University Principal Vs Catholic Truth…editor
The Catholic Church accepts the decision by St Andrews University to award an honorary degree to Hillary Clinton.
The church’s position was spelled out on Wednesday as the editor of the Catholic Truth, an unofficial Catholic newsletter, urged the university to “reconsider” due to Mrs Clinton’s stance on abortion . Read more
Notice this little nugget in the newspaper report: In a letter to Professor Richardson, Catholic Truth editor, Patricia McKeever, whose views are not sanctioned by the church…
Which views? Is it my “views” about a public honour being given on Scottish soil to a woman who supports what she herself describes as the “horrible procedure” of partial birth abortion? Are Catholics permitted to have “views” on abortion? Are we permitted to remain silent when we see someone responsible for promoting the deaths of innocent babies honoured by one of our leading universities? Really? Somebody needs to rewrite the Catechism section on the nine ways of sharing in the sin and guilt of another – and remove the words “by our silence”.
Whoever this anonymous spokesman is, he should have sufficient integrity to stand by his statements, and not hide behind a cowardly cloak of anonymity.
However, in the absence of any denial from an Scottish Bishop, we must assume that they are in support of this disgraceful decision by the university of St Andrews to honour a notorious radical feminist and pro-abortion politician from the USA. Well, now, in the light of recent revelations about the Scottish hierarchy, there’s a surprise… NOT…
If true, that is beyond belief. Surely some church spokesman must have said something to that effect or the newspaper wouldn’t print it, fearing libel? So it looks like it is true. The once great and staunch Catholic Church reduced to a rubble of weak and often effeminate bishops and priests who hide behind their “spokesmen”.
Can you imagine a Church “spokesman” saying “it’s up to the university who it honours” if the honour were going to Bishop Fellay of the SSPX?
Not in a million years. If this anonymous spokesman is, in fact, speaking the mind of the bishops, then I repeat myself ad nauseam: we’re dealing with apostates. Bishops who have lost the Catholic Faith if ever they really had it in the first place.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least. It’s all about avoiding confrontation, massaging egos and ‘being diplomatic’. Well, we know who the Patron Saint of Diplomats is – Pontius Pilate! Clinton has her sights on the Presidency in 2017 and wants to be the USA’s first-ever woman President. This would no doubt please all the ‘pro-choice’ ‘feminist’ types, so let’s not rock the boat. Who cares about upholding and defending Church teachings….?
I agree wholeheartedly. The churchmen are so busy avoiding conflict that they will probably issue a statement of support if Clinton gets elected as first woman president. God forbid!
I wonder if anyone knows the identity of these people at the university – I’d like to know what they have to say about this disgraceful business – any guesses?
For the record, I published my email to the Principal in its entirety on our homepage, clearly labelled for all the world to see.
Since she’s chosen to attack me in the press rather than take up my offer to publish any “abusive” emails I think we can take it as read that I was right first time: there ARE no “abusive” emails, no “hate campaign” against her. Against unborn babies, yes. Not against the Principal of St Andrews University. No way.
I can confirm that numerous students from St Andrews and Dundee are organising a protest handing out information on the unborn child.
That’s WONDERFUL news. We are behind you all the way.
God bless your efforts – and He will!
Thank you, and God Bless you. I should clarify, it’s not the kind of protest with banners and heckling (though I wouldn’t mind that), but a stall will be set up, near the university, on the day Clinton comes, and info will be handed out
That’s a great idea, Student.
But can you not do some sort of protest to try to get the invite withdrawn? I know it wouldn’t happen but it would be a good token gesture.
However I know it’s not so easy for the people involved, so what you are doing is marvellous.
Why not contact abort67 and ask them to join you on the day with their graphic images of aborted babies? They have a very successful track record outside of abortion clinics, with women changing their minds once they see the “products” of abortion for themselves. Will undoubtedly have the same effect on students and staff if you can manage to get the abort67 activists along.
If you could email me some photos of your display, I’d love to publish them in the December newsletter with a brief report, if you are willing to be associated with us.
