Election Eve Stunner: Granholm's pro-abort Priest writes to parishioners

Catholic Church...............purge thyself of such filth.

We're working on it.

Father Doc's Den
August 4, 2002

Many people have come to me in the two weeks just past...

"The pusillanimous "Fr. Doc Ortman" must be associate pastor to a church full of dim-witted parishioners if he really believes he can get this outrageous double-talk by them. What a disgrace...

He must believe he has a "church full of dim-witted parishioners", at any rate...I wonder what reaction he's gotten since Sunday (8/4 column date), and how Ms. Granholme's election is progressing?!

This reasoning by the priest could be used to defend any act of killing as a choice. This man is a satanist wearing a black robe with white collar.

I hope this guy knows that the laity is no longer illiterate. What a scumbag. There's so many canonical errors, it's appaling. A priest defending heresy?

He put this in the parish bulletin,who pays for that ,the people.He wouldn't make it 2 days in our parish.Thanks Notwithstanding for posting this.fatima

Maybe he wants to be dubbed the official priest of the MI governor's office come 2003, for the ultraliberal Granholm is headed to a landslide victory today and in November. Ironically, many misguided MI conservatives think that Granhom is "conservative."

Hey you're free to choose to murder.. Go ahead you have our blessing and the blessing of Jesus Christ.

These people are Christian? More like tools of Satan.

Couldn't this doubletalk be used to defend ANY action whatsoever?

Couldn't this doubletalk be used to defend ANY action whatsoever?

Easily.

My favorites are the male "personally pro-lifers". Like Paul Begala. It's very comforting to know that they'll never have an abortion. <sarcasm/

Unfortunately, yes. Two of my good friends recently got married. Two of the three priests present were obvious flaming homosexuals.

As Michael Novak put it, the "Augean stables" need clearing out, not only of fruitcakes, but of heretics.

Assuming this has been passed on to the Cardinal Maida with a request for this priest's immediate removal, has any one sent a copy on to Cardinal Ratzinger?

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
11 Palazzo di S. Uffizio
Vatican City, Italy 00193

Phone: 011.39.6.69.88.33.57; 011.39.6.69.88.34.13
Fax: 011.39.6.69.88.34.09

Check out the bulletin's Mass schedule. Communal reconciliation is offered. Maida needs to crack down on this parish or be defrocked himself.

NB: communal reconciliation is offered BUT it includes INDIVIDUAL confession and absolution - therefore it is licit and valid. Careful. We have a duty to be careful and truthful.

Those who regard Ms. Granholm as a “heretic” do not understand, not do they wits to understand, that choice is itself a blessed gift. As with other things this blessing can b used for evil rather than for blessing.

Good Lord. Get St. Thomas back in the seminaries! This priest is half of a half-wit.

I'll be sending off my e-mails tonight.

What a slushy pile of words, totally lacking logic. Or spine. Typical liberal drivel. How can he talk about the Creator without saying that a baby is a gift created by Him? How can he talk about choice without saying there are right and wrong choices, as defined by innate morality and also by the Church?

The Vatican will not be amused.

The following is a line-by-line refutation of the message given by Father Doc. Submitted in the hopes that this kind of propaganda doesn't stand.

Father Doc's Den
August 4, 2002
Time to come out of the cave, Doc: your words are in italics; my responses to you in straight text. That is actually pretty illustrative, once you think about it.

Many people have come to me in the two weeks just past to ask about television ads which point out that Ms Granholm, our sister, is pro choice.

Then she is clearly out of step with the teachings of the Catholic church. In many other places, that kind of public stand would result in excommunication, but the Catholic church (among many others) tends to turn away and "choose: not to confront sin. This despite scriptural admonition to do so. Were sins such as abortion vehemently opposed, then we wouldn't be in the position of having to ignore, or to "normalize" evil things. The church is admonished is scripture to keep itself pure, to police itself, to overcome evil with good. Clearly, obviously, the clergy is required to do this as a first line of defense against evil and sin.

The concern has come from a mistaken notion that being pro choice is equal to being pro abortion.

