16 August 2010


Satan does not haunt us with his ugliness. He does not smell of brimstone but of cologne, a charming figure who would later tempt Jesus in the wilderness with excruciating courtesy, one gentleman meeting another. We find him in the most polite places for the same reason. He is a neatly manicured mal vivant offering choice fare in exquisite taste to those who will have them... consistently smiling, polite, gallant, mannered and sincere.

- Fr. George Rutler, The Impatience of Job

In a post last month I criticized an article in the Catholic Register covering the appointment of Sr. Simone Roach to the Order of Canada. That article, written by Michael Swan, failed to mention that Canada's most famous abortionist, Henry Morgentaler, was also recently appointed and that, in protest and by adhering to principle, some Catholics thereafter returned the award. It is a significant controversy that should have been factored in the article, once again evidencing skewed reporting at this reportedly Catholic periodical.

Well, now the editorial board have come out in defence of Sr. Roach, who is accepting the appointment, in a piece issued on August 11. So get out your handkerchiefs out, get ready to cry a river, and let the appeal to emotionalism begin...
[TH2 analysis in bolded square brackets]
Honour Sr. Roach

The Church has received little good news of late so we should take a moment to celebrate last month’s announcement that Sr. Simone Roach has been named to the Order of Canada. [The "little good news of late" phrase is a hollow justification for the whitewash that follows. The Church has been receiving bad news for quite some time. Remember: this editorial is a reaction and never would have been issued had Catholics not spoken out.]

Admittedly, this editorial is a few weeks late and might not have come at all but for some second guessing being directed towards Sr. Roach. ["Second guessing"? Who second guessed? Nobody did. Arguments were straightforwardly put forward stating that a Catholic nun should reject such an appointment]. There is a school of thought that holds that Sr. Roach - and, for that matter, all Catholics - should refuse the Order of Canada because two years ago it was given to abortionist Henry Morgentaler. Not to diminish the shame of that decision, but it seems unfair to tar Sr. Roach with Morgentaler’s brush.[Tarring a person has nothing to do with the situation. Neither is criticism issued to diminish the accomplishments of Sr. Roach. These are extraneous to the situation. Rather, the matter directly relates to principle: Should a Catholic (let alone a nun) accept an award from a body (with an implicit moral relativism) that also sees no problem with offering the same prize to a man responsible for countless murders of children in the womb?]

No doubt, bestowing the Order of Canada on someone convicted of performing illegal abortions was shameful then and remains a blight on Canada’s highest honour now.[Do ya think? I would use the word abomination rather than "shameful".] Largely because of Morgentaler, Canada currently has no abortion laws and our abortion rates are among the highest in the Western world.[Which betrays the editors at CR to be even more untrustworthy and apathetic for "honouring" Sr. Roach's decision.] Honouring him [i.e. Moloch] was a travesty but should Sr. Roach have to pay for it? [Diversion. "Paying for it" has nothing to do with this issue. It is adherence to principle. It is not a recompense. It is not quid pro quo.]

The retired chair of nursing at St. Francis Xavier University has been named to the Order for a lifetime of achievement in nursing, particularly her role in creating Canada’s first code of ethics for nurses. [A wonderful achievement. God bless her. But this, again, is a diversion on the part of the CR editorial staff. They don't want readers to face the cold, harsh reality of the controversy.]

But academic accomplishments are hardly a full measure of her contribution. She practices her profession and lives her life by the belief that, in her words, caring is the human mode of being. “I care not because I am a nurse, but because I am a human being,” she says. [Children in the womb are human beings too. This is not a priority of a Catholic nurse who works for health/life?]

Caring for each other is the essence of our humanity. As incarnate Christ embraced the sick, the lame, the blind and the poor, that example of compassionate humanity has guided Sr. Roach. It should be an example to us all. [Notice: a sentimentalistic humanism is injected into the arena. Yes, Christ "embraced the sick, the lame, the blind and the poor", i.e. those who are vulnerable. Are not children in the womb vulnerable as well? Again, see how the CR editors are diverting by appealing to emotions with that "social justice" twist.]

