jump to navigation

Fr. Theo Hesburgh – the man most responsible for the destruction of the Catholic university July 3, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, Basics, catachesis, contraception, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, priests, religious, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
comments closed

Fr. Theodore Hesburgh has been much in the news of late, which I’m sure he adores. Fr. Hesburgh was the longtime President of Notre Dame university and the man most responsible for the destruction of both Notre Dame in particular, and the Catholic university in general.  It was Fr. Hesburgh that granted the first Rockefeller-funded conference on birth control, or should I say, first forum that gave indications of supporting contraception, at a Catholic university in 1962, and it was Fr. Hesburgh that took Fr. Charles Curran’s heresy on contraception and Church Authority and ran with it, eventually formulating the disastrous “Land O’ Lakes statement,” which, in essence, told the bishops and the world that Catholic universities would from then on be at the service of the sexular pagan zietgeist, rather than that of Catholic orthodoxy.

Anne Hendershott has an article examining many of Fr. Hesburgh’s atrocities. A strong word, it is true, but I cannot think of any word more applicable for this man’s most influential career. Since I am short on time, I will add emphasis and comments and that’s it:

The reality remains, however, that Father Hesburgh has always held a special place in the hearts of Catholic Democrats like Pelosi and Biden who want to be able to vote in favor of abortion rights yet still be perceived as being in the good graces of the Church.  Pro-choice Catholic politicians are grateful to Father Hesburgh because for the past 40 years he has been providing them with the kind of Catholic cover they have needed to continue voting to expand abortion. Faithful Catholics have been disappointed that the courage Father Hesburgh showed in advancing the cause of civil rights for African Americans and other underrepresented groups did not seem to extend to protecting the civil rights of the unborn…….

……But faithful Catholics may well question how Father Hesburgh can object to abortion while at the same time promoting the Catholic politicians who have done everything they can to expand access to abortion. [Well, for one, because this is a man who fails to see that Catholic belief is a complex, interwoven garment, and error in one area means the eventual unraveling of the whole. But Hesburgh and his ilk never see that. I can state without equivocation that the major driving force behind Hesburgh’s secularization of Notre Dame and, through his influence, almost all Catholic universities, was the desire for private and federal grants, which came with the requirement to serve the sexular pagan state. There was the issue of prestige, which I will address separately.]

In fact, Pelosi and Biden’s“personally opposed to abortion but unwilling to deny the right to an abortion to others” position was famously articulated on Father Hesburgh’s watch at Notre Dame on September 13, 1984, in a speech entitled “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective,” given by Mario Cuomo, then the governor of New York.

Father Hesburgh and Father Richard McBrien, a longtime theology professor at Notre Dame [and leading apostate] , invited Governor Cuomo to the university to give a major speech clarifying his position on abortion.  At one point, Governor Cuomo appeared to be thinking out loud when he mused: “Must I agree with everything in the bishops’pastoral letter on peace and fight to include it in party platforms? And will I have to do the same for the forthcoming pastoral economics?  [Absolutely not. Because in spite of so much of the erroneous rhetoric we’ve seen from modernist Catholics and their left-tending allies, bishops conferences have NO authority whatsoever. And even a local bishop need only be obeyed when he is reiterating the approved Doctrine of the Faith.  So, no, you don’t have to expend great efforts to comply with the  – I am very sorry to say – frequently erroneous and highly problematic statements that emanated fromthe USCCB and other conferences in the 70s and 80s] And, must I, having heard the Pope renew the Church’s ban on birth control devices, veto the funding of contraceptive programs for non-Catholics or dissenting Catholics in my State?  [Yes, this you do have to do, because this is Doctrine, Dogma!  That  is something ALL faithful Catholics must accept, while silly statements from the bishop’s conference are NOT doctrine, they are prudential opinion, and really intervention in an area that is rightly the purview of the laity!  But see how the national conferences, by their very existence and by the errors the frequently modernist proponents of them spread, making Catholics believe they have to submit to the notions of the conference, when nothing is further from the truth,as Pope Benedict himself made clear on several occasions!] I accept the Church’s teaching on abortion. Must I insist you do? By law? By denying you Medicaid funding? By a constitutional amendment?”  Governor Cuomo’s answer to all of these rhetorical questions was “No.” [The proper answer is yes, yes, yes, and yes. And you should run on that platform, and if you don’t get elected, so be it, but we cannot do “good” that evil may come of it, and we cannot pick and choose when, or if, we will support certain Church beliefs publicly in our vocation.  This is a fundamental error, and a condemned heresy, a heresy which advocates for a huge difference in “public” and “private” belief.  This is the fundamental error of ALL catholyc politicians.]

