Whether it's pro-life philosophy, activism or legislation, whether it's about a current topic or a situation pro-lifers face in their own lives and work, this is the place where we'll talk about it! Please forward any comments to me, Judie Brown. Thank you!
DEVASTATING DICHOTOMIES Posted: Friday October 10, 2008 at 9:16 am EST by Judie Brown
Dichotomy: "division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups."
That is the most polite word I can thing of to describe the antics of the pro-death forces, which are moving ever so stealthily in their efforts to remove certain segments of the population from the land of the living. What you are about to read is not fiction; it is real, and it is happening right now in America.
William Saletan is a writer who has frequently been the object of negative comments from me, but in the case I am going to relate here, he is to be applauded. He, of all people, has seen through the veil and has found death where others would opine there is hope for healing. In his commentary "The retreating boundaries of organ harvesting," he discusses the ethical morass of the organ transplant business as it applies to infants who are near death. He talks about parents who can be cajoled into believing that if they but allow doctors to take organs that—while vital to their dying babies, will be more beneficial in the bodies of not-so-ill babies—they will be at peace about the impending death of their own child. I wrote about this case in early September and am encouraged that Saletan is now examining it himself. He writes,
Pick up the New England Journal of Medicine, and you'll see the far edge of this tortured world. In the journal, doctors at the Denver Children's Hospital describe how they removed hearts from infants 75 seconds after their hearts stopped. The infants were declared dead of heart failure even as their hearts, in new bodies, resume ticking. The federal government funded the procedure; other hospitals are looking to adopt it.
Is it wrong? If only the question were that simple. We like to think moral lines are fixed and clear: My heart is mine, not yours, and you can't have it till I'm dead. But in medicine, lines move. Dead means irreversibly stopped, and stoppages are increasingly reversible. Meanwhile, thanks to transplantation, entitlement to organs is becoming socialized. When life support ends, says one bioethicist, "not using viable organs wastes precious life-saving resources" and "costs the lives of other babies." Failure to take and reuse body parts looks like lethal negligence.
Of course, you and I know that it is wrong to take a single life for any reason, including the pretense that doing so may benefit someone else. It is always what it is: murder.
Further Saletan observes, "Actually, doctors don't wait for the donor's death. They arrange it. Not the illness or injury, of course, but the timing of demise."
And Saletan is not the only one grappling with what medicine obviously can do, but shouldn't do.
Touchstone has published an article by Anita Kuhn, who is equally concerned about a commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine. She begins by informing the reader,
In a remarkably candid article about organ donation in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), a doctor and a bioethicist make the unnerving observation that, in cases involving vital organs, many "donors" may not actually be dead at the time their organs are taken from them. While this statement corroborates the viewof many pro-life groups, scientists, and physicians, it is likely to be news to the general public.
Robert D.Truog, M.D. and bioethicist Franklin G. Miller, Ph.D. have exposed the sordid underbelly, not only of the Denver case involving the harvesting of organs from nearly dead babies, but the overall question of the ethics of removing a vital organ from a person who is not really dead. This is of particular interest, since neither is a dyed-in-the-wool pro-life thinker.
They appear to be growing uneasy with the "brain death" criteria, and it is clear they are ill at ease about efforts to move far beyond brain death to other more elastic criteria. As Kuhn writes, "The authors candidly admit that, with respect to both 'brain death' and 'cardiac death,' the justification for removing vital organs from patients 'cannot be that we are convinced they are really dead.' In these cases, the dead donor rule may be invoked, but it is not followed."
While we are at it, let us not forget that there are some medical professionals who "propose changing organ donation rules requiring patient or family consent for donation to 'presumed consent,' which legally assumes that everyone is automatically willing to be an organ donor unless they have documented an objection to it." What this means in the practice of transplant medicine is yet to be shown, but one can deduce from recent events that once again the argument that some good can come out of a loved one's demise will be used in ways that ordinary people like you and me cannot imagine.
You know, it's the lesser of two evils, or whatever!
Compounding this already difficult situation that probably confronts families far more frequently than I can guess, there is the ongoing dilemma of the patient who has no choice other than go to a hospital for care. Who can he trust? Surely the lovely nurse, whose friendship often provides psychological comfort, is the last bastion of confidence between a patient and his caregiver.
