Home - List All Discussions

site by a priest.

by: faithman

http://www.trosch.org/ind/defend-b.html

reply from: galen

Just like FM to quote someone who defends pedophiles...

reply from: faithman

I think you mis read. He is exposing the cover up, not defending. Hair dye in the eye?

reply from: Faramir

This priest, if he is one, is in schism with the Catholic Church.

reply from: galen

really.....
try this link... http://www.trosch.org/lip/lipsc-ref.html
and this one.....
http://www.trosch.org/lip/ohl_priests.html

its all a matter of church record BTW...

reply from: galen

and another... but you might like this man...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEFD7143CF93BA2575BC0A965958260

reply from: faithman

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Bump

reply from: faithman

But you slandered him by saying he defended child molesting priest when in fact he exposed the cover up. Care to apologize?

reply from: galen

_____________________________________________
back at ya.

reply from: faithman

_____________________________________________
back at ya.
But you slandered him by saying he defended child molesting priest when in fact he exposed the cover up. Care to apologize?

reply from: galen

no he did not expose it... he was a PARTY to it.
He has been chastised numerous times by the Vatican....what don't you do the research?

reply from: faithman

That isn't what is on his site. He is exposing bishops for covering up for them. The vatican chastised him for defensive action.

reply from: galen

no his site is a defensive action... after he was caught w/ his hand on the jar lid
.

reply from: faithman

Nothing you have posted so far backs up what you have said. Post a link please.

reply from: faithman

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
BUMPATY BUMP

reply from: galen

i have several...
oh yeah... you are soooo obsessed w/ vexings genetals you can't read and type and **** *** at the same time....

reply from: faithman

None of the links said anything near what you stated. I am not obsessed, just curious why one would want to whack their pecker off. SSSSOOOO please post a link that backs up what you said. The ones you posted were from the priest in questions web site, and are exposing a bishop for a cover up of pedophiles. You are either mistaken, or purposly slandering someone.

reply from: galen

these are the charges against him......
you advocate these same things... is that why you defend him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References concerning Archbishop Oscar H. Lipscomb, my legal bishop:
On Sunday, August 15, 1993, The feast of the Immaculate Conception, the Mobile Register printed a cartoon submitted by this priest that in effect was a defense of the action taken by one Michael Griffin who choose to protect some future innocent unborn children of God by taking the life of a practicing mass murderer. This murderous practice had been approved of by civil society and, by default, Catholic clergy who were also guilty by reason of failure to pay more than lip service concerning this grievous offense to God during a time span of over 21 years.
Bishops in particular had the obligation to set the pattern for opposing this evil. Due to toothless lip service by indifferent or evil bishops, with very few exceptions, abortion was effectively condoned by reason of omission to teach meaningfully and following such teaching through convincing personal involvement. Any decent sized parish could have made it unprofitable for abortionists by legal picketing and brought about their closing. Through proper catechesis concerning voting, the supreme court's legalization of abortion murder could have been overturned many years ago.
Has Oscar Hugh Lipscomb morally ceased to be the Archbishop of Mobile?
He personally stated to me that he considered the teachings of the Old Testament no longer applicable. He obviously believes that God the Father and God the Son have different standards concerning salvation. The archbishop apparently accepts a whimsical God who sets different standards for different periods of time, that is, what one believes concerning faith and morals in one age is not necessarily what will be believed in another time framework. Jesus endorsed the teachings found in the Old Testament. Jesus stated that the law of the Old Testament was to be brought to fulfillment. [Mt. 5:17-19]
He defended the lives of mass murderers who regularly advertize and perform abortions. He gives their lives preference over the lives of the innocent unborn children who had been given eternal existence by God.
In place of teaching the doctrine of the Church he fosters the practice of humanism.
Many years age a well known cleric in the archdiocese stated that 35% of the priests of Mobile archdiocese were homosexual.
On December 14, 2002 Lipscomb publicly defends Cardinal Law stateing that he was a "victim of media campaign." in an effort to absolve him of his crimes. Cardinal Law and the Archdiocese of Boston are involved in more than 500 law suits. (Beyond the Archdiocese, By Thomas J. Reese, S.J., Chapter 8.)Chapter 8.)
At the national bishops meeting in June 2002 Lipscomb opposes the removal of pedophiles from the priesthood stating that it was to harsh of a penalty since they had only destroyed the life of one person.
Archbishop Lipscomb donated $3 million to another diocese to help pay off lawsuits of priest pedophiles without stipulating that they first be permanently removed from the priesthood along with all Church support.
Archbishop Lipscomb pleads for prayers for former priest Vernon Dahmen a practicing homosexual who died of
A.I.D.S.'
Archbishop Hannan as metropolitan of Louisiana was very active behind the scenes in Lafayette, LA, where a priest admitted to sexually abusing thirty-five children and was sentenced to twenty years in jail. Fourteen families sued the diocese, whose insurance companies eventually paid them an undisclosed sum that was estimated to be as high as $5 or $10 million. It became impossible for the local bishop to deal with this crisis, because he had transferred the priest to his current parish after knowing of his involvement in an earlier incident. The bishop, who had sent the priest to a psychiatrist, admitted making a mistake in not recognizing the depth of the priest's illness.
Archbishop Hannan became involved because the Vatican wanted to avoid the publicity that would surround a criminal trial. "My job was to see that the right steps were taken to make sure that there wasn't any trial," says Archbishop Hannan. He visited the priest in jail and convinced him to accept a plea bargain.

