Sioux City, Iowa, Nov 6, 2018 / 01:54 pm (CNA).- A New Mexico man says that an Iowa diocese neglected to tell him about the extent of abuse committed by a priest living in his home. Leaders in the diocese told CNA they tried to warn the man about the priest’s past, and that current leaders have attempted to do everything possible to manage the priest’s situation, within the confines of canon law.
Fr. Jerry Coyle is a priest of Sioux City, Iowa, but he has lived in New Mexico for 32 years. He moved to the state in 1986, to take part in a treatment program at a facility for priests run by the Servants of the Paraclete. He was sent there after telling Bishop Lawrence Soens that over 20 years of priesthood he had abused about 50 male adolescents.
Coyle was removed from ministry and his faculties were revoked after that admission; he was not dismissed from the clerical state.
After Coyle’s time with the Paracletes was completed, he remained in New Mexico. There, more than 10 years ago, he befriended Reuben Ortiz.
Ortiz is a pious and practicing Catholic: he and his family do pro-life ministry, go to homeless shelters, feed the poor, pray the rosary frequently, and even performed music at a World Youth Day. Until recently, Ortiz was a daily Mass-goer.
When Coyle got into a car accident last year, Ortiz invited the priest to move into his Albuquerque home, to live with him, his wife, and his three teenaged children. Coyle lived with the family until June 29.
In a recent Associated Press report, Ortiz’ attorney said that the diocese did not disclose important information about the priest until he was already living in the Ortiz family home. The diocese, however, told CNA that it repeatedly discouraged the Ortiz family from taking in the priest.
Ortiz acknowledged that when he invited Coyle, 85, to live in his home, he already knew that the priest had committed an act of sexual abuse.
“He had told us that he had fondled a kid, and that, it wasn’t, you know, that he knew, he went through treatment for it, and he, he was ok,” Ortiz told CNA.
Ortiz said that even though he knew the priest had sexually assaulted a minor, he wasn’t nervous about his own children.
“No, because he was very secure about the fact that he was wrong about it. And he was also very secure that he wasn’t ever going to do it again,” Ortiz said.
“Because we asked him right out, ‘Well Jerry, what does that mean for our kids?’ And he said, ‘No, no, no, that was wrong, that’s the reason why I’m not doing [active ministry] anymore, I’m not going and serving at Mass; they didn’t take away my priesthood, I’m good that way.’”
“He really, he did have a certain way about him that looked like it was okay. But for him to go and deceive us from the very beginning was already wrong,” Ortiz added.
‘Redemption and forgiveness’
In November 2017, shortly after Coyle got in a car accident and had his license revoked, Ortiz phoned Bishop Walker Nickless of Sioux City, to let the bishop know about Coyle’s accident, and to inform him that the priest had come to live with the Ortiz family.
“Reuben Ortiz called me after Jerry had his automobile accident, and wanted me to know he couldn’t drive any more, and he needed a place to live because he couldn’t take care of himself, and he wanted to take him into his own home, because they were good friends and he wanted to help Jerry recover from the accident, and he told me he can stay here as long as he wants,” Bishop Nickless recounted to CNA.
“I said to him, ‘Reuben, do you know his history?’ And he said, ‘Yes. Father and I have talked about it; I know that he has abused minors in the past, and I believe in redemption and forgiveness.’”
Nickless said the diocese told Ortiz that because his minor children lived at home, “we think … that is not a good place for Jerry to be, and we’d like him to move.”
“He clearly said he wanted to keep Jerry living with him. We asked him to at least inform his children of Jerry’s history – he said he hadn’t done that – and he said, ‘I’m not going to do that to my children.’”
The problem of where Coyle was to live was taken to the diocesan review board. The review board met Feb. 5, 2018, to discuss Coyle’s living situation, and suggested that he go to a nursing home in New Mexico.
“They immediately recommended that he leave the house,” Nickless said. “I told Reuben that.”
The Diocese of Sioux City encouraged Ortiz to look for a nursing home for Coyle in the Albuquerque area.
“He refused to do that,” Nickless explained. “He kept saying, ‘No, no, I want him here, I want him here, I want him here.’”
On Feb. 8, Fr. Brad Pelzel, vicar general of the Sioux City diocese, spoke with Reuben and his wife, Tania, on the phone, relating what the review board had decided.
At the request of the review board, Pelzel also wrote to Reuben and Tania Feb. 12, following up on their phone conversation. Pelzel’s letter urged that Coyle move to a nursing home. It was thought that one in New Mexico would be most appropriate, because the priest had lived there for so long.