Well, if you live in California that may not be true at all. According to a report in the Los Angeles Times,
Dozens of registered nurses convicted of crimes, including sex offenses and attempted murder, have remained fully licensed to practice in California for years before the state nursing board acted against them.
And if you live in Oregon, there are people seeking an early, timed death, who may wind up becoming a statistic on an obituary page rather than someone who simply needs counseling. A recent study makes that very point. You see, of those patients who chose physician assisted suicide, it now appears that at least some were clinically depressed at the time of the request, and probably would not have chosen early death if someone had taken the time to really pay attention to them. Published in the British Medical Journal, the study concluded that "the current practice of the Death with Dignity Act in Oregon may not adequately protect all mentally ill patients, and increased vigilance and systematic examination for depression among patients who may access legalized aid in dying are needed."
Sorry for all the bad news, but the situation is grave. No pun intended.
As a final example of the dichotomies in today's medical practice, I am compelled to call attention to one of the most devastating facts yet to come out regarding those who are alone and rely on competent healthcare professionals to help them at least be comfortable and as pain-free as possible. Joseph Sacco, M.D. has written an article about such patients, and it is interesting to note, for the record, that Sacco is not a pro-life enthusiast. In fact, by his own admission, he favors early death for some. He said, "Mention the idea of withholding or withdrawing medical care from patients who cannot express their wishes, and people get uncomfortable."
A 2007 study found that doctors in intensive-care units across the country commonly withheld or withdrew life support in critically or terminally ill patients who lacked surrogates, without knowledge of their wishes. Most such decisions were made by a single physician, without regard to hospital policy, professional society recommendations or state law. In other words, doctors are withholding treatment from this vulnerable population, a practice that is neither regulated nor publicly recognized.
If that isn't the height of devastating dichotomies, I do not know what is! Presuming to kill because nobody is around to hear about it is not medical practice—it is murder.
It is not health care; it is death dealing, and God help us because the future does not look any better. Disrespect for the human person's dignity appears to be getting much more agreeable to the very people who should be safeguarding it at all costs.
RITTER, PERSONHOOD AND DECEPTION Posted: Thursday October 9, 2008 at 10:45 am EST by Judie Brown
I am always concerned when public figures who claim to be Catholic make a point of denying Church teaching, or even worse, misrepresenting it for political gain. This is particularly true when the question involves the identity of the preborn child and his inherent right to life.
Such has been the case during these past few days with Colorado's governor, Democrat and "Catholic" Bill Ritter. On the capitol steps, he spoke at a pro-abortion media event during which he asserted,
"I believe the amendment goes too far. . . My understanding is that there are things about calling a fertilized egg a person that do not square with church doctrine."
Not only is his statement a blatant misrepresentation of Church teaching, but it flies in the face of his self-identification as a "pro-life Catholic." One has to wonder where the hierarchy's statements of correction were and whether or not the media even bothered to speak with Archbishop Charles Chaput about this obvious deception on the part of the governor and his abortion cronies.
In an earlier report on this event, the Denver Postmade it clear that this latest revelation from the governor does put him at odds with Catholic teaching:
"He's in a dicey spot with Amendment 48," said Tom Hooyman, a professor of medical ethics at Regis University who holds a Ph.D. in moral theology. "It's clearly a pro-life amendment. For him to come out and oppose it, you have to say, 'What does it mean to be a pro-life Catholic?' "
Just as Professor Hooyman questions the real definition of a "pro-life Catholic," so too should each of us. In fact, every practicing Catholic in Colorado should be asking this question. But . . .
There's a whole lot more to this latest debacle than meets the eye, however. For as Ritter was being madly applauded by his pro-abortion fans, pro-life protesters were out in force, making their presence known, holding up signs and wearing T-shirts declaring "Pro-choice is a lie." In fact, one of the protesters, John Wiechel, got a little loud in his responses to the governor's deceptions, and after repeated attempts to get the man to move from the property, police had to arrest him. He was later released.
Many of us believe strongly that this demonstrator's First Amendment rights were violated, but you can watch the entire video of this event and make up your own mind.
