This shocking piece of news reaches us from Australia, where two hopefully hallucinated ethicists (unfortunately, both of them with Italian sounding names) talk of after birth abortion like I talk of the necessity to cull badgers.
The mentality behind these two satanic minds is that at times a child is born with circumstances “which would have justified abortion”, and in that case the abortion should be justified after birth.
Now, I do not know of many circumstances in Australia in which abortion is not justified. It is probably on demand, after going through the obligatory motions. Therefore, the Nazi argument shows its astonishing cruelty already at the start.
Still, the two “ethicists” (hell must be full of them, I think) seem to restrict, in their compassion, the circumstances in which abortion would have been “justified”. Say, the child has Down syndrome. Then, it is “justified” to abort it. Therefore, if after birth it turns out the baby has Down Syndrome they will say to him “we are sorry, chap, but you shouldn’t have been admitted entrance, therefore we’ll have to, erm, ah, oh, well, abort you”.
Notice also the two well know that in Australia the costs for the families of children with Down Syndrome are largely paid and therefore not an issue, but their point is that:
“such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
It is, therefore, an unbearable burden for the State to pay for the welfare of children with Down Syndrome.
Seriously, these people have the brown shirts in the closet, and no mistake.
More in general, though, I must make here the usual considerations about the logic of all this.
The two brown-shirted “ethicists” are, in fact, only thinking to end the abortionist mentality. If one is allowed to kill a baby in the womb, why not outside of it? Is there anyone in a state of sobriety who does not know inside the womb is a perfectly formed baby?
Monsters like the two disgraceful offspring of Italian ancestors therefore do nothing else than point out to the utter monstrosity of abortion.
Still, even abortionists generally try to at least appear compassionate.
These two here think like Heinrich Himmler on a bad day.
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
I am pretty sure that the readers of this blog like Cardinal Pell. It will therefore please them to know that our valiant soldier has taken Christ’s Sword in his hands and is, once again, vigorously whirling it around.
His very effective communication style is miles away from the mellifluous and innocuous tone of our Bishops here in Blighty. His sentences are rather short and rather clear. They are rather uncomfortable, too.
Apparently, in Australia the year 2011 will see parliamentary debates about two issues directly involving Catholic teaching: so-called homo “marriages” and euthanasia. As it happens so often, many local Catholic politicians are bravely deciding to shut up in the hope that no one notices that they’re supposed to be good Catholic when it’s uncomfortable, too.
Cardinal Pell has noticed.
Some snippets of a true Shepherd’s prose:
“If a person says, ‘Look, I’m not a Christian, I’ve a different set of perspectives,’ I disagree but I understand,”
If a person says to me, ‘Look, I’m nominally a Christian but it sits lightly with me,’ I understand that.”
“But it’s incongruous for somebody to be a Captain Catholic one minute, saying they’re as good a Catholic as the Pope, then regularly voting against the established Christian traditions.”
Cardinal Pell doesn’t make any discount to Catholic politicians trying to draw political capital from their religious affiliation and clearly tells them what this entails. He says that
“If you’re espousing something that’s not a Christian position, don’t claim Christian backing for that.”
He is totally unapologetic about his position, too. Try this (emphasis mine):
“I’m not telling people how to vote,” […] “I’m telling people how I think they should vote. I’m an Australian citizen and I have as much right to do that as any other citizen.”
“I’m telling people how I think they should vote”. When was this last heard in England or Wales? Alas, such clarity of Catholic message is unheard-of among those who have the task of proclaiming and defending it among us.
Do you want proof? Look no further than here.
I rest my case.
This article appeared on the “Anti-Catholic Atheist”, aka “The Independent”. It deals with the widely publicised decision of the Archbishop of Melbourne to ban pop songs from…. Catholic funerals. I repeat the key words again: pop songs, Catholic funerals.
I must admit that I was blissfully unaware of the following facts:
1) That there are people who really have the effrontery to play pop songs at a funeral.
2) That it is even necessary that an Archbishop puts an end to all this.
I obviously knew that there were people who consider a funeral a “celebration” of the life of the deceased, in an obvious protestantisation of Catholicism that ignores Purgatory and tries to remove Hell. But I thought it was meant purely symbolically, as the attitude with which the relatives of the deceased approach the Funeral Mass.
What I didn’t know is that such “celebrations” would include football club songs and the like. Football songs? In Church? At a funeral?
Apparently, it got really extreme in Australia as the most popular songs played at funerals were, according to Australian funeral directors: “Queen’s “Another One Bites the Dust”, AC/DC’s “Highway to Hell”, the Monty Python ditty “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”, and “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead”, from The Wizard of Oz.” I hope that such songs were never allowed at least in Catholic funerals, but I am afraid to ask……
More amusing is the attitude of the local “Independent” Atheist In Charge, Mssss. Kathy Marks, who had to explain to his readers what sacredness is and failed miserably.
Mssss. Marks does reports the Archbishop’s statement, so that his readers have at least a hint of what it is about, but the good woman insists on finding a trendy Catholic priest and letting him tell how oh bad and oh insensitive this decision is.
Our trendy chap of choice, called Father Maguire and he thinks that the decision is
“a bit insensitive to local sensibilities, and a reversal of grassroots Catholic rituals”
I’d like to know what a “grassroot” Catholic ritual is. Perhaps someone can help. I thought rituals had to be reverent, and that was that. The idea of the “sensitivities” is also funny, as if the Church should let the faithful decide how to do a funeral. Fr Maguire even hints at disobedience, saying that
“he would have to struggle to balance the needs of mourners against the law laid down by the church”.
“Balance”? He has to obey, hasn’t he?
Not satisfied, our chap (obviously on a highway to Hell of his own) tells us that:
“Around 10 per cent of Catholics will feel more comfortable with these sanitised rituals, but the other 90 per cent want these rituals to reflect their lives.”
It is bad enough that an obviously secular journalist can think that it be “insensitive” not to allow people to sing pop songs in a church at a funeral, as you never know what these journos have smoked in their youth; but that a Catholic Priest would make an ass of himself to such an extent is truly a sign of the times.
Still, always look on the bright side of life: the action of the Archbishop shows that these monstrosities are slowly dying. The sooner, the better.