The letter said that the review board was seriously concerned about “Coyle’s self-revealed history of sexual attraction to and contact with boys.”
“When he self-reported his situation … Fr. Coyle admitted that, for a period of about 20 years, he victimized approximately 50 school boys, varying from 7th to 10th grade,” Pelzel wrote.
“The Review Board is grateful to you and your family for your kindness and the Christ-like attention and care you have provided Fr. Coyle, most notably your willingness to welcome him into your home following his traffic accident,” Pelzel wrote.
“While acknowledging the grace of Fr. Coyle’s repentance and the 30-plus years of apparent success he has experienced in living out celibate chastity since moving to the Albuquerque area, the Review Board cannot condone the risk you take by allowing Fr. Coyle to reside in your home and recommends in the strongest of terms that the best form of assistance you can provide Fr. Coyle would be to help him find an institution with Assisted Living facilities.”
Ortiz said that it was shocking to see the letter that said Coyle admitted to abusing 50 adolescents. While he was comfortable with having Coyle around his family when he believed the priest had abused one or two adolescents, he felt he had been misled.
“You know the shock that was, what we took on? It traumatized us to see these pages of who this guy was. It shocked us to such a degree that I didn’t want to let my wife know how scared I was.”
He related that he slept downstairs near Coyle, while the rest of his family was upstairs, from the time they received the Feb. 12 letter until Coyle left in June.
Ortiz told CNA fears that Coyle could have abused his son, who is 15.
Financial matters
Although Ortiz chose not to help Coyle find a nursing home, he did accept money from his boarder. Ortiz told CNA he asked the priest for financial contributions to the family home.
According to Nickless, Coyle gave Ortiz almost $30,000 during the eight months he lived in the family home.
Nickless said that Ortiz first told Coyle he needed to buy a larger car to take him to Mass; his family and Coyle could not all fit into their existing vehicle.
Coyle gave Ortiz $25,000 to buy a new car, Nickless told CNA.
A few weeks later, Ortiz said he needed some more money to handle some expenses.
Coyle gave Ortiz another $2,000, Nickless said.
Later, Ortiz said he needed an additional $3,000, “at which point Jerry balked,” Pelzel told CNA.
“Then Reuben demanded that Jerry give him power of attorney and access to his saving and checking account,” according to Pelzel.
“So then Jerry called us and said, ‘This is strange, I think I’m coming back’,” Nickless said.
Asked how much money the priest had given him, Ortiz declined to answer.
“Let me ask you something, okay? What do you, how do you think money has anything to do with this? How does money come into play? I curse the day I ever met him and if I could take back every time that we met, and everything that was spent, both ways, I would do it, gladly, just to avoid that one meeting with him,” Ortiz told CNA.
After Coyle decided to leave, the diocese began making arrangements for Coyle to return to Iowa. Within five days, on June 29, Coyle left the Ortiz’ home.
Month after Coyle left his home, lawyers representing Ortiz told diocesan officials and reporters that the Diocese of Sioux City was guilty of a cover-up.
Ortiz agreed.
“You know what it’s like when you go to your Church officials and they do absolutely nothing for you?” He asked. “They are totally bankrupt when it comes to morals.”
While Nickless told CNA that he tried to explain to Ortiz the allegations against Coyle from the beginning, Ortiz disagreed.
“They’re accepting sin, in such a way that it’s ok, and so they are shameless in this sin to such a point that they think we are going to agree with a letter of that magnitude. See, they told me that; they had gone and said that he had abused; I said he told us he abused a couple kids, we don’t know the extent. But they said, well you know, they didn’t really make it quite clear until the letter … do you know how scary it is to have somebody like this in your home?”
Although he acknowledged inviting Coyle into his home, Ortiz maintains he was used.
“I was used, as far as I’m concerned. I was used for the purpose of people who released this into our society as a plague, and it upsets me, it does. I don’t think I’m ever going to recover from it.”
Ortiz also said that his spiritual director, whom he described as “no slouch in the priesthood” also failed him, because he did not sufficiently warn him not to allow an admitted perpetrator of sexual assault into his home.
Homecoming
When Coyle returned to Iowa, he was placed at Marian Home, a diocesan retirement home in Fort Dodge.
While the board of directors at Marian Home wasn’t notified of Coyle’s past, several staff members at the residence were.