Wiechel's passion came out during some of Ritter's most egregious statements – statements that were most offensive to the defense of the innocent. "Bad policy, bad medicine and bad law" is how Ritter described Amendment 48 during his speech, and he made it clear that he was opposing it because he supports abortion. There is no other way to interpret what Ritter said. Some of us believe that statements like the one I have quoted are designed to defame the preborn, excuse their murders and make it politically correct to support abortion. In fact, in Ritter's case, it would appear that he is also attempting, in Pelosi and Biden fashion, to rewrite Catholic doctrine to serve his own personal interests, including support for the killing of the innocent.
And when you stop and think about it, and read the words of Amendment 48, it is hard to see where anyone could get the idea that the language was a threat to anyone, born or preborn. For those who cannot recall or have not seen it, Amendment 48 simply asks,
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution defining the term "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as "person" is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?
The proposed amendment simply states a fact, though, scientifically, it is not as tight as we would have wanted liked. The Federal Personhood Amendment is accurate, whereas the Colorado language is a bit deficient. Be that as it may, it is certainly a sound policy; it is certainly not a threat to anyone's medical condition, and it most certainly should be embraced in law from one end of this nation to the other. No human being should be discriminated against because of his place of residence, and that includes the womb and the test tube!
Amendment 48 embodies a statement that we are confident our Founding Fathers believed was unnecessary, because I am positive that not a single one of them could have dreamed that anyone would ever deem it a legal right to murder a preborn child. For Catholics, this statement holds a special meaning, because it reflects the natural law and the teachings of the Church. At least that is the case in theory.
Apparently, Ritter is not among those Catholics who understand Church teaching. It would seem he prefers doctoring it up a little to soothe his culture-of-death mentality. So, we have a simple request to make of you. If you are reading this commentary and would like to let Ritter know what you think, and let Archbishop Chaput and Auxiliary Bishop James Conley know how sincerely grateful you are that they have explained the truth to their flock, you may contact them using the information below.
In a statement issued yesterday, Archbishop Chaput said,
Governor Bill Ritter seriously confused the Amendment 48 debate on October 7 by saying – according to news reports – that, "My understanding is that there are things about calling a fertilized egg a person that do not square with Church doctrine."
This is false. Catholic teaching holds that human life is sacred from the moment of fertilization, commonly called "conception," to the moment of natural death. Separating a "fertilized egg" from the dignity of human personhood is bad theology and bad public policy. And Catholic public officials should know better."
THE 'GOD MOMENT' AT THE SUPREME COURT Posted: Wednesday October 8, 2008 at 12:34 pm EST by Judie Brown
If you have visited the American Life League web site in the past day, you have seen the video of our own Marie Hahnenberg and know that our annual Pro-Life Memorial Day observance in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. was a tremendous success. There were 12 organizations of national stature that joined with American Life League in remembering those millions of preborn children who have died by chemical, medical and surgical abortion.
But what you might not know is that a wonderful meeting occurred while ALL was there that was totally unexpected and for which we are still praising God. You see, human rights defenders from China joined with us at the last moment and were able to speak with the crowd.
These heroic people are fighting forced abortion and other human rights abuses in their country. Their names are most difficult to pronounce, but their message transcends the limits of mere language. As Katie Walker said in our press release ,
His eyes shone with joy. Even through an interpreter, everyone felt the depth of his passion for justice and his dedication to the rights of all persons – especially those most vulnerable little ones.
This gentleman, who was persecuted for being a defender of life, was Li Fangping. He was accompanied to the events at the capitol by members of the China Aid Society , an organization that is committed to assisting those in China who suffer religious persecution at the hands of the government. Clearly, Mr. Li is no stranger to the sort of oppressive treatment the Chinese government can impose, having been repeatedly harassed by authorities for his defense of Chen Guangcheng, an activist who, in 2005, exposed the fact that thousands of Chinese women were subjected to forced abortions and sterilizations. Li was severely beaten in 2006 and was under residential surveillance during the Beijing Olympics in August.
During the recent Olympics, contrary to the impression created by much of the media, it would appear that the suppression of free speech in China was in high gear. Many of those who protested their government or spoke to foreign journalists were arrested or driven out of the city as a news report from August makes painfully clear:
Huang Qi, director of Tianwang Human Rights Centre, has been in prison since June 10, without the benefit of legal counsel.