It is: see Ezekiel 3:17ff, 33:6ff; and recall the question from Genesis: "Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen. 4:9). Clearly, the answer was "yes." Scripturally, there are numerous examples of people being required to watch and to sound warnings against some kind of evil in the land. The watchmen are legally, morally, and mortally bound to identify the evil and to notify all those who might fall prey to the evil. Father Doc: you fail in your mission, and in your ordained role if you do not sound out such warnings to your people.

However, choice is part of the very foundation of our Catholic Christian Community. There are some who would gloss over theological reflection for the sake of emotion; these people often end up persecuting other brothers and sisters through their ignorance. As disciples of the Lord Jesus we are required to pray for their good, and for their enlightenment.

Wrong. As you know from the scriptures, there is but ONE CHOICE -- the Gospel of Jesus Christ. "Enlightenment" is not represented by a buffet of possible religious options. "Choice" occurs when there is no moral dilemma. I CAN "choose" Strawberry over Rocky Road. I CANNOT "choose" murder over mercy. Do not confuse divine moral issue choices with ammoral issue choices! To do so waters down your message about Christ to mere words.

As for the notion that "these people often end up persecuting other[s]...", those who do this do so to their own shame and sin: it does not, however, relieve you or anyone else from the responsibility to communicate the truth with regard to the imperative to make moral choices! Persecution is a sin; but so is silence, and so is the teaching of falsehoods. I wonder very much whether your definition of "persecution" isn't intended to be used as a means to silence those you would call "intolerant". Sorry, but simply reporting the truth -- as I do to you today -- is not intolerance, nor is it persecution. On this basis, John the Baptist would not be the voice crying in the wilderness: you might have labeled him as an intolerant bigot.

The Lord God has created all people in absolute freedom.

Nope. Sorry. Wrong again -- the Almighty created people to love Him, to worship Him, and to bring glory to Him. There is a freedom, but it is not what I'd call "absolute", for that would imply that sin is an acceptable option.

Every action we take, each word we utter, is a matter of choice. As Catholic Christians we understand that this Awesome freedom carries with it a grave responsibility.

Now THAT'S right! By the way, we Presbyterians also recognize the same thing.

In light of the teaching of Jesus we make choices according to a well formed conscience -- a conscience which is founded in the gospel which proclaims the blessedness of all people in any circumstances.

Now we're getting a bit wierd here -- we are not all given "blessedness" -- scripture is filled with examples of those who were possessed by demons, whose hearts were set against God, who were not gifted or loved by God, etc. Stick to the scriptures.

Scripture tells us that when God was finished creating, everything was good. The correct response to that good is a life which reverences and cares for all that God has made. This is our faith, and I know well that this is also Ms. Granholm's faith as a Roman Catholic Christian person.

Is everything STILL that good, padre? Last time I checked, we humans had kinda screwed things up quite a bit. Therefore, I think your premise, while sweet, is way off base.

To say that one is pro choice is, for the Christian Community, an admission that we are created in freedom. This is a freedom that no state or government can grant or take away; it is a gift from the creator. By the same understanding it is a grave error to assume that the ability to freely choose actions and words is sinful.

Now we arrive at the core of an argument that is carefully chosen to sound logically based. But again, the premise is wrong: we are not created to choose evil. The freedom is not inherently evil: the choices made and the actions taken most CERTAINLY can be -- and in fact, in our sinful human state, most of our choices ARE evil. It is therefore a grave error to place divine blessing on our freedoms, for God does not bless or ordain sinful acts. Again, I can take your position and suggest that murder is good because it is based upon a freedom of action given as a gift of God! I don't think so...

For the past several weeks we have been persecuted ...

Bingo: you don't have any clue what persecution really is. Being told that you're wrong ain't it.

...by people who are living with a misguided notion of the freedom in which we are created. These people, signs in hand, are not interested in the reverence of God's gift of life; they are concerned only with the threat of abortion.

'Scuse me? abortion and life are polar opposites: these people are trying to communicate the very message that life IS a sacred gift of God and that it MUST be preserved! That is precisely the point! I can't fathom how you can make such a statement with a straight face!