Pelzel says he told the activities director “explicitly what Jerry was accused of, and she promised to be vigilant.”
Marian Home is located across the street from both St. Edmond Catholic School and Fort Dodge Senior High. Students at St. Edmond’s sometimes visit Marian Home, but they did not have contact with Coyle as they do not go to the area in which he lived.
The schools were not informed when Coyle moved to the residence; “it did not occur to us that the school was there at that time,” Nickless said, acknowledging that “We made a mistake in not notifying the school … we should have done a better job of that.”
Coyle has since left Marian Home, and has been taken in by an acquaintance. Nickless said the priest is living “a life of prayer and penance.”
Nickless wrote a letter to the Sioux City diocese Oct. 31 discussing Coyle’s situation, noting that “No one presently at the diocese has firsthand knowledge about Jerry Coyle and that includes me. For the past few months, we have been attempting to put the pieces together about what happened during the 1980s with the files and records that we do have on Jerry Coyle.”
“During the ensuing 32 years, there were no complaints of any misbehavior by Jerry Coyle. Psychologists in Albuquerque advised the diocese that Coyle was highly motivated to change. We know that many disagree with this point, and so do I.”
The bishop wrote that police “were not contacted when Coyle self-admitted, but policies have changed since 1986. Now the policy is to contact civil authorities, which we will follow, since we have [now] named victims of Jerry Coyle.”
In a Nov. 6 statement, the diocese elaborated.
“The issue that is most important for the public to understand is that many of the allegations made in the past, prior to the 2002 ‘Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People’ were not followed up with an investigation by civil authorities. The Church often sent priests to treatment, in hopes that any actions of misconduct could be cured. We know now that is not the way to handle any allegation of sexual misconduct, and with the 2002 Charter to guide us, we have protocols in place to follow, which we do,” the statement said.
“As far as Jerry Coyle, he has had no criminal charges made against him. He self-admitted, and there was not one allegation until 1986, and this individual was an adult, so the statute of limitations had run out. We recognize that when Coyle self-admitted, each parish should have been notified, and we should have asked victims to come forward. We apologize that this did not happen under the leadership of the Diocese of Sioux City at that time.”
Nickless wrote to the diocese last month: “If you are a victim of Jerry Coyle or any priest or person associated with the Diocese of Sioux City, please come forward.” In recent weeks, several alleged victims of Coyle have come forward to the diocese.
But in 2002, when the diocese initially reviewed its records with local prosecutors, there were no identifiable victims of Coyle. Pelzel said that at that time, a student at a local university had made allegations against Coyle to another priest; but the allegation was anonymous and the diocese had no way to contact the alleged victim.
Another individual had said Coyle had acted “kind of weird” in the sacristy, but didn’t remember “anything else much.”
While Coyle was removed from ministry in 1986, he was not dismissed from the clerical state, and remains a priest of the Diocese of Sioux City. As such, the diocese is obliged under canon law to provide housing and board for him. The diocesan conduct review board is now discussing the possibility of pursuing a dismissal from the clerical state for Coyle.
However, “once a priest is elderly and frail and sick, as Fr. Coyle is, most of the time it’s recommended [by the Vatican] that he live a life of prayer and penance,” Nickless explained.
In fact, the Sioux City diocese attempted to have another elderly priest dismissed from the clerical state, but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith refused, citing his advanced age.
The review board has also been discussing the preparation and release of a list of credibly accused clerics of the diocese, especially how to make sure that such a list would be accurate. The diocese has stated that a list of credibly accused priests will be published “as soon as we know we have all of the information we need to move forward.”
The Nov. 6 statement said that Coyle’s case raises important questions about how the Church addresses sexual abuse.
“Bishop Nickless inherited many issues from the past. These are the ones we are dealing with today. One of the most difficult issues is this: where do we put known alleged abuser priests that are still alive, but have no charges against them? What do we do with these men? We know that you do not want them in your community. Many care facilities will not, or cannot, take them. Their families sometimes will take them in, but not always. They cannot go to a prison, as civil authorities say that the statute of limitations has run out to prosecute them. This leaves us with very few choices. We understand that the many members of the public are anxious and fearful about sex offenders, because the crime is so egregious. However, if they are not charged and sent to prison, there are few options for housing them.”
“Local Bishops do not have the authority to ‘defrock’ a priest, properly known as laicization. Laicization is a complicated process that is handled by the Vatican; however, a Bishop can remove a priest’s ability to function as a priest, and this has been done. Additionally, once laicized, Diocesan officials lose all ability to supervise formerly accused clergy,” the statement added.