Email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
I hope you manage to persuade the powers that be to withdraw their invitation but even if you just let it be shown that there are lots of students who oppose the Hillary Clinton honorary degree, that will be well worthwhile.
Congratulations to all the students putting up a protest.
I forgot to say that you will rightly be shocked at the disgraceful response of the Bishops, via their anonymous spokesman, to this matter. But you need to remember that the Church is going through the worst ever crisis in its history. All of what is happening has been foretold, both in the 17th century (Our Lady of Good Success) and in the 20th century at Fatima. Check out http://www.fatima.org
We are going through the “diabolical disorientation” prophesied at Fatima, where everything is upside down. Those of us defending the Faith and the lives of innocent babies are regarded as “extremists” while the bishops are “cool” with the media hacks. You just don’t get more “disoriented” or more “diabolical” than that.
I don’t see how your email could be described as abusive. Like you, I doubt very much that there have been any abusive emails sent to the Principal. After all, if she let the journalists quote from your email, why not the so called abusive ones? I don’t believe it for a second.
Like Lily, I don’t see either how your email could be described as abusive. As to the identity of these people at the university who are part and part of the ‘Catholic Society’, I have no idea. But they seem to be keeping their tongues well behind their teeth, and the silence is deafening.
Congratulations indeed to the students putting up a protest.
I think the “Catholic Society” IS the source of the student protest.
Sorry Editor, I hadn’t thought on that.
Well, Theresa Rose,
We can’t all be giant brains like moi…and humble to a fault …!
At last some brilliant news regarding the Students and Clinton…be brave young people future PRO LIFE defenders …and God bless you …tell all your contacts to write in ..to the Uni we still need floods of letters please and really Pro life Familys should be very angry about this Award !!!!! The power of the pen ..and computer in these times …….is mightier than the sword .And it only takes for good men and women to do nothing for evil to prevail …and to remain silent is to condone …..Did you hear that Catholic spokesman ?
I agree Wendy – it is so heartening to know that there are students ready to stand up and be counted – unlike the cowardly anonymous Church spokesman and the not so anonymous Catholic bishops, who should be hanging their heads in shame over this.
Rod Pead, Editor of Christian Order posted a comment on The Courier blog which, surprise surprise, did not get through the moderation process. He’s agreed to let me publish it here:
So poor dear Professor Louise has been offended by some harsh, perhaps even rude criticism. Big deal. Mother Teresa, no less, said that due to the global dehumanisation and despair it breeds, “the fruit of abortion is nuclear war,” So, effectively, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta is calling Louise a warmonger for inviting the leading promoter of the billion dollar abortion industry into her place of learning. How about that? Would you dare to call Mother Teresa “hyperbolic,” and “hateful”?
As for the local Church in Scotland having nothing to say about honouring “Killary,” as she is known in pro-life circles for her ultra-aggressive global abortion agenda, what’s new? With a few glorious exceptions, bishops worldwide have abdicated their God-given duty to save babies and mothers and to advance Christ’s Kingdom. The following words written to Cardinal Roger Mahony of California in 1993 by the late legendary pro-life missionary Father Paul Marx, referring also to Killary’s equally wicked hubbie, could have been penned to the Scottish hierarchy yesterday:
Most veteran pro-lifers gave up on the bishops of the USA years ago. Most believe that the babies and mothers are less important to the bishops than their social legislation agenda, their tax exemption, their connections with pro-abortion politicians, their desire to avoid persecution and their desire to be accepted by the world. … Why did you not seize that fantastic opportunity to deliver a Jeremiad against [Bill Clinton, at the 1993 March for Life in Washington], as did the high school girl who was on the same platform with you? She thundered, “Wipe the blood from your hands, Bill Clinton!” If you really want to “galvanize” pro-life people, start talking like her! Across America, Catholics are dreading the day when they see your face in the news, meeting with a President who actually believes in mechanically sucking the brains out of living preborn babies during [partial birth] abortions.