Ding Zilin, Jiang Peikun and Qi Zhiyong, who belong to the Tiananmen Mothers group, were pressured to get out of town before the start of the Olympics. Currently all three are somewhere outside of Beijing.
Other activists were luckier and only got house arrest. Writer Liu Xiaobo, scientist Jiang Qisheng, independent intellectual Zhang Zhuhua, house church member Yu Jie, independent scholar Liu Junning, housing rights activist Zhou Li who opposed forced Olympics-related evictions, Christian activist Xu Yonghai, as well as attorneys Li Fangping, [emphasis added] Jiang Tianyong and Li Heping were placed under residential surveillance and monitoring.
By contrast Beijing Activist Zeng Jinyan disappeared on the eve of the Olympics. Up to then and for two years she had been under either house arrest or residential surveillance. Ms Zeng is married to jailed (since 27 December 2007) human rights activist Hu Jia.
Other activists are also under arrest or surveillance across the country like attorney Zheng Enchong of Shanghai, Yao Lifa in Hubei and Chen Xi of Guizhou.
It is truly an amazing thing that, out of the clear blue sky, these wonderful Chinese heroes for life happened upon our gathering in front of the Supreme Court. Describing it as a "God moment" seems trite, but indeed that is what it was, and all those who attended were as touched by the moment as Katie Walker.
American Life League is grateful to the many pro-life organizations and individuals who participated in this event, not only in Washington, D.C., but also in communities around the nation. We realize that we cannot go a single moment without remembering these children, praying for their parents and doing all we can to prevent the carnage from continuing.
The first Monday in October is the date on which the Supreme Court reconvenes, which is why it was chosen as the date for the annual Pro-Life Memorial Day. We must not forget the infamous Supreme Court decisions that started this slide down the slippery slope of dehumanizing the most vulnerable in our midst.
Sometimes this pro-life work can seem to be an overwhelming task, and it may even occur to us that a small effort here or there is really not making much of a difference, but I am here to tell you that nobody should ever think such a thing!
As servants of the Lord and doers of his work, we are never alone. As St. Francis de Sales once wrote,
Let us be firm in our purposes and unswerving in our resolutions. Perseverance will prove whether we have sincerely sacrificed ourselves to God and dedicated ourselves to a devout life.
Beautiful.
This is kind of random, but do you know what date the Silence for Life (or something) is on? I know it\'s during October. i was thinking the 16th? I\'m talking about when you wear red tape over your mouth and wrists for the day. Thanks. Kate | October 8, 2008
This sounds great Judie!
Chantell Chantell | October 8, 2008
HELLO TREE, I AM A HUMAN BEING! Posted: Tuesday October 7, 2008 at 11:16 am EST by Judie Brown
Tom Szyszkiewicz has always been one of my favorite Catholic reporters. While I could not pronounce his last name if you paid me to do it, I find his writing remarkably insightful and astute. His articles are always intriguing, and he has a habit of exposing little-known facts about such subjects as why some Catholic dioceses have banned the distribution of Catholic Answers' Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics.
He brings to light subjects that, if not for his investigative nose for news, would never make the light of day. So I shouldn't have been the least bit surprised to see his latest article in the American Spectator entitled "Nature as a privileged minority," the content of which is so alarming that, if I had not known the reporter, I would have immediately thought it was a spoof. Believe me, it is not.
Just a few days ago, the people of Ecuador approved, by an overwhelming margin, a new constitution for their nation. To be precise, this is the 20th version of a constitution this nation has had in its short 178-year history. He quotes a line from this new constitution:
Persons and people have the fundamental rights guaranteed in this Constitution and in the international human rights instruments. Nature is subject to those rights given by this Constitution and Law.
Tom defines this statement as pure socialism and tells his readers that the document is filled with such concepts. He further informs us that the nation's Catholic bishops vocally opposed the proposal, before it was actually approved by the people, for three reasons:
. . .that through the ambiguous language of "reproductive rights" it would allow for abortion, that it allows for same-sex civil unions to have the same status as marriage, and that it doesn't allow parents the freedom to choose the schooling they think best fits their own children's needs. That last objection translates into the constitution requiring children to attend state-run schools.
So, you might ask, what in the world does this new Ecuadoran constitution have to do with me, with the pro-life movement in America and with our current struggles?