The Church needs to be present in the world and actively contributing to the common good. [The Church can do this without grovelling before, and befriending, the spirit of the world. It always has and always will.] Now more than ever, the world needs to see that there are thousands of priests and religious leading selfless lives of faith and charity to bring benefit to others. These heroic men and women are the true face of the Church. [Would Mother Teresa of Calcutta, a heroic model of a holy, selfless nun, accept this appointment?] When Sr. Roach receives her Order of Canada she will, in some sense, be standing for them all. [No she will not. In "some sense"? What sense would that be? Why cannot the editors at CR be more specific?]

Would she make a stronger statement by not being there? [Yes, she would.] At least eight previous Order of Canada recipients listened to their conscience and returned their medals.[So does this mean that Sr. Roach is not listening to her conscience? See the illogic.] For them, that decision was proper. [Notice: "for them", as if the principle is a function of the self, of what one thinks or feels, which is another incarnation of Kantianism, not at all rooted in the Catholic metaphysic.] But that does not mean a sincere examination of conscience by someone else must yield the same conclusion. [Ah, yes, the moral autonomy of the self. Do I hear the "Dictatorship of Relativism"? HHB16 was right on the money.]

Sr. Roach has obviously decided to accept her Order of Canada. [With the encouragement of the Catholic Register, the evidence shows.] We must assume the decision was not taken lightly. She has a lifetime of professional achievement and faithful service to prove her worthiness. Some people may disagree with her choice but as Christians we should respect it. [Do not condescend us by telling what and what not to "respect". "We know better than you", the CR staff effectively says.]
...and so another whitewashing job by the Catholic Register is completed.

What is interesting is that the editorial has a photograph of Sr. Roach whereof she appears forlorn, somewhat sad, as if we are to feel pity for her. Is not the appointment supposed to be a happy occasion? Since the photo credit is Mr. Swan's (the writer of the first article in July), one wonders if this embedded image is stage play, so as to make the reader feel sorry for her and thus justify her decision. Nonetheless, Sr. Roach, like so many female religious of her generation - habitless and focussed on the horizontal, the hollow humanistic - has succumbed to one of Satan's desert temptations. A Bride of Christ, once directed to the vertical in the distant past, now desires the honour of the world over and above the infinite honour and immeasurable love offered by her Holy Spouse. That the editorial staff at the Catholic Register facilitates this tragedy, this effective honouring of Moloch, once again demonstrates the subtle, slow-motion apostasy therein.



Al said...

Ah yes, the infamous Sr. Roach.

You rasied an interesting question with "Would Mother Teresa of Calcutta, a heroic model of a holy, selfless nun, accept this appointment?" I have often wondered if she was still alive what she would have said about the fact that the Nobel Prize was given to Obama. I know by now all the money would have been spent on helping the poor so obviously she couldn't have returned the money. The medal itself is another matter, given how little I am sure that meant to her, she just might have.

On the other hand, had she won it after Obama i suspect she would have accepted it simply to have another chance to speak up & defend the unborn like she did to Clinton @ the 1994 Prayer Breakfast. "But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself." & that was just 1 line she used.

& if she had rejected it she would have been very vocal about why. Leaving a lot of people very uncomfortable in her wake.

I cannot see Sr. R taking this approach of using it to speak out like Mother Teresa would have. (BTW, are the recipients allowed to give speeches? Or are they just given the award & someone else gives a speech? Or what?) It is clear from the CR article & other things you have said she hasn't exactly had the courage to speak up about Morgentaler or abortion. So the other possible approach by Mother Teresa is clearly just as much a no go for her. I stand by my comparison of her with Sister Carol Keehan I made in my comment for your previous post on this.

P. Button said...

Fr. Rutler's quote reminded me of the great Rolling Stones song "Sympathy for the Devil":

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith

TH2 said...

Al: That is a good question... on the speeches. I do not know. I'll check into it.

PB: Good catch. Though I doubt Mick and the boys take the Devil as seriously as, are more aware of that Stench than, Fr. Rutler.

Anita Moore said...

YEAH!!!!!! WHAT TH2 SAID!!!!!!

Now I have to close out this comment, because this combox is right down next to the habitless horde gallery, and I just saw one too many views of Sr. Joan Chittister.

Al said...

TH2, It will be interesting to find out if the winners do give speeches. However, I am sure that even if they do Sr. R will avoid any mention of abortion like the plague while wording things in such a way to make a specious claim that she did stand up for the unborn.

Like I said about Mother Teresa, whichever way she went, you can be sure she would have spoke up loud & clear for an end to abortion.

Anita, hope you are recovered from your overdose of Dr. Joanie.

Anita Moore said...

I see you've also got the Cammie Novara spam.

TH2 said...

What's that?

Blogger has just introduced a better spam protection (comes up on dashboard), which is why I now allow comments not older than about 10 to be unmoderated.

TH2 said...

Oh... just quickly checked it out. Looks like a leftoish intelligent design site. Is that really spam, because a quote was taken from my post? Can spammers do that now?

Anita Moore said...

I've gotten a similar-type comment from the same source, with the same link, so I marked it spam. I think it's spam, because of the boilerplate lingo, and because it links to something that has nothing to do with the subject in hand. That you got the same thing confirms it in my mind.

Anita Moore said...

P.S. Here's the text of the recent Cammie Novara comment I got, reminding me of another factor that made me think it's spam: it quotes a sentence fragment and uses it in a way that really doesn't make sense:

"The importance of promoting Mass attendance, and emphasizing the obligation of attending on Sundays and holy days" All I can say is: Right On! There's a really animated debate that I thought would be of interest on evolution vs. intelligent design going on at http://www.intelligentdesignfacts.com

Amscray, amspay!

Al said...

TH2, I think I have a partial answert to what Mother Teresa would do, based on what she did do in her speech in 79. I was reading a bit from a TIME Magazine special on her & it mentioned that she brought up abortion in her acceptance speech. Here are some excerpts:

"“He being God became man in all things like us except sin, and he proclaimed very clearly that he had come to give the good news. The news was peace to all of good will and this is something that we all want – the peace of heart – and God loved the world so much that he gave his son – it was a giving – it is as much as if to say it hurt God to give, because he loved the world so much that he gave his son, and he gave him to Virgin Mary, and what did she do with him? As soon as he came in her life – immediately she went in haste to give that good news, and as she came into the house of her cousin, the child – the unborn child – the child in the womb of Elizabeth, leapt with joy. He was that little unborn child, was the first messenger of peace. He recognised the Prince of Peace, he recognised that Christ has come to bring the good news for you and for me…

We are talking of peace. These are things that break peace, but I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing – direct murder by the mother herself. And we read in the Scripture, for God says very clearly: Even if a mother could forget her child – I will not forget you – I have carved you in the palm of my hand. We are carved in the palm of His hand, so close to Him that unborn child has been carved in the hand of God. And that is what strikes me most, the beginning of that sentence, that even if a mother could forget something impossible – but even if she could forget – I will not forget you. And today the greatest means – the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.”

& near the end: "That from here the joy of life of the unborn child comes out."

I still don't know for sure if she would have gone, but I am sure that if she had her speech would have been very similar to what it was back then, only with even more emphasis on abortion.

TH2 said...

Anita: Thanks for the information and your detective work. Marked it as spam and deleted the comment.

Al: The question is, if Mother Teresa started to talk about abortion in a speech (under the hypothetical situation of receiving the Order of Canada), or if she let this be known before the event presentation, would she be cut off mid-speech or be denied to even speak at all. I still have to look up that speech thing. Please forgive my tardiness.

Al said...

TH2 No problem on the tardiness, just figured you've been busy.

PS Good point about how they would treat her today if she was giving the speech.

LarryD said...

TH2 - your comment at US Catholic got deleted. I saw it earlier...I think they removed it because you insulted telephone poles when you compared the author to them. Come on! You're supposed to love nature, you know...

Anita Moore said...

Whoa, what's this? I missed this. You compared somebody at U.S. Catholic to telephone poles? Do tell!

LarryD said...

Anita - you need to read this column at US Catholic to see why TH2 compared the writer to a telephone pole.

In case you're interested, I fisked it at my blog.

(sorry to link to my own blog, TH2, but I think Anita would get a kick out of it - it won't happen again!)

Al said...

IMHO, Larry is right, TH2's comparing the author of that US Catholyc article to a telephone pole was an insult, to telephone poles. & Larry does a great job of showing what is wrong with the article as well.

TH2 said...

Sorry for the late response Larry (haven't checked this post as I now allow unmoderated comments). US Catholic deleted my comment (as I expected, as the D-man said). For the record here it is (approximate):

"After reading this article the evidence shows, Mr. Cones, that you are a nature worshiping buffoon and that you have the biblical/theological (let alone scientific) insight of a telephone pole.

Post a Comment