|
Published: November 9, 2009
More Honesty
Curtis Boyd Says He Is Killing
Editor: the following email came in today from Sacramento pro-lifer.
 See: Texas TV News video of late term Texas abortionist, Curtis Boyd, admitting that he is "killing" and does abortions on girls as young as nine or ten years old.
To view the video, click here.
There seems to be a new willingness to put at least some honest and truthful information concerning abortion on TV and in newspapers -- which has almost never happened or has been much more rare until recently.
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 5:22 AM By St. Christopher
Why is this a surprise? Boyd is likely making a fortune killing babies and the souls of their mothers. This only shows how demented society has become, when evil can blithely address itself as nothing more important than the choice of ice cream flavors. Well, local bishop, what are you going to say and do?
|
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 5:44 AM By Ron
Boyd and Tiller friends- suprised? Vultures of a feather flock together. Who would want to be friends with these demons?God Bless
|
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 7:56 AM By Thomas Edward Miles
This is a very evil and sick human being!
|
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 8:10 AM By TotaTua
WOW knows he is killing and sends them off with a prayer. How can he reconcile the two?
|
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 8:33 AM By David
We should pray for the victims of this murderer, for the vicitms who's children he has killed, for these victims' families, and -- difficult as it is -- for Curtis Boyd himself. God loves him so much that he sent his only son to die for him. Satan wants Boyd to kill innocent people and talk about it as though it were ok. We want to drown this evil in an abundance of God's love. God has given Boyd and every human being the freedom of chosing good over evil; pray that he and all child killers open themselves to God's loving Grace, confess their sins, and look to eternal life with God in heaven. Eternal life is presented to them entirely free, and to embrace it would take but a few seconds. How tragic it is for them to remain such patethic losers, and chose to spend eternity in a place far worse than we can imagine rather than in place far better than we can imagine.
|
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 9:53 AM By WOODY GUIDRY
Maybe TV is wavering towards truth, but newspapers have debased the truth with prejudice until their only real competition is from porn magazines and Facebook.
|
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 10:20 AM By John F. Maguire
The recognition that procured abortion involves killing is but one of the PRECONDITIONS of honesty in regard to the act of aborting a preborn infant. This same recognition, however, does not necessarily exemplify honesty in the robust sense of the term. That's because the recognition that procured abortion is an instance of killing, though true as as far as it goes, nonetheless can be distorted or uglified by a subsequent failure to acknowledge that preborn infants are human persons, i.e., living human bodies in possession of the right to life. This failure or refusal constitutes a deformation -- an ugliness. For Catholic theology, then, this failure or refusal constitutes a veritable DISHONESTY by the measure of virtue itself (HONESTUM). In this context, we need only recall St. Augustine's definition of virtue as "intelligible beauty" (honestum voco intelligibilem pulchritudinem) the better to see that a recognition that abortion involves killing might yet remain dishonest because it remains deformed by the lack of a further acknowledgment: namely, the further acknowlegement of an EQUAL RIGHT to life -- within the compass of humanity -- of preborn infants.
|
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 11:40 AM By Phil Sevilla
For those interested in knowing how Curtis Boyd profits from murdering unborn children up to 24 weeks old,
his fees go up to $3,000 for 24 weeks. He kills in Dallas
and Albuquerque. Here is his fee schedule for his ABQ office, Southwestern Women's Options, at 522 Lomas Blvd. NE, Albuquerque.
Go to: curtisboydmd.com/fees.htm
Phil Sevilla
Rio Rancho, NM
|
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 2:40 PM By Abeca Christian
This saddens my heart, what can you say to such a human being that thinks so little of helpless living beings. You can say a lot but how much will it soak in? How can he think that he is greater than God to think that he can destroy a human being, woe to his soul. On judgment day he will remember every limb he tore up with his own hands and tools he used. It will be torturous day for him.
|
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 3:45 PM By Life Lady
Do not forget that the enemy comes in all shapes and sizes, and feins compassion when it suits it. This man says he prays all the time, and was (I will not say he is, not when he does what he does) a baptist minister. Well, I guess religion was not as lucrative as abortion. The price one pays for one's soul, its a lot, huh?
