Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on Pinterest Connect on Google Plus Connect on Flickr Connect on YouTube

Bills in Three States Set to Ban Most Abortions and Define Life at Conception: Pray, Pray, Pray!

June 8, 2011

We considered recently the progress that the Pro-life movement is making in changing hearts (HERE). We pondered that over 61% of Americans want abortion to be illegal in most circumstances. In today’s paper is more hopeful news as three Southern States consider legislation that would outlaw abortion in most circumstances, and go so far as to declare that life begins with conception. Children in the womb thus have the same rights as child of any age.

If this legislation goes forward, there will surely be appeals that will likely wind up in the Supreme Court of the United States, and bring the debate on life and personhood back into focus.

That such bills would be moving forward, along with a steady growth of legal restrictions on abortion in a total of up to 39 States, would have been almost unthinkable 10 years ago. But increasingly, the absurdity of abortion becomes more and more obvious as medical science makes it clear that a unique human being comes into existence at conception. Attempting to fix the moment when life begins at any later time is pure fantasy, and more and more Americans know this. We have reached the point where it may be politically possible in three states to legally recognize this sure fact.

Not only can we thank medical science for this information, but profound credit it due to the prophetic voice of the pro-life movement in this country.

I want to share an article from Reuters News Agency and add comments. As usual, the original text is in bold, black, italics, and my comments are in plain red text. This is an excerpt, the full article is here: Louisiana House May Conisder Bill to Ban Abortion

By Kathy Finn

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) – The Louisiana state House of Representatives on Tuesday evening was set to consider a bill that would ban abortions and launch a battle to overturn the historic Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The bill by Republican state Rep. John LaBruzzo defines human life as beginning at the moment of conception and makes it a crime to terminate a pregnancy except when the birth would endanger the mother’s life. The measure would repeal previous state exceptions that allowed abortion when a pregnancy results from rape or incest. This final point flows from personhood, doesn’t it.  If the unborn child is a human person, then that person has a right to life, even when third parties have done terrible things related to him or her. A person does not lose their right to live based on the crimes of third parties.

“Our first intent is to save unborn babies’ lives,” LaBruzzo told Reuters. “Our second intent is to have an opportunity to mount a challenge that makes it to the Supreme Court.” Yes it is wonderful to see these mounting challenges. 150 years ago the absurdity of slavery began to occur to a nation founded on liberty and justice. We could no longer square our practice with our national vision, and so, support for slavery waned. Either all men were created equal and endowed by their creator with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or not. Slavery simply could not be justified in the light of that sweeping national premise.

Little by little, we are winning the battle in a similar way. Abortion is appearing increasingly absurd. That  absurdity is increasingly clear in the light of what we know about when a distinct life begins, and what it therefore means to be a person, deserving of rights and respect. Assigning the beginning of human life to anything but the moment of conception is not only medically absurd, but appears to an increasing number of Americans to be purely arbitrary. “Arbitrary” is just another way of saying “unjust” in this case. The legal cases being brought forward about personhood are a wonderful focal instance of this insight. The only rational, legal basis for personhood is conception. The determination of any other time is an exercise of purely arbitrary and raw power where the State or the judiciary takes up the role of God. I am convinced that more and more Americans see it this way.

Marjorie Esman, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, said the bills are “a nationwide movement to erode women’s access to health care.” Abortion is not healthcare.

Louisiana joins two other Southern states — Mississippi and Alabama — in attempting the most stringent abortion restrictions seen in the nearly four decades since the landmark Supreme Court ruling making abortion legal. Notice the word “stringent.” Why not the word “protective” instead? Further I would replace the word “landmark” with something like “horrifying” or “infamous” or “flawed.” Sure, these words would make the report “biased,” but no less biased than words like “stringent” and “landmark” bias it.

Since the High Court in 1973 upheld a woman’s right to seek an abortion in Roe v. Wade, states have passed a wide range of abortion laws aimed at regulating when and under what circumstances a woman may obtain an abortion. No state has so far succeeded in banning abortion altogether, though many have tightened restrictions on the procedure in recent years.

According to the Guttmacher Institute in Washington, D.C., which conducts research and policy analysis related to reproductive health, 39 states prohibit abortions after a specified point in pregnancy. Many states also impose requirements ranging from minimum waiting periods to state-mandated counseling. That’s very impressive: 39 states have moved to limit abortion in some way. Pray God this is the slow but steady progress we need and that it will continue.

Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, says about 14 states have this year made some attempt at limiting abortion. “We have seen the most abortion restrictions adopted in one year that we have ever seen,” she said. Praise God!

Two of the most aggressive efforts are under way in Alabama and Mississippi. The measures define life as beginning at conception and would ban abortion. The Alabama Senate approved its bill, which is now pending in the House, and Mississippi residents will vote on the issue in November. And if they pass, there is likely a sure trip to the Supreme Court for a kind of show-down on Roe. Even if these laws are upheld, it is conceivable Roe could also continue to stand in some form. But I am getting a sense that Roe’s days may be fast eroding. I hope too that, in the meantime, the bishops and local pastors in these states will work hard for passage, and ask for prayer and fasting. If things move to a nationwide level I hope too that prayer and fasting will be central weapons. Maybe American Catholics could pledge 50 million rosaries for the over 50 million abortions performed, as the cases move to the national level. Pray, Pray Pray!!

“What the bill says is that life begins at conception, and a baby who is pre-born should enjoy all the rights that a 1-day-old baby does.” Amen!


Photo Credit LunarC via Creative Commons

Filed in: Abortion, Faith • Tags: ,

Comments (0)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. esiul says:

    There is a light at the end of the tunnel, we can see it ever so faint but it will shine bright for us here soon.
    Thanks so much for this update.

  2. Bender says:

    increasingly, the absurdity of abortion becomes more and more obvious as medical science makes it clear that a unique human being comes into existence at conception

    You poor naive man. You are a good man, Monsignor, but naive.

    You operate from a false premise — the idea that abortion proponents are interested in things like reason and facts. They are not. They are interested in power, raw power. And especially in the Supreme Court, where Roe was an exercise of raw judicial power, and where guys like Anthony Kennedy — a scandal of a Catholic — has parroted the serpent in the Garden, pontificating in Casey, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

    It is only a human being if Anthony Kennedy says it is a human being. Truth, facts, reason . . . irrelevant. “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” In other words, we are gods unto ourselves. The hubris it takes to write such a thing is staggering.

    And Anthony Kennedy is the deciding fifth vote. Pass all the laws you want, engage in all sorts of reasoned argument that you want, but you are throwing reason away. We are in the dictatorship of relativism. Public opinion does not matter to them and will not change the culture of death any more than public opinion ended slavery. It took a war to do that. Why? Because the Supreme Court in Dred Scott slammed the door to any peaceful political resolution.

    Likewise, until somebody finds the conscience of Anthony Kennedy and breathes some life into it, the bloodletting from abortion will go on unabated. That is where the attention of pro-lifers needs to be focused, on conversion of the obstinate and hard-hearted judges who despotically lord over us.

    • My understanding of the shift is not among Abortion proponents but among Americans in general, many of whom have been ambivalent. The Supreme Court remains a problem. Hence my request for prayer and fasting, and 50 million (literally) rosaries.

  3. yan says:

    Msgnr i wanted to argue with you about this because it does not make legal sense for a state to be able to define who is a person. the issue of personhood has to be decided at the federal level. if a state can define who is a person it can also define who is not a person. can one be a person in minnesota but not alabama? etc.

    also i have seen no clear indication that justice Kennedy is willing to overturn the viability schema that scotus jurisprudence still maintains in altered form from the time of roe.

    however i am convinced that the only solution to this horror called legalized abortion is the grace of God and so I am encouraged that you ask us to pray and fast. I hope you continue to call for that. I wish all bishops in the US and the world would do so! Would our cause not then be unstoppable? God bless and thank you, Monsignor.

    • I think that’s just the point though, to trigger an appeal to SCOTUS. That’s why the states are doing this.

      • yan says:

        Dear Msgr, as you should know SCOTUS has been appealed to on this issue more than once, and it has always reaffirmed Roe, although with less enthusiasm and with more nuance over the years. So why should SCOTUS come out differently this time? These laws are some of the most restrictive on abortion yet since Roe. That would not seem to be in their favor in terms of the likelihood that they will survive judicial scrutiny. Legal wrangling is not enough. Prayer and fasting are the tools that drive out the stubborn demons. What Bender wrote above about Anthony Kennedy and the composition of the court is quite true. Pray novenas for him, Msgr.