This is one small part of the reverence we are called to have for all that the Lord has Created.

But that's a big one: God saves capital punishment for crimes against Himself, and for crimes that extinguish life. Cutting down trees doesn't even register in the scriptures. Think about that.

These people would have the state legislate the freedom that only God can give or take. Well, gee, we legislated away the ability to protest this heinous act of abortion. We legislate the freedom to double park, to murder, to drink in large quantities and drive a vehicle, ... no sir: the state has been given the power BY GOD (see Romans 13) to legislate and to take life if necessary. Your argument makes zero sense, because it completely ignores every law on the books -- 99% of which restrict freedoms to some degree or another. Abortion restrictions would be no different. Except in this case, it would be a law to preserve LIFE.

The reverence of all life is a choice that we make according to our discipleship. It is a response to the love of God, in Jeesus, which leads us to reverence the unborn, the challenged, the elderly, the sick, the brilliant, the talented, the simple, the peacemakers... you get the idea.

No, of course I don't get it: if the preservation of life is important in scripture, then DECLARE THAT FACT! Surely, this is not a topic open to opinion or interpretation -- or "discipleship." There is but One God, manifest in Three Persons. There is but one way, one truth, and one life - that through Jesus Christ, the Son of God. There is but one reverence for life shown in the scriptures that God gave to us and there is but one moral choice that can be made as a result of the investigation of His Word. You, sir, are charged to be a messenger of these truths -- do your job and tell these people the truth! Don't leave it open to interpretation or "discipleship!"

Those who regard Ms. Granholm as a "heretic" do not understand, not do they wits to understand, that choice is itself a blessed gift. As with other things this blessing can be used for evil rather than for blessing.

Can a choice of murder be used as a blessing, sir? Can rape? These are things that we have chosen, as an orderly and moral society, to legislate into the category of "evil." People do not advocate murder on a public platform. People do not advocate rape. Only the weak advocate racism. No one should advocate abortion - or even that there should be a choice for abortion. People ought not have a freedom to choose that which is overtly evil.

Make no mistake, Christians are pro choice in the purest understanding of the term. We are free to choose between the Lord and the evil one. We are free to choose the Lord's abundant and awesome love, and we are free to choose to deny it. The ability to choose is neither good nor evil. The choice made may be either.

I actually agree with you here -- too bad that this is not the main message you've been conveying. You've been suggesting that people should not be preventing from committing an evil act. But I'm sorry: if I can prevent someone from being hit by a bus and killed despite their choice to cross a busy street against the light, then I'll do it. That saves a life. The choice may not be evil; it may merely be absent-minded, but it still is a life-ending decision. If I know there's a woman passing me who I know is about to enter an abortion mill to kill an unborn child, then yes, I'd do my best to convince her of the error of her choice. That would likewise save a life. Her choice may merely be uninformed, but it would nonetheless be a life-ending decision. Father Doc: you cannot refute these truths.

Many persecute because they choose not to hear or understand the depth of God's gift of freedom. The freedom to choose is a gift in which to revel. It is not a heavy burden. The Lord has given us direction, and has asked that we CHOOSE according to what he says and does.

And it is likewise up to people specifically like yourself to provide clear, moral direction so that people are properly equipped to make right choices in all aspects of their lives. You have failed to do your duty, sir, and God will hold you accountable as a poor watchman.

To borrow from the gospel... "Let those with ears to hear heed what they hear!"

Heed indeed - when you speak from both sides of your mouth, it is difficult for your own ears to make sense of that which comes out.

Grace and peace,
Doc [Fr. Doc Ortman, associate pastor]

Interesting term: "Father"... for one who celebrates the choice of infanticide.

Have you forwarded this on to EWTN web site? I am sure they would cover it on their news.

To say that one is pro choice is, for the Christian Community, an admission that we are created in freedom. This is a freedom that no state or government can grant or take away; it is a gift from the creator.

This is the silliest argument I've ever heard on the subject.