reply from: galen

in particular.....
Archbishop Lipscomb donated $3 million to another diocese to help pay off lawsuits of priest pedophiles without stipulating that they first be permanently removed from the priesthood along with all Church support

reply from: faithman

So exposing a bishop who protects pedophile priests makes him a pedophile how? Where is the proof this guy is a pedophile? And put galen back on. She is better at this than you are.

reply from: galen

no one said he was a pedophile quote:
Just like FM to quote someone who defends pedophiles...
-------------------------
Mary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...mp;amp;feature=related
____________________________________________
you do understand the word defend don't you?

reply from: galen

and he didn't expose them... he paid of their victims... and swept it all under the rug.. nice and neat wouldn't you say..?

reply from: faithman

That was the bishop that this priest exposed, but you said that the preist who but up the site was one. Why are you twisting things and lying?

reply from: galen

i'm not i gave you direct quotes... are you feeling ok....?

reply from: galen

direct quote... mentioned as a matter of public record... and in the church's records...
galen
VP
Posts: 3282
Joined: 07/10/2005
in particular.....
Archbishop Lipscomb donated $3 million to another diocese to help pay off lawsuits of priest pedophiles without stipulating that they first be permanently removed from the priesthood along with all Church support

_______________________________________________
i'm serious... are you feeling ok?

reply from: Banned Member

I gather you are against the use of violence in the defense of the unborn. But tell me this, would you be morally opposed to destroying or otherwise making an abortion facility unfit for use permanently or indefinately? if not a single person is hurt in doing so?

reply from: galen

permenantly... no as long as you did not injure ANYONE in the process... i like the group that took over an old AB clinic and use it as a PL headquarters...

reply from: joe

Father David C. Trosch, I believe is the owner of the site not Archbishop Lipscomb.

reply from: faithman

That would be Troy Newman, and the real Operation rescue. You know, the one's CP likes to slander.

reply from: faithman

Father David C. Trosch, I believe is the owner of the site not Archbishop Lipscomb.
I think that is the prob. They got it backwards. I talked to the guy on the phone and he said the church needds to clean up it's act, and quit covering for the criminals hurting children.

reply from: galen

who owns the site is irrelevant.. the info of tht donation is a matter of public record... he gave the money to help sweep what those preists did under the rug and shut up the victims.. many who had become quite vocal. By doing so he misrepresented the people he was supposed to be sheppherding.. and he kept known pedophiles from being publicly prosecuted in the courts. it was Hush money...
why is that so hard to understand...?
why is that such a great thing... so good in fact that FM seems to think he's a good person to link to for some reason... its like saying whatthe Pope did for Hitler was right...

reply from: galen

i've never slandered him... and guess what... i've never quoted TN or OR as far as i can remember.
nevermind.. i re read your post Joe... i misunderstood you and FM for the last 2 posts...my error.

reply from: faithman

You still have it backwards. the site I linked to is exposing a bishop who covers for the molesters. The priest who put up the site is not the molester. Get some sleep and maybe your mind will clear up.

reply from: joe

I believe you are confused on this matter.
My understanding is that Father David C. Trosch is exposing the pedophile and his corruption. You seem to be implying that Archbishop Lipscomb is exposing himself on his own website (which he does not own).

reply from: galen

no i'm using a diffrent website.

reply from: faithman

I believe you are confused on this matter.
My understanding is that Father David C. Trosch is exposing the pedophile and his corruption. You seem to be implying that Archbishop Lipscomb is exposing himself on his own website (which he does not own).
I was wondering if I was the only one who noticed that. I also like his defensive action page. He can show the hypocricy of the church, and judas' like 30 pieces Pravone, with how over a thousand years the church aproved defensive action. This false pacifism is a modern doctrine that ignores over a thousand years of history.

reply from: galen

on another thread FM uses HIs link to an article that says the arch bishop lipscomb supports aggression against the clinics... it further goes on to say that he was sanctioned by the church for this...
FM seems to agree with that particular tactic.. ie kill the abortionist and then bobm the churches... i know that FR trosch.. does not...
my point was the archbishop was a defender of the pedophiles.. ie he paid off the families... and i gave supporting evidence.
i also feel that if FM were going to use someone to defend his stance on aggression he could do better than the archbishop, given his backround...
so if he did not intend that original link to support his case in the agression thread why use it? it certainly otherwise refutes his stance.