|
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 4:01 PM By St. Christopher
"David": Christ died to assure salvation "for many" (pro multis) not "for all" as the loons who put together the Paul VI mass try to foist off on gullible Catholics. The Church is not the Protestant Church. Here, there is the acceptance that Christ, as God, offered Himself as the Redeemer of Mankind, for the sin of Adam and for subsequent sin, but that not all would be saved by their own choice. The Bible is full of reference to Chris as the "ransom of many" (not of all). We do not know what is in store for any person at their death, including the good doctor. However, it may well be that Christ did not come to save Doctor Boyd, in the same way that he elects not to be among the sheep that the Shepard finds and saves. Praying for Boyd is probably good, but he may simply be evil and destined for Gehenna. After all, Hitler was Hitler before his birth, as was Judas.
|
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 6:16 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to S. Christopher: It is an error within Calvinist heterodoxy to maintain that a person "may be evil and destined for Gehenna." The Catholic Church rejects the Calvinist decree of Dordrecht which holds that SOME PERSONS are destined to heaven and OTHERS destined to Gehenna. Put another way: The Catholic Church rejects double predestination (some to heaven; some to hell) in favor of a single predestination of all (by way of sufficient grace) to heaven -- although, to be sure, a person may
(God forbid) reject this same predestination. Moreover,
S. Christopher, Christ DID die for all, but NOT all persons (we can with fairly surmise) will accept Christ's offer of salvation. Whence the propriety of the phrase PRO MULTIS ["for many"] in the Mass and the impropriety of translating (counter-literally) PRO MULTIS as "for all". Still, let's be clear on a crucial point. The phrase "for many" (to wit: many will be saved, not all) is not to be understood as an accidental endorsement of the Calvinist doctrine
of a "double decree" according to which God positively and pre-emptively predestines a segment of humanity to Gehenna. To the contrary, the phrase in the Mass PRO MULTIS ("for many"), although not referential to Christ's universal will that all be saved, nonetheless IS referential to the consequent reality that NOT ALL will cooperate with the graces sent them -- and, accordingly, that NOT ALL will be saved.
|
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 6:27 PM By Jim
Is the Supreme Court listening? Do they care?
|
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 8:17 PM By markrite
Well, first off, Christopher: No, Christ DID come and lay down his life FOR ALL." obviously, if ALL do not reciprocate, then its THEIR FAULT, not God's. But the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus IS FOR ALL. And "THE LOONS", as you so charitably put it, knew what they were doing, not you. So there is NOTHING WRONG with the Paul VI mass, as you also imply. For God's sake, Christopher, LAY OFF Pope Paul; he gave us "HUMANAE VITAE," PROBABLY THE MOST BRILLIANT ENCYCLICAL of the last 500 years. And it was also Pope Paul that blew the whistle on Satan ("smoke of Satan" talk) and reminded the faithful of how much power a fallen archangel has, INCREDIBLE POWER that can literally CRUSH WORLDS. Fortunately for us, JESUS CHRIST has INFINITE POWER as God & man, & will send Lucifer packing with JUST THE BREATH OF HIS MOUTH. All of this is a VERY deep subject, so deep its apparently too much for you to handle, Christopher.
Secondly, David: Exactly what does "we want to drown this evil in an abundance of 'luv' (my spelling, in what I percieve to be a very mawkish and sentimental context, the way you are using it)? THIS GUY BOYD IS A MONSTER; the EVIL he does through his late-term abortions is INCALCULABLE, possibly bringing some kind of catastrophe upon us. What Boyd needs is an EXORCIST, someone like Father Eutenuer of HLI. America has WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE afflicting it like Boyd and Obama and Tiller, etc., who seem HELL-BENT on tearing this society apart to satisfy their MANIACAL URGE to bring us the absolutely WORST kinds of freedom, which all seem to end up as the freedom to do as THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE, and let the devil take the hindmost---thanx be to God for Calif. Catholic Daily and GOD BLESS ALL-MARKRITE.
|
Posted Monday, November 09, 2009 9:32 PM By JLS
Maguire, there you go once again, skewing what someone has said and turning your new strawman into something you can handle. St Christopher has said nothing that Scripture does not point out, that there is such a thing as an unforgiveable sin. Some call this the sin against the Holy Ghost. It is also quite possible for the faithful to discern spirits. If St Christopher sees the possibility of this abortionist bound for Hell, along with Hitler, then what's to say he's wrong? What he said is not Calvinist. You, as I've pointed out, have spouted the Calvinist line at times. For example, your belief that empowering the most ardent proabortion president will reduce abortions smacks of Calvinist predestination in that it says that no matter what one is or does or believes the opposite might happen if it be God's will. Maguire, you're right out of Arthur Miller's "The Crucible".