Fr Marx was no maverick. He was encouraged and honoured by John Paul II, who told him, “you are doing the most important work on earth.” Faint-hearts who can’t handle the bloody truth about abortion might note that the same pontiff also likened abortion to the Nazi death camps (The New York Times, 5 June 1991). Fr Marx even reminded Cardinal Mahony that “In September 1974, you yourself compared pro-abortion politicians to Nazi mass murderers.”
So there it is. Mass murder is mass murder whatever the euphemisms and unjust legislation masking the oceans of blood and despair. God bless Pat McKeever* for standing up for truth and life! And for doing the hierarchies’ work for them, despite receiving far worse harassment and criticism than Louise will ever suffer for falling into politically correct line. END.
* Please note that I am due absolutely NO praise in any of this. I only learned about the invite to Clinton because Wendy Walker sends out very informative email bulletins on pro-life issues every single day. But for her hard work, we wouldn’t be discussing this here today. So any praise for highlighting this scandal goes to Wendy – God bless her tartan socks (and if you don’t have tartan socks, Wendy, tartan socks will be provided!)
The reader who did not get through the moderation process of the Courier blog, has certainly given an excellent comment, and I am glad he gave permission for it to be published here. It hits the nail on the head, and calls a spade a spade. If the editor of the Courier blog was offended by it, how much would Louise Richardson be?
You might not claim any praise Editor, for yourself, but, I think Wendy Walker and whoever emailed you with that comment does deserve it.
This is a creme de la creme of a reply …how briiliant and readable it is !MAY I ASK ?PLEASE ALL IF YOU HAVE NOT WRITTEN /E -MAILED ST ANDREWS ABOUT KILLORY THEN PLEASE DO SO ..VITAL..I am sure dear Patricia will supply details of contact .I would like to add it was our very own Pat Mckay who alerted me to this …outrage of decency …but we are all links in a pro life chain and believe me Patricia is a very strong one BLESS HER DEAR heart.Thank you all
Thank you Wendy, for your generous words.
The email address for the Principal Of the University, Professor Louise Richardson is email@example.com
I hope anyone who has not yet written to her, will do so now.
I hope you feel better Ed Prayers for your recovery
Many thanks, Father. I do feel a bit better today, well enough to get to Mass, but a way to go before I’m back to what passes for normal for me!
Patricia, sorry to hear you’re poorly. Maybe a hot toddy would help? It was so nice to read Rod’s tribute to the late, great Father Marx. I made his acquaintance at a pro-life conference in Dublin, back in ’99. We kept in touch ever since, until he went to be with the Lord (R.I.P.). Father was fond of a dram – ‘the Lord made it and it’s good for you’, he said in one of his many e-mails. So, there you are – it’s official. I’ll save the story about ‘grace before grog’ for another time….
Thank you, Pat. I am a good bit better and that thanks to hot toddy – two in fact! And there was plenty of “grog” afterwards, be assured. I’m not a whisky fan at the best of times but with hot water and sugar – ugh!
As an ex-seafarer (seemed like a good idea at the time….), I’d recommend a Wood’s Navy Rum for your hot toddy. 57% abv and priced accordingly. No need for sugar, but plenty of boiling water. Just keep away from naked flames!
you need lots of honey and lemon to it as well some cloves one chilli(pepperoncino), and one cardamom pod, well the seeds. The chilli and cardamom work well as the chilli attacks in infection and the cardamom is loaded with caffeine, hence on ly one. This is what the Palestinians put in their espresso or the strong flavour associated wit Turkish coffee. would be singers might take this (minus the whisky), before mass if they have flu etc
Are you and Pat McKay trying to kill me? For a teetotalling gal, I made my contribution to the world of alcohol when I downed those two hot toddies. Enough already!
Hillary Clinton promotes abortion of all babies, including the most vulnerable – disabled, those conceived in rape, mixed race and all whose “faces do not fit.” Not only disabled babies are targetted but those who only “may” have a disability. The distinction is irrelevant because one should not have to qualify for life by virtue of ability, skin colour, or whether one’s father was a rapist. Capital punishment should not apply to the conceived child, who should not be punished for her/his father’s (abhorrent) crime. Think on… killing is not the answer to human problems.
