Responses

I like the phrase "personhood movement." I had not heard it before.
David Volk | July 21, 2008

---

That's awsome! Praise the Lord!
Chantell
Chantell | July 21, 2008

---

Excellent testimony. Thing is, very few people realize that the devil exists! He's a liar and the prince of lies. Pope Paul VI called him man's greatest temptor. The more we expose the devil and his works, the more we can make strides like the Colorado right to life did.
Nick | July 22, 2008

---

When I was growing up, my mother's mother, Grandma Baldi, was a remarkable woman who I loved dearly and have only fond memories of, even to this day. She was everything that one pictures when visions of the perfect grandmother enter the psyche. Grandma Baldi was loving yet firm, and she affirmed life in every way from the manner in which she conducted herself with her own four grown children to the loving way she took care of my grandfather and, of course, grandchildren like me.

So when our grandchildren started coming along I recalled my vision of her in the hopes that my own grandchildren would one day remember me with joy and a smile. Sadly, however, not all grandmas are as sweet and loving as mine was.

The story of one such woman came to my attention this morning when our staff shared an incident report from Kansas Coalition for Life. KCFL's chairman, Mark Gietzen asked us to spread the story to everyone we knew, and that is precisely what I plan to do. So as you read this report, focus your attention on the grandmother and ask yourself – how could any preborn child's grandmother do what this woman did?

A sixteen-year-old girl from Andover, Kansas, was brought into Tiller's [abortuary] today by her mother, in a car with Butler County, Kansas tags at about 11 am.

The girl was two months pregnant, and the mother (grandmother) had scheduled an early-term abortion for her daughter. The teenage daughter did not want the abortion, but her mother was forcing her into it.

KCFL did not receive actionable evidence that the daughter was being forced to have this abortion until after the unborn child was killed.

In the early afternoon, in a separate vehicle, the father of the child, a young man named Dillon, also sixteen years old, came into Tiller's parking lot, driving a car with a personalized tag, (tag information is on file) in an attempt to save the life of his child.

Dillon came to the gate to get help and advice from the pro-life counselors on-site. He told Jennifer [of KCFL] that his parents were willing to raise the baby, adopt the baby, or do whatever they could to help him and his girlfriend. Dillon said that he planned to marry the mother of his baby as soon as they graduated from high school, and that his parents were supportive of this idea.

Dillon said that it was only his girlfriend's mother who wanted her to have the abortion. Her mother had threatened to disown her if she did not go through with the abortion.

Jennifer sent the boy into Tiller's [abortuary] to talk to the girl, to let her know that all she had to do was to say that she did not want to have the abortion, and at that point, KCFL could call the police and that the police would intervene on her behalf.

However, about thirty minutes after going into Tiller's building, both the mother and daughter and Dillon came to the gate, leaving Tiller's parking lot in their cars. The young girl was crying, but the mother who was driving did not stop at the gate.

Dillon stopped at the gate and he was crying too. He said that he had gotten there just a few minutes too late. The baby was already dead when they finally let him talk to his girlfriend.

Dillon went from crying to sobbing as he talked to Mary LaFrancis at the gate. Dillon has asked KCFL to dedicate one of the crosses on-site to his baby, as a memorial.

We will do so, when he gets back to us with the name of the baby.

The situation was upsetting to all the KCFL volunteers on-site all afternoon. There were tears and prayers all afternoon because of the mean-spiritedness of this abortion.

Unfortunately, in the past KCFL volunteers have witnessed similar variations of this story - at least four times since starting the continuous presence on Mother's Day, 2004. It is not an uncommon scenario, and most young girls simply do not know their rights in this regard.

If you want to receive Mark Gietzen's notices and incident reports, you may contact him at his e-mail address: mgietzen@sbcglobal.net.

Responses

How awful! How could someone do that?
Chantell
Chantell | July 18, 2008

---

How horrible. It's so wrong when a parent is so concerned about his/her own image that they are willing to hurt their daughter and kill their grandchild.
Emmie K. | July 21, 2008

---

Judie,

Thank you for printing this Incident Report. Anyone who remembers what it was like to be a teenager-in-love, is moved to tears by this story.

This is the real face of abortion in America.

Where do the oft cited \"rights of the mother\" go, in a case like this?

Where are the women\'s rights people, who should be standing up for this young mother who was forced into having her own child killed?

Look at what the young mother gets out of the deal. She suffers the loss of her child, the shared grief of the father, a life-time of looking back with regret, and perhaps blaming herself, and it being her first pregnancy, she gets to live with an increased likelihood that she will get breast cancer some day!

