Not afraid to speak his mind

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 12:18 AM By Catherine
Holiness transcends toxic emissions! An exceptional example of caring more about the salvation of souls! What a blessing for the students at Thomas Aquinas College.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 2:35 AM By daryl 
Too bad he is not a bishop.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 5:32 AM By Ted
This priest needs to be the Archbishop of Los Angeles.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 5:36 AM By St. Christopher
A solid priest and pastor. One wonders — with the wrong statements from Stockton’s Bishop Blaire (who reflects the majority of wrong-thinking American bishops) about it being OK to vote for an abortion-enabling politician — how long it will take for the 9am TLM at St. Joseph’s to be eliminated? Good luck, Fr. Illo, the students at Thomas Aquinas are indeed fortunate to have you. Someone needs to mention Fr. Illo to someone at the Vatican, or someone in touch with Cardinal Ouellet, regarding future episcopal appointments. Given what often passes for priests and bishops, Fr. Illo is a keeper.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 6:27 AM By InformedAndFree
Let’s also pray the his parish gets another wonderful priest. I’m sure there is much anxiety over who will they will get next. It appears Fr. Illo was truly rewarded for his faithfulness by becoming the caretaker to the a garden of tender young Catholics minds. May he tend this garden to become lush and fruitful. What a perfect assignment for him and a huge responsibility. St. Michael, please offer special protection to this man!

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 6:47 AM By respectlife
We need more of these priests who are not afraid to speak the truth. He truly is sending the message from God and we are all called to be the hands and feet of Jesus to save souls. May God Bless Fr Illo as he continues to pursue Gods work to save souls.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 7:04 AM By Juergensen
I wonder if this holy priest is just another victim of the pogrom against orthodox priests waged by American bishops lately? Corapi, Pavone, Rodriguez . . . Illo?

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 7:13 AM By Maryanne Leonard
How fortunate for the students and faculty at Thomas Aquinas College to be acquiring yet another outstanding priest who is willing to stand up for traditional Catholic values and is a strong voice for the many members of the students’ generation who are among the murdered and missing. Send your children to Thomas Aquinas College; leave money to Thomas Aquinas College; get on your knees and thank God for Thomas Aquinas College in greatly blessed Ventura County, California, about to be blessed yet again.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 7:27 AM By JMJ
Are you sure that this a Roman Catholic Priest? Never mind making him bishop, he could be the next pope if the world is still around. It is so sad that our Priests that want to be brave for Jesus & Holy, won’t get any backing from their Bishops & no wonder as these Men of God are an embarrassment to the Bishops. May Father keep growing in the Holy Spirit & bring the truth to all of those students that will be under his guidance. Praise God!! +JMJ+