Glad you asked, as I was going to tell you anyway.
It seems that the public-interest law firm Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund is the organization that the framers of this new constitution turned to for assistance in drafting language that would protect things of nature as persons. CELDF is located in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania and is in the business of focusing attention on the subject of why the physical environment should have rights of its own, including personhood.
the only public interest law firm in the U.S. that specializes in building a body of law focused on establishing rights for nature. In pursuit of that goal, the Legal Defense Fund has served as special legal counsel to over one hundred municipal governments across the U.S., and serves as a legal advisor to organizations and governments in other countries, including Ecuador, who are focused on driving similar laws into their governing frameworks.
To my mind, the work of this seemingly concerned public-interest law firm is based on a tenet that flies in the face of the natural law and the instruction each human being receives from God, as revealed in the Bible. For in Genesis1:26-28 we are told, "God said, 'Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts and all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth. "
It is not logical, therefore, that plants, animals and ecosystems should be provided with the same status as a human being, be it in the law, in a national constitution or at any level. So as I was thinking about this new revelation from Ecuador, something else occurred to me. We already have plenty of precedents in the United States for further diminishing the respect due to the human person while continuing to elevate the status of thing such as birds, fish and trees.
In 2005, poachers stole sea turtle eggs from beaches on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. The news report stated, "Anyone convicted of stealing the eggs faces up to a year in jail and up to a $1,000 fine and the penalties can be handed out per egg," Department of Natural Resources Sgt. David Vaughn said.
In Massachusetts this past year, two men were found
guilty of one count of shooting and killing a bald eagle, commonly referred to as an American Eagle, in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and one count of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (for the killing of the bald eagle). . .
Marianne C. Ophardt, a horticulturist for the Washington State University Cooperative Extension Office in Benton County recently wrote in the Tri-Cities, Washington newspaper that "senseless violence against trees" had to end.
My point is not that people should be irresponsible toward the environment and fail to care for that which God has entrusted to us. Rather that while there is public outcry about cutting the tops off of trees, shooting birds out of the air and stealing eggs from turtles, a daily body count in excess of 4,000 babies builds and builds. After all, human beings were entrusted with the earth; the earth was not entrusted with us!
It seems rather obvious to me that value systems are out of whack and that they get this way because people lose their sense of several things, starting with the awesome power of God and the intrinsic value of the human person. Each of us is blessed with the ability to serve God in many ways, and that does include saving animals from wanton destruction and not being destructive to our environment.
But when a greater emphasis is placed on the earth and her creatures than is given to the dignity of the human being, I can only think that Moloch has returned and that our preborn brothers and sisters are being offered on the altar of balancing the ecosystem. It is a frightening thought, to be sure, but not very far-fetched if one pays close attention to the ties between a few Americans and an entire nation, which is now setting a new path for humankind.
As Szyskziewicz points out in his article,
Ecuador's granting of juridic personhood to nature is unique in the world, but the country is not completely alone. Spain will be granting human rights to all 350 apes in its territory. Switzerland is telling farmers not to lop flowers off as they return from mowing their fields since those flowers have a right to exist as they are. The European Court of Human Rights will be hearing a case that could grant a chimpanzee the status of a person in Austria. And in an editorial watching amusedly as Ecuador begins its grand experiment, the Los Angeles Times reported that Australia, Italy, South Africa, and Nepal (which is also in the midst of writing a constitution) have all started looking at similar juridic person provisions.
Judie, I wonder what the excuse is for making it illeagal to take turtle eggs, and to kill bald eagles, but it's okay to kill unborn babies? It doesn't make sense! I love animals, and think that they should be protected, but what about unvborn babies?
