Planned Parenthood is an organization is decline. That doesn’t mean they can’t turn things around very quickly because they still enjoy overwhelming support in some quarters, but last year was very hard on the premier pro-abort organization. Jill Stanek has a post on an American Life League report detailing some aspects of Planned Parenthood operations going back 25 years:
- Income DOWN 4.7%
- Profit DOWN 70.8%
- Contributions DOWN 27%
- Abortions DOWN .7% (first year-to-year decline since 93-94)
- Total “services” DOWN 2.09% first year-to-year decline since 96-97)
- Affiliates/clinic numbers DOWN 7.4%/2.9% respectively (see chart above)
- Sex ed program attendees DOWN 8.3%
- Prenatal services DOWN 23%
- Adoption referrals DOWN 13.9%
But, even as private donations decrease dramatically and other business, especially their lucrative abortion business, decreases, Planned Parenthood has one friend it can always count on – the Obama Administration:
- Government funding UP 34%
- Taxpayer funding now 46.5% of PP income
- PP sells abortion to 98.14% of women seeking pregnancy related care
- Abortion comprises 51.5% of PP’s clinic income (see chart above)
The Obama Administration has gone to court to try to force several states to continue funding the pro-abort group after legislative action, supported by a large majority of voters, to deny Planned Barrenhood funding. Any organization that needs 50% taxpayer support is not an enterprise that could survive on their own, not without a radical restructuring, which I believe we’ll see if a pro-life candidate is elected.
I can’t support any organization that supports organization. I’ve never been a big supporter of the Salvation Army because of their, ahhhhh……odd………theology and heteropraxis, but now I can’t support them at all:
It was with concern, then, that I reacted the other day when Facebook and Twitter lit up with reports that the International Social Justice Commission of the Salvation Army had signaled its approval of abortion under certain limited circumstances. The Army’s Statement of Position on abortion affirms that “all people are created in the image of God and therefore have unique and intrinsic value,” that “Human life is sacred and all people should be treated with dignity and respect,” that “The Salvation Army accepts the moment of fertilisation as the start of human life,” and that “life is a gift from God and we are answerable to God for the taking of life.” But then the Statement gives three situations in which induced abortion is permissible: (1) When “Carrying the pregnancy further seriously threatens the life of the mother”; when (2) “Reliable diagnostic procedures have identified a foetal abnormality considered incompatible with survival for more than a very brief post natal period”; and (3) in cases of rape and incest.
In response, Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and prolife activist, has expressed the concerns of many: “Good organizations become ‘infiltrated’ by forces that promote abortion, the breakdown of marriage, sexual immorality, etc. They come as wolves in sheep’s clothing and appear to be harmless and even helpful. Then they begin to reveal their true or basically untrue colors. This is sadly maybe what is happening to the Salvation Army. Not for sure, but maybe.”
Sadly, this situation is not unique to the Salvation Army, it is epidemic in all organizations that tend to hire individuals of a certain socio-political persuasion, the type of person who is more likely to work at a non-profit than a for-profit business. Many of these folks have a world-view that supports abortion-on-demand, radical redefinitions of core societal institutions like marriage, socialist economic policies, etc. Over time, these people become dominant, since personnel is policy and people tend to hire like-minded individuals, and an institution changes from one that supports traditional morality to one that endorses whatever the flavor of the month is on the political-social left. The Church was for a very long time insulated from this process because it was dominated by clergy who, by and large, endorsed Church Doctrine, but that has changed, and radically.
Irrespective, I cannot support any organization that endorses abortion in even the most limited circumstances. Life is too precious for that.
RCTV responds January 9, 2012Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, Virtue.
In the ongoing imbroglio over RCTV’s use of the term ‘Catholic,’ Real Catholic TV, in the person of Michael Voris, has responded:
LifeSiteNews has more information here, including an appraisal by a canon lawyer other than Ed Peters who thinks the issue of jurisdiction is not nearly so cut and dried as Ed Peters has claimed (emphasis mine):
Fr. Mark Gurtner, Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in Indiana spoke with LifeSiteNews, acknowledging that the diocese did know of Mr. Brammer’s enterprise of RealCatholicTV.com. When asked if the diocese had any complaints about RealCatholicTV.com, Gurner replied, “No, as far as I know there’s nothing.”
Speaking as a canon lawyer and not an official of the diocese, Gurtner also said he believes the jurisdiction of the case resides with the Indiana diocese. “It certainly seems to me that canonically Michael Voris would not be the one that this would be imposed on,” he said. “Even though he is the one that regularly appears on (the show) he, in a sense, is really just an employee of (RealCatholicTV.com).”
“It seems like if the Archdiocese of Detroit is trying to go after (Voris), that’s the wrong person to address this with, that would have to be with the owner of the website or blog,” he added.
“I suppose if this Marc Brammer is paying for and running, constructing his blog from our diocese in his home I suppose you could make the argument that we have jurisdiction canonically.”
When asked by LifeSiteNews what concerns the Detroit Archdiocese had about Voris and RealCatholicTV.com, Detroit Archdiocesan Director of Communications McGrath would not specify any concern other than the use of the word ‘Catholic’.
Asked if the archdiocese has asked any other group or individual in the archdiocese not to use the name Catholic, McGrath said he couldn’t remember any other cases during his 20 years with the diocese. “I don’t know. I’ve been here 20 years I can’t say that we’ve never done that in the history of the Archdiocese,” he said.
Pressed on the point, he said, “I wouldn’t want to say that definitively. But not any that I can recall recently, no.”