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 7:55 AM By Camille
FAther Illo, in his current position as pastor of a church in Modesto is able only to speak to those parishioners. At TAC he will be helping to train students who can go out and speak to the world. God bless and protect this priest who, like Moses, was given God’s words to speak the truth.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 8:39 AM By Victor Claveau
Many of our bishops, including Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, failed to present the Catholic position with clarity and in its entirety. Bishop Stephen Blaire’s taught that it was permissible to vote for Obama as long as you didn’t vote for him BECAUSE he was pro-abortion. As a result, many Catholics voted for Obama. Isn’t it about time our bishops stand up for Church teaching and not be mealy-mouthed about it. The bishops are far behind in this election as well. How many bishops have come out and forcefully expounded the Church’s position on Abortion. The bottom line is that the Catholic church teaches that to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, when there is a pro-life alternative is on the ballot, is a mortal sin. In doind so, one separates himself from the Church and Christ, therefore forfeiting salvation. If all the candidates are pro-abortion, one must vote for the lesser of the evils.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 9:39 AM By Dale
Fr. Illo presided over the Funeral Mass for my husband when he first came to Hughson parish in 1996. He was a great comfort to me and much liked in the parish. I have sent him messages thanking him for including the Latin Mass in his parish when Pope Benedict first allowed it again. He will be a great asset to his new post.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 10:28 AM By Lisa M.
God has blessed him with being able to KNOW THE TRUTH and the freedom to proclaim it. That’s what follows from a clean conscience and a pure heart.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 11:12 AM By goodcause
There are many harmful side effects to the sexual revolution, but blaming the Great Recesson we are in on contraception is no different than Evangelical Protestants who blame American’s sinful ways for the terrroist attackes on 9-11.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 11:39 AM By Mary
Wish Fr. Illo was President of the USCCB – Am asking him to Contact Arch. Dolan and plead with him to tell the laity they must vote pro-life in Nov. 2012. Seems the majority of our US Bishops support the pro-abort Democrats and the lay Catholics have been misled. Check out the public records to learn what percent of clerics took a Republican or Democratic ballot in the Primary in 2008. Was told that in the Chicago area way, way more clerics took Democratic ballots in 2008. What will clerics do in 2012? Friends and relatives in the Chicago area tell us they were not urged to vote for pro-life candidates. Cardinal George was then Arch.of Chicago &President of the USCCB. The question is: Will Arch/Cardinal elect Dolan be any better? Catholics should give their $$$ to elect good honest, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, fiscal conservatives and boycott the collection basket until things change. Welfare benefits to single mothers has only proven to increase the problem of young women having children without the benefits of marriage. The children suffer from not having a father in their home, end up repeating their mothers behavior, get into drugs and other criminal behavior and often end up in jail. It is a vicous circle – entitlements is not the answer BUT the clerics don’t seem to understand Economics 101.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 11:40 AM By ssoldie
I haven’t heard the words Funeral Mass for a very long time, you parishoners at St Joseph’s should be down on your knees and thank God for such a wonderful shepherd you had for 11 years, you were so blessed.Please pray for Fr. Illo, and ask Jesus and his Blessed Mother to send us more like him.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 11:57 AM By OSCAR
Most CA Bishops have brought on today’s USA and CA STATE problems directly, by not teaching accurately, and allowing the USCCB Committees and Staff tell them what to do. When they are judged – they won’t be able to point to the USCCB or another Bishop and say – ‘he made me do it’. If they taught the truth that voting for a pro-abortion candidate when there is another choice is a Mortal Sin, just think how our Country would appear to God. Our Federal and State elected Officials, Judges, and their appointees would be moral people. By not teaching about Mortal Sin and against voting for pro-abortion politicians they participate in it. Those candidates who support abortion and euthanasia are EVIL Evil begets evil. Why would any teacher of the Faith want Evil to get elected ? God Bless Fr. IIIO and all the Priests like him. Let all of our Bishops and Priests become holy.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 12:04 PM By Abeca Christian
“Catholics who knowingly voted for a pro-abortion candidate may need to go to confession before receiving the Blessed Sacrament. ” This is what I heard before but only if they truly are repentant because if you knowingly vote for a pro-abortion candidate without a care, but do it knowing that you can go to confession right after, people are in danger of committing a sacrilege!