“The Diocese of Sioux City does follow the Charter’s guidelines for all claims of abuse in the present day. As we follow up on past cases, we want to do that in a way that helps victims to feel that have some peace and justice. We set up a meeting on December 6, 2018 with the Attorney General of Iowa to discuss matters further. A list of credibly accused priests will be published, as soon as we know we have all of the information we need to move forward.”
[…]
Yesterdays judgement on abortion drugs shows quite clearly that Sen. Finkelstein was wrong, the dogma DOES NOT live loudly in E.C. Barrett! Like the supposed red wall myth, the prolife leanings of her and Cavanagh are just that: A MYTH! she should reflect on her decision before Sunday, or did the fear of the mob get to her? A shame and pox on them all, the exception being judges Alito and of course, the great Clarence!
Horrific as it sounds but I think there is such a thing as abortion fatigue.Here in Ireland there is a movement to further liberalize abortion law. Many good people who believe abortion to be evil have given up the fight and it is easy to see why. Abortion was legalised by the will of the people. All msm is pro choice the church threw the towel in and the battle and war appear won. It is not right but I do think many now think it is down to conscience and God will have the final word.
Hi Alice I am Irish & somewhat agree with you. But late term abortions need to be banned & the fight must continue. Many people support this so-called right to choose, but forget about a females right to be born. Females suffer horrible deaths in the womb. And its so-called womens organisations who support/advocate & demand their deaths through abortion. Quite hypocritical.
Has his position actually evolved? Return of the abortion rights issue to the States was, when he assumed the presidency, his, as well as Supreme Court Justice Alito’s position, the jurist who wrote the majority Opinion. As well as the realistic opinion of most lettered Catholics, Republicans.
Certainly, it would be best if abortion were prohibited altogether. Although the striking down of Roe is a realistic beginning with the prospect of changing the majority mindset of a nation. As well intended as Marjorie Dannenfelser is, it isn’t prudent to attack the person responsible for overturning Roe, and hopefully beginning the process of changing minds and hearts.
Father, with all due respect I must take issue with your position, “Certainly, it would be best if abortion were prohibited altogether.” Of course we pray that all abortions are unnecessary. However, I would consider medical conditions as the exception… emotional/physical reasons for an abortion. If my innocent 10 year old daughter were raped, I would not abandon her by forcing her to carry the fetus of the rapist. I would support a families decision with their doctor’s for a woman whose life is threatened by an ectopic pregnancy, or intrauterine infections that happen from infections that start in the vagina and travel to the uterus.
Catholics must reject all frivolous abortion. Given the use of abortion as woman’s health does not state any exceptions. The Church has been reticent to vocally allow for medical and emotional exceptions.
We pray that one day the word abortion will no longer be a part of our vocabulary.
“Catholics must reject all frivolous abortion.”
Please define “frivolous.”
And read some of the many secular publications (print and online) and listen to the many liberal TV/radio broadcasts featuring pro-choice activists. (Have a barf bag and your Maalox ready, as well as your Rosary and Kleenex to cry into.)
You will learn that many women in the U.S. consider ALL of their reasons, including their education, their career, their current relationship with a man, their weight, their salary, their home, their city or town, their plans for a big trip, their retirement plan, etc. as SERIOUS reasons not to have a baby just now.
Most “woke” women today and the many organizations and online sites that shape their opinions, believe that there is no such thing as a “frivolous” reason to avoid an abortion.
ALL reasons, including “I don’t want to gain weight” are considered legitimate and serious reasons to choose abortion. ANY attempt to deprive women of this “CHOICE” is a dangerous act, and those who advocate limiting access to abortion are extremists who must be “stopped,” or even criminals who must be imprisoned.
Don’t kid yourself and don’t give any ground, not even the “rape exception”, over to the “pro-choice” crowd. ALL abortions kill a human being. There are people today who were “rape babies” who denounce abortion because they like being alive and are grateful that their mother chose to let them live.
Dear Mrs. Whitlock. Your response leaves me aghast. Your well thought out position on the subject reflects a depth I will not challenge. However, my grasp of English may help US with the following definition…
Webster: ADJECTIVE, frivolous, not having any serious purpose or value for life. I may have used “abortion on demand” or “woman’s total disregard for the fetus”.
Thank you.