reply from: faithman

Nothing you have posted here is acurate. You have it completely backwards.

reply from: joe

I believe you are confused on this matter.
My understanding is that Father David C. Trosch is exposing the pedophile and his corruption. You seem to be implying that Archbishop Lipscomb is exposing himself on his own website (which he does not own).
I was wondering if I was the only one who noticed that. I also like his defensive action page. He can show the hypocricy of the church, and judas' like 30 pieces Pravone, with how over a thousand years the church aproved defensive action. This false pacifism is a modern doctrine that ignores over a thousand years of history.
I agree 100%.
If the church leaders of today acted like him, abortion would be unspeakable. I believe our church leaders have sold out their followers, so they can increase "contributions". Its all about the money and status.
The amazing thing is, that the church leaders during the Jewish Holocaust probably used the same excuses that our leaders use now. History repeating itself.....

reply from: galen

if i did its my error... but i've had someone else read it... it seems that that was what your intention was..
* shrug*
if i'm wrong i'm wrong....
so do you not support the archbishop's stance on agression... as it pertains to abortion clinics?

reply from: joe

Nothing you have posted here is acurate. You have it completely backwards.
Galen, you do have it backwards.

reply from: faithman

the bishop is against it. The priest shows historical proof that defensive action is not against the teaching of the church. Once again you have it backwards.

reply from: galen

this is the post that had me and a few others 'confused'
from the agression thread:
Originally posted by: joe
Originally posted by: cracrat
Basically it goes like this. The Holocaust was going on all over Europe, the Italian government were bosom buddies of the Nazis. But the Catholic Church had its HQ in the Vatican, right in the heart of Rome, so took the coward's way out and offered no public moral condemnation despite the fact that what was going on was clearly against Christ's teachings.
You do not advocate violance, just as the Catholics did not adovocate the Holocaust, but you will not condemn it, just as the CC did not condemn the Holocaust. Pope John Paul II apologised for the silence of so many of the Church during this period in 1998.
The Pope felt he had to offer an apology for the position held by his predecessor. You appear to have no qualms in maintaining an analogous position. Interesting.
I highlighted your error. You are confusing defense with aggression.
The Jewish Holocaust was the destruction of innocent human life. I would not have condemned force to stop such evil.
The Abortion Holocaust is the destruction of innocent human life. I will not condemn force to stop such evil.
The church must condemn aggression against innocent human life which includes both Abortion and the Holocaust. Failure to condemn either one would not be Christian. It is my understanding from Christian teachings that self defense and defense of the innocent is not condemned...therefore I will not condemn it. I do not advocate it for the sake of peace and hope that this can be resolved politically.
some priest agree, click here

reply from: faithman

Really!! get a nap. Things will clear up in the morning.

reply from: galen

so i understand you... you support the preist who says that the archbishop is wrong... and vilence should be used to keep abortionists down.. correct?
and when the bishop ( not the arch) says no you support the preist in his transgression against the bishop?
and then the archbishop? do you support him also?
or just the preist?

reply from: galen

why use a conversation... not even his words but words used by every archdiocese on abortion violence....that is from a person who is advowadely in controversy by his very acts of rule... this was my point...

reply from: faithman

I think you are purposly messing this up, so have it your way. Anybody can read the site and see you are wrong.

reply from: galen

2 other people have read your posts and were just as confused... so i asked a few pertanant questions about why you used the site and what part of it you agreed with...
i agreed i could be in error... why don't you explain yourself plainly to me..about the site.

reply from: faithman

The defensive action page I totally agree with.

reply from: yoda

I don't know who the other two are, but I was a little confused when I first read the site. After doing a bit more analyzing, however, I came to realize that the most prominent thing on the first (home) page was what was being disputed. It's a strange way to present a viewpoint, but that's how it is.

reply from: faithman

The thing is that he can show that a 1000 years of church history does not line up with the current doctrine against justifiable defence. The reason it has changed in modern times, is because of political expediancy over the abortion issue. Catholics have simply been dooped. You have to ignore church history, and agree with planned parenthood that the womb child is not equal to the born child as a person. All 50 states allow for lethal force to protect innocent born life. Just the posibility of lethal force saves womb children. But neo-lifers care more about what bortheads think and say than stopping them from slaughtering the innocent. They would rather protect the abortionist from justice than protect the womb child from the implements of death. You can smear this with all the tupid rhetoric you want. But those are the facts. As long as we protect the abortionist over the womb child, we are pro-abortion, and not really for the life of the pre-born at all.

reply from: cracrat

Amendment Five
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Or does the consitution not apply when faithman is metting out justice to those who offend him?