In his written responseto Governor Cuomo’s speech, Father Hesburgh seemed to agree.  Describing the Cuomo speech as “a brilliant talk on religion and politics” Father Hesburgh’s response can be read online today at the Notre Dame website.

……..the Notre Dame president seemed unable to see then—or now—that the Catholic pro-choice politicians he has promoted, like Governor Cuomo, and now Pelosi and Biden, are the same ones who are pushing and implementing the greatest expansion of abortion rights in the world. [And thus making abortion MORE available. And of course, Hesburgh was one of the first to support public heresy regarding contraception, and it is contraception that creates the vast majority of the desire for abortion in the first place. As I said, the Catholic Faith is a complex tapestry, and if one string is pulled, the entire tapestry falls apart.]

In a 2001 review of Father Hesburgh’s role in promoting abortion, Msgr. George Kelly, a founder and, until his death, president emeritus of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, criticized Father Hesburgh for providing protection for pro-choice politicians and theologians.  Msgr. Kelly wrote that during his years as Notre Dame’s president, “Father Hesburgh’s ecclesiology became steadily more hostile to the hierarchy… In 1972, when he was a delegate to the International Congress of Catholic Universities, at a meeting held on Vatican territory—within mere feet of the office of Pope Paul VI—he threatened to walk out and take the American delegation with him if Rome dared to impose norms for the conduct of American colleges.” 

Msgr. Kelly acknowledged that “at times there is a sting to Father Hesburgh’s rhetoric,” and provided an example of that attitude in an incident that is well-known on the Notre Dame campus: “A prominent Notre Dame official went to Father Hesburgh as to a mentor, worrying that the implementation of the Vatican document Ex Corde Ecclesiae might bring the American bishops in to the governance of the university.  The retired president consoled his worried friend, ending his counsel with this message: ‘What is the worst thing that can happen to us?  John Paul II will tell the world that Notre Dame is not a Catholic university.  Who will believe him?’”

This story has become almost a legend at Notre Dame and beyond, and Father Hesburgh’s words are often repeated by faculty and administrators on other Catholic campuses in order to reassure themselves and others that compliance with Ex Corde Ecclesiae is not necessary. A decade later, the Notre Dame faculty obviously took Father Hesburgh’s reassurance to heart when the faculty senate voted unanimously to ignore the requirements of Ex Corde Ecclesiae………….

…….Msgr. Kelly acknowledged that Father Hesburgh played an important role in the secularization of Catholic higher education. Father Hesburgh’s 1994 book, The Challenge and Promise of a Catholic University, makes it clear he believes that in order for Catholic colleges and universities to be truly great, these schools must distance themselves from the Church and her teachings[This is a stunning admission, and truly oxymoronic.  In order to be Christian, we must be less like Jesus Christ!  Yes, preach it, brother Hesburgh!] In his book, Father Hesburgh claimed that “there has not been in recent centuries a truly great Catholic university, recognized universally as such…one would have hoped that history would have been different when one considers the Church’s early role in the founding of the first great universities in the Middle Ages: Paris, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna, and others.”  [This is utterly incorrect. The medieval universities were totally orthodox, and under very close ecclesiastical supervision. It is amazing he even made this statement. I am shocked he has not been roundly rebuked for such a self-serving error.]

And there concludes my quote, and Hesburgh’s other disastrous, fundamental error. His error is founded in modernsim, because he accepted the leftist modernist academic community’s claim that Catholic universities were not “great,” so long as they did not sing the leftist, modernist, sexular pagan tune.  Catholic universities had, for the most part, evaded the rot setting into secular universities well into the 20th century, but thanks to creatures like Hesburgh, that ended around the 1950s.  Again, this gets back to funding – Catholic universities could not get the lucrative private and federal grants while remaining orthodox, and the prestige-factor, that is pride, drove Hesburgh and men like him to seek the acclaim of the world rather than be orthodox and promoting of the Doctrine of the Faith.  That is to say, there was a serious Judas complex going on, and which remains, at our self-described Catholic universities, because they long, long ago, deliberately surrrendered to the sexular pagan agenda and ceased to be authentically Catholic.

And the university, has never recovered.

Have a blessed weekend!