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 12:20 PM By Bella
What a bright light! Quick, make him a bishop! Abortion is a direct product of the contraception mentality. If we had the 53 million people killed by abortion, not to mention all the people which were prevented from being born by contraception, our economy would be humming along nicely.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 12:43 PM By Joannie
This is absolutely correct statement coming from this priest. The last and best encyclical of the Servant of God Pope Paul was full of warnings of the dangers coming from the contraceptive culture. While the yearly March for Life in America is a good intention event it will not cause any change UNLESS Contraception is also rejected. It leads to Abortion.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 1:42 PM By Fr.Michael Perea
I am very proud to say that I was a chaplain at Thomas Aquinas College for eight years.(1998-2006)It is a great school and I am happy to hear that a priest like Fr.Illo is being sent there. Those kids will keep him busy and inspired. There is no place like TAC. It is unique and incomparable.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 2:22 PM By John F. Maguire
To my knowledge, the Bishops agree that “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinstic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in a grave evil” (_Faithful Citizenship_ 34). Need more be said? Yes, and that more is most succinctly expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger in his 2004 Note on the moral theology of voting: “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for the candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” Accordingly, these other reasons are not any other reasons but must be proportionate reasons. If the voter discerns no such proportionate reasons, then that voter cannot vote for the candidate in question. At the same time, in exercito, this discernment is left to the voter in the voting booth. Whence the Bishops’ statement that “we do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote” (_FC_ 7). What then about a parish priest who presumes to tell his parishioners for whom and against whom to vote, even, say, post facto, that is, after an election. Alas, Fr. Illo, back in 2008, did presume upon his parishioners in just this way, but my understanding is that Fr. Illo, ever since his colloquy with his ordinary, Bishop Blaire, has been in agreement with Bishop Blaire that what the Bishops, for their part, have wisely refrained from doing, their priests are likewise wise to refrain from doing.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 2:26 PM By MIKE
Abecca makes a good point 12:04pm. CCC: “1491 The sacrament of Penance is a whole consisting in three actions of the penitent and the priest’s absolution. The penitent’s acts are repentance, confession or disclosure of sins to the priest, and the intention to make reparation and do works of reparation.” Repentance requires that we are sorry for our particular sin, will do our very best never to commit this sin again, and to make reparation for this sin.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 2:52 PM By JLS
We do not know for sure that Obama is not himself sin … Jesus tells us that there is the “unforgivable sin” and also that there is the “man of sin”. “Man of sin” is not simply one man but there are many, just as St John tells us there are many anti-Christs. A vote for sin and the triumph of Hell is a vote against God and the Church.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 4:49 PM By Abeca Christian
Thank you MIKE. I just wanted to make that clear because I remember back in my early adults years, there were college students who said that they were going to get drunk with the intention of going to confession the very next day. I recall letting them know that it was a sacrilege to intentionally plan to commit a sin with the intention of abusing the sacrament of confession. I hope people understand that, I’m concerned that they have that same intent with voting.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 5:05 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Bishop Blaire and Cardinal Roger Mahony are very close friends. Knowing this, no one should wonder at his actions. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 5:52 PM By JLS
Maguire, your wanton characterization of Fr. Illo is simply dishonest. You have no idea whether Fr. Illo agrees with Bp Blair. But the telling thing in your post is your rampant advocacy for a bishop who has given away his authority to a group of bishops.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 5:56 PM By John F. Maguire
Catherine: You’re saying I don’t post on all the scandals that are under the sun? That I’m selective? How could it be otherwise? ~ Do I have a leftist agenda (assuming this left-side-of-aisle spectrum-thinking is still applicable today) — Do I have a leftist agenda? The answer is no. But more: I’ve argued several times on this website that the defense of the COMMON GOOD and the SOCIAL JUSTICE that is ingredient to the common good, is the the very measure of left-deviation and right-deviation (also centrist-deviation) in political life. ~ On another matter you raise, namely God’s omniscient Love, yes, God IS Love and yes, God IS Omniscience, which is why the Bette Midler/Julie Gold song, quite lovely melodically, is problematic lyrically. “God is watching us / God is watching us / From a distance.” Because God IS love; because God IS Omniscience, we risk the suspicion of anthropomorphism when we impute to God a “distance” that is metaphysically impossible where, in all actuality, God IS omniscience, God IS omnipresence; God IS love.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 6:01 PM By Jim
What a blessing for the students of Thomas Aquinas College! Let us pray that all parishes may have a pastor like Father Illo.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 6:20 PM By Maryanne Leonard
Father Michael Perea, how impressive that you served as a chaplain at Thomas Aquinas College until recent years. That speaks volumes for you and substantiates my impression of the spiritual leadership that seems to exude from your posts. TAC, as I’m sure you know, and may in fact have seen yourself, now has a beautiful chapel many years in the creation, and I’ve heard only strongly traditional Catholic teachings there. Thank you for the years you spent there as well, and for your wise posts here on CCD. They usually give me pause to help me to think a little more clearly – in the great tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas himself. God bless you always.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 7:29 PM By Catherine
John Maguire, Intellectual smugness is not a virtue, it is a prideful vice. Why do you choose to distance yourself from Revealed Truth? First you sully a holy priest, then you use Bette Middler for problematic spiritual direction thoughts. You are correct when you say that God is Love. God is love and God’s love, goodness and justice poured out when he disciplined the wicked in Sodom and Gomorrah. How much worse than Sodom and Gomorrah has our nation treated God? God listens to the requests of the righteous. He listened back then and He listens today.Today the faithful are so grateful for the ten righteous bishops or the ten righteous priests. You have shown your ungratefulness for one of the ten righteous priests. God is not distant from anyone but anyone who could post what you did about a holy priest has distanced himself from God.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 7:36 PM By James
Fr. IIIo is a true courageous hero. Willing to speak his mind and stand up for what our church is SUPPOSED to teach. He is right. You cannot be Catholic and pro-abortion or vote pro-abortion. Our national IQ test is this November for the Presidential elections. God will NOT save a stupid and stubborn people. And we need saving from ourselves. History and the Bible and logic tells us this. A good and true Catholic cannot in good conscience justify a vote for this radical leftist liberal anti-Catholic bigot Obama.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 8:16 PM By Dan
John Maguire is certainly correct in stating under what conditions a Catholic may vote for Obama and other abortion advocates: “the presence of proportionate reasons.” And I detect no smugness in his stance. I just wonder why the bishops are in masse not exploring the arena of “proportionate reasons” and thinking through the proportions. Does voter education stop at the door of “proportionate reasons,” or should these themselves be examined and subject to scrutiny?