I agree with what you are saying. Yet is not abortion in fact murder? Murdered on the grounds of possibly being disabled, mixed race or whatever else, that could be thought of.
“killing is not the answer to human problems”
Well said Alison. Yes, the slippery slope has been well trodden now, with even those babies suspected of “abnormality” being on the “at risk register”.
As for those whose fathers were rapists – I’ve read a couple of articles by young mothers who decided to keep their babies and they give the lie to the claim that the pro-abortionists make, about the mothers needing to abort or they will be reminded of the rapist every time they look at the child. Not so. In the cases I’ve read about, they did not regret keeping their innocent child and did NOT constantly think of the father.
What they don’t actually know, they just make up. That’s what’s called propaganda. Or, put more simply, downright lies.
So, again. Alison, well said. You are completely correct in your conclusion, that killing is not the answer to human problems. No way!
I take your point about Starbucks etc. We wouldn’t be able to buy a blessed thing if we shopped in a strictly ethical way these days, that is true.
However, it’s one thing to buy coffee from a pagan outlet knowing that they are using our money to promote vice, and quite another to enable the bishops to do effectively the same thing.
Funding the salaries of people like Michael McGrath would cause me huge problems, knowing that his philosophy of Catholic education is NOT to “impose” the Faith – and that’s without getting into the sex-education programmes dressed up as relationships (never marriage & family life) programmes and not to mention the presentation of all religions are being of equal value and authenticity. And that’s just the schools issue. Funding ecumenical and inter-faith ventures etc. is another conscience problem for a lot of us.
Would you consider it fair and acceptable, therefore, to offer some cash to the priest himself, to help fund his livelihood on the understanding that this is a personal gift and not to be shared with the diocese?
the widows mite comes to mind. Jesus could have stopped her from putting money in;he didn’t. The hierarchy of the religious leaders created the horror of the poor woman putting in all she had to live on.. now I’m pretty sure Jesus would have made sure she was looked after. The giving is tied to the Church and not the individual priest .. however, it is most pleasing when such a priest is taken for tea and highly suitable cream cakes. he however has to be responsible for the money he is entrusted with. God will deal with the issues of ecumenical collections or whatever but I think it still important to support the parish. There is a of course the moral principle of direct and indirect collusion. If I buy a bottle of water from starbucks because its the only place open I am not colluding with the philosophy if I buy a starbucks card because I love their philosophy then I am . This is where it gets unclear for many as the principle of giving is absolute – if you give in good conscience you are not responsible for the way the money is spent by the parish. With transparency and visibility the key words in the finances of any diocese it should not be too hard to find out where it goes if you choose to
I encourage you with words from the Imitation of Christ ” Why do you look to have rest on this earth when it is not your true home? Your home is heaven and all earthly things are transitory ..and you-as well..Do not cling to them for you will become enmeshed in them and be destroyed. Direct your thoughts upward to God and all your prayer to Christ continually and later on in Ch5 in defining/reminding the priest:
” Again, he wears the cross before him that he may have sorrow for his own sins; and behind him that he may realize that he has been placed between God and mankind in order to mourn over the sins of others with compassion…when a priest offers Mass,he honours God, gives joy tot eh angels, builds up the Church helps the living and obtains rest for the departed (seamus Heaney NB), making himself a sharer in all good things”
It’s HIS Church so it will not fail.. the gates of the underworld etc etc etc
Abortion is the direct killing of a human being. Murder becomes emotive as culpability and other moral issues get tied up but simply it is the direct killing of innocent life
“Murder becomes emotive…”
Sorry, but Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae # 58 says we need (more than ever) to call things by their proper name – abortion is murder:
We need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Is 5:20). Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as “interruption of pregnancy”, which tends to hide abortion’s true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth…The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder … Source
It is ironic that the religious order started in Glasgow using the name of this particular encyclical (The Sisters of the Gospel of Life) went on public record in a secular newspaper some years ago saying we shouldn’t call abortion “murder” as the media will think we’re “nutters.”