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:17 AM By David
Regarding Markrite's comment about my alleged mawkishness, I should perhaps have used the word "good" rather than "love." I was paraphrasing St. Josemaria Escriva, who wrote (and the last sentence is important here): "The task for a Christian is to drown evil in an abundance of good. It is not a question of negative campaigns, or of being anti anything. On the contrary, we should live positively, full of optimism, with youthfulness, joy and peace. We should be understanding with everybody, with the followers of Christ and with those who abandon him, or do not know him at all. But being understanding does not mean holding back, or remaining indifferent, but being active."
Furrow, 864
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:47 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: (1) S. Christopher is most certainly a real person and for that very reason I am bound both to recognize that fact and (perhaps even) to point out, in critical solidarity, that S. Christopher is mistaken in his assertion that a person may indeed "be evil and destined for Gehenna." JLS, there is no notion of pre-destination for Gehenna in Catholic Christianity; but alas! one does find such a notion in Calvinism, notably in the "double decree" that Calvinism falsely imputes to God to the effect that God predestines some persons to hell; some to heaven. This heretical doctrine was officially promulgated by the Calvinist Synod of Dordrecht. (2) From within the persepctive of the Catholic Church's opposition to Calvinism, I agree with MARKRITE'S REPLY to S. Christopher, namely that: contrary to S. Christopher, "Christ DID come and lay down his life FOR ALL. Obviously, if ALL do not reciprocate...." -- then that refusal is not a function of a predestination to hell wrought by God by rather a function of the "fault" of those who reject the grace proffered by God. Two more points, JLS: (3) The Puritan prosecutors in Arthur Miller's play _The Crucible_ -- the Puritan prosecutors of Salem, Massachusetts -- were Calvinists. Since my position is counter-Calvinist, I do not see how you can club me with Salem's Puritan prosecutors. (4) On the other hand, JLS, the deathwork effected at Salem -- the execution of witches -- took as its first premise YOUR premise: namely, that the Mosaic code, which specifies death as punishment for witchcraft, is, theologically, still applicable. In holding this contemporary Dominionist but also old Puritan position, JLS, you rationalize exactly what Arthur Miller opposes and what I oppose -- you rationalize the application of the death penalty against witches, real or purported, as if these women were just dolls to be burned.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:50 PM By JLS
markrite, the effect of "all" and "many" is the same when interpreted according to the Magisterium. S.C. is pointing out the subterfuge of the implementation of "all"; that's all.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:18 PM By JLS
Maguire, again your Scripture ignorance flames up regarding your denial of predestination. Evidently you've never read St Paul. You refuse to understand, but for the benefit of other readers, the problem with "predestination" is in its interpretation. Maguire always demonstrates his inability or unwillingness to reckon the various shades and definitions of words often thought to have common meanings ... This has been pointed out often, but he cannot handle this fact.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:30 PM By JLS
Maguire, even though you claim your position is counter to
Calvinism, it is not. The easiest way to see it is in your stubborn insistence that each word is destined to have only one meaning and that you and you alone are the one who knows each meaning. BTW, you have not responded to my point about you suffering the problem taught by the late Malachi Martin about the danger of what could be called incestuous academic study, especially when dwelling in the creaky old mannors of early New England society which you reflect. That is a haunted place, and you, Maguire, reflect the effect of such indulgence. And your accusation that I'm a Puritan is false and you are aware of your false accusation. What I've succeeded in baiting you into, Maguire, is your own trap. Yes, I've made accusations, but they are accurate and based on what you post. You persist in skewing the posts of your critics ... So, whereas you dream that you are bringing forth the truth, rather by devious methods what you are doing is conjuring up deceptive and false characterizations. What you have accused me of is exactly what you have done, which is the same as the Puritan witch burners in the Crucible play. It is so clear that you are dishonest since you have always held forth that the way to decrease abortion is to vote for someone who will increase it. That kind of demented position, Maguire, makes it impossible for anything you say to hold water. You need to repent, which will take thinking and not your customary reacting.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:22 PM By John F. Maguire
JLS: Your reply to Markrite is false on its face -- and symptomatic of a lack of knowledge of what has been (famously) the longstanding PRO MULTIS debate.
|
Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:55 PM By John F. Maguire
No, JLS, I didn't say you were a Puritan -- I said your Dominionism on the issue of capital punishment (your notion that capital punishment is theologically in force today -- and, by implication, to be applied today to the list of Pentateuchal offenses, including death for the offense of witchcraft, is a point upon which you and the Puritan prosecutors during the Salem witch trial share. I've urged you to abandon "this contemporary Dominionist but also old Puritan position" in light of the moral guidance on the question of capital punishment proffered by the Catholic Church.
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:27 PM By Abeca Christian
John F. Maguire what you just posted to JLS does not make sense?? It doesn't sound like the JLS we know. Perhaps you are misunderstanding him once again?
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:35 PM By John F. Maguire
Abeca Christian: If you read JLS's posts, you'll see that they fail to distinguish between the PENAL ASPECT of the ancient Hebraic codes and the MORAL CONTENT of those codes, with the result that JLS's posts on this subject, on their face, end up running contrary to the CCC's teaching on capital punishment, quite as if a reversion to the ancient death penalties identified in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were applicable under the New Covenant. They are not. ~ In truth, it is only insofar as the ancient Hebraic codes conform to right reason (recta ratio) that they can be said to be binding within the New Covenant and the evangelical Law.
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 3:23 PM By JLS
Maguire, you couldn't interpret the newspaper, let alone theology or religion. Jesus said that not an iota of the Law is changed ... Since you cannot understand it, then you presume to make a strawman out of me again. That is all you do, Maguire; to you, there is only what you can see, and so you construe everything accordingly. As a result you get it all messed up. You fail, because of your presumption, to simply ask me if the Church should apply the death penalty for adultry. I have never said that it should be applied in any case at all. But because Jesus said He is the fulfillment of the Law and that not an iota shall be changed, then why is it you cannot simply believe what Jesus says? Because you presume Him to say something to suit your lack of understanding, then you accuse me of all sorts of stuff that I neither believe nor advocate. Jesus instructs us that it is better that a millstone be tied around the neck of a child abuser and then he should be dropped into the sea ... but the Church does not recommend nor do this. Yet you, in your presumption, preach that thus the Law of millstones is null and void. Maguire, your vanity and presumption is not doing you any good. You malign the Church, God and everyone else. You deny that you advocated Obama so that abortion would be reduced ... do you have any sense of ethics or honesty at all?
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:43 PM By John F. Maguire
The burden is on you, JLS, to explain how the difference between Christ's reference to not one iota of change in the law and the sea-shift change away from the PENOLOGY -- the death penalties -- listed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Personal attacks on me won't help you here. Christ's invocation of the millstone is emphatic and contrastive -- and illustrates the intensification of punishments for sin under the New Law, including everlasting punishments. (JLS, I advocated NOT AT ALL on this site for any presidential candidate in November's election -- hardpressed as I was to live up to my commitment to stay within the framework of voting ethics from a NON-PARTISAN VANTAGE POINT -- I mean the same voting ethics that had been formulated by Cardinal Ratzinger. I would also remind you that the November election controversy has NOTHING to do with the present controversy, which was prompted by your initial failure to distinguish (a) the moral content of code of Leviticus and (b) the death penalties attached to adultery, etc. And by the way, when I invoked CCC's position on capital punishment, I was in effect asking you whether you agreed with the CCC. You remained silent. Oh and one other thing: I "maligned the Church, God and everyone else"? JLS, get a grip.
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:09 PM By Abeca Christian
John F. Maguire you do sound like a gentleman who has his own intelligence and views things in a different perspective but sometimes I feel that you lack logic. JLS just explained it to you very well, as I would have already guessed.
|
Posted Friday, November 20, 2009 5:51 PM By John F. Maguire
Thank you for your comment, Abeca! If I drop a link or two of logic, I would be the first to want to know what those links are, since dia-logue requires it. ~ As for the ideal of civility on the Internet, that, I agree, requires careful, patient attention to other's views, free of all malice, all extraneous and all vicious ad hominem attacks ("personal attacks"). In general, I am sorry to see that Pope Benedict's call for civility on the Internet has gone unheeded.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|