Scenes from Austin – the demonic immorality of the pro-aborts July 3, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, disaster, disconcerting, error, family, General Catholic, horror, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the enemy.
comments closed

Pictures speak a thousand words, they say:

Lesbians for abortion - but I thought "switching" was impossible?

Lesbians for abortion – but I thought “switching” was impossible?

Free abortion on demand without apology – that’s the goal, isn’t it?  And how about also, free treatment for severe depression, herpes 2, HIV, cervical cancer, etc?

This next one is even worse:


Nothing says virtue like having your six year old hold up a sign that speaks of “f—ing a senator.”

Funny thing is, if these kids find out what abortion really  is, what it really does,  you will see them look at their parent/guardian in horror.  How could you support that?  I’ve also seen that happen before, too. Kids aren’t dumb – they also figure out very quickly………”that could have happened to me.”

Remember this historic photo: a lib mom with 4 kids is about a 1 in a million occurence.

BONVoFUCUAAN2ijYoga meditation to Shiva? These same characters had just a few minutes before been shouting the lewdest epithets possible.  They were also part of the “hail satan” brigade.

The piece de la resistance, the “hail satan” cheer:

Folks, this battle in Austin may seem like a political one, or an organizational one, but it is really, first and foremost, a SPIRITUAL one. Even if you cannot be there, would you, in your charity, say a Rosary for the intention of the passing of this pro-life bill and the overcoming of all the forces of evil gathering in Austin? Or add this intention to your ongoing Rosary(ies)?  Also pray for the safety of all involved, and for the conversion of these poor, terribly lost souls. That last may be the most important of all – these are souls that are very likely lost in a state of grave sin, and falling further and further into that nightmare life – pray that the witness given by pro-lifers converts them!

A sensible analysis of the immigration debate July 3, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Immigration, scandals, self-serving, Society, the return, Virtue.
comments closed

There has been much sturm and drang of late regarding immigration, again, since the Refoolicans have seen fit to push a course of action that would, by any rational analysis, result in the GOP becoming the GMP – the Grand Minority Party, or perhaps the PMP – the Permanent Minority Party.  The bishops of this country, especially Cardinal Dolan as head of the USCCB and the increasingly disappointing Archbishop Gomez of LA, have taken the line that unlimited, virutally unconstrained immigration is not only right but a moral obligation, and something that all faithful Catholics must support.santa-muerte-denounced-by-vatican_67291_600x450

This presentation we’ve been getting is very unfortunate, since it does not, in fact, represent the real Doctrine of the Faith on immigration, and even more so, because it seems to point to a certain vested interest in the matter of immigration, an interest which does not reflect well on the bishops as leaders or pastors of souls.  There is simply far too much self-interest in the bishop’s promotion of this unconstrained immigration agenda, and too much of that seems to point to their own failures, and especially those of their predecessors, to keep the souls they inherited as Catholic, Catholic. I, for one, strongly doubt the bishops would be so very, very concerned about this matter of immigration, if the immigrants were buddhist Chinese or animist Angolans.

But, irrespective of the motivation, one of the most unsettling aspects of the ongoing immigration imbroglio is the amount of error, or really opinion, that has been claimed as “doctrine.” We have seen very strongly worded statements from Gomez and others (even our own Bishop Farrell), which make rather clear their opinion that failure to take the line they take on immigration makes one a questionable Catholic, at best, and perhaps not a Catholic at all. Thus, we are seeing a replay of the sad days of the 70s and 80s, when the USCCB and then Cardinal Bernadin, in particular, would write silly documents celebracion-del-7o-an-del-altar-a-la-santa-muerte-en-tepito1endorsing all manner of leftism.  These documents were most unfortunate, as they provided political cover to the Ferraros, Kerrys, Kennedys, etc., of the time, who actually DID reject Church Doctrine on core beliefs like the sanctity of human life, use of contraception, etc., but given the number of statements the USCCB made regarding cutting defense spending and constantly increasing welfare payments, these lefty catholycs could claim that they were being the “truly faithful” ones since they embraced all that prudential stuff, even while they were rejecting the truly doctrinal matters.  We hear much the same today from “Sacred Ground” Nancy Pelosi, etc.

Fortunately, John Zmirak has written an article that makes plain just what Church Doctrine is on immigration, and how that doctrine is being abused, ignored, or just plain rejected in much of the ongoing rhetoric.  Starting with statements from the Catechism (I know, the present Catechism may not be truly authoritative, nor contain all nuances of Catholic theology, but it’s a reasonable tool for the Church in these post-VII times), Zmirak makes some important points.  The Catechism has the following to say on immigration:

The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin…Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens (2241).