  4. Jean-Michel Verbeke says:

    I am very happy to know you for your fighting with babies abortion. They are the tall martyr of Humanity since the coming of Lord Jésus. When we’ll have win this fighting, Humanity will be win a large victory. God bless you Msgr.

  5. John says:

    Monsignor, perhaps one of your blog readers who is a lawyer, or knowledgeable in Constitutional law, can clearly spell out the potential arguments before the Court, should any, or all, of these laws pass. To my untrained legal mind, the questions about “person-hood”, “human life”, “viability”, “equal protection”, and “privacy” will all be part of the brief before the SCOTUS (should it ever arrive). Given that, I hope our side has sent the very best pro-life advocacy lawyers to these States to help them draft the legislation. The language in them needs to be absolutely precise, and leak-proof! “Innocent as doves, and wise as serpents!”

    • I hope too that others will comment as to the legal details. I am surely no lawyer, just a hopeful (and according to one good reader Naive 😉 ) priest who sees that God may be up to something good and that our prayers and works may be paying off.

  6. Mandy P. says:

    Fantastic news! I praise God that He gave us the ability to build the medical technology to see inside the womb. Being able to actually see the child growing inside his or her mother has contributed so much! I’ll be adding the legislators of these states to my rosary intentions. I pray that I will live to see Roe overturned.

  7. Cynthia BC says:

    Not something we’ll see in Maryland 🙁

    • No time soon, it is surely the equivalent of the deep south during slave times.

      • Kathi says:

        Perhaps not in the Maryland legislature, but good things have been happening in Germantown in making abortionists clearly unwelcome…

        Thank you, Msgr. Pope, for your call to prayer and fasting.

  8. elcid says:

    Bender: I agree with your arguments (except that msgr is naive), I use to think the abortion issue could be resolved on a political level but I’m convinced more than ever that it’s a spiritual issue that has to be resolved on a spiritual level, if all it takes is a vote from Kennedy then maybe 50 million rosarys for him is required.

    Yan: in reality personhood should not be decided in any human level, but base on natural law, God’s eternal law, after the second world war the nazi’s were convicted base on natural law.

    Msgr: as Yan indicated, maybe you can lead the nationwide call to prayer! here in Texas the governor just called a day of prayer:

    Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry is calling on Americans to join him in Houston in August for a prayer and fasting event to heal “a nation that has not honored God in our successes or humbly called on Him in our struggles.”


    • Great news about Gov. Perry.

    • yan says:

      Elcid, I agree completely that the natural law correctly interpreted should provide a basis and a limit to judicial interpretations. But that means you need rightly educated Catholics as legislators and judges, because it is the Catholic church alone that infallibly interprets the natural law.

      Have you ever got into a discussion or argument about the natural law with a non Catholic? It can be very illuminating as to the possibilities of interpretation that exist out there! As a matter of fact, the Roe decision is in a certain sense justified by a certain interpretation of NATURAL LAW. The idea that there is a zone of privacy around our actions is rooted in a natural law sense of the dignity of man. I have no problem with that interpretation of natural law, do you? But then to say that this warrants a woman to destroy her child is turning the natural law upside down, in my opinion and no doubt you and we here all agree on that. But not everyone does, obviously! That is why a rightly informed Catholic conscience and understanding of moral and natural law is absolutely essential to true legal justice.

  9. Catholic State Legislator/Lawyer says:

    These legislative developments among my neighboring Southern states, are certainly encouraging. Some pro-life legal advocates argue, in good faith, that a direct legislative challenge to Roe v. Wade is premature. I personally believe that the time is ripe, even though the composition of the Supreme Court has not materially changed. If there is any doubt among your readers, please understand that the defenders of these state laws will have competent legal representation.

    You are absolutely correct, Msgr., on another point. Prayer is the answer. From personal experience, I know that legislators cannot undertake this mission alone. Prayer has already converted the hearts of 61% of our countrymen. Now we need 50M more rosaries to convert the hearts and minds of five Supreme Court justices to recognize that Roe v. Wade was an unconscionable and unconstitutional extension of raw federal power over our traditional state authority to protect innocent human life.

    It would help if more state legislatures (such as my own) would join the challenge by enacting similar protections for unborn children. We are now witnessing the impressive power of states, as 26 of them have banded together to challenge federal authority to enact Obamacare.

    So keep praying that God will grant state and federal authorities the courage to bear witness to the Truth. Remind your state legislators that 61% of their constituents want laws to ban all or most abortions. If we pray fervently and engage the political culture, we can realistically hope that God will allow us to offer legal protections to the most vulnerable persons among us, unborn American children, on or before the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

  10. Bender says:

    I hope our side has sent the very best pro-life advocacy lawyers to these States to help them draft the legislation. The language in them needs to be absolutely precise, and leak-proof!

    John — the Supreme Court, including Anthony Kennedy, is already well aware of those arguments.

    Again, you operate from a false premise — oh, if only we can come up with the right argument, if only we can present the right evidence, then the Court will be compelled as a matter of logic to overrule Roe and Casey, the sheer force of reason will be too much to overcome and they will simply have to acknowledge the truth.

    We keep chasing after this delusion that the fight is all about the humanity of the unborn. Well guess what??? The truth is that THEY ALREADY KNOW that the entity in the womb is an individual living human person.

    Those “absolutely precise” and “leak-proof” arguments and evidence have already been presented — many times over, including by members of the Court. The problem is that Kennedy, et al., are not concerned with compelling reasoning. They willingly concede on the one hand that Roe is laughable in its reasoning and historical analysis, and then they go on to insist that it remain the law of the land.

    When judges continue to defend that which they know to be irrational, we beyond reason. The question is how do you appeal to despots? Before you can appeal to reason, you have to awaken in them an openness to reason. And you have to persuade them to place truth above choice.

    For an example of such “absolutely precise” and “leak-proof” constitutional arguments, which Kennedy is well-versed in, one need look no further than Justice Byron White’s dissent in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986) —

    However one answers the metaphysical or theological question whether the fetus is a “human being” or the legal question whether it is a “person” as that term is used in the Constitution, one must at least recognize, first, that the fetus is an entity that bears in its cells all the genetic information that characterizes a member of the species homo sapiens and distinguishes an individual member of that species from all others, and second, that there is no nonarbitrary line separating a fetus from a child or, indeed, an adult human being. Given that the continued existence and development — that is to say, the life — of such an entity are so directly at stake in the woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy, that decision must be recognized as sui generis, different in kind from the others that the Court has protected under the rubric of personal or family privacy and autonomy. [n2] Accordingly, the [p793] decisions cited by the Court both in Roe and in its opinion today as precedent for the fundamental nature of the liberty to choose abortion do not, even if all are accepted as valid, dictate the Court’s classification.

    If the woman’s liberty to choose an abortion is fundamental, then it is not because any of our precedents (aside from Roe itself) command or justify that result; it can only be because protection for this unique choice is, itself, “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” or, perhaps, “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” It seems clear to me that it is neither. The Court’s opinion in Roe itself convincingly refutes the notion that the abortion liberty is deeply rooted in the history or tradition of our people, as does the continuing and deep division of the people themselves over the question of abortion. As for the notion that choice in the matter of abortion is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, it seems apparent to me that a free, egalitarian, and democratic society does not presuppose any particular rule or set of rules with respect to abortion. And again, the fact that many men and women of good will and high commitment to constitutional government place themselves on both sides of the abortion controversy strengthens my own conviction that the values animating the Constitution do not compel recognition [p794] of the abortion liberty as fundamental. In so denominating that liberty, the Court engages not in constitutional interpretation, but in the unrestrained imposition of its own extraconstitutional value preferences.

    (Note — Justice White was the first to characterize Roe (and companion case Doe v. Bolton) as an “exercise in raw judicial power,” 410 U.S. 179, 222.)

    The other side already knows that the entity in the womb is an individual living human person, even if they publicly refuse to admit it, because to admit that is to admit that they are complicit in the deaths of 50+ million innocent human lives, and that is too much for them to take. For them to openly admit what they already know deep down would be for them to implicitly admit that they are sadistic monsters, on the scale of a Stalin or Hitler, indeed, far exceeding both of them combined. That is too much for them to take because there is nothing, absolutely nothing, on this earth that can wash away that blood from their hands. So they persist in irrationality and falsehood or otherwise give priority to narcissistic wants and desires — “even if it is a living human being, it is still a woman’s choice!”

    (More on this in a bit)

    • Bender says:

      The question of the humanity and personhood of the unborn was settled scientifically and in the minds of everyone concerned long ago, even if we foolishly continue to fight that battle. The fact is, the proponents of the evil that is abortion already know.

      There are limits to science, and there are limits to recourse to reason, and science and reasoning have reached that limit when it comes to the guilt for the blood of 50 million dead. To a large extent, even if they cared about truth more than god-like choice, the other side does not and will not admit to the humanity of the unborn because to do so would be to implicitly admit that they are complicit in the murder of so many innocents. That is too horrible a prospect for them to consider, so they continue to go down the Denial River, because there truly is nothing, absolutely nothing, on this earth that can wash away that blood on their hands.

      Now, it is at this point (and only at this point from a strategic point of view) in the pro-life struggle that the Church and the Faith come into play.

      Although there is absolutely nothing on this earth that can wash away the blood on their hands, there is something, or rather Someone, not of this earth, who can wash away that blood. So, this is where the Church comes in, and only at this point.

      Instead of the delusional and ineffective tactic of arguing the human personhood of the unborn, which was proved long ago, the Church needs to return to Her mission of offering reconciliation with God, of preaching the possibility of redemption for even sins that are so great as the murder of 50 million innocents, which makes Herod the Great pale in comparison. Only in this way can the blood be washed off the hands of all those complicit in their deaths. And that possibility of redemption, in turn, leads to the greater likelihood of them openly admitting the human personhood of the unborn.

      • So, Bender, what would you have lay Catholics do in the temporal order. You seem so absolute that nothing can (or should?) be done there. I have surely called for prayer, but I cannot think there is nothing we can do in the temporal order.

        • yan says:

          We get what we as Americans deserve, Msgr. We elect pro-choice senators and presidents, we get a rule of law that is pro choice. It is as simple as that. If americans were to really become pro life, this debate would end immediately. But as Bush once said, and i will never forget: ‘America is not ready for an end of abortion.’ And that coming from the most pro life president America has ever had since roe. Heroically pro life in many instances. In the temporal order we can vote and try different legal tactics but not only Anthony Kennedy but all Americans need conversion in order for the law to change.

          Don’t believe the stats that say Americans are becoming pro life. They are equivocal about what the phrase pro life means. They may be a useful propaganda tool for the right wing at times, but if pro life means what the Church say it means, about 23% of Americans are actually pro life, and that percentage has been static.

          There are as many people in America that are staunchly pro-choice as there are those that are pro-life. We must fast and pray, as you say, for all of us.

        • Bender says:

          We need to appeal to the hearts of the pro-aborts, not their heads. It is in their hearts that they need to convert, it is through the heart, not the head, that the will against good is undermined.

          And it is down in the trenches, at the level of the individual person, that the battle is won or lost. We have a pervasive pro-abortion legal structure today because utilitarian pro-abortion thought is pushed upon skulls full of mush in the law schools, in the colleges, in the high schools, and in the arts, in entertainment, in the media. That is, we have a pervasive pro-abortion legal structure today because pro-abortion people infiltrated and took over the schools, the media, and even a large number of churches.

          We can ram pro-life legislation through, but can we hold it? We can hold it only if today’s pro-choicers are tomorrow’s pro-lifers, otherwise they will simply repeal it when they get a legislative majority. That means getting down into the nitty gritty of one-by-one, person-by-person conversion of heart. Not merely on the matter of abortion, but addressing the fundamental philisophical foundation upon which abortion is built, together with assisted suicide, embryo-killing research, divorce, same-sex marriage, extra-marital sex, and any number of other issues.

          The micro approach is the only thing that will work in the end, not the macro approach. But the one-person-at-a-time approach takes time. It takes converting thousands upon thousands of young lawyers who might go on to become judges.

          And some people may refuse forever to be converted. It may be necessary for this generation to die off in the desert before we can enter the promised land. That is why it is never, ever, ever permissible for a pro-lifer to vote for a pro-choice candidate for president or senator — until the current pro-abortion members of the Supreme Court leave and are replaced by pro-life members, it doesn’t matter what ANYBODY thinks. It doesn’t matter if 299,999,995 people in this country adamantly oppose Roe if merely five of the jokers of the Supreme Court support it.

          • Bender says:

            We pro-lifers will not win this war.

            We will never win this war.

            There are not enough of us.

            Rather, the war will be won by today’s do-not-cares, haven’t-thought-about-its, and “pro-choicers.” However, it can still neverthelss be won for the pro-life side, but only if we convert today’s do-not-cares, haven’t-thought-about-its, and “pro-choicers” and make them tomorrow’s pro-lifers; only if we turn their hearts by and with love and truth.

          • yan says:

            The court, like every other branch of the government, has exhibited a noticeable penchant for coming out with decisions that are in synch with what an overwhelming majority of Americans think. There is very little chance that if the great majority of Americans wanted an end of abortion that the court would decide that abortion must remain a constitutional right. So your suggested ‘one-to-one’ strategy is all the more critical as a result of this reality. Whether or not it will succeed God only knows, but we know what we must do: always pray for an end of abortion and conversion of hearts so that everyone may agree that abortion is a horrible and heinous and satanic murder and as with all such acts, that it ought to be against the law in this country and everywhere.

            The court has changed its mind about what the meaning of the Constitution is before. Do not despair. The Court takes into consideration which way the wind is blowing. O’Connor openly admitted this in the Casey decision where she refused to overrule Roe [and, reading her opinion, I think there are indications that otherwise she might have overruled it.]

            Kennedy is not hopeless nor without a heart or soul. He wrote the decision AFFIRMING the federal ban on partial birth abortion. [Gonzales v Carhart]

            However White is gone now, and was replaced by the Clinton appointee Justice Ginsburg [and passed the Senate by like 98-2], a rabidly pro-choice justice that wrote a chilling dissent in that case. This is indicative of the unappetizing truth that opinions of women are the greatest obstacles to an end of abortion. That doesn’t make our job any easier because women are sympathetic creatures and attacking them doesn’t make our point of view very endearing to anyone.

    • yan says:

      Good research Bender. However, recall that White concurred in the Griswold judgement which made contraception a constitutional right. And even the 2 justices that dissented thought the law repellent or silly or both.

  11. Jeff Galloway says:

    I think the various lengthy posts here point us to one thing – we cannot rectify this vile law on our own. We need God to intervene mightily. For that we need faith and, as Msgr. has said, ceaseless prayer. We must believe that God will act in favor of the unborn, even if we cannot understand His timeframe or his methods. Pray!

  12. Richard Watson says:

    Another problem with Abortion is that it is a form of sex discrimination. The woman has total control on whether to have an abortion or not. The man has no choice to save his unborn child even though the unborn child has half of his DNA and if the child is allowed to be born then he can be forced to pay child support. The Law allows the woman all the power (Pro Choice) which is a severe form of sex discrimination in the case of Abortion.

    • UmCx says:

      I didn’t rellay sleep last night because this kind of thing scares me. I can’t have a baby right now. Being pregnant would ruin my life. But I’m married, and expecting me to be abstinent is stupid. Yes, I’m on birth control. But what if it fails? There is a 1% change that it will fail, and that absolutely terrifies me. I can’t be pregnant because I work with mutagenic chemicals and because I don’t have time or money. I can’t afford the co-pay that my shitty grad student health insurance requires. I’m planning on having my thesis written by August, and being a puking mess would interfere with that. But none of that matters. According to you I would have to carry to term a fetus even if it would force me to quit school and make me destitute. That is what pisses me off. I worked hard to get where I am, and I’m not about to let anyone value a fetus over my life and my hard work. That is what strips me of my humanity.

  13. GABRIEL says:

    It comes to this.

    The National Organisatan for Women has signed a deal with Satan.

    He gives them Power:

    And in return they supply The Wh*re of Babylon (aka Feminism) with the blood that fills her cup and makes her drunk.

    And now you know.

  14. marie says:

    Hello Monsignor, I do not navigate the internet very well so forgive me for coming into this conversation from left field. I have a question: you wrote a piece called purgatory; i believe it was really about how you preach at funerals…anyways, i wanted to send it to my brother who is also a priest and I was wondering if you could tell me where Imight find it? Thank you so much for all your writtings. I send them off tofriends and family very often. marie