Well-stated, Mrs. Whitlock. The Church’s teaching on abortion is crystal clear and supremely compassionate, but many Catholics wrongly believe that they can ignore the Church’s moral teaching and substitute their misguided self-righteous immoral rationale for permitting direct abortions in certain circumstances.
As indeed the Church rightly teaches, there is absolutely no legitimate moral reason that would permit any direct abortion. The oft-cited circumstances of pregnancy via rape or incest, as hideous as these are, do not rise to the level of permitting the murder of the innocent child in the womb. Interestingly, morally compromised people who support such exceptions invariably resort to the bogus “burden” and/or “unfairness” arguments to try to justify murder of the innocent child in the womb, and they always wrongly present their views as morally superior in their hideous advocacy of murder.
Thankfully the Church has remained steadfast in its teaching. Part of this teaching involves the moral reasoning known as double effect, and this can also confuse people who do not learn the basic elements of the approach while preferring their own ignorance over clear Church teaching. Under this principle, a mother’s serious life-threatening medical condition can be treated with the understanding that such treatment will likely result in a most unfortunate and most regrettable side effect of the fetus not surviving the procedure, but in no way, shape, or form is the fetus to be directly killed (direct abortion) in the process, and the good effect of the treatment of the mother must not come about from or through the death of the fetus.
Because of such circumstances wherein the child is indirectly killed, unthinking people wrongly accuse the Church of hypocrisy in “permitting direct abortion in some circumstances but not others,” but an honest review of the Church’s teaching and application of the teaching also clearly demonstrates why the teaching is morally sound, and no direct abortion is ever involved.
Well-stated, Mrs. Whitlock. The Church’s teaching on abortion is crystal clear and supremely compassionate, but many Catholics wrongly believe that they can ignore the Church’s moral teaching and substitute their misguided self-righteous immoral rationale for permitting direct abortions in certain circumstances.
As indeed the Church rightly teaches, there is absolutely no legitimate moral reason that would permit any direct abortion. The oft-cited circumstances of pregnancy via rape or incest, as hideous as these are, do not rise to the level of permitting the murder of the innocent child in the womb. Interestingly, morally compromised people who support such exceptions invariably resort to the bogus “burden” and/or “unfairness” arguments to try to justify murder of the innocent child in the womb, and they always wrongly present their views as morally superior in their hideous advocacy of murder.
Thankfully the Church has remained steadfast in its teaching. Part of this teaching involves the moral reasoning known as double effect, and this can also confuse people who do not learn the basic elements of the approach while preferring their own ignorance over clear Church teaching. Under this principle, a mother’s serious life-threatening medical condition can be treated with the understanding that such treatment will likely result in a most unfortunate and most regrettable side effect of the fetus not surviving the procedure, but in no way, shape, or form is the fetus to be directly killed (direct abortion) in the process, and the good effect of the treatment of the mother must not come about from or through the death of the fetus.
Because of such circumstances wherein the child is indirectly killed, unthinking people wrongly accuse the Church of hypocrisy in “permitting direct abortion in some circumstances but not others.” However, an honest review of the Church’s teaching and its application also clearly demonstrates why the teaching is morally sound, and no direct abortion is ever involved.
Although your judgment may be understandable, it is nonetheless emotionally-based and logically indefensible. It’s not the baby’s fault how he/she was conceived. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
With all respect the emotional let out is a piece of string. A spot on the face of an ordinary person is annoying but to a supermodel it is devastating. Abortion is the head of a rotten plant who’s roots need a thorough root and branch clear out. All of us hold some guilt for a society where a ten year old could be raped. It goes back to acceptance of wide spread filth, societies who hold a two tier morality for men and women, neglect of children, diminished respect for life, the list goes on. Abortion will never disappear until a truly Christian society is at least seriously attempted. I understand your perspective, but even contemplating such a fate for a ten year old should make all of us double down on attempts to clean up our own backyard at least
Sorry morgand your analysis is wrong..you state that all abortions should be illegal and then hive reason to not do that…ectopic pregnancy has always been treated as a serious condition even before 1973 to terminate results in that the doctor has 2 patients to care for and unfortunately on life is sacrificed for the life of the othet…that is not abortion…also emotional distress is not a reason to murder an innocent life..the same for rape…however I would make an exception but encourage the victim to choose life by praising her decision thanking her for her sacrifice and choosing adoption as an end good…we should always protect life….period
Ronald:
Just a bit of a clarification is needed. The death of a fetus during a procedure to help the mother must only come about indirectly to coincide with Catholic Moral teaching. As such, regarding the ectopic pregnancy example you mention, if you say the child is sacrificed, an assumption can easily arise that the child is directly killed in the process in order to save the mother. This is not the case. The child’s death is a regrettable side effect of treating the mother. The Principle of Double Effect is what the Church employs in such situations, but always keep in mind that the direct killing of the child to save the life of the mother is never approved by the Church as it would be an immoral act.