reply from: faithman

Amendment Five
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Or does the consitution not apply when faithman is metting out justice to those who offend him?
This applies to those who are put in jail. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. All 50 states have justifiable defence laws. If it is right to use force to stop evil aggression against a born person, then the same is true for the womb person. You are the one who refuses to apply the constitution, 2000 years of christian doctrine, and securing the blessings of this land for pre-born posterity. If we applied this like you have tried to here, then all police department need to be disbanned, and all justified deffence laws over turned. Quit being SSSSSOOOOO willingly stupid.

reply from: cracrat

Amendment Five
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Or does the consitution not apply when faithman is metting out justice to those who offend him?
This applies to those who are put in jail. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. All 50 states have justifiable defence laws. If it is right to use force to stop evil aggression against a born person, then the same is true for the womb person. You are the one who refuses to apply the constitution, 2000 years of christian doctrine, and securing the blessings of this land for pre-born posterity. If we applied this like you have tried to here, then all police department need to be disbanned, and all justified deffence laws over turned. Quit being SSSSSOOOOO willingly stupid.
Except that the babies aren't the ones doing the defending and in no case has the outside agent (Paul Hill etc) committed their act whilst the abortion was being carried out. In every example they did it because the believed they would save children at some point, be it that day, the following week or whatever. You just can't go around hurting/killing people for things they haven't done yet, however sure you are that they will. Why do you find this so hard to understand?
Though it was very good of the founding fathers to write a whole amendment just for the criminal classes. I always took this one to be a curb on excesses of those with authority, preventing summary executions and the like. If what Paul Hill did wasn't a summary execution, I'm really not too sure what would qualify. Pity I didn't have the benefit of your education that would allow me to determine when the highest law of the land does and doesn't apply.
And there is no need for me to apply or submit to your constitution or laws, I don't live in the US. Furthermore we've not suffered the rash of moronic anti-abortion violence you have. Hence I know what the inside of the clinic in my city looks like because I've been there handing out leaflets. Have you ever stepped into a clinic protesting? Or have your hands been tied by the idiocy of others, forcing you to shout your message from the far side of the car park?

reply from: faithman

Amendment Five
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Or does the consitution not apply when faithman is metting out justice to those who offend him?
This applies to those who are put in jail. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. All 50 states have justifiable defence laws. If it is right to use force to stop evil aggression against a born person, then the same is true for the womb person. You are the one who refuses to apply the constitution, 2000 years of christian doctrine, and securing the blessings of this land for pre-born posterity. If we applied this like you have tried to here, then all police department need to be disbanned, and all justified deffence laws over turned. Quit being SSSSSOOOOO willingly stupid.
Except that the babies aren't the ones doing the defending and in no case has the outside agent (Paul Hill etc) committed their act whilst the abortion was being carried out. In every example they did it because the believed they would save children at some point, be it that day, the following week or whatever. You just can't go around hurting/killing people for things they haven't done yet, however sure you are that they will. Why do you find this so hard to understand?
Though it was very good of the founding fathers to write a whole amendment just for the criminal classes. I always took this one to be a curb on excesses of those with authority, preventing summary executions and the like. If what Paul Hill did wasn't a summary execution, I'm really not too sure what would qualify. Pity I didn't have the benefit of your education that would allow me to determine when the highest law of the land does and doesn't apply.
And there is no need for me to apply or submit to your constitution or laws, I don't live in the US. Furthermore we've not suffered the rash of moronic anti-abortion violence you have. Hence I know what the inside of the clinic in my city looks like because I've been there handing out leaflets. Have you ever stepped into a clinic protesting? Or have your hands been tied by the idiocy of others, forcing you to shout your message from the far side of the car park?
The babies can not defend themselves, that is the reason all 50 states have laws that say all citizens have the duty to protect the helpless from evil aggression. As stated multiple times, the abortionist pulled into an abortion clinic on killing day full intending to kill 32 womb children. Hill stopped him and saved 32 lives that day.

reply from: cracrat

What happened to those 32 women the following day? Did they have a change of heart or find another provider elsewhere? How long was the stay of execution for those unborn children?

reply from: faithman

What happened to those 32 women the following day? Did they have a change of heart or find another provider elsewhere? How long was the stay of execution for those unborn children?
This is a really stupid question. So we shouldn't save people from a burning car crash because they might get into another burning car crash the next day? We should refuse life saving medication to someone today, because they might die anyway the next day? That day Hill stopped the murder of womb children. So the police should not stop the murder of someone today because they might get murdered tomorrow? That day hill saved womb life. And if the neo-lifers would have followed him insted of condemn, there wouldn't be an abortionist to go to now would there?

