, unfortunately, go as planned, many pro-life students at ND are not taking this lightly. Recently, they have announced plans to hold a protest at their commencement. Also, many ND students are expected to boycott their own graduation. Some students may confront Obama over his pro-abortion position. Images of aborted babies may be draped along the way. Although this should be a special day - a day of joy - for these students, a cloud will be put over the event because their leader has chosen to betray Catholic principles and would not back down even in the face of condemnation by his bishop & public outcry.

In spite of this, it is good to see that there are courageous ND students who still hold sacred their Catholic values. Any student who boycotts the graduation for which they worked so hard to achieve in order to defend their Catholic beliefs is deserving of respect. This shows great character and gives hope and inspiration to others. May God bless and guide all ND students. And may all people support and thank those who do what is right, even at a high personal cost. [story here] [5/5]

Putting her faith first

Rather than putting her own interests first, Mary Ann Glendon, a former ambassador to the Vatican, has declined a prestigious honor from Notre Dame due to their honoring of Obama at their upcoming commencement. In her letter to ND's president she states, "as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions 'should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles' and that such persons 'should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.' That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it." Her letter was released to the public in order "to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision". Way to go, Mary! [4/27]

No more excuses

Now that Bishop D'Arcy has publicly issued a statement to the faithful, perhaps any remaining "controversy" can be put to an end. The bishop stated unequivocally that "I consider it now settled - that the USCCB document, Catholics in Public Life, does indeed apply in this matter." It will be interesting to see what happens. Could one be allowed to hope that Obama may be disinvited from ND's commencement? Or at least not be given an honorary law degree? Time to start praying... [4/22]

Great grades, but what about Catholic teachings?

Notre Dame's 2009 valedictorian has gone on record saying that the "opportunity" to have Obama speak at ND is "unbelievable and incredible". Unfortunately, she means this in a positive sense. She called Obama a "great leader" and praises that he "continues to live by those values... He sticks with his values and his ideals". How is it that this obviously intelligent student doesn't see that it would be better in his case - e.g. the case of the most pro-abortion president in history - if he gave up some of his "values and ideals"? Even if one conceded any positive "values & ideals" to the U.S. President, how can they be "of much value" if the man doesn't respect even the most basic right to live? Maybe ND needs to add another class to its roster concerning the importance of holding all Catholic teachings without exception. "For whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it." (Jms. 2:10) And, further, how can such a smart student not see that for a Catholic University to give Obama an honorary law degree when he seeks to break the most basic of all laws - the right to life - is scandalous & most definitely not worthy of praise? [story here] [4/20]

What about chain of command?

After condemning Notre Dame's Obama invite and then warning about protests against it, Bishop D'Arcy now says he may join in a protest. While this is good news, why can't he simply stop the entire event? As "king" of his diocese, shouldn't he be able to say the word & put an end to it? Is he implying that a school enjoys higher authority than a bishop - even though a bishop "reigns supreme" in the diocese (under the Pope, of course)? [4/17]

Stop Calling Yourself Catholic

Question: What's worse than the senate voting down the conscience protection law? Answer: The fact that this proposed law lost because a majority of so-called 'Catholics' voted against it. What could a decent Catholic find objectionable about allowing health care workers who object to abortions not participate in them? Apparently these 'Catholics' don't see anything wrong with killing babies, but somehow find it wrong to permit people to exercise freedom of conscience. Since the law was defeated by a vote of 41-56, it is clear that the 16 'Catholics' who voted against it can bear the blame. [story here] [4/4]

They Don't Really Want Choice

Those who claim to be "pro-choice" once again display their true colors - they don't want a woman to make a real choice - they want her to have an abortion. If they truly wanted a woman to make a choice, they wouldn't seek to prevent her from viewing an ultrasound of the child in her womb. They'd rather have her think it was a "blob of tissue" than see the fingers, toes, and face of her child. As reported by LifeNews, "When used in pregnancy centers, ultrasounds persuade most women to keep their baby." But so-called "pro-choice" advocates don't like this "choice" - so they oppose bills like the one Sebelius is under pressure to sign requiring that pregnant women be given the opportunity to view an ultrasound. Some put forth the excuse that it "creates more obstacles to women already facing a tough decision." They also don't want pregnant women to receive information on the health risks posed by abortion. Since when does limiting information help a woman make a choice? Clearly, they don't want her making a real "choice". Rather, they simply want her to kill her baby. But then again it isn't too surprising that those who advocate murder also consent to lies and deception. [3/18]