There are also no exceptions for rape, incest, or anything else. Exceptions excuse murder for the benefit of another, and they cannot be approved. Thankfully, the Church is crystal clear on this teaching even though many Catholics are unfamiliar with significant parts of this teaching, and other Catholics have wrongly convinced themselves that some exceptions are morally acceptable when they are actually quite despicable and flat out wrong.
Agreed, Father!
Thank you for being a clear voice in the discussion. No one but Trump got Dobbs done; it was due to his Supreme Court appointments. Seems like some who have commented are unaware of the facts: all optional abortions are prohibited by Church law. You want this to apply nationally? Then get busy at the state level and make it happen.
Trump is right, in a sense.
Under the Constitution, each State can decide whether a live birth of the victim is required if causation of death can lawfully be proved, or whether the clearance of an earlier life stage is sufficient. At common law, a child in the womb cannot (save under statute) be a victim of a crime of violence – but if injured in the womb, and afterwards born alive, then the defendant is guilty of murder if the child subsequently dies.
Only a State can legislate to the effect that the death of a child in utero can be a criminal homicide and that causation of the death in utero admits of lawful proof. It is not within the power of the Congress of the United States to remove such legislation or prohibit its application in court.
The fact that causation of death is not proved (or cannot lawfully be proved) does not assist a defendant arraigned of attempted murder – this is a crime under Federal law as well as under the law of several States.
Feinstein. More to the point, we are still trying to pretend that Donald Trump is some sort of savior when the reality is that his candidacy has been a narcissistic farce from the beginning. If we still want a two party system the Republicans need to repair once again to the little white schoolhouse in Racine.
Ann, you are right about the savior, Trump. Seems that he conveniently switched to Pro-life when he decided to run for the Presidency. It was then that we Catholics were duped. We ignored his continued prolific lying, narcissism, power hungriness, insurrectionist with the insanity of denying Biden’s fair election by enticing the invasion of our US Capitol. Today, Trump has entered the 2024 run for his disgraced former tenure.
Moreover, Trump’s recent statement that he would support the states assumption of abortion. That would cause a “patchwork” of control.
Excerpts: “It was the abortion issue, poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those that firmly insisted on no exceptions, even in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother, that lost large numbers of voters,”. It was my understanding that our Church supported the exceptions of rape, incest and the mental and physical health of the mother.
“It was my understanding that our Church supported the exceptions of rape, incest and the mental and physical health of the mother.” As for rape, incest and mental health of the mother–NOT true! As for the physical health, the church’s teaching is a bit more complicated, and I hope I’m doing it justice–but it boils down to abortion being excusable (although not justifiable) if it is the UNintended result of treatment for the mother’s medical condition. But it can never, under any circumstances, be the intended result of any treatment, even for a serious maternal medical condition.
Funny how no one listened to this back in 2016. I guess he got it done and sadly to many liberals his position is still horrid but it should be to truly pro life people too, but sadly in America it seems that rather than wanting abortion gone Trump and co just want it far away from them. What sucks is much like his fellow candidates in 2016, he’s just like them. Also, I think he used us like they have for years. Maybe we need to vote with our feet and either go to another party or actually create a real culture of life and not just one where the minimum becomes the maximum.
I think it’s time we moved past Trump. He was never more than a populist. He supported pro-life people when he thought it was politically advantageous and he’ll abandon us the moment he thinks it will help him somehow. It’s time conservatives rallied behind a dependable candidate with less baggage who can win comfortably in 2024 instead of maybe squeaking in 49% to 48%. We thank him for his service and for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, but it’s time to upgrade to a better candidate.
I m hoping he and DeSand run together so we can knock back Biden, UNMASKED NEWSTONED, and Whitmer, amongst others
Trump and DeSantis cannot run together, P and VP from the same state are not allowed.