Pope John Paul II Vs the media – that’s our choice, it seems. I think on this occasion Pope JP II got it right – we must, now more than ever, call abortion by its proper name – “murder” – if we are to do all that we can to end the slaughter of unborn babies.
I cant disagree with that on any level I was meaning in fact the last part says precisely that direct killing i understand that completely but then again thinking how these things play out in court here and in the USA – what if someone is coerced and convinced that abortion is the right thing to do and after the pregnancy became depressed or diagnosed with a bi polar personality disorder and after time terminated the pregnancy/kill the baby/murder the child.. are they guilty of murder or of the direct killing of an innocent; manslaughter or culpable homicide –
Being coerced and convinced that any murder is the right thing to do, was never a defence before abortion became legal. Objectively, if someone takes a human life, at any stage, deliberately ending that life, then they must bear responsibility for that action and take the consequences. .
Of course the politicians who passed the law and the clergy, including bishops, who by their complicit silence or weakness in applying Canon 915, enabled the passing of that law, bear a huge responsibility before God for this slaughter. Still, we cannot change the objective moral law. A person found guilty of murder who is deemed to have mental health problems may be sent to a psychiatric facility instead of prison – but the objective facts remain the same. A life has been taken and that person, mentally ill or pressurised or whatever, is responsible.
yes.. but is it then murder? As defined? Neither the Commandments; the catechism of Trent for Parish priests nor the Catechism call it murder they call it killing. Thou shalt not kill.. this is probably my point .. Legally the definition is different …hence the word murder is open to confusion and killing is not ..Killing still covers the objective moral truth because it is not defined in the same way as murder is
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “murder” thus:
“the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another:”
Now, there can be no question whatsoever that the “pro-choice” mothers think about and plan – i.e. premeditate – the killing of their unborn child.
Unless I’m mistaken, you appear to be saying that because an evil law has been passed in the UK, USA or wherever, to permit, in law, the premeditated killing of a baby in his/her mother’s womb, that somehow we must amend our language to take account of that. Like Roseann Reddy (whom, for the life of me, I just can’t think of as “Sister”) we should avoid saying “murder” because the media will think we’re “nutters.”
The whole point of Pope John Paul’s statement in Evangelium Vitae was to say that we must NOT do fall into that error of complicity in perpetuating this evil.
He was saying that all the more reason, BECAUSE politicians have legalised this particular type of murder, and because a whole batch of euphemisms are used to describe it, ALL THE MORE REASON why we must call it by its proper name – which, Pope John Paul II reminds us is – murder.
The intentional killing of a baby before or after birth is an outrage before God, whether David Steel or David Cameron beg to disagree.
We, all of us, Catholic clergy and laity, must beware of actually being part of the problem, being complicit in supporting this evil legislation because we are actually acknowledging the evil legislation in a way which gives the appearance of approval. We must never miss an opportunity to point out that just because the useful political idiots of our licentious times have declared the murder of unborn babies to be now legal, doesn’t make it moral. It remains a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance. It is murder, pure and simple, an d we must not shy away from calling it by what Pope John Paul II describes as “its proper name.”
Is St Andrews affiliated with the Catholic Church? Personally, I think Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi are morally reprehensible individuals who will have to answer only to their Maker. I hope Cardinal Burke hounds them to Kingdom come.
As for you comments Editor, I’m concerned that you think someone who is mentally ill who has an Abortion can be held accountable. They may be unduly influenced by doctors, parents etc, and especially if they don’t know a Saturday from a Sunday, they don’t have a choice. I would never want my daughter, even if she was disabled to Abort her baby. Although doesn’t the Church sanction caesarian sections when the mother’s life is in danger, and then couple the baby up to a life support, or let it die naturally?