Zmirak then breaks down the above to examine what Catholics really must consider. His main point, however, is that much of the heated rhetoric coming from the USCCB and individual bishops is, in fact, a case of the bishops once again arrogating to themselves the right to “butt into” prudential matters that are truly the purview of the laityRather than simply focus on providing the moral guidelines, Gomez08santa_muerte_jb_jpeg and others can’t seem to resist to get down into the prudential nitty gritty and pretend that there is a single, “Catholic” position on these matters related to immigration.  But the most important part really is, all these matters: whether to build a fence, grant citizenship, provide welfare benefits, etc., are all matters of prudential judgment. There is, thus, no “correct” Catholic Doctrine on these matters, in spite of the impressions to the contrary we’ve been given.

Getting into the details, Zmirak starts with the Catechism’s statements and uses natural law arguments to examine them:

“to the extent they are able” 

This statement is written broadly enough that we could argue over it indefinitely. Theoretically, the entire population of the world could fit in the state of Texas, with several feet of wiggle room to spare. Does that mean that the U.S. is “able” to accept the entire world? Clearly not, because there are countless economic, environmental, cultural, fiscal, and other factors that determine what we are actually “able” to do. All those points are things we must determine by rational argument, setting our national priorities by democratic vote. There is no secret “Catholic answer” to these questions, though natural law principles can and should be invoked in our discussions of the matter…….

….We must discuss this question using a cost/benefit analysis, looking both at the common good and (in light of the Church’s correct emphasis on a ‘preferential option for the poor’) on how a given policy affects the poorest American citizens. Not the poorest people on earth, but the poorest Americans.  [Zmirak makes an important point: Americans are more “our neighbor” than are immigrants. Americans have ancestors here who have paid taxes, fought in wars, settled the country, etc. Therefore, in justice, they are due the first consideration. We do not have to treat all equally, there can be grades of concern based on relation.  It is a known fact that mass immigration almost invariably harms the economic prospects of the poorest Americans, keeping wages artificially depressed. It is also a prudential decision to argue just how much charity is due recent immigrants, and how many immigrants to allow into the country. All this can be argued without being a “bad Catholic.”]

“Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them”

We could argue for years about what this means. But surely fulfilling this obligation of immigrants includes a certain degree of assimilation: namely, learning the English language and switching their loyalty from their nation of origin to the U.S. When tens of thousands of recent immigrants, both legal and illegal, march through the streets chanting foreign slogans and waving foreign flags, that raises legitimate fears among Americans that not all immigrants are willing to keep up their side of the bargain

“to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”

Right there, we see that those who have not obeyed U.S. immigration laws have forfeited any strict claim in justice to remain on American soil. Simply the fact that a law is poorly enforced does not mean that we are free to violate it, demand that the state later give us amnesty, and sign up for social programs we barely paid taxes to support. By saying this, do I mean that I favor the mass deportation of illegal immigrants? No, because it’s imprudent. When we search for a prudent policy for dealing with the ill-effects of poor law enforcement – the presence of more than 10 million illegal residents – we must make sure that such poor enforcement does not happen again. That is all that opponents of the current immigrant amnesty are arguing; in return for this mass act of mercy toward those who have broken our laws, all we ask is a real and solid guarantee that this will never happen again. [Exactly. And yet this is the one thing our politicians and bishops seem to most resolutely oppose – border security that will cut illegal immigration by 90% or more, imminently doable, but rejected as a matter of course.]

Thus, in spite of what school marm Mirus says, one can, in fact, be a faithful Catholic and yet oppose the Senate Refoolican immigration plan/sovereignty surrender.

Another factor: bishops have already warned of the “santa muerte” cult that is so pervasive in Mexico coming into our dioceses. Is it wise, for a pastor of souls, to encourage immigration of just those people who are known to have become heretical and adopted satanic practices, into our local churches?

Pro-abort violence overwhelms rare pro-life violence July 3, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, horror, North Deanery, scandals, self-serving, sickness, Society, Virtue.
comments closed

I found a very interesting pro-life site via Pertinacious Papist.  It’s called Pro-Choice Violence, and it categories the many violent crimes perpetrated by pro-aborts.  The pro-aborts, and their media allies, love to present the image of pro-aborts as cooly rational, caring beings who would never even remotely contemplate violence (except, I guess, for their very reason for being, the constant butchering of total innocents!), while pro-lifers are dangerous maniacs always just a hair’s breadth from unleashing genocide on a Stalinist scale. The truth, as with so much regarding pro-aborts and their media fiends, is exactly the opposite.