Chantell Chantell | October 7, 2008
Re: Genesis 1:26-38...The Bible also calls for death by stoning for homosexuals, adulterers, and for children who go disoby their parents. I'm assuming ALL does not advocate this? This particular Genesis quote has excused all manner of willful destruction of the Earth and animals ...so much so, the polar icecaps are melting due to global warming, and, according to a report that just came out yesterday, one-quarter of all mammal species are threatened with extinction, mainly as ar result of loss of habitat from increasing human population growth. When will it end? When the Earth is trashed and all the non-humans have disappeared? Progressive Christians have embraced creation care, in which we are to be stewards of the natural world, not exploiters. And remember, saving babies from abortion and saving animals and the Earth is not an either or scenario...we can certainly do both! In fact, it is logical to assume that elevating great apes to human status under the law will make it more, not less likely, that we then elevate the status of the most vulnerable humans, including the preborn. Caroline | October 7, 2008
Why are they banning Catholic Answers' Voting Guide for Serious Catholic? That is the best voters guide for Catholics there is. Russell Joy II | October 7, 2008
Dear Caroline,
I am certainly not opposed to accepting the assignment given each of us human beings by God to care for the earth and to respect nature. However, human beings are not trees, animals or flowers and once the law begins to confer personhood on such things, the entire human race is in trouble ... not to mention common sense.
So please accept the fact that I agree with you but know full well that personhood is not a characteristic of any animal or plant on the planet.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | October 8, 2008
Russell
I have no idea why the USCCB has banned the Catholic Answers voting guide. I agree with you.
ARCHBISHOP DONALD WUERL AND THE WORLD Posted: Monday October 6, 2008 at 12:50 pm EST by Judie Brown
Today is the day we run our full-page ad in the Washington Times weekly edition. It is a full-color ad in which we pay tribute to the 16 Catholic bishops who have chosen to protect Christ from sacrilege by enforcing Church law, specifically Canon 915.
In the ad, we ask Archbishop Donald Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. when he will join with these bishops. We have to presume from past statements and actions that the archbishop does not plan to do so any time soon; yet the question is a valid one. As Catholic columnist Barbara Kralis wrote in January 2007,
Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington recently told journalist Allyson Smith that he would not discipline nor deny Holy Communion to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, nor to other Catholic politicians who promote and legislate procured abortion.
Without belaboring the point, it is sufficient to say that many opportunities have presented themselves to the archbishop to not only enforce Canon 915, but to instruct his priests, ordained deacons and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to do likewise. Such an action has not occurred.
The purpose of this column is to explain why we persist in this campaign and why our actions should not be perceived as disrespectful or otherwise antagonistic toward Catholic bishops. Quite the contrary is the case, as my comments will show.
Perhaps you have not read this particular canon before, so I will quote it for you:
Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, [emphasis added] are not to be admitted to holy communion.
We pursue this project of asking Catholic bishops, priests, ordained deacons and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to enforce this Church law specifically because numerous pro-abortion Catholic public figures, politicians, media types and so forth are scandalizing the faithful. They do so by being permitted to receive the body of Christ despite exhibiting obstinate persistence in the manifest grave sin of publicly supporting abortion.
Senator Lisa Murkowski was listed as a guest of honor in the program for the Red Mass in Anchorage last Sunday, attended by Archbishop Roger L. Schwietz, OMI. Lisa voted for the infamous "Harkin Amendment," proclaiming the "sense of the senate" that Roe v. Wade is a wonderful decision and should be the law of the land. Thank God, she wasn't able to attend and profane the Eucharist. Nonetheless, the impression left with the congregation was that if you publicly endorse abortion, you too can still be a guest of honor at a Red Mass, of all occasions.
The sentiments expressed in this comment expose the problem of not protecting Christ from sacrilege. The notion is created that pro-abortion Catholics in public life really aren't in direct conflict with Church teaching. And yet, the fact is that they are not only in conflict, but their souls are in grave jeopardy. Regardless of what your opinion may be on Catholic teaching, the fact is that for any Catholic who claims to be a practicing Catholic, the act of abortion is an intrinsically evil act that is always and in every case wrong. No Catholic should support the murder of the innocent and yet they do so with abandon, and few ordained priests and deacons remind them of the gravity of their public position by denying the body of Christ to them. This too is a scandal.
American Life League does not focus attention on Canon 915 because we disrespect Catholic bishops; on the contrary, we do this because we believe sincerely that the purpose of Canon 915 is two-fold. Enforcement of this Church law protects the body of Christ and helps to teach the errant public figure that his actions are an offense to God and he must repent in order to return to full communion with the Church.