Mark: Actually, there is no constitutional provision against a presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate coming from the same state. There is, however, a funky situation involving how the electoral college operates, and it could cause a rare but significant problem in a very close election involving the total electoral votes. This is also where the ongoing myth of “there cannot be a presidential and vice presidential candidate from the same state” originated. In fine, the Constitution prevents the electors from voting for both candidates from the same state as the electors, so it only impacts one state. All of the electors from the other 49 states are free to vote for both candidates, but in the state where both candidates on the same ticket are residents of that state, each elector can vote for either the prez candidate to be the president, or they can vote for the vp candidate to be vice president, but not for both.
Again, in a very close election, this rule could cause a serious problem, and so to avoid the rare possibility, it is prudent to have a ticket of candidates from different states. Of course, if it is assumed that having candidates from the same state will lead to a blow-out where splitting the electoral votes between the VP and Prez candidate in their home state will not alter the final outcome, then that would be considered a reasonable risk to take.
All that being said, it is highly unlikely that Trump would select DeSantis or anyone else from Florida as his running mate, so this issue will not be in play.
Sorry, I am a Republican and want to win in 2024. However, many GOPers do not support Trump. They feel, as I do, that he lost us the race in 2022. The Teflon Donald With the court calendar, he carries to much potential criminal baggage.
Andrew, agree with you with one minor exception, i.e., “squeaking in with 49%.” Trump probably can win some Republican primaries due to their “winner take all” rule even if the winner gets far less than 50% on the vote. But he can’t win in the general election. Couldn’t get anywhere near 49% of the vote. But apart from that nitpick, you’re absolutely right. Time for the Republican Party to move and stop losing election after election.
In earlier notes I insisted on challenging the 15-week assumption and other assumptions and that there should be no giving in or wrong cooperation!
US pro-life has always been the vanguard for no exceptions. Why I have so admired you! The 15-week compromise, propositional or temporary, is not that; and I am standing in solidarity instead, with what I know the truth to be. Integralism handicaps the topic philosophically and thus politically; and makes it so much easier for other topics to get carried off, such as we see now with the abortion pill.
But integralism also misapprehends the meaning of abortion in legal circles and in doing that is giving the judges the free pass all over again.
Listen! I must reprimand my friend!
Listen! Listen outside the box.
Listen! Apprehend!
Abortion is crime of murder: intention to eliminate a known pregnancy. The stage is irrelevant, what matters is evidential knowledge.
THAT is law.
But law also recognizes criminal negligence not just murder. So that if a child is born deformed as a result of the pill, the people are liable both in tortious negligence and in criminal grievious bodily harm (“GBH”) notwithstanding that at the time of prescribing and taking the pill there was no conception or knowledge of any particular conception. If the infant then dies, manslaughter. THAT is law.
THAT is law. The rest is gibberish killing and maiming.
This is about JURIDICAL RESPONSIBILITY or integrity. It was the problem with Roe and it remains the problem with Dobbs. The JURISTIC BASES are still very wrongly being rooted up/flouted/bypassed/de-structured/carved up and left as -somehow- “unknown”; not responsibly acknowledged and effected as JUSTICIAL DUTY.
So that now the Supreme Court is in effect saying JURIDICALLY that there can be no such thing as tortious negligence and/or GBH in the use of the pill. Which is just absurd and stupid. Rubbish!
AND that abortion is for the States (Dobbs) but the abortion pill is for the Supreme Court (Danco). Which is self-cancelling or meaningless.
In its own way this description of things proves how Trump can not lead the charge. But is pro-life America going to let us down too?
No! No! No! No! No! NOT MY FRIENDS! NO!
US pro-life can not / may not negotiate abortion. Do not do it. Bargaining over babies lives and for their flesh is the work of the Devil who needs to establish his position in every related dimension including inside pro-life milieu.
Satan is the Big Snake in the Garden of Redemption. “What did God say? Did God really say that?”
“Of course you may bargain about the babies, it is all to the good. Yes? Good lord in the morning, God knows your eyes will be opened and you will avoid being an ideologue. You will be able to study Dante and Peguy in peace and allow the atheists like Scalfari enough time to interview the Pope and eventually repent with no-one getting flustered. Babies have nothing to do with that. Or do you want to be a temptation to the Pope for him to rebuke you as the gattopardo with the diaper? It will all be all your fault.”