Pro-Choice violence has a 40 odd page document that examines in depth all the various examples of pro-aborts committing violent acts.  While one may quibble with some of the details of their research, the overall data is completely clear – pro-aborts are far, far more prone to violent crime than pro-lifers:


Yes, while pro-lifers have committed a handful of completely reprehensible murders in the past 20 years, pro-aborts have committed hundreds. And hundreds more women have died at the hands of abortionists. In fact, the number of women who die annualy under “safe, legal, and rare” abortion is similar to the number that died when abortion was illegal!  The pro-aborts have long fabricated numbers that purport to show that “thousands of women” were dying every year in the 50s and 60s, before abortion on demand was legalized.  That is completely, totally false – data from the Centers for Disease Control indicate that 39 women died in 1972 from complications of illegal abortions – fewer than died from “safe, legal” abortions in 2003!

But should we be even remotely surprised at this data? Should we be surprised that an industry that is based entirely on heinous violence against the most innocent of beings, in what should be the safest place on earth, should have tendencies towards violence in other areas?  Given the satanism that suffuses the abortion industry and those so deeply lost in these diabolical acts, should we be surprised that they are prone to violent acts?  It’s all of a piece. 

A personal story: at the Routh Street Mill on Central Expy in Dallas, there have been “nurses” who work at the mill who have tried, very intentionally, to run over our children when we have been protesting/counseling outside. The regular counselors there keep a very watchful eye on the children, because one nurse in particular will come down the alleyway that leads to the parking lot at Routh St. at about 40+MPH, swerving from side to side and routinely forcing the pro-lifers present to bail out to the side.  Whenever video equipment is present, she drives normally.  But if she doesn’t see anyone obviously filiming, she drives very dangerously, makes lewd gestures, and has on more than one occasion said that if she runs over a child “it would serve us right.”

That is the mentality that suffuses the abortion industry.  The “caring” facade is just one more lie in an entire industry built on nothing but.

Indeed, we will see how much they “care” once abortion becomes unprofitable for them.  That is the major reason most pro-aborts quit, the loss of income.

A first hand report of the satanic leftist activists in Austin protesting SB5 July 3, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, disconcerting, error, General Catholic, Holy suffering, horror, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare, the enemy.
comments closed

A commenter John left the following first hand account of the efforts of pro-lifers in Austin, and the virulent, diabolical opposition being ginned up by Planned Barrenhood and their merry band of demons.  It’s quite interesting. I add emphasis and comments:

I was at the Capital last night after work. [May God bless you for going]It was very disturbing to see all of the pro-aborts (mostly women, but a few emasculated/feminine men also)[Yes, it’s pathetic to see the pro-abort men hanging around, so obviously trying to curry favor with the dominant feminist type personalities.  Surely hoping something may fall their way]behaving so badly and disrespectful. Our side was BADLY outnumbered during my “shift” (6-8PM). But I was told we had the majority earlier in the day.  Strangely, the pro-aborts had a steady supply of pizza (and busses filled with people) being brought in, and many of the Planned Parenthood “community organizers” were also sporting walkie-talkies and I-pads to assist in their machine of death’s successful campaign of misinformation. [Of course, they are always well supplied and well funded. Those lefties in the Occupy movement had a great deal, especially in NYC – they got tons of free food, free drugs, and free love.  This kind of thing happens as a matter of course – and if the pizzas and goodies weren’t there, the support would fall away dramatically. But we have to remember, this is Austin]

Our side, of course being more refined and mature weren’t nearly as load or disruptive. Disturbingly I’d regularly hear snickers and jeers when a post-abortive Pro-Lifer came to testify about the mental anguish after her decision to take the life of her unborn, who was supposedly safe in the womb of it’s mother. The Planned Parenthood lies of women feeling “empowered” or “back-alley coat-hanger” abortions being the “next step” after this common sense restriction is unfortunately taken up lock-stock- and barrel by the misguided folks in orange last night. [I suspect many of those in orange have no connection to UT whatsoever. They are being made to look like locals by sporting burnt orange. Just a suspicion] Granted their are surely some “true-believers” in the pro-abortion world, who believe in the sinister population control and eugenics roots of the abortion industry, many of the women (actually, girls) there have simply been fooled by the false language and catch phrases thought up by NARAL and Planned Parenthood. [More on this below] I must say, I’m truly saddened after seeing their display, even though the facts show the numbers are on our side.