reply from: cracrat

What happened to those 32 women the following day? Did they have a change of heart or find another provider elsewhere? How long was the stay of execution for those unborn children?
This is a really stupid question. So we shouldn't save people from a burning car crash because they might get into another burning car crash the next day? We should refuse life saving medication to someone today, because they might die anyway the next day? That day Hill stopped the murder of womb children. So the police should not stop the murder of someone today because they might get murdered tomorrow? That day hill saved womb life. And if the neo-lifers would have followed him insted of condemn, there wouldn't be an abortionist to go to now would there?
No. You shouldn't kill a car salesman to stop his customers dying in a fiery crash because they'll just go elsewhere to get their car. The medication analogy is nonsensical even for you. If all neo-lifers followed Hill's example you'd being doing well to be allowed to protest in the same town as a clinic, let alone the same city block.
You avoided my question though, how long was the stay of execution for those unborn children?

reply from: Banned Member

Why does the Catholic Church claim that we should submit to authroities and not act in a spirit of vigilantism regarding abortion when so many Bishops are in fact acting in defiance of authority a spirit of vigilantism regarding their treatment of illegal aliens in the country?
I would also add that the "Church" tends to speak as individuals and not as the Church when they speak of justifiable defense. Nothing specifically in Church Canon says that violence to defend unborn children is wrong. This Bishop or that Cardinal has said this, or said that, but to my knowledge the Church proper has not said anything specifically related to so-called abortion violence.

reply from: Faramir

Does the Church advocate murder to help illegal aliens? Does the Church advocate destroying property to help them.
Are you saying you approve of murdering abortion doctors and doing violence at aborftion clinics?
All the Catholic authorities who speak against this are drawing from Church teachings when they denounce it.

reply from: faithman

What happened to those 32 women the following day? Did they have a change of heart or find another provider elsewhere? How long was the stay of execution for those unborn children?
This is a really stupid question. So we shouldn't save people from a burning car crash because they might get into another burning car crash the next day? We should refuse life saving medication to someone today, because they might die anyway the next day? That day Hill stopped the murder of womb children. So the police should not stop the murder of someone today because they might get murdered tomorrow? That day hill saved womb life. And if the neo-lifers would have followed him insted of condemn, there wouldn't be an abortionist to go to now would there?
No. You shouldn't kill a car salesman to stop his customers dying in a fiery crash because they'll just go elsewhere to get their car. The medication analogy is nonsensical even for you. If all neo-lifers followed Hill's example you'd being doing well to be allowed to protest in the same town as a clinic, let alone the same city block.
You avoided my question though, how long was the stay of execution for those unborn children?
I didn't avoid it at all. You just didn't like my answere. And who cares if we get to protest if it means the killers get to keep on killing. Burn the clinic, and there would be no where to protest. That is the real prob for the neo-lifers who have made a cottage industry out of "activism". Abortion is just as big a cash cow for them, as it is for the abortionist. They only want to stir you up enough to get your last dime, but not enough to actually take action to stop it.

reply from: Banned Member

Vigilantism need not mean murder, nor need anyone die. As far as destroying property, I certainly will not condem anyone for it.

reply from: Banned Member

Does the Church advocate murder to help illegal aliens?
No. They are in many instances harboring illegal aliens that by law should be reported and turned over to authorities. Submit to authorities remember? But the Catholic Bishops think that laws regarding illegal immigration are unjust and aggressive and do not report the aliens and offer them safety from the law. Hence, vigilantism.

reply from: Faramir

Practically speaking, I have heard that these tactics only backfire, and prevents those who do the real work of saving babies from reaching the women.
As a practicing Catholic, I have to condemn the deliberate destruction of property in this case. It is not in conformity with "double effect" ethics.

reply from: faithman

Practically speaking, I have heard that these tactics only backfire, and prevents those who do the real work of saving babies from reaching the women.
As a practicing Catholic, I have to condemn the deliberate destruction of property in this case. It is not in conformity with "double effect" ethics.
You only hear such crap from people like you who are blind to the facts. Everytime a clinic goes down, property insurance goes up. everytime a clinic goes down, it strikes fear in those who work in the industry, and many find another job. Ever time a clinic goes down, it makes it real hard for them to recover and open again, some do not. As a practicing catholic, you are severely ignorant of your history, and what the teaching of the church has been for over a 1000 years on justifiable defence of the defencless. The "modern" church only lets cowards feel smug in their cowardice, while actually protecting the killers over the ones they slaughter. If that is your church then count me a proud heritic. You don't know from one day to the next what kind of conflicted crap it will teach.

reply from: Faramir

How many abortion clinics have faithman and Augustine destroyed?
Isn't it more cowardly to sit on the sidelines and cheer-on those who do your dirty work, and those who go to jail for it, than to condemn that behavior?

reply from: faithman

You know, the self serving punk flip benham said the samething to Paul Hill before he justifiably stopped a killer from slaughtering 32. So keep running your mouth, you do the cheering for us thru your idiotic jeers.