Kudos to Marjorie D. for being willing to start criticizing Trump. If he gets the nomination he would lose to Biden again and likely drag Senate and House candidates down to defeat with him, resulting in one party, Democrat, control of the entire US government. DeSantis could beat Biden, Haley could beat Biden, Tim Scott could beat Biden, Chris Christie could beat Biden. But the Bozo Base says it wants Trump again. Somehow the party of Lincoln needs to be wrested back from this suicide pact with the most self-centered man ever to head a major party, and from his ignorant fan base (not the millions who voted for him because, duh, he was better than Hillary and Joe) who can sway many primaries but appear politically clueless about the end result. Pro-lifers are a major force and can be key if they back DeSantis or some other candidate who could win the general election and ask their supporters to leave Donald behind in the dust of history.
Mark, Trump has a maniacal MAGA base and illegal dark money support. In the first week of announcement for 2024 he raised more than $150K. He continues to be the GOP gold-standard. But, the GOP has many more drags on its integrity. McCarthy sold his soul to the extreme and dangerous volatile right for the Speakership. After a round of kisses the toxic rebels, Marjorie Taylor Green, Paul Gosar, Laure Bobert and Jim Jordan, etc. emerged to take powerful committee assignments. DeSantis, with his blatant autocratic control of Florida could be even more radical.
We can’t let 2020 happen again. We must seek a voice that encourages American unity by getting past Trump and his past .
Let’s get this straight.
Roe was about The Constitution. It goes like this “Congress has certain and enumerated rights ….” Nowhere in The Constitution is there a right to abortion. There is, however a right to life. in Roe the Warren Court in 71, I think it was, found some clause about privacy and created a right to abortion. Not unlike Dreed back before the Civil War, where the head judge found that you could own a human being via private property.
So, don’t try to blame this on Trump. When he says it’s a matter for states (or in fact Congress) the point is that Congress and the states make the laws of the land. They can of cause make an amendment to The Constitution. No one in the GOP or DNC dare touch the abortion issue. It goes back to early progressivism and Mageret Singer. And their idea was that it was a violation of the woman’s right to deny her the right to kill her baby. “My body my choice”
Now, that is of cause a disgusting idea. And they are overlooking a dilemma about the right to life of the unborn child. But femminism has taken this in as some kind of women’s rights.
Trump is not perfect. He’s done a lot of things and said even more. He’s come a long way, and if it wasn’t for Trump’s nomination of constitutionalists to the Supreme Court, Roe and quite a few other creative findings in The Constitution would still be in place.
Btw. Joe didn’t win the election of 2020. They cheated and got Joe on the podium to take the oath of office. Likewise in 2022 they cheated and only lost The House by a narrow margin and gained one vote in The Senate. In both elections, Trump and the GOP won in a landslide.
So the USA is run by an illegitimate government, a regime. With the help of God and his Son, Jesus Christ, all these crimes and many more will be exposed and Trump will be reelected for a third time in 2024.
SBA is proposing a federal law allowing abortion up to the 15 week mark? This is a pro-life position? This is more pro-life than Trump’s leave it up to the states position?
We have abortion not because of anything the POTUS or SCOTUS did or didn’t do, but because we are an unchaste society that barely tolerates babies but very much tolerates fornication, contraception, porn, IVF and the like.
I don’t think the 501c3 pro-life groups are really able to come to grips with that in any meaning way, since they likely get a large percentage of their monies from people who favor contraception and sterilization (and IVF).
.
I am guessing Protestants no longer have the theological foundation to condemn contraception or the other sexual sins. Rome and the bishops seem to be disinterested in that fight as well–indeed, they seem to be doing all they can to join with the Protestants in overturning nearly 2,000 of condemning the various sexual sins to lead us into the child sacrificing culture in which we find ourselves.
I supported Trump with my money, my mouth, and my vote twice; he was clearly better than either of the ghouls who opposed him. But let’s be clear, he is far, far from perfect and there are very legitimate reasons to oppose his politics. To enumerate just a few: [1] he often hangs around with disreputable scoundrels like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo and then compounds this error by appointing these people to offices of great power; [2] his thinking about both abortion and sodomy is muddled at best, a reflection of political calculation rather than solid principles; [3] try as he may (and he’s never really tried at all), he cannot escape responsibility for Operation Warp Speed, one of the greatest blunders, perhaps even one of the greatest crimes, in human history. Excepting his SCOTUS appointments — and they too can be questioned to some degree — Trump’s political history is rather shabby at best and was mostly erased in one day by strokes of the pen of the fake Catholic fake president who followed him into the Oval Office. Knowing all this sorely tempts me to close my wallet, my mouth, and my front door on voting day for the 2024 campaign.