No, St Andrews University is not affiliated to the Church, but if St Andrews or any other Scottish university proposed giving an honorary degree to, say Bishop Fellay of the SSPX, the Bishops would not be slow to voice their “concerns” – their fury, more likely. So the fact that they are OK with a pro-abortionist supporter of even partial birth abortion, says a lot.
You have misunderstood my comment about mental health. I was using the general situation in the courts, to underline my point.
Nobody would suggest that because some people with mental health problems commit crimes that those crimes should be deemed no longer crimes.
If someone is arrested for burglary, for example, and it transpires that they were mentally ill, the judge would not be in a position to say “that person did not commit a crime after all, because she’s mentally ill.”
What he WOULD (and generally DOES) do is dish out a punishment which takes account of the mental illness.
So, to argue that because a woman has mental health problems she isn’t (objectively) breaking the moral law and thus (objectively) guilty of murder, doesn’t hold water.
And of course, if others are manipulating that person to have an abortion, then they must bear huge responsibility. I’m not saying that in individual cases, particularly today with evil laws muddying consciences, and with the neglect of priests and bishops and educators to properly teach about morals and conscience, that every woman who aborts a child is guilty on the same subjective level. But the fact is, objectively, every woman who aborts a baby is guilty of murder.
Do you see the difference?
Is St Andrews affiliated with the Catholic Church?
Not currently, but it was founded by the Catholic Church (same as Aberdeen and Glasgow Universities), before the great apostasy of the reformation, the single worst event in Scottish history (and which will never lose this inglorious title).
this will have to be discussed over a bun as you are misunderstanding me – Neither the Commandments; the Roman Catechism of Trent or the current catechism define it as murder rather it is killing
I’m sorry – happy to discuss over a cuppa – but there is no misunderstanding on my part. I know perfectly well what you are saying – you are saying that because the law of the land allows this particular type of murder we can’t call it murder.
As for “the commandments/catechism don’t call it murder” – that’s because, among other things, at no time in the history of the world did any sane person consider legalising the killing of unborn babies in their mother’s womb. It’s always been condemned as an evil but in our times that evil has risen to new heights through politicians (often Catholics) making this particular type of murder legal – which is why MORE THAN EVER, Pope JP II says, WE need to call it “murder”. And we need to ignore the idiotic claim that the media will regard us as “nutters” if we say that. Who cares what the media people say?
Either the Pope was right or he was wrong to tell us to call abortion “murder” because that is its proper name. We can’t say “the Pope’s right but it’s not really murder by definition.”
It IS murder by definition – just as marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman for life – no matter WHAT evil legislation is passed to the contrary.
I hope I’m made the point a bit more clearly now, and apologise for any confusion caused. .
Tea & cakes, my treat.
The American site Lifesitenews have reported this story about St Andrews
so Professor Richardson should get even more emails which she will probably think are abusive http://www.lifenews.com/
I still don’t think a mentally ill person, such as who has down’s syndrome, is culpable when pressured to have one because I don’t think they’ll truly understand the gravity of the situation, and also, I doubt they’d have one if they didn’t know about it.
We cannot know exactly who is entirely culpable, mentally ill or not. I have spoken consistently only about the objective moral law and thus an informed conscience.
But please do not underestimate the abilities of Downs Syndrome young people. They are able to live independently, hold down jobs and so on. I’m told they can be quite stubborn when they want to be. So, we cannot presume that they would allow themselves to be pressured into anything – abortion included.
In any case, God does the judging at that level, when the time comes. We are restricted to making objective judgments about the morality or immorality of an action – not the subjective guilt or culpability of any individual. God sees the heart and soul – we don’t.
The trouble is that in every nation where ‘just a little’ abortion has been permitted ‘on limited grounds’, it has led to it being provided on demand – for any reason and none. Alas, this is something the Irish will soon find out.
Not surprisingly, we now see gender-selective abortion in the news. I wonder how this sits with the rabid ‘feminist’ pro-‘choice’ brigade. Do they consider it acceptable that an unborn child is butchered just for being deemed the ‘wrong’ sex (usually female)? A deafening silence from them on this issue, apart from those who try to argue that it’s ‘not the mothers who are doing the choosing in these cases’. So much for ‘feminism’, if these women are letting themselves be ‘coerced into it’ by partners or other family members.