reply from: Banned Member

I have destroyed no abortion clinics. I have never advocated the destruction of personal property. General William T. Sherman once said of the burning of Columbia, that he did not order the act, and yet neither would he shed a tear over it.
45 million dead human beings and I am not going to grieve over cheap lumber, dry wall and a million dollars worth of abortion equipment. If that is tacit approval, than I can still sleep at night.

reply from: Banned Member

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
So long as the authorities recognize the right of women and organizations to kill unborn persons, are they legitimate?

reply from: faithman

Not according to your church. When man's law does not line up with God's law, it is void. That has also been the teaching of the church for over a 1000 years. And just in case everyone forgets, Our constitution entrusted we the people with the power to act in the second amendment.

reply from: Banned Member

Once more, if a "defensive action" is ineffective, or even counterproductive, or if less violent means could accomplish the same goal, how can it be morally justified?
The justification I believe, or the rationale is, is that a violent action produces two effects, one by ending the life of the abortionist that purports to save lives and two, by instilling a general sense of fear surrounding the abortion community.
If you are opposed to violent action, are you also opposed to destructive action? such as the destruction of the abortion facility or its capacity to function in a normal manner?

reply from: faithman

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Simple civil disobedience wherein no one is harmed does not compare to the terrorism and murder we are discussing here.
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

reply from: faithman

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
My mistake. I should have asked can it be justified. That way you would have to give a clear "yes" or "no" answer...
If a "defensive action" is ineffective, or even counterproductive, or if less violent means could accomplish the same goal, can it be morally justified?
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

reply from: Banned Member

If a "defensive action" is ineffective, or even counterproductive, or if less violent means could accomplish the same goal, can it be morally justified?
Could you please first demonstrate that the violent and non-violent action could achieve the same results?

reply from: faithman

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
You could not first type a simple "yes" or "no?" It seems like such a simple question to me...Very well. Do you agree that Hill could have stopped Briton without killing him? Do you agree that, either way, none of the mothers scheduled to abort that day were deterred in any way?
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

reply from: Banned Member

No, I do not think that Hill could have ended the abortion practice of this single doctor in any more effective manner. That's not the same as saying that is was the right thing to do. I merely pointing out the pragmatic aspects of the action.

reply from: faithman

Originally posted by: faithman I have a good ole hound that helps keep my place safe from intruders. He has a healthy bark, and at 70 plus pounds is somewhat of an imposing sight to those who walk by. I don't know if he would bite, but he has the teeth to get the job done if need be. Prolife is suposed to be the watch dog for the womb child. It is suposed to be the "defender" of life. But just like an ole dog with no teeth, it poses no real threat to those who would steal life from the ones it claims to protect. Once an intruder finds out that the barking dog has no bite, they know full well they can cause harm with totally disreguard for consiquence of being bit. The sad thing is that the pro-life watch dog didn't lose it's teeth in a fight, nor because it grew old. It lost it's teeth because false leaders pulled them by taking the bite of lethal force off of the table. The abortion industry knows full well that the "pro-life bark" has no bite, and they can continue to kill the womb child because the child's guardian has no teeth to protect them with. Any prolife hound who refuses to have their teeth pulled, have traitors like Pravone willing to pay a $50,000 bounty to not only have their teeth pulled, but have them put to sleep with lethal injection by a pro-abort government. There needs to be a new dog in the yard, with good strong teeth willing to bite the intruder of abortion. true watch dogs are willing to lay down their lives for the ones they protect. Paul Hill was a true pro-life watch dog with a 12 gage bite, who laid down his life for those he protected. We can keep barking our meanigless toothless debate, that pro-deathers mock and laugh at, Or we can say the dog has teeth, and if you come after our womb child charges expect to get bit. Then, and only then, will bortheads take us seriously.
You do not concede that kidnapping Briton could have have postponed the abortions scheduled that day? Even breaking his hands would have accomplished that! Do you, or do you not concede that Hill's actions did not deter any of the women scheduled to abort that day?
"Ending his practice?" Was that the goal? I thought it was to defend the unborn children, to save lives? So we're not talking about killing to save lives, but killing to end the practices of individual doctors? Does that deter the mothers? Ensuring that one doctor will never practice again?
Originally posted by: faithman I have a good ole hound that helps keep my place safe from intruders. He has a healthy bark, and at 70 plus pounds is somewhat of an imposing sight to those who walk by. I don't know if he would bite, but he has the teeth to get the job done if need be. Prolife is suposed to be the watch dog for the womb child. It is suposed to be the "defender" of life. But just like an ole dog with no teeth, it poses no real threat to those who would steal life from the ones it claims to protect. Once an intruder finds out that the barking dog has no bite, they know full well they can cause harm with totally disreguard for consiquence of being bit. The sad thing is that the pro-life watch dog didn't lose it's teeth in a fight, nor because it grew old. It lost it's teeth because false leaders pulled them by taking the bite of lethal force off of the table. The abortion industry knows full well that the "pro-life bark" has no bite, and they can continue to kill the womb child because the child's guardian has no teeth to protect them with. Any prolife hound who refuses to have their teeth pulled, have traitors like Pravone willing to pay a $50,000 bounty to not only have their teeth pulled, but have them put to sleep with lethal injection by a pro-abort government. There needs to be a new dog in the yard, with good strong teeth willing to bite the intruder of abortion. true watch dogs are willing to lay down their lives for the ones they protect. Paul Hill was a true pro-life watch dog with a 12 gage bite, who laid down his life for those he protected. We can keep barking our meanigless toothless debate, that pro-deathers mock and laugh at, Or we can say the dog has teeth, and if you come after our womb child charges expect to get bit. Then, and only then, will bortheads take us seriously.