Thankfully, the priest at my new parish (I jumped parishes due to Extraordinary Form being offered and no luck after requesting at my old one) is very vocal and doesn’t mince words when it comes to us Catholics allowing this culture of death to permeate, even in the pews, with most Catholics going against Church Teaching on artificial birth control. [You are blessed indeed to have such a priest. They are worth far more than a diamond mine] Contraception has shown to be the next step leading to increased abortions (paradoxically, but true).  [More than that – as Sandra Day O’Connor said in the Casey vs. Planned Barrenhood decision keeping abortion legal, mass contraception use makes legalized abortion inevitable. It’s the chicken that laid the abortion egg. Contraception always fails over time (I am living proof of that!), and many who have been conditioned not to be in a frame of mind to have a child will abort when it fails] My “home parish” priest was afraid (his words) to speak about issues involving abortion,birth control, not to mention the Four Last Things[We must pray for the conversion of priests who refuse to address these key topics, and even more, pray that bishops will not punish priests who preach the Truth on these topics] This may have accounted for the sickening number of Obama/Biden stickers in my old Parish’s parking lot. The Social Justice Catholics aren’t helping the situation, and the Democrat Pro-abort party have struck gold by fooling the Hispanic Catholics…….. If the false ecumenism/Church of Nice stuff continues to entrench the Church, we will continue to only be able to blame ourselves as Catholics.

Planned Barrenhood and other silly pro-aborts tried a year or so ago to have a “March for Death” or whatever they called it in some cities around the country, to show up the many Marches for Life.  Well, I don’t think they’ll try that again in most places, because their crowd was pathetic, maybe 100, maybe less, mostly college age kids who may well have made some money for showing up, just as they are in Austin right now.  We had a counter protest here in Dallas, and while we did not outnumber the pro-aborts, we certainly out-argued them, and eventually got some help that allowed us to out-shout them, even though they had a bullhorn.

In the course of this probably pointless tete a tete, I wound up standing across from some young girls on the pro-abort side. And I started to engage with them sort of one on one, and I was really cutting to the core of what all this was about. I talked about contraception and boys that loooove girls that contracept (there were some of these little boys in the crowd, they were as far from being a man as you can imagine) and how they used them and how many times has she been so used and then felt very empty inside?  And I could tell this cut two or three of the girls to the quick. And I tried to tell them it doesn’t have to be that way, that you can reset and live a chaste life and find true fulfillment in Jesus Christ, and also a true man who will love and cherish you and not use you like a porn video. And I could see them softening, softening, and then, bam, just a pall came over their face, like a shadow, all at once, and they pulled back and walked back into their pro-abort group and tried to forget what I had reminded them of. Because they knew what I was saying was true, they knew they were being used and that they were and probably are in great pain, but they just couldn’t pull away. I was saddened that I couldn’t reach them, I probably made some mistakes in that discourse.

But that is so much what is going on with these radical pro-abort women, and in my experience, almost all the truly radical pro-aborts (and their aren’t very many of them) are women, women who have bought the illogical feminist lie of “empowerment” through slatternly behavior.  There is a very sad aspect to these women, for God’s Law is written on their hearts and they know deep down that their abortion or their slatternly behavior is morally atrocious, but they either can’t face what they have done and have to call it “good,” or they just keep imbibing like an addict, hoping the next “fix” will make them feel better. But it never does. And it is that deep-seeded guilt that powers their rage.

I pray we get many more pro-lifers down in Austin, and I pray, further, that the capital be closed if necessary to allow the legislative process to continue.

Go to Austin if you can! Next week will be critically important! Thousands of lives are at stake, as is the continued existence of many mills!

Thanks to John for the commentary.

Oh, and I said that leftists were being satanic, check out this report from The Blaze:

The abortion battle in Texas was still raging Tuesday as both abortion supporters and pro-life activists flooded the State Capitol to make their voices heard. The Texas House and Senate reconvened briefly for a special session called by Gov. Rick Perry.

One of the more bizarre tactics used by pro-abortion activists involved chanting “Hail Satan!” to harass a pro-life crowd as they sang “Amazing Grace.”

You can see video of this insanity at the link.  I have never had any doubt that the pro-abort movement is thoroughly satanic, whether that satanism be overt or no. For Heaven’s sake, they are sacrificing little children, just as the satanic pagan neighbors of the ancient Jews did!   When the Jews took part, that is what led the Lord to allow Israel to be destroyed.