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 8:24 PM By John F. Maguire
JLS: My account of Fr. Illo’s relationship to Bishop Blaire is based on the public record. That means that if I’m mistaken it is because the public record is mistaken. In the meantime however, you prefer personal attacks (“dishonest”; “wanton”), even though you’ve recognized in the past that my posts are based on research, not on “wanton” speculation. ~ So okay, what did my research on this matter come up with? On December 1, 2008, Tom McFeely reports that “In subsequent comments at Mass yesterday [subsequent, that is, to the end of the pew-inquisition – JM], Father Illo highlighted that it’s not voting for Obama that is the issue. It’s whether a Catholic voted for him in agreement with Obama’s pro-abortion platform and voting record.” Tom McFeely, for his part as a reporter, goes on to note what the local newspaper _The Modesto Bee_ reported on this matter. McFeely: “‘This is a serious issue,’ he [Fr. Joseph Illo] said, _The Modesto Bee_ reported. ‘But it’s not about whom you vote for as much as it is what you vote for. We as Catholics have a duty to protect the rights of all people. We have a precious opportunity as Catholics and Christians.'” Source: Tom McFeely, “Repenting an Obama Vote,” _National Catholic Register_, December 1, 2008. Honest reliance on a reliable reporter is careful research, JLS. I object to your personal attack on me suggesting otherwise.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 8:49 PM By martha martinez
We need more priests like this . courageous. unafraid to speak the Truth. Thomas Aquinas College is lucky to have him. we need Bishops here in California who will speak out this way.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 8:52 PM By JLS
So, Maguire, your powers of interpretation of public records are ex cathedra, or what?

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 8:58 PM By JLS
Dan, if you voted for Obama, then your vote murdered many babies regardless of your intention. I guess you could excuse it by calling it collateral damage. It is sort of like a drunk driver, who does not intend to butcher people he runs into. Anyone ever read Catholic teaching about not putting yourself in a situation that would risk sin? Read the Temptations of Christ in the Gospel, and then say you could vote for the devil because you intended the good he said and not the evil. After all there is good in all men, and so it does not really matter if they sodomize or not … why o why one might wonder did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, when they were so busy lusting that they never intended to do anything evil?

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 9:42 PM By k
We need to go to confession when conscious of serious sin.

Posted Monday, January 30, 2012 10:39 PM By k
John Paul II recommended using the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-7:27) as an examination of conscience.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:57 AM By James
Father Ilo apparently has problems, among them not being cut out for parish ministry and problems with submitting to the authority of the Bishops. Having known Bishop Blaire for more than 50 years I am certain the Bishop tried to work with Father Ilo to help him be a better pastor, but finally he had to be removed for his own good and the good of the members of the parish. In a university setting Father Ilo will obviously do less harm to the flock and yet still have a ministry. We pray for Father Ilo.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:38 AM By John F. Maguire
‘Ex cathedra’ has nothing to do with it, JLS — rather, my posts on the Blaire/Illo relationship, which posts you and others fiercely disparaged, are based on the public record.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:21 AM By JLS
Maguire, your claim that your interpretation of the public record is the only valid possibility makes you infallible in your own sense of speaking ex cathedra.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:25 AM By JLS
James, what you are saying is actually condeming Bp Blaire and honoring Fr. Illo. You are saying that Bp Blair sees administrative activity as more important than religious ministry. You seem to have no clue as to what religion is all about. Recall the money changers in the temple.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:50 AM By Fr. Richard Perozich
A hero for me.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:52 AM By Sandra
May God continue to Bless this wonderful Priest and all those like him. Satan would love to take him down–but because of his holiness and “right” course, satan doesn’t have a chance! He is truly the Lord’s earthly shepherd. Praise to God for all the good shepherd’s he sends us!

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:54 AM By Dan
JLS, you mistake my intention (8:58 p.m.). It is just a discussion of what these proportionate reason might be which seems to be lacking, and needed.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:07 AM By JLS
Dan, for years now on this site Maguire has trumpeted “proportionate reasons” as a justification for voting for the morally unjust Obama regime. Maguire is not simply explaining proportionate reasoning theory, but visciously stumping for the Obama government.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:22 AM By John F. Maguire
I claimed nothing even remotely approximating “infallibility,” JLS. My reading of the public record is, if I am not mistaken, a reasonable one, also widely accepted by all close students of the situation, to wit: Fr. Illo made clear to _The Modesto Bee_ a change of mind and heart regarding his prior initiation of something in the field of electoral politics that, as his Bishop explained to him, the Church opposes, namely, pew inquisitions. No one claims to be privy to the Bishop Blaire/Fr. Illo consultation, but what is reported in _The Modesto Bee_ would indeed appear to be the upshot of that consultation. It is because Fr. Illo welcomed his Bishop’s intervention in a true spirit of docility; it is because Fr. Illo welcomed Bishop Blaire’s intervention obedientially, that we applaud him.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 8:25 AM By Traditional Angelo
Rome needs to hear about priests such as Fr. Illo. Priests like him need to be elevated to Bishop in order to transform God’s Church in the US. Either that or God will be forced to transform the Church in a manner he prefers not to. But we are leaving him no choice.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:51 AM By John F. Maguire
For years, I’ve defended Cardinal Ratzinger’s Note on the presence of proportionate reasons in the electoral decision-making process, but I have never parlayed this defense into an endorsement of any politician whomsover, let alone any abortocratic politician

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:24 AM By k
JLS, why would someone with Mr. Maguire’s intelligence pick CCD as a place to “stump for Obama”? He has said often that it is not support “abortocrats”. James, I didn’t get that their were problems between Father Ilio and Bishop Blair. Bishop Blair is still his bishop.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:31 PM By Abeca Christian
If one speaks their mind, then you have people label them as ” a person of strong character” strong personality etc, as if it was a bad thing.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:11 PM By Abeca Christian
What if “gentle” is perceived as “harsh”? What if “charitable, loving” is perceived as “hatred”?

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 4:05 PM By David
I believe in ‘seperation of church and state’ . I no more want the church to tell me who to vote for than I do the government telling what church I should attend. Abortion is NOT a political issue. The republicans have controlled the white house more than the democrats since Roe vs. Wade and they have done nothing to change it , except try to convince you they will ( they won’t ). Put in on the ballot and let America vote , not the government !

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:15 PM By Larry
“I no more want the church to tell me who to vote for than I do the government telling what church I should attend.” The Church should never tell you who to vote for, David, and in fact they don’t. But the Church has the right and duty to tell you what sort of issues a Christian in good conscience may support or must oppose. Otherwise it sounds like you advocate the separation of “Church” and “David,” which would be strange were you to insist on being a member of a Church while refusing its guidance. Then what would be the point of membership?