reply from: faithman

Originally posted by: faithman I have a good ole hound that helps keep my place safe from intruders. He has a healthy bark, and at 70 plus pounds is somewhat of an imposing sight to those who walk by. I don't know if he would bite, but he has the teeth to get the job done if need be. Prolife is suposed to be the watch dog for the womb child. It is suposed to be the "defender" of life. But just like an ole dog with no teeth, it poses no real threat to those who would steal life from the ones it claims to protect. Once an intruder finds out that the barking dog has no bite, they know full well they can cause harm with totally disreguard for consiquence of being bit. The sad thing is that the pro-life watch dog didn't lose it's teeth in a fight, nor because it grew old. It lost it's teeth because false leaders pulled them by taking the bite of lethal force off of the table. The abortion industry knows full well that the "pro-life bark" has no bite, and they can continue to kill the womb child because the child's guardian has no teeth to protect them with. Any prolife hound who refuses to have their teeth pulled, have traitors like Pravone willing to pay a $50,000 bounty to not only have their teeth pulled, but have them put to sleep with lethal injection by a pro-abort government. There needs to be a new dog in the yard, with good strong teeth willing to bite the intruder of abortion. true watch dogs are willing to lay down their lives for the ones they protect. Paul Hill was a true pro-life watch dog with a 12 gage bite, who laid down his life for those he protected. We can keep barking our meanigless toothless debate, that pro-deathers mock and laugh at, Or we can say the dog has teeth, and if you come after our womb child charges expect to get bit. Then, and only then, will bortheads take us seriously.

reply from: Banned Member

I am certain that I have no authority to personally condem or condone the act of killing. I liken the actions of a Paul Hill to John Brown. They were violent, and radically extreme. Were they wrong? I don't know if they were wrong. I would never personally use violent action to achieve any ends. As a practical matter, an abortion provider that dies, will never perform an abortion again. He may in fact deserve death, but I am not sure who is fit to carry out such a sentence. If abortion were illegal, would it be wrong to kill an abortion provider to stop him from performing abortions? Is that the difference now between the two points of view? Legality? Is the preventative act any different simply because of the legal status of an immoral action? A person may shoot and kill someone in their own home in some places simply by having entered that persons home uninvited, without ever making a threat of violence, or brandishing a weapon. Why? Because in that instance, the law says they may be shot and killed. In other places, the law says the home owner may not shoot and kill the uninvited person. The law is not always consistent, nor is it even fair at times. Can the law morally dictate what a man can and cannot do? Paul Hill may have been legally wrong to kill an abortion doctor, and the law says he was wrong. If the law said something different, he would not be in prison, just as abortion doctors are not in prison now.
What do you think?

