"ADVENT EMBER SATURDAY" Traditional Latin Mass in the Archdiocese of Toronto

Wednesday, 24 March 2010

Catholic Apostasy in the United States & Canada

Did you know that there are 136 Catholics in the United States House of Representatives sitting with the majority Democratic Party?

Did you know 125 of these--94% voted to provide federal funds to pay for the murder of children in the wombs of their mothers?

Congratulation to the Catholic Bishops of the United States for your splendid leadership and catechises of the Church for the last 50 years.

And before any of us Canadians become smug, our Canadian Bishops fell hard in 1968 at Winnipeg and we have paid the price ever since. Canada is in a mess and has funded the murder of babies in their mothers' wombs since 1968!

How do you think the LORD will deal with them and us for allowing this putrid travesty?

"All the evil in the world is due to luke-warm Catholics"--Pope Pius V

It is time friends for a Catholic revolution!

THE PERCENTAGES OF THE HEALTH CARE BILL



THE ENEMY WITHIN



IT'S TIME FOR THE LAITY!



And this from Archbishop Charles Chaput, of Denver on the support of this monstrous legislation by the so-called "Catholic" Health Network and similar dissenting religious sisters and nuns:

“The actions of the Catholic Health Association (CHA) in providing a deliberate public counter-message to the bishops were both surprising and profoundly disappointing; and also genuinely damaging. In the crucial final days of debate on health-care legislation, CHA lobbyists worked directly against the efforts of the American bishops in their approach to members of Congress. The bad law we now likely face, we owe in part to the efforts of the Catholic Health Association and similar ‘Catholic’ organizations.”

3 comments:

Cizan said...

I do not understand how this is an anti-life bill. I know that the US prohibits public funding for abortions. The only way you could obtain a plan that covers abortions in this bill is if you join an exchange that has such a plan- but in that case it is not a public funded plan.

Plus, it seems to me that providing healthcare coverage to the poor is a pro-life stance and will save the lives of many people.

I think this is why the Catholic Health Network and the Superiors have supported this bill.

I would like your opinion on this matter,

CS

Vox Cantoris said...

Dear Cizan,

My opinion was given by this very blog post. However, since you have asked for an elaboration I shall provide it, but understand this: To hide behind helping the "poor" obtain health care as a pretense for supporting the murder of babies is not only disingenuous, it is evil.

Further, it is a long known theological fact that you can not do evil to bring about good.

Abortion funding did not have to be in this Bill, this is a back door missive by the most pro-abortion President in the history of the United States. He has served his master well in this travesty, just as he said he would.

Catholic teaching in the matter of health care is clear on the matter of abortion and anyone who participates in having, procuring or conducting an abortion or assisting in any way are all guilty of a greivous sin against the LORD and the human being who has been killed and in many cases, its mother.

In his Encylical Pacem et terris, Pope John XXIII listed health care as a basic human right. However, it is beyond his authority and competence to state how this should come about. It can be public, it can be private, but basic health care is not the issue at stake here.

While I think this massive bill is a fraud upon the American people and that the cost of health care has been excalating because of a robust litigation culture and limited competition, these are still not the issues.

Assuming that Americans are prepared to accept this intrustion upon their rights and economy in the manner it has been done is one thing, to include in it funding for abortion by the government or insurance companies is a totally different matter.

The fact is, abortion is not health care! It is state-sanctioned and paid for murder of the most innocent and helpless in society in a place where they should be the most safe, their mothers' womb.

That is the bottom line.

As for the Catholic Health Network and the Superiors of women Religious they have dissented from Church Teaching on this matter.

They have no teaching authority in the Church and they are in schism by their actions.

Barrack Hussein Obama has cleverly used the dissent in the Catholic Church in America by these two groups whom you have mentioned to set one Catholic against another.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has said something quite different as have many individual bishops who have condemned the words of these two dissenting bodies whom you have referred to.

As for what the bishops really say,
Archbishop Chaput of Denver writes: “the actions of the Catholic Health Association (CHA) in providing a deliberate public counter-message to the bishops were both surprising and profoundly disappointing; and also genuinely damaging. In the crucial final days of debate on health-care legislation, CHA lobbyists worked directly against the efforts of the American bishops in their approach to members of Congress. The bad law we now likely face, we owe in part to the efforts of the Catholic Health Association and similar ‘Catholic’ organizations.”

You may wish to read more here:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/a-magisterium-of-nuns/

and:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/well-done-good-and-faithful-servant-sister-president-gets-her-reward/

and:

http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/brochure1.pdf

Cizan said...

Hi Vox Cantoris,

Thank you for the reply. I do not disagree that abortion is a moral wrong, since I too am a Catholic. However, what i question is whether this bill actually funds abortions.

Fr Z writes: "Even if there really is a barrier between federal money and the procuring of abortions, a barrier which might allow a Catholic legislator in this byzantine tangle to vote for the bill, is that barrier going to stand?"

But this seems to me to be an acknowledgement that there is no funding for abortion in this bill and that the only thing that concerns him is that in the future someone bring an amendment to include abortion into the law. But would it not be better to attack the legislation at that point in the future, rather than attacking the current legislation which does not have funding for abortion?

I would like to say that I agree with you about the tendency of our leaders to be too concerned with politics rather than following the truth of out faith.

Cizan