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:45 PM By Anne T.
Fr. Illo is one of my heoes. It seems as if he does not “whitewash” anything. Some people compromise, whitewash, so much they compromise their souls away. So many of our politicians remind me of the Temptation of the Lord in the desert by Satan.. You know? “All these kingdoms I will give to you if you fall down and worship me.” The Lord refused Satan’s offer, but some politicians have not and have taken Satan up on his offer as I see it.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:00 PM By Traditional Angelo
David, I am also in favor of ‘separation of Church and State’. I want the Church to tell me how to vote without the State interfering and threatening the Church with its tax exemption status. I agree that the Abortion issue should be put on the ballot for Americans to decide. With the State keeping out of the Church’s business when it comes to speaking the truth about a Mother murdering her child in her womb and all those who take part in this evil.

Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:34 PM By JLS
The Republicans don’t try to delete the Second Amendment so that you have no way to say no to govt, but the Democrats would take this ability away from you. Once they do that, it then makes no difference how you vote.

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 2:21 AM By Robert Bushlow
Lord, Please send us more holy priests like this.

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:25 AM By Abeca Christian
Bravo Traditional Angelo!

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:35 AM By BETH
David, you are right. Abortion should not be political, it is MURDER. We do not vote to MURDER our babies. Next most States have had abortion on the ballot over the past many years, and it always lost. The Democrats have had abortion (pro-choice to kill babies) in their National Platform for years, and the Republicans never have. Let’s get to the PRESENT time – in the past 1 1/2 years with the Republican majority in the House, there have been two Votes to defund abortion and Planned Parenthood with tax dollars. Both passed the Republican House and are being held up in the Democratic Senate, and of course OBAMA would never sign it into law. The key is NOT to VOTE for pro-abortion politicians. – It is a Mortal Sin when there is another candidate on the ballot. Those who kill innocent and helpless babies have no moral compass what-so-ever.

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:33 PM By Anne T.
Beth, regarding your post today at 5:35 AM, the Republican Party, the party of Abraham Loncoln, was right on slavery. See the 1864 Platform of the Republican Party against slavery. It is also right about abortion. Some are trying to change the platform of the party now to get it to be for abortion. We need to fight that too. Abortion and the birthcontrol pill are killing women. They make breast and other female cancers more aggressive. The bad effects of the Pill far outway any good effects of it. As G.K. Chesterton, the English Catholic writer wrote, “Birthcontrol — less birth, less control.”

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:39 PM By Anne T.
By the way, less control means more venereal diseases (STDs) and raises the price of healthcare.

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 2:44 PM By JLS
A major women’s health fund disengaged from Planned Parenthood yesterday … Komen something or other … over the abortion issue. The editor replies: Read about it tomorrow in CalCatholic.

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 2:55 PM By Brian S.
Beth, when a Democrat is the president, the Republicans seek political points with symbolic votes, such as the recent one on Planned Parenthood, precisely because they know they will not take effect. On the other hand, Planned Parenthood was funded without pause from 2002 through 2006 even though the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. That fact, not just election-year rhetoric, needs to be kept in mind when deciding who the pro-abortion politicians are.

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 3:06 PM By Anne T.
Yes, praise God the Susan B. Komen Foundation is no longer going to give any more of their funding to Planned Parenthood. Make sure you write or call thanking them for defunding it. The low dose birthcontrol pill also aborts about once a year for women who take it that long. I imagine a chemical abortion can be almost as damaging, or more so if used longer, as a a surgical abortion.

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 5:12 PM By Anne T.
Please forgive my typo msspelling of “Lincoln” in my post.

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 8:24 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Brian S. Once again, “Republicans have never really controlled the House and the Senate, Republicrats and Demoncrats have! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher, Former Member State and O.C. County Central Committees.