This is so unjust, and so outrageous that I am puzzled why we have so few people who are willing to work as sidewalk counselors at Tiller\'s gate. We should have hundreds of people at that gate every day - and if we did, the business would close for lack of clients.

There is nothing in history that is worse than what is going on right under our noses here in the heartland of the USA.

Thanks again for printing the story.

Mark S. Gietzen
www.kcfl.net
Mark S. Gietzen | July 21, 2008

---

My sister did the same thing to my nieces. She was unsuccessful with her older daughter, who sought help from my mom. My younger niece was not so fortunate and her child was killed against her wishes. My sister had multiple abortions. With grandmas like these, who needs mass murderers?
Lisa | July 22, 2008

---

Vanity is a terrible thing. Is your daughter's personal reputation worth more than her child's life? Of course not. Seems like the only thing going through their minds is "What'll the neighbors think?"
Isaac K. | July 28, 2008

---

The article describes the current draft of a proposed rule being considered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Apparently, the administration has decided at this time, its 11th hour, to take action that would require, according to the article, "all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control."

The language is reported to read as follows:

any of the various procedures – including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action – that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.

"Well," I said to myself, "after eight years in office, the president and his staff have chosen to be perfectly clear about what they consider to be abortion and how they believe it should be handled when federal dollars are involved. What a tragedy that it took eight years for a simple recognition of at least part of the truth to become part of the political rhetoric."

However, I have to tell you I believe that this is too little, too late. First of all, if the New York Times article is to be believed, this proposal will garner immense opposition from the abortion cartel. One of its most ardent advocacy groups has already stated that the proposed language would "cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception."

And, of course, the abortion cartel will clamor that any such move is preposterous and it will be screaming incessantly! As a matter of fact, the organization that is the main beneficiary of birth control marketing, Planned Parenthood, has already launched a campaign to oppose the proposal. You can see it at the following URL: 

http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/spp08sadv10?url=http://www.plannedparenthood.org/

While it's about time that such a definition of abortion became a point of discussion and the pill's true nature exposed, I believe that the proposed language is disingenuous to the core. I believe it is actually nothing but a trial balloon that the White House knew, if leaked to the New York Times, would provoke heated debate and thus provide them with a reason to back off and do nothing, which has basically been their modus operandi for the past eight years. On its action web site, Planned Parenthood claims that the President is "selling out women's health care." Of course, that is absurd, but why did he wait so long to take this first step? Perhaps because he is not really serious about implementing this new rule in the first place.

For those who have no memory of the Bush administration's history in this matter and thus wonder why my skepticism is at an all-time high, it would help to revisit a couple of the interesting things that have defined this period in political history.

Under the Bush White House, funding for organizations such as Planned Parenthood has steadily increased. As one Stop Planned Parenthood International report reveals, just between fiscal years 2001 and 2003, taxpayer dollars pouring into PP's coffers increased from $202.7 million to $254.4 million.

Emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill," a powerful set of pills designed to "protect" a woman from becoming pregnant, was approved for over-the-counter use in 2006. This regimen has always made it possible for a preborn child to be aborted, and, tragically, the political opposition to it has never been forceful.

I could go on, but I think the point has been made. While we can and should applaud the effort to expose the precise manner in which the birth control pill works, we should not be celebrating what appears to me, at least, to be a sop! However, I pray that my jaundiced view is proven to be totally in error. Time will tell.

Responses

Dear Mrs. Brown:

I have been complaining to Cardinal O'Malley about the fact that the bishops accepted the contention that the abortion rate is declining -- down to 1.21 million in 2005. This could be true if you agreed with Guttmacher that life only begins at implantation. I wrote O'Malley today saying that he should take advantage of the new HHS definition of abortion, and point out that under that definition millions more abortions per year are taking place than the claimed 1.21. I was pretty blunt in my comments, saying that "false information about abortion has been promulgated by officials of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and printed in The Pilot." Both as a bishop and publisher of The Pilot I said he had an obligation to make the truth known. I doubt that O'Malley will do anything, but I'll keep reminding him -- and you new know!


Charles O. Coudert | July 17, 2008

---

Your position on abortions and contraception notwithstanding, and considering that most Americans still do not want to see abortions made illegal, this morality coercion from a a failure of a President is a disgrace. The taxpayers money should not be spent how one zealot sees fit but how the taxpayers do.
John Taxpayer | July 17, 2008

---

Something changed George's mind.