For these two reasons alone, we cannot understand why all 260-plus Catholic bishops have not united in a position of solidarity to protect Christ from sacrilege. And by sacrilege I do not mean to suggest that we at American Life League are sitting in judgment of others' intentions. Quite the contrary. If one examines the public record of any of these Catholic supporters of abortion, it is crystal clear that they endorse this crime against humanity while knowing full well that it conflicts with Church teaching, not to mention the commandment of God: "Thou shalt not kill."
Were there to be no support in the whole history of ethical and moral thought, were there no acknowledged confirmation from medical science, were the history of legal opinion to the contrary, we would still have to conclude on the basis of God's Holy Word that the unborn child is a person in the sight of God. He is protected by the sanctity of life graciously given to each individual by the Creator, Who alone places His image upon man and grants them any right to life which they have.
It is an undeniable fact that there is a human being in the womb during pregnancy; if it were otherwise, why would anyone promote, support, fund or acquire an abortion?
The presence of that baby in the womb, Fallopian tube or test tube is as real as is the presence of Christ in Holy Eucharist. It therefore makes perfect sense that just as the Catholic Church teaches that there is never a reason to abort a child, so too there should never be a reason to permit sacrilege against the truly present body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. And yet it continues, day in and day out.
But we are not disheartened. We know that defending the truth does not resound well with many, but the accusations that we are divisive or judgmental cannot deter us. In fact, we welcome it all as we continue to defend the preborn and the real presence of Christ.
The United States of America is a thoroughly secularized society which canonizes radical individualism and relativism, even before the natural moral law. The application, therefore, is more necessary than ever, lest the faithful, led astray by the strong cultural trends of relativism, be deceived concerning the supreme good of the Holy Eucharist and the gravity of supporting publicly the commission of intrinsically evil acts. Catholics in public office bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility to uphold the moral law in the exercise of their office which is exercised for the common good, especially the good of the innocent and defenseless. When they fail, they lead others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to be deceived regarding the evils of procured abortion and other attacks on innocent and defenseless human life, on the integrity of human procreation, and on the family.
As Pope John Paul II reminded us, referring to the teaching of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, the Holy Eucharist contains the entire good of our salvation [91]. There is no responsibility of the Church's shepherds which is greater than that of teaching the truth about the Holy Eucharist, celebrating worthily the Holy Eucharist, and directing the flock in the worship and care of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law and can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches articulate an essential element of the shepherds' responsibility, namely, the perennial discipline of the Church by which the minister of Holy Communion is to deny the Sacrament to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.
Right on...as always! May God continue to richly bless you, Judie, and bless the work of ALL. Barb Horan | October 6, 2008
Congratulations on the ad in the Washinton Times. Continue to shine the light on the darkness, and force those pro-abortion Catholics to try to stand in the light of truth. We on this coast are heartened by everything ALL does to speak for those without a voice. Blessings, Marcella Ketelhut, Thousand Oaks, CA Marcella Ketelhut | October 6, 2008
Judie, Tucson is beleaguered with a passive Bishop, in my humble opinion, and I\'d like to know if there is a way to contact Bishop Burke personally through email to inform him of our concerns. Thank you for all you do for our cause!!! May God bless you and all those involved in your work. Sunny Turner | October 6, 2008
Dear Sunny
I am very familiar with the antics of Bishop Kicanas and his middle-of-the-left-side-of-the road philosophy. It is astounding!
I recall one person who told me that when the more than 1,500 pro-life marchers, who had walked four miles this past January, arrived at the cemetary the Bishop thanked them for marching against abortion "and racism."
What an outrage! At any rate, I am meeting with Archbishop Burke next month and promise to mention this to him. I plan to get advice on how to deal with such things when they happen because I have to answer so many disheartened Catholics.
May the peace of Christ be with you at every moment. Never give up! God is on our side.
THE CLARITY OF CATHOLIC TEACHING IS BEAUTIFUL Posted: Friday October 3, 2008 at 4:04 pm EST by Judie Brown
There have been some remarkable and inspiring recent statements on the subject of politics and faith that are important to bring to your attention. These statements are not only clear, but reflective of the type of leadership so badly needed in the Catholic Church today.
Milwaukee's Archbishop Timothy Dolan wrote a remarkable rebuttal to a very arrogant anti-Catholic columnist, Brian Smith, whose articles appear in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
The archbishop opened with these words:
Quite a while back, I concluded that it would be a full-time job trying to correct the misrepresentation of