Posted Wednesday, February 01, 2012 11:41 PM By Brian S
Fine, Kenneth, but it not meaningful to define “Republicans” to mean “anti-abortion” and merely making up a new word to describe republicans who are pro-abortion. Republicans – meaning those elected with Republican party support and endorsement and when in power make the rules and agendas for the government – are simply not pro-life to care about even such minimal things as de-funding Planned Parenthood, as proved over these recent years.

Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:58 AM By OSCAR
Brian S., all politicans are responsible for their own VOTING record and their own public actions. No one gets a pass from their own actions. Senate (and House) Dems could have voted in support of NOT funding Planned Parenthood last year. WHY didn’t the DEMS vote against funding Planned Parenthood ??? – Please answer. This is a new Republican House with many new members. We judge polticians on their own individual records not on others who are no longer in office. Why haven’t the DEMS removed the support of abortion from their National Platform ??? – – – Please answer.

Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:38 AM By Abeca Christian
OSCAR I am liking your backbone! God bless you!

Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:05 PM By hapnHal
It’s about time the church speaks out against Obama. If my memory serves me correct, one of Obama’s first tasks was to give money to Mexico for abortions. “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Editor’s note: With the exception of Mexico City, abortion is illegal in Mexico.

Posted Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:25 PM By Abeca Christian
“We’ve Had Enough Of Exhortations To Be Silent! Cry Out With A Hundred Thousand Tongues. I See That The World Is Rotten Because Of Silence.” ~ St. Catherine of Siena

Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 12:21 AM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Brian S. 11:41 PM, Wrong again! The Republican Congress is right now working (it may have already been passed) a bill to totally defund Planned Barenhood, but the POTUS and his Demoncrat controlled Senate will not let it pass! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 11:29 AM By Abeca Christian
I;m Republican and pro-life. I only vote for Republicans that are like minded with my faith’s guidelines!

Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 3:14 PM By Maryanne Leonard
Abeca, good posts! I especially loved the quote from St. Catherine of Siena – what an excellent observation on her part. I had not heard that before, and I thank you for it.

Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 3:39 PM By JLS
So, Kenneth, which GOP candidate are you preferring (assuming the only contenders now are the following two)? Mitt has a fundamental family orientation and is LDS; Noot is a convert to Catholicism and cannot boast of any deep family orientation.

Posted Friday, February 03, 2012 11:17 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Oscar, As a former Republican and Democrat Official I say, please let me know if you ever run for Office, I will support you as much as I can. Your sentiments are exactly what mine were in Office and my guiding light were His words “the truth shall set you free”. Now I would also add St. Catherine’s quote that Abeca stated above, thanks Abeca. JLS, at this time I am supporting Newt, rather a repentant sinner than one who says one thing and does the other. I can send you information from our man in Massachusetts on Romney if you would like. If Romney had been true to his Mormon principals, I could support him. He hasn’t! God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 1:42 AM By 1abqdad
I think that there continues to be unfortunate confusion over the Mexico City Policy. It had NOTHING to with promoting abortion in Mexico. The Mexico City policy was first implemented via a memorandum by President Reagan in 1984 at a United Nations population conference in Mexico City, thus the name Mexico City policy. Prior to President Reagan’s actions American policy on paper was to never promote abortion overseas, however in practice US tax dollars directly supported organizations which advocated and performed abortion. The Mexico City Policy specifically denied the use of tax dollars to promote abortion outside of the USA.

Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 8:36 AM By JLS
Kenneth, it looks like Mitt would get more votes against Obama, but Newt would make a more effective president in terms of moral interests. Both would seem likely to amend some of the damage done by Obama in the abortion issue. Newt seems to have all the windows and doors open; whereas, Mitt remains closed: However, this might be expected with his large family, to keep them from being vulnerable to political intrusion. Any candidate at this level can only succeed by making the right power plays, morally good or otherwise.

Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 4:16 PM By k
“It is clear that the Catholic voter has to be opposed to procured abortion. Anybody who votes for a candidate who suppors or favors procured abortion because the candidate favors procured abortion cooperates in evil. A host of considerations enter in the decision to vote for a particular candidate. The voter must be opposed to procured abortion and do evertything as a voter to decrease the evil of abortion and eliminate it. If the Catholic voter votes for a candidiate who is in favor of porcured abortion, while the voter is clearly opposed to it, there must be some serious reson to justify such a vote. As Cardinal Ratzinger said in his June memorandum, such a vote is “remote material cooperation” which can be permitted in the presence of porportionate reasons. His position is not proportionalism, for the voter remains steadfastly opposed to procured abortion and works to eliminate abortion in society and its protection by the law.” Archbishop (now Cardinal) Raymond Burke 2004

Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 5:30 PM By Abeca Christian
Thank you Maryanne Leonard, God bless you. : )

Posted Saturday, February 04, 2012 5:58 PM By JLS
Is there a candidate who has a record of efforts to reduce abortion … not simply words but a record of actions the have reduced abortion?

Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 4:43 AM By MIKE
For the SENATE – Lest Maguire or anyone else try to confuse the voter, or bring up correct or incorrect info that does NOT APPLY to the CURRENT Congress (Politicians) – here is the official Vote Count on Defunding Planned Parenthood and Affiliates of April, 2011 for the SENATE – Voting to NOT fund PP – 42 REP; Voting to continue funding PP – 5 REP and 53 DEMS. Both CA Senators BOXER (D) and FEINSTEIN (D) continue to use US taxpayer dollars to support the culture of death and the murdering of American babies and babies around the world. (Concurrent Resolution H 36).

Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 4:57 AM By MIKE
For the HOUSE vote on DEFUNDING Planned Parenthood and Affiliates – April, 2011 (Roll Call 271; H Con Res 36). votinng to DEFUND – 231 Republicans, 10 Dems; voting to continue using taxpayer dollars for funding PP and Affiliates: 7 Rep, 178 Democrats, (1 voted present and there were 5 not voting). All should actively check out the voting of your own Representatives and actively work against him/her if voting to continue the culture of death. Those who vote for death have no moral standards.

Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 5:03 AM By MIKE
For the HOUSE (different bill) , May 2011, “NO TAXPAYER FUNDING for ABORTION ACT” – – voting YES, 235 Republicans, 16 Democrats; voting to continue funding abortion 175 Democrats. There were 6 not voting. Since actions speak louder than words, always check the public voting records of your elected officials. The Democratic majority in the SENATE refused to vote on this bill. so they would not have a public record.

Posted Sunday, February 05, 2012 2:08 PM By Anne T.
As I posted in another article on this site, the Komen Foundation reversed it decision and decided to fund Planned Parenthood which does abortions.

Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:14 PM By Phyllis Rose
Abortion kills babies. Contraception prevents babies. Anti-life candidates are running for office in all parties and they need to be run out of office. May God bless Father Illo in his new position at TAC and may Our Lady sustain him in sanctifying grace – without which it is impossible to please God.

Posted Wednesday, February 29, 2012 8:51 PM By BiggusHeaddus
I’m not sure what he means by “Don’t risk losing your state of grace by receiving sacrilegiously.” If you’re in the state of grace then you don’t receive sacrilegiously – if you’re in mortal sin THEN receive Communion you commit sacrilege. But it’s a sad day when a topic like this makes headlines – a Priest teaches the teachings of the Catholic Church and it makes headlines. Our FSSP Priest said something similar just after the election and no one batted an eyelash.

Posted Friday, March 02, 2012 7:39 PM By CatherineofSiena
Bishop Blaire most certainly does not believe that abortion is the quintessential evil of our time. What if these same voters cast their vote for a politician who advocated rounding up and killing Jews – but also building great roads and providing jobs for all? If people cast their votes because they wanted better roads, despite the fact that this would mean the massacre of millions of Jews, would the bishop still say it was not sinful to do so? His hands are in the bloodbath. Woe to the bishops who have enabled the murderers. If they had done their jobs and fulfilled the responsibility the Lord entrusted to them, we would not be where we are today, and millions of innocent lives would have been saved. The responsibility for the current situation lies squarely with the Catholic bishops – all of them.