Ed Peters, of course, indicates that the Archdiocese of Detroit has a lock-solid case in enforcing their authority over RCTV. Having said that, I’ve had some exchanges with Ed Peters off line that I would characterize as frustrating. He’s very good at being a lawyer – you could say, very non-committal. He says alot without saying anything. I would also say he definitely knows what side his bread is buttered on. I always bear that in mind when reading his blog. In a long ago issue regarding diocesan
divorce annulment tribunals, he absolutely refused to acknowledge that some stinging comments made by the Pope regarding what some have called “American annulment mills” could have any import whatever. I must admit, that did color my impression of his work, a previously quite positive impression.
21 refutations of ‘Sola Scriptura’ January 9, 2012Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, Ecumenism, foolishness, General Catholic, Interior Life, North Deanery, sadness, scandals, Tradition.
My gravy train of great TAN booklets continues – I just found 2 more this weekend at the parish library – one on Venerable Francesco of Fatima and one with numerous excerpts of sermons of St. John Vianney. Both are Catholic gold. Previously, I had picked up a book by Joel Peters entitled Scripture Alone? 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura, of course, is the protestant doctrine instituted by Luther but particularly prevalent in the United States among self-styled “evangelicals” that states that all doctrine necessary for the Christian life is contained in the Bible, and was particularly a rejection of Sacred Tradition, or the “traditions of men” as the protestants say. Unfortunately for them, Christ instituted a Church based on two pillars, Scripture and Tradition, as all the early fathers attest, and Sola Scriptura leads to a deformed theology with numerous problem areas. Today, I’ll post the first 11 refutations, tomorrow (God Willing!) the final 10.
- The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible – while protestants try to point to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, they are committing a classic error in starting with a premise (the Bible alone is sufficient for faith) and then reading into a narrow quote from Scripture their preferred interpretation. I won’t go into more detail, but their interpretation is false, as shown by Peters but even more definitively by John Salza in his book Biblical Basis For the Catholic Faith.
- The Bible Indicates that in Addition to the Written Word, We are to Accept Oral Tradition – St. Paul makes this reference several times in his letters, referring to the Faith that had been handed on to the faithful in Corinth, or Galatia, etc, by his word, and not by written Scripture (as some Scripture had not even been written at that point). If you read Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Church Fathers, especially Volume 1, you will see that all the early Church Fathers from the 1st century on repeatedly stressed adherence to the Authority of the Church, even in its nascent stage.
- The Bible Calls the Church and Not the Bible the “Pillar and Ground of Truth” – 1 Timothy 3:15 plainly state that one must adhere to the Church, and not simply private interpretation of Sacred Scripture, in order to be faithful to Christ. This is supported by numerous statements made by Christ Himself in the Gospels. Of course, Matthew 16:16-20 is the ultimate example of this.
- Christ Tells Us to Submit to the Authority of the Church – As stated above, Christ Himself defined the Church as the ultimate Authority for interpreting Scripture and establishing the Doctrine of the Faith. Again, the early Church Fathers are in agreement on this. See Matt 18: 15-18 and again Matt 16:16-20. Note that Scripture must be read in context – whenever presented with an isolated quote from Sacred Scripture, be sure to read several verses before and after that verse for context, if not more. As St. Peter said, there are portions of Scripture whose interpretation can be confusing at times, again stressing the need for an Authority to correctly interpret it. (2 Pet 3:16)
- Scripture itself tells us that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs and interpreter – See Acts 8:26-40 and 2 Peter 1:20. In the latter, St. Peter notes that Scripture should not be interpreted privately, but instead needs the guidance of the Church.
- The First Christians did not have a complete Bible – The last books of the Bible were not written until around AD 100. When Paul was referring to Scripture in his letters, he was referring to what we call the Old Testament, since the New Testament had not been written and there was much confusion as to it’s content, which leads to………
- The Church produced the Bible and not vice-versa – There are many books ostensibly written by Apostles or other early Church figures, which at one time were considered helpful and seen in the same light with which we view, for instance, St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans, but which wound up being rejected as not being divinely inspired (such as the Epistle of Barnabas, which in the early Church was quite influential). It was the Catholic Church that codified Sacred Scripture, determined which books were authoritative and inspired, and promulgated the authorized version of the Bible. Protestant scripture is based on this, although Luther dropped several Old Testament books because they were not supportive of his “doctrine” of Justification through Grace alone. He wanted to drop more, but was persuaded not to by cooler heads, for fear that his elimationist practice would fatally undermine the faith of his new converts.
- The Idea of the Scripture’s Authority Existing Apart form the Authority of the Church is Utterly Foreign to the Early Church – as I said, read Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Church Fathers, especially Volume 1, but also Volumes 2 and 3.
- Heresiarchs and Heretical Movements Based their Doctrines on Scripture Interpreted Apart from Tradition and the Magisterium – This is a killer, to me. “Private” revelations derived from Scripture helped power many of the early heresies, from Arianism to Pelagianism and well beyond. Private revelation has always been a source of division in the Church – witness the rapid splintering of the different protestant groups from their outset, and the thousands of “denominations” today, each believing slightly differently (or VERY differently – like “evangelical” and mainline churches finding support for homosexuality and homosexual simulation of marriage in Scripture) from the other.
- The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century – and it was settled by the Catholic Church. A bit repetitive, but this is a critical point – the earliest Church did not rely on Scripture alone, as there wasn’t any codified Scripture to rely on. The Church – the Catholic (universal) Church – grew organically from the first Christian communities, it was not some Constantinian construct of a “Babylonian mystery religion.”
- An Extra-Biblical Authority Identified the Canon of the Scripture – the very definition of what constituted Sacred Scripture was made by an Authority outside Scripture, the Church. That Authority relied on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition to determine what was Authoritative and Divinely Inspired, and what was not.