June 13, 2008
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- In a cordial and festive visit to the Vatican, U.S. President George W. Bush met with Pope Benedict XVI in the lush Vatican Gardens for private talks, an informal stroll and a choral performance by the Sistine Chapel Choir.

The hourlong visit June 13 was the fifth time Bush came to the Vatican for a papal audience and his third meeting with Pope Benedict. However, it was the first time in recent memory a head of state was welcomed in such an informal way and at such a unique location
Paul | July 18, 2008

---

Dear John:

Until such time as the majority of taxpayers understand that every abortion results in the death of a human being whose rights should be protected in the same way yours and mine are protected, debate about what the government should do with our tax dollars is really irrelevant. I am not a zealot but I do understand the basic facts in this matter.

The fact is the U.S. government fosters the culture of death and is in truth the largest single advocate of abortion.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | July 20, 2008

---

It's a start. Hopefully this'll carry through to the next President at least.
Isaac K. | July 28, 2008

---

In supporting the actions of his fellow archbishop, Archbishop Oscar Cruz told the news media that it could well be that the question will be brought before the country's entire bishops' conference, and he pointed out, "If a priest or bishop does not punish a public sinner, it is the priest or bishop who is wrong."

My joy upon reading this report was tempered with the clear understanding we all have in this country that our own United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has not taken such a bold stand nor have they articulately defended the courageous bishops in our nation who have! Quite the contrary, in this age of political correctness – in which serving the desires of man has superseded the reality of Christ's presence in the Eucharist – we are saddened and heartbroken.

It seems so obvious that if an archbishop in the Philippines can cite Vatican documents, then certainly the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops could and, indeed, should do likewise. Objectively speaking, this is a question of whether or not those who are given the immense honor of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful will defend the person of Christ from sacrilege.

This is not merely my opinion. None other than the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us,

It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus, St. John Chrysostom declares:

It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.

And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed...Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature. (Section 1375)

I therefore write this blog today with a heavy heart, having been a frontline participant in the war to protect the preborn child, whose real presence is frequently denied in the law, in the culture and in the minds of men and women across this nation. For it occurs to me that if America's most populous Church has few courageous leaders who will defend the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, how can we hope to see Catholics defend the real presence of the child before birth and do so with gusto?

Courage demands honesty, and I ask you: Where is it among the policies of the U.S. bishops' conference in questions as basic as whether or not they will expend every effort to defend Christ at all costs and regardless of public opinion?

Just last evening, while on a family vacation, my husband and I saw a television special regarding the selling of little children in various provinces of China. Entitled China's Stolen Children, the program deals with the epidemic of child kidnapping (70,000 annually) that appears to be occurring because couples with children are desperate for money. Moreover, many parents fear that if a little girl is born, China's one-child policy will prevent the couple from having a son. As tragic as this program is and as appalled as we were after watching it, everyone should realize that, for decades, China has had policies and a corresponding enforcement agency that are perhaps the most heartless in the entire world.

As a matter of fact, just days ago we also learned that in China a "snake oil" con is being played upon unsuspecting families. A report in Medical News Today tells us,

Recent newspaper stories – including several from Missouri – have reported parents flying their children to main land China for umbilical cord stem cell (CSC) infusions. The cost of these treatments, paid for entirely out-of-pocket by the parents, can be $50,000 or more. CSCs are extracted from the umbilical cords of Chinese mothers and their newborns and injected into the fluid around the spinal cord of the American children. The parents are led to believe by Chinese doctors that these CSCs are an effective treatment for optic nerve hypoplasia (ONH), a disease causing partial blindness at birth.

However, as pediatric ophthalmologists are quick to point out, there are various ways of treating those children suffering from optic nerve hypoplasia that do not raise the questions that surround the questionable ethics employed by those who claim these are miraculous cures. Not only that, but they say the injections administered in China "could be dangerous, introducing infection or toxic matter into the brain fluids."

Then there are other biotech companies like Shenzhen Beike Biotechnology Co., Ltd., which, according to Medical News Today, is "a worldwide leader in providing safe and effective stem cell applications for medical treatment," and "has commenced outfitting its 21,500-square-foot comprehensive medical stem cell storage and processing facility in eastern China." 

But as a recent Philadelphia Inquirer article pointed out, "stem-cell tourism," a new phenomenon of patients and their families going to great lengths to search for miracle cures, makes those searching for such cures ripe for the picking by companies, like Beike, that make promises such as Beike's slogan, "Tomorrow's cures today." 

While the Inquirer reports that Beike claims "it has treated 3,000 Chinese and foreign patients at its 24 hospital clinics in China," the questions raised continue to be not only serious, but in the end, challenging. It is only natural, after all, for people who have an ailing family member to want to seek out any treatment which they believe will be helpful.

And, as I mentioned, far too many industrious people in China are leading the way these days in attempting to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of those seeking a quick fix by doing whatever it takes, including selling children to couples desperate for a child and promising cures to those who are suffering. Oh yes, and lest I forget to mention it, the bottom line in such endeavors, whether criminal or legal, is always the money.

And while it would not be fair to point the finger at a specific country as being the source of unethical practices, I have to point out that, in China, there are no regulations regarding the collection or use of umbilical cord blood stem cells. Nor are there specific laws actually enforced that would punish those who sell children into slavery or to couples who have the money required to buy a child. Of course, Chinese officials claim that they are cracking down and that they are striving to stop such grotesque practices, but human trafficking is far from being a footnote in the history of China's past.

It is a sad commentary on the times in which we live that a country anywhere in the world could be conducting business as usual by exploiting the young and the vulnerable for cash. It forces me to wonder, where is the outrage from governments of more "civilized" nations like our own?

Though clearly, when millions of preborn children can be killed under cover of law in America, there really is no room to point the finger elsewhere, is there?

Responses

This is awful Judie! I heard a story that over 10 years ago, a woman who was more then 8 months pregnant, was dragged from her home, knocked out, and forced to have a partial-birth abortion! We didn't hear much about it, because of the liberal administration. Even women who are the wives of at-home church pastors have been forced into having abortions in China!
Chantell
Chantell | July 16, 2008

---

The answer to your question is the same answer you pointed out in your article: MONEY! The reason the so-called "civilized" countries (like the USA?) don't report on, respond to, or challenge conditions in China is the fear (certainty?) that they would protest by denying our imports (such as they are) and denying us their exports (which are the vast majority of our imports!). We can't AFFORD (literally) to make China mad at us. So, we "go along to get along".

Whenever you come up with a question like this, may I recommend what I was taught? "Follow the money"!
Carol Luscomb | July 17, 2008

---

When Viagra came on the scene ten years ago, the alleged physical condition for which the pill would be used as treatment was something known as erectile dysfunction, also known as impotence, which is a condition that does affect a large number of men. The medication became controversial not so much because it existed but because the television ads were offensive to certain groups of people. Be that as it may, the medicine has a role to play in the treatment of men according to many medical professionals.

So how does this pill, which is a valid medical treatment, compare to the birth control pill, which does not treat a disease or medical condition?

Why should they have equal status when it comes to what health insurance coverage should provide?

Well, I cannot think of a comparison, and I am now compelled to tell you why.

When the birth control pill was first conceived in the mind of Dr. Gregory Pincus, an endocrinologist, the primary goal was to find some type of chemical that would inhibit the onset of pregnancy. That way, men and women would be free of the worry associated with the possibility of procreating a child and then having to accept responsibility for raising that child. Or, as one biographical sketch of Pincus states, "By creating the first practical oral contraceptive, the birth control pill, in the 1950s, Gregory Pincus brought privacy and convenience to women worldwide."

While the current debate would deny it, the fundamental fact is that indeed the pill was never devised to assist anyone in treating a disease or malfunction of the human body, but rather was created specifically to solve the perceived social problem of pregnancy by preventing it. Or, to put it another way, the pill was and is a recreational drug.

Sadly, in the intervening 50+ years, the pill has been through a number of public relations campaigns and the vast majority of the American public views it as a necessity today. Any citizen would be hard-pressed to tell you precisely why pregnancy has become classified as a medical condition similar to cancer or typhoid.

Obviously that is not what the pill is all about; it has never been a treatment but rather a marketable entity designed to guarantee freedom of sexual license without accountability. Or, as the Pincus biographical sketch opines, "The cultural impact of the pill is wide-reaching, allowing women the liberty of choosing a method of birth control that can be administered in the privacy of their own homes."

So when a debate ensues that centers on the reasons why health insurance should cover both Viagra and the birth control pill, the obvious response is that the pill does not qualify as a legitimate treatment for an ailment and therefore should not be covered by health insurance.

• Viagra may treat impotence and thus help the sufferer recover bodily health.

• The pill will possibly prevent a female from getting pregnant, will not protect her from acquiring sexually transmitted disease, could contribute to her suffering from myriad health problems including cancer and heart disease and is generally an artificial pollutant of the human body.

In conclusion, it should be obvious that a company interested in insuring the continued health of an individual would never provide the means for that person to ingest a chemical that could make her sick and might kill a baby.

It is a no brainer – health insurance is all about preserving health and restoring health, not destroying it.

Responses

There are some medical problems that "the pill" is used to treat. An old friend of mine (Catholic & prolife) wasn't ovulating properly. Taking "the pill" was to help her body learn to ovulate properly again. This is only one example that I've heard of where "the pill" is used for a primary purpose other than birth control.
Vik | July 11, 2008

---

Viagra fixes something that is broken.
The Pill breaks something that is working as it should.
Viagra is good medicine...
the Pill is bad medicine.
Fr. William J Kuchinsky | July 13, 2008

---

The pill isn't strictly used for birth control. A large number of females I know use it to control PMDD, an actual psychological condition linked to menstruation which can cause suicide, problems with ovulation, irregular periods, and serious PMS symptoms.

I used it as well for strictly nonsexual reasons. To be honest, I know several women that would much rather not have sex while on birth control because it is notorious for being a sex drive inhibitor (for some women).

However, its benefits are far reaching. The birth control from the 50's is nowhere near the birth control of the 2000's.

ALSO, it has been proven that allowing women greater access to contraceptives reduces the number of abortions yearly. This goes for married women as well.

I would think that anyone who is prolife would be pro the pill. Not only because it saves lives and reduces risks of cancer, it also reduces abortion rates.




Mandie | July 13, 2008

---

I think the other comments on here miss the point. This is quite obviously not about womens health and all about religion. Catholics believe birth control is wrong, period. No-one on this website is ever going to condone the pill, even if it were oneday discovered that the pill cured cancer. They don't agree with women planning their lives or, heaven forbid, their pregnancies. In fact, the bigger the family the better! Its just a shame they also don't see that having 13 children in todays economic climate is a recipe for poverty and disaster. But then again, logic and reality just don't factor into the Catholic view on birth control.
Amy | July 15, 2008

---

Dear Vik:

Pro-Life Catholic doctors tell us that the pill is not the best course of treatment for a wide variety of problems, and that other treatments are safer and less problematic from a Catholic perspective.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | July 15, 2008

---

Dear Mandie:

Pro-life Catholic doctors tell us the pill is not the first choice for treatment female problems and the reasons are extensive. One of the most common concerns is that the pill has a huge spectrum of side effects, and other treatments are equally as effective and not as questionable.

Further, since the pill aborts babies itself, we cannot claim that the use of the pill reduces the number of abortions. That would be a contradiction.

I would invite you to visit our web site, www.thepillkills.org and learn more.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | July 15, 2008

---

Dear Amy:

Let's make a couple of things clear, if you don't mind.

First: The pill can cause cancer, and the likelihood of it ever being used as a "cure" is as remote as thinking that bears will one day sprout wings.

Second: The Catholic Church teaches that children are a blessing from God and that married couples can prudently and for serious reasons plan their families using methods that are not offensive to God.

Amy, the recipe you provide leaves out the most important factor - the grace and goodness of God. Rest assured, that we will pray for you.

Judie Brown
Judie Brown | July 16, 2008

---

Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops, like bishops and your religious act like religious.

Dear Cardinal George,

Your column in the June 22 – July 5, 2008 Catholic New World is very informative and you hit the nail on the head several times!

In it you state that "those who separate themselves from the visible unity with the church's [sic]  pastors are traditionally called schismatic." You also state that "a Catholic cannot simply deny something essential to the church's [sic] faith and still claim to be Catholic." Finally you state that "communion requires a surrender of one's will to those whom Christ has appointed to govern the church [sic]. Surrender of mind and will is always hard unless motivated by love."

Your article, and specifically the quotes selected above, implies that all of the church's [sic]  pastors are themselves in full communion with our Holy Father the Pope and in communion with the Catechism of the Catholic Church as handed down from the apostles. Your statements seem to be implying that we, the flock, should be blindly obedient to the decisions of all of our pastors. But may I point out to you that because our pastors are imperfect human beings, just as all members of the flock, our pastors, some of them, are in fact NOT in full communion with the faith as handed down from the apostles. Some clergy are instead motivated by Modernism, Syncretism, Heresy, and in some instances gross immorality.

If all pastors were in full communion, then we would NOT have the many instances of sexual abuse  perpetrated by the clergy on our youth. We would not have instances of clergy members, as has been proven time and again, hiding the truth about these crimes and actually protecting the perpetrators time and again. We would not be saddled with clergy and lay people who had been entrusted with financial donations received from the flock, stealing countless millions of dollars since the first donation ever made in the church's [sic] history.

No, there needs to be oversight of the clergy to whom our immortal souls have been entrusted. It has been clear for countless years that the clergy will not turn on themselves. Some will protect clergy who commit crimes, and it thus falls on the shoulders of the laity to oversee the actions of the clergy. How many of our pastors are themselves, not motivated by love, but by other motives? How many of the clergy promote such heinous acts as abortion through their silence and their refusal to discipline clergy who openly promote the heinous act of abortion, such as Fr. Pfleger has?

Yet when the faithful laity point out shortcomings in our pastors, we are simply completely ignored because of the arrogance of many of our pastors, bishops, and cardinals. This is just one reason why so many Catholics are apathetic towards the Catholic faith, and perhaps is a reason why some, if not many, are leaving the Catholic Church! It is because our pastors themselves are tepid about the faith, or because they have been ordered to be silent on certain issues!

I submit to you, Cardinal George, that the most heinous act of abortion could be outlawed within this generation, if you and all Church clergy were to unite, and speak in one universal and authoritative voice, in a relentless effort to teach the flock exactly what the Catholic Church teaches about abortion and contraception; to teach the flock about the certain and eternal punishment awaiting those who partake in the acts themselves – both those who directly and indirectly promote those sins, not to mention those who sit silently by while clergy directly and indirectly support this heinous and grave mortal sin against Almighty God!

It is the obligation of each and every Catholic to become familiar with at least the basics of the Catholic faith, especially issues which are non-negotiable, such as abortion and birth control, homosexuality, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and euthanasia and, finally the fact that only men can be ordained priests, etc. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is readily available at most bookstores and through the internet, as are the Baltimore Catechism, the St. Joseph Catechism, the Holy Bible, and writings by Catholic apologists and spiritual think tanks that are dedicated to the tradition of the faith.

But what I see are many members of the flock of the Catholic Church who are completely apathetic towards their own salvation! If the Catholic Church is to be revived, flourish, and unite under our Holy Father, then you, indeed all clergy, must be open and honest, beginning with yourselves, and must be open and honest with the more than one billion souls that currently are entrusted to the Catholic Church.

No less a saint than St. John Chrysostom said, "The floor of hell is carpeted with the skulls of priests!"

Les, on behalf of the Roman Catholic Faithful – Defenders of the tradition of the Catholic faith

Responses

Les, you da man!
Isaac K. | July 10, 2008

---

Bless you, Judie. A friend sent a very important letter from Fr. John Corapi. Please read it yourself and get it to as many as you can. We are truly at a watershed. Go to http://www.fathercorapi.comPDF/Death_Wish.pdf/ Love and prayers, Suzanne
Suzanne de Decker | July 11, 2008

---

Cardinal George, formerly Archbishop George, was the Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon for a short time after Archbishop Lavada was here and who (Lavada) fought against Oregon Citizens\\\' Alliance (OCA) which was trying to prevent the State of Oregon from promoting homosexuality in our public schools. Lavada is now the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith.

We had a priest out here who got in trouble for refusing to take up a diocesan collection in his parish which he believed was partly being used to promote homosexuality, I think via AIDS/HIV awareness programs. Anyhow Lavada ended up suspending the priest, who had been offering the Latin Mass at his house and at a couple of Pius X chapels for some time after he had been removed from his parish.

When Archbishop George came here he went to visit this priest. Then George got notice that he was being moved to Chicago. Although I never met this priest or had anything to do with the Pius X Society, I was praying for them and knew some people who went to the priet\\\'s Masses. I wrote a quick letter to Arch. George suggesting that he visit the priest again before George left for Chicago to try to get things in good order for the priest. In my letter I suggested a number of possibilities. Shortly thereafter I heard from some the people who attended the priest\\\'s Masses who learned that George did just what I suggested. One thing Arch. Goerge told the priest was that he wanted to lift the suspension. Years later (last year) when the priest was dying our current Archbishop sent his Auxillary Bishop and another priest friend of the dying priest to him. They took along with them the papers that George had left behind for the lifting of that suspension. He received the last rites all traditional and in Latin and they sang Latin hymns together. The priest\\\'s name was Fr. Eugene Heidt. It seemed like a miracle. So here is something good that Cardinal George did that was completed just last year, over ten years after he left Portland.

Riichard L. Gerhards
Richard L Gerhards | July 17, 2008

---