PM3106: Compelling proof that the Roman Catholic Church is a false church which is not of God

The story: The year is 2009. A nine year old girl is raped by her stepfather. She falls pregnant with twins. Doctors advise that going ahead with the pregnancy poses a severe risk to her life, since her nine-year old body is just way too small for twins to fit inside safely. With the agreement of her mother, the girl has an abortion.

The local Catholic Bishop (Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho) declares excommunicated the doctors and the girl's mother, since what they did was against Catholic morals (!). But he won't excommunicate the stepfather for raping her, because what he did was "not as bad" (!) The Vatican authorities (Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re) endorse the Bishop's declaration as correct according to Catholic doctrine.

Does this sound like the action of a true church, a church of God? Or the actions of a false church, a church which is not of God? Clearly, this is the actions of a false church. By these events, the Roman Catholic Church has conclusively proven itself to be a false religion!

A church which would rather count a child-rapist as a member, than the mother and doctor who did the medically necessary to save the child's life.

Sources:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,505183,00.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2009/03/07/catholic-abortion.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7930380.stm

There are other cases where the Catholic Church has made clear, that it would prefer both mother and child to die together, than that mother live and the child die. How is this different from human sacrifice? It is not! Only false religions which worship false gods demand human sacrifice - and that is what the Catholic Church demands! A false religion which worships a false god with bloody human sacrifices of unnecessary maternal death!

Arizona, USA, 2009: A woman in her twenties presents as 11 weeks pregnant at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona. She was suffering from severe pulmonary hyptertension. Doctors conclude that the proceeding with the pregnancy is almost certain to kill her. The hospital's medical ethics committee reviews the case, and concludes that an abortion was the ethical course of action, to save the mother's life. At that point in the pregnancy, the child had no hope of survival outside the mother - either end the pregnancy to save the mother's life, at the cost of the child's, or let the pregnancy continue, and end up with a dead mother and a dead child. So the abortion proceeds.

Yet the Catholic Church would rather two deaths than one. The local Catholic Bishop, the Bishop of Phoenix, Thomas J. Olmsted, is outraged that his false god was denied the bloody sacrifice after which it lusted. Sister Margaret McBride, Catholic nun and an administrator of the hospital, and a member of the ethics committee, and who supported the committee's decision, was declared excommunicated  by the Bishop for this action, and removed from her role at the hospital.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_of_Margaret_McBride

One of the most disgusting things about this story, is that many Catholic priests and religious have raped children, adolescents and adults, and their actions were covered up and enabled by the church authorities - and yet, these rapes, these cover-ups, have not resulted in excommunication - yet an abortion necessary to save the mother's life, or to avoid a grave risk to the mother's life, does. What twisted and perverted a value system the Roman Catholic Church has. This is a certain sign that it is a false church, with false doctrines.

Suppose a woman is faced with a pregnancy with a high risk of death unless it is terminated. The woman is in the early stages of pregnancy, such that there is no way the child could survive outside the womb. The choice is simple - the child dies, and the mother has a chance to live; or the child lives, but then the mother almost certainly dies, and the child with her. So either way, the child dies; the only question is, whether the mother dies too. If we could ask the child for its opinion, what do you think it would say? "I would rather my mother die with me, than that my mother go on living after my death"? If the child loves the mother, the child would not say this. If the unborn child had the power to declare its wishes, it would surely wish in these circumstances to be killed. So, by killing the unborn child, in order to save the mother's life, we are acting in accordance with the unborn child's best interests also.

The "pro-lifers" will say we can never be certain that the pregnancy risks the mother's life, that maybe the mother will pull through. But when doctors say that something is very likely to happen, it very often does. What we might call "miracles" - extremely unlikely beatings of the odds - do happen, but they happen very rarely. The norm is quite the other. When the doctors say, "Continuing with this pregnancy poses a severe risk to the mother's life", and that advice is disregarded, the usual outcome will be the death of both mother and child, even if in some rare cases one or both might survive despite this risk. Medical experts aren't always right, but more often than not they are. A policy of following the best advice of medical experts, will save more life overall, than a doctrinaire refusal to carry out life-saving procedures, even though there might be a very small chance of survival without that procedure.

Abortion must be available whenever necessary to save the life or the health of the mother, or to avert a severe risk to her life or health. Whenever there is uncertainty, about the severity of the risk, it should be the mother's right to choose what risks she is willing to take, in consultation with her doctors. If the risk is high but not extreme (let's say, 60% chance of death if the pregnancy is continued), then one woman might decide she wants to take that risk, another might decide she does not. She should have the autonomy to decide whether to take that risk.

Savita Halappanavar appears to be the latest victim of the Catholic Church's thirst for blood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savita_Halappanavar

The Catholic Church likes to call itself "pro-life". In reality, so-called "pro-life" is a euphemism, a distortion, a fraud, which hides the true reality - pro-death. The Catholic Church is a pro-death institution, a human sacrifice institution. The so-called "pro-life movement" is in truth the pro-death movement, demanding victims for the bloody sacrifices unto its false god!

The Catholic Church says it is a worse sin to kill a 10 week old foetus, to save the mother's life, than to kill an adult, because some court has decided they did something worthy of death! Although the Catholic Church claims to be opposed to the death penalty too, its opposition is very half-hearted.

The Catholic Church is a false religion, which offers bloody human sacrifices to the false god which it worships.

We do not say that the life of the unborn child is without value. But when the continuation of pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother, the mother's life must take precedence. She should not be forced to risk her own life or health, against her will, in order to continue with the pregnancy.  To say otherwise is to commit a grave evil, which in its most severe cases, is a form of murder or attempted murder of the mother.
Comments