That’s the whole problem with feminist ideology – there are more holes in it than Obama’s “arguments” for attacking Syria. They are quite happy to put up with the anomalies and injustices, as long as they get the appearance (illusion) of equality and “women’s rights”. Bampots.
Aye, a pathetic and farcical ‘argument’. I think this was the same ‘Ms’ who said she’d looked up the ABC-link on Wikipedia and found that there was ‘no evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer’…. So, as far as she was concerned that was IT – and nobody had any business suggesting otherwise. My response was to say that if Wikipedia claimed ‘there really is a Santa Claus’, would you just accept that, too?
People such as her just don’t get it. The likes of Wikipedia wouldn’t be in existence if they didn’t kowtow to the liberal, humanist, socialist lies and spin perennially propagated by atheistic political and media elites, who have so much control over their lives.
Well done, Pat McKay on raising the issue of gender selective abortions. I wonder what Madam Clinton would have to say if someone at Saint Andrews asked the question?
Not all feminists are tongue tied when it comes to the issue of mothers killing their unborn daughters. If anyone is in any doubt about the demonic nature of the abortion holocaust, they should read and re-read the following reply from an abortionist when questioned about sex selective abortions at the Irish parliamentary Committee hearings staged in January.
“Choice Ireland believes that ‘such practices [as sex selective abortion] are due to patriarchal structures and that male preference is a result of gender norms which value males over females.’ You might imagine on that basis that the group would oppose it. Fay argued against a ban on sex selection abortion, however, on the grounds that it ‘would not counteract the entrenched gender bias that underlines this practice’. She said such bans have been ineffective in other places, and ‘have further exacerbated gender discrimination by undermining women’s autonomy and creating additional obstacles to women’s health care’.”
– Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children. January 10.
Does anyone seriously doubt that the father of lies is behind such an expression of the banality of evil? Did someone say equality?
In no UN or EU charter does any individual have a ‘right to choose’ or a ‘right to die’. These ‘values’ are totally groundless and are based on the evil secular humanist ideology. According to Catholic Theology we are all made in God’s image and likeness, and this is all part of a plan to destabilise and destroy this Divine plan. No matter how much you dress it up it’s still the annihilation of a totally innocent human life. The only positive is, is that the unborn children will go to God. As Jesus said: ‘Let the children come to me. Do not hinder them’.
WELL, WELL, WELL,IT WOULD SEEM LOUISE RICHARDSON PRINCIPAL OF ST ANDREWS IS IRISH BORN ………AND CATHOLIC ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA ????!!!!!!!!!!!
Have any of you read ‘The Courier’s’ report on yesterday’s Clinton do @ St Andrews? It states….’The Pope sent his “cordial greetings” to all taking part, and expressed confidence that the “noble work of education and research in a wide range of academic fields will continue to flourish in the city that bears the name of Scotland’s patron saint.”….’
If this is true, then we really are ‘up sh#t creek without a paddle’. After all our efforts, all we get is the ‘middle finger salute’ from the very Pope himself!
The confusion into chaos continues apace. Here we have Cardinal Burke insisting that Catholic pro-abortion politicians be denied Holy Communion (Canon 915) while the Scots clergy and bishops (and many others) refuse to do this – see our August newsletter report on this very subject.
Added to that, we have the scandal of the Pope and the Scots bishops endorsing the honouring of Hillary Clinton at St Andrews University. Notice, too, that today’s SPUC e-bulletin headlines Cardinal Burke lamenting the silence of Catholics on the issue of abortion with no mention that the Pope has (lamentably and shockingly) tried his best to justify his own silence on abortion (and other evils).
Did I say “confusion into chaos”? Oops! “Diabolical disorientation” is the only truly accurate description of what is going on in the Church right now.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Comments are closed.