reply from: faithman

Do you condemn abortion?
I'm confused. Do you not know right from wrong? Are you unable to answer the questions I asked?
If a "defensive action" is ineffective, or even counterproductive, or if less violent means could accomplish the same goal, can it be morally justified? Can you, in good conscience, refuse to condemn an act that can not be morally justified?
Could the abortions that were postponed by Hill have been postponed without killing Briton and his escort and almost killing the escort's wife? What if their grandchildren had been in the car as well?
Why not? Didn't you post a quote from the Canon saying you might be obligated to do so in some circumstances?
But, is the purpose to see that a specific tool is never used again, or to prevent the deaths of the victims? If that specific tool is never used again, does that deter the aggressors? Does it prevent them from using another tool? If not, what is accomplished? If it is the saving of lives that justifies lethal defense, how can lethal defense that does not actually save lives be justified? If he had kidnapped the mothers, this would be a more difficult argument for me, but as it stands, I honestly do not see how his actions can be justified.
This is the true basis for the arguments of those who deem Hill a "hero." They believe Briton deserved to die, so they do not care if his actions accomplished anything or not. Sure, they attempt to argue that lives were saved, and they deny that, in the long run, it is likely that many, many lives that might otherwise have been saved by legitimate means were not...For them, it is about retribution. That seems very clear. I understand their passion, as well as the frustration at our seeming inability to end the slaughter, but I can not condone their position. I can not adopt the view that, if we can not save the children, at least we can punish the killers, that since we can not make the mothers pay, we should at least punish the instruments by which they kill...
In some situations, yes, but abortion prohibition would not mean a license to indiscriminately kill abortionists. Our laws are clear on this. Everyone is entitled to a trial. In order to justify lethal force, it must be absolutely necessary. If Briton had been assumed to intend to kill born people who enjoyed constitutional protection, Hill would still not have been justified under current law.
That's just it. If the unborn were legally considered persons, with constitutional protection, the Hill murders would still not have been justifiable under law! He could have been stopped without killing him, and there was no "imminent threat" to start with, even if lethal force had been necessary to stop him...
Most states have "reasonable assumption" clauses, but they are included so that if there is doubt as to whether the intruder represented an imminent threat, the benefit of that doubt would lean toward the defender. There is no "right" to kill anyone in any state for any reason (other than abortion, unfortunately).
Not exactly. The law only excuses lethal force in very strictly defined circumstances, but does not imply a "right" to kill. If abortionists were invading people's homes to slay unborn children, this argument might have some validity...
So pulling into an abortion clinic on killing day with 32 scheduled to be slaughterd in just minutes is not imminent?

reply from: Banned Member

Yes, I do condem abortion because there is no instance where abortion is justifiable. That is different where from an instance where one can argue that violence does stop or deter abortion, which is the taking of human lives; many human lives.
Of course I know right from wrong. I am certainly able to answer your question. I am however under no obligation to answer your question. I don't know Paul Hill's mindset, or the reason why he thought he was doing what he was doing. I also know that a person may be at least compelled, even morally compelled to take life in order to save life where there is no other course of action available to them. That does not mean that a person must or ever is obligated to take life under Canon Law.
If you remove the tools of abortion do you not prevent abortions from occurring? As you say, certainly there were other actions that might have been taken before taking the irrevocable action of ending a persons life. Would they have been as permanant or produced such a widespread effect? I don't know. Even Father Pavone say that pro-life activity is about the abortionists and not the mothers. How do you target the abortionists if not at least by targeting the tools of their trade? and certainly if you do nothing to the actual abortion provider? Do you go after the lawmakers in some way? The courts overturn virtually every attempt to proclaim personhood of the unborn.
Far be it from me to ever predict what the courts will do these days. I only know that the politicians are bought and paid for by the abortions industry. I would prefer the ending of political careers, as opposed to killing and violence.
We can and must legislate morality, at least where the defense of the innocent unborn human being is concerned. The government must and should be be afraid of the people at times.

reply from: faithman

Gosh!! You sound like a founder now!!

reply from: Banned Member

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

reply from: Banned Member

As a rule, killing is wrong. Thou shall not kill. It's not my rule. I didn't write it. I only quote it where applicable.
By ascertaining Paul Hill's mindset, I would think it apparent that I was thinking perhaps more of the well being of his mindset. I think that any person that would await to shoot a person in a residential area is perhaps has a skewed sense of reality. At some level he may have had every intention that he would end abortions, but I also think that perhaps he was not tempered to think the matter out more fully. It would certainly seem a rash action. I would apply this to him, just I would to a person not fully emotionally mature to think the matter of abortion out fully. It is too bad that people in either instance would not seek some counsel before taking rash actions, or perhaps they did, and simply sought the wrong counsel.
When a person who has no difficulty discerning what is wrong with abortion still chooses abortion I think that they can only be said to be choosing dishonesty and selfishness over reason. There is also the veil of lies and euphomism that a generation has grown up with that cloud people sense of what abortion really is. Even Margaret Sanger knew that the language of abortion had to be softened to be palatable to the masses. Just read the adds for abortion clinics and if you didn't know better you wouldn't know if they were trying to sell you abortions or car insurance.
Widespread... fear. Paul Hill knew what many have known, that fear is a compelling interest. I would prefer reason to fear. Fear is visceral and intellectually unfounded and not perhaps lasting. When fear subsides, only the stigmas remain. Are you suggesting that pro-life advocates have been painted with the same broad style brush that anti-religious types used to paint Catholics as supporting child molestation? Point taken.
I believe what the abortionists do not believe. That truth is a lasting effect. Moral reason does not fade when passions do. I am a person of the Catholic faith, but the horrors of abortion are self evident to the extant that one may well reason that abortion is wrong, that abortion is in fact, murder, without any religious doctrines at all. That is why so many faiths, and even people of no faith at all, can see that abortion is an evil that all people suffer under and can stand up to and speak out about.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics