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

Parish Bulletin ^ | 8-4-2002 | Fr. Doc Ortman

[Notwithstanding]

In shameful election eve stunner, priest defends radical pro-abort gubernatorial candidate Jennifer Granholm in parish bulletin given to all parishioners this weekend.

"[Abortion protestors] would have the state legislate the freedom that only God can give or take."

"Christians are prochoice in the purest understanding of the term"

[madprof98]

I wonder if "Doc" moonlights at the local Womyn's Clinic? (I'm sure he has credentials as good as most of the "docs" there.)

[Notwithstanding]

nicely done -

the first man picketing was a catholic

the second person was a presbyterian woman who is a real hero

[Land of the Irish]

I assumed communal reconciliation inferred general absolution, which I have big problems with. It should be only administered in times of grave danger, i.e. soldiers about to engage in battle.

"Q. 1. What is the necessary Catholic Church condition for general absolution to be valid during the Sacrament of Confession?"

"A. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the application of general absolution during the Sacrament of Confession is defined as follows: "In case of grave necessity recourse may be had to a communal celebration of reconciliation with general confession and general absolution. Grave necessity of this sort can arise when there is imminent danger of death without sufficient time for the priest or priests to hear each penitent's confession. Grave necessity can also exist when, given the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors to hear individual confessions properly in a reasonable time, so that the penitents through no fault of their own would be deprived of sacramental grace or Holy Communion for a long time. In this case, for the absolution to be valid the faithful must have the intention of individually confessing their sins in the time required.[Cf. CIC, can. 962 §1] The diocesan bishop is the judge of whether or not the conditions required for general absolution exist.[Cf. CIC, can 961 §2] A large gathering of the faithful on the occasion of major feasts or pilgrimages does not constitute a case of grave necessity." [Cf. CIC, can. 961 §1] (C.C.C. # 1483) Further to the aforementioned, Church Canon Laws state: Canon 961 §1 General absolution, without prior individual confession, cannot be given to a number of penitents together, unless: Canon 961 §1.1 danger of death threatens and there is not time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents; Canon 961 §1.2 there exists a grave necessity, that is, given the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors available properly to hear the individual confessions within an appropriate time, so that without fault of their own the penitents are deprived of the sacramental grace or of holy communion for a lengthy period of time. A sufficient necessity is not, however, considered to exist when confessors cannot be available merely because of a great gathering of penitents, such as can occur on some major feast day or pilgrimage. Canon 961 §2 It is for the diocesan Bishop to judge whether the conditions required in §1, n. 2 are present; mindful of the criteria agreed with the other members of the Episcopal Conference, he can determine the cases of such necessity. Canon 962 §1 For a member of Christ's faithful to benefit validly from a sacramental absolution given to a number of people simultaneously, it is required not only that he or she be properly disposed, but be also at the same time personally resolved to confess in due time each of the grave sins which cannot for the moment be thus confessed. Canon 962 §2 Christ's faithful are to be instructed about the requirements set out in §1, as far as possible even on the occasion of general absolution being received. An exhortation that each person should make an act of contrition is to precede a general absolution, even in the case of danger of death if there is time. Canon 963 Without prejudice to the obligation mentioned in canon 989, a person whose grave sins are forgiven by a general absolution, is as soon as possible, when the opportunity occurs, to make an individual confession before receiving another general absolution, unless a just reason intervenes."

[Antoninus]

My letter to Father Ortman.....


Dear Fr. Ortman,

It is with great anguish and ire that I write to you today. It has come to my attention that you have written an essay in your parish bulletin in support of Culture of Death advocate Jennifer Granholm who is currently a candidate to be governor of Michigan. As you are no doubt aware, Ms. Granholm is a staunch supporter of abortion on demand. In fact, Ellen Malcolm, the executive director of Emily's List -- a Washington, DC political action committee that raises money for pro-abortion candidates said that she and her staff, "had thorough conversations (with Granholm), and I am convinced that Jennifer Granholm is a pro-choice candidate and, more importantly, will act that way as governor...."

I understand that Ms. Granholm is a lector in your parish. Thus, it would be right and proper for you to defend her IF her opinion on the matter of abortion was falsely stated. However, Ms. Granholm herself has admitted publicly on several occasions that she is PRO-ABORTION. Therefore, when you to defend her in her error, you cause grave scandal and confusion among the Catholic faithful. Considering the terrible circumstances in which the Catholic Church in the United States finds itself today -- reeling from sexual abuse scandals -- writing such an essay as you did only adds to the scandal and makes the faithful lose heart.

The following paragraph from your essay was perhaps the most egregious of all:

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

As a priest, you know the teachings of the Catholic Church on matters of sexual morality and abortion. We lay Catholics have an absolute right to the true teachings of the Catholic Church unadulterated by the personal opinions of various priests or lectors. For you to attack the protestors who make this demand as 'persecutors' is ridiculous and outrageous.

I ask that you publish and immediate and public retraction of your scandalous essay in the parish bulletin.

Through the intercession of St. Isaac Jogues, St. Charles Garnier, St. Jean Brebeuf, and all the North American Martyrs, I pray that you will be given the grace and courage to stand up solidly for the true and noble teachings of the Catholic Church in the future.

Ad maiorem Dei Gloriam,

"Antoninus"

[alancarp]

Thanks for the initial post -- expose the false prophets. Makes me wonder, too, what the good father was doing to make him feel "persecuted?" If he was escorting a young lady into the death chamber, then I have a real problem with his choices.

But then, he (of all people) shouldn't criticize the pickets for "choosing" to "persecute" him.

[BlackElk]

The priest would be more honest if he resigned from the parish, requested laicization, publicly admitted that he has apostasized and affiliated with some other religion (The Unitarian Universalist church???? The Demonratic party???? Planned Barrenhood???? NARAL???? or some other form of pagan bestiary more attuned to his beliefs. Granholm likewise.) Where is the bishop while this fiasco continues? Every day that this scum continues in the priesthood is another day of proof of the ongoing heresies and defiant and willful disobedience of what passes for the Roman Catholic Church in many AmChurch dioceses.

[Dave S]

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

To me it seems your headline is pretty misleading. What is this election eve stunner? The priest didnt advocate voting for her or not voting for another candidate. He defended a parishioner against attacks from outsiders who were also picketing his church.

As far as the impact on votes, this went to one parish where likely most of the parishioners were already going to vote for one of their own. If you take all the votes from the parish, it wont amount to 1/100 of the landslide victory Granholm is going to achieve today. You would be better if you had found a worthy Republican adversary rather than moan about the priest or Mrs. Granholm.

Frankly, from some of rage expressed and the outrageous act of placing the priests home phone number on the thread, I can see that many of you are incapable of dealing with the free will or "choice" that God gave you.

[stands2reason]

I can't even call myself a Christian (I lack faith in the miracle of the infallibility of the Bible. Of course, that doesn't deter liberals from referring to themselves such, e.g. "Christians" who don't believe in the resurrection.) But I can't think of anything that has the worse stench of evil on it than that letter. The seemingly innocuousness of it---how many weak ones will be foolish enough to fall sway to that sort of "reasoning?" The danger of that letter is unspeakable.

[Askel5]

I'd rather see this guy excommunicated on the spot than a bunch of women whose speedy dispatch only plays into the current bent of the revolution's pressure at present.

[alancarp]

Frankly, from some of rage expressed and the outrageous act of placing the priests home phone number on the thread, I can see that many of you are incapable of dealing with the free will or "choice" that God gave you.

Frankly, you miss the point by a wide margin: this is a priest who is doing the following:
(1) defending someone who radically advocates abortion, in violation of a fundamental teaching of the Catholic church;

(2) failing to present a case to defend any anti-abortion stand, which a member of the Catholic church would be expected to do;

(3) failing to give scriptural, logical guidance to his parishioners (I've already shown the line-by-line logical and scriptural failings of his message);

(4) chosen to stick up for a political candidate rather than for God or at least his employer's position;

(5) while extolling the beauty of the freedom of choice, condemned the choices made by the protestors of abortion - who are defending the Catholic church's position (some of whom were undoubtedly Catholic as well!); and

(6) when taken in total, presented a message that any religious choice, any moral choice is acceptable because it comes from a God who gives us these choices.

Those positions and messages are morally, scripturally, and ethically indefensible. So this is not a matter of "dealing with ...free will or 'choice'" - it's a matter that this man presents heresies and an adject lack of spiritual guidance. Avoiding such things are his required mission. And I don't care if he's a Catholic priest, Presbyterian pastor, or a librarian: such actions must be called to account.

Personally, I would not go to the extent of harrassing him with phones calls or letters -- IMHO, that's over the top. I do think that letters and protests to his supervisors are appropriate, when presented properly. Post #84 is a fine example.

"The priest didn't adovcate voting for her"

True - but he should have pointed out her error - to support her position of "choice" is, in effect, to find a reason to support her candidacy. Again, though, this is hardly the main point, and most of the posts here have that figured out.

[Dave S]

Posting Fr. John R. ("Doc") Ortman's publicly listed address and phone number is no act of rage.

If you dont believe publicizing someones phone number in this type of situation isnt encouraging harrasment, then you are a fool. The person who posted the number (for no other reason than it be dialed) is no Christian. He is a cultist who happens to masquarade as a christian. Better take that log out of your eye.

[Admin Moderator]

You were warned not to post private information, regardless of whether or not it is available on the internet. Do it again and you will be suspended or banned.

[Notwithstanding]

People list their phone number so that people can get in touch with them.

This person, Fr. John R. "Doc" Ortman, publicly took a stand that there should be no laws against abortion (or any other criminal laws for that matter, if you take him at his word) and used the parish bulletin to persecute the truth.

After communicating one-way with us (I was at Mass in his parish and so therefore he communicated directly with me through his bulletin) he has no right or expectation that people will not want to communicate with him.

Of course, if you do something outrageous or controversial (especially if you are a public person) you should expect that many people may wish to give you a call - and give you an earful.

One man's communication is another man's harassment.

[Notwithstanding]

Do you hold the view that abortion is a right?

[madprof98]

I have written a note to the cardinal already, and I posted the article on a Catholic discussion site. I think the whole business about his "home" number is a tempest in a teapot. In fact, I would like more information about this guy. Was he recently ordained? Is he a product of one of the seminaries cited by Michael Rose? I ask because the letter seemed to me to sum up everything wrong with the contemporary Church: The gospel is reduced to nothing more than "I'm OK, you're OK--unless, of course, you actually believe in some hopelessly dated concept like sin." It's a message that is all too common in Catholic parishes, and the consequences should have been predictable.

[Notwithstanding]

Ironically, by pointing out the log in my eye, you subject yourself to the same admonishment; one can never use the "remove the log in your own eye" without pointing to the log in another's eye!

[r9etb]

Jennifer Granholm is a Lector?????

The cannibalistic "Hannibal" was a Lector, too, but is probably the less murderous of the to.

[r9etb]

To borrow from the gospel…

If Doc Ortman really wants to borrow from the Gospel, he should probably recall this one: Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea. (Mark 9:42)

So here we have to consider not only those little ones whose deaths he's promoting, but also those who may be led astray by his ghastly bit of sophistry. All that talk of choice, and nary a mention of what's being chosen.

But what the hey -- as long as Papa Doc's already in the market for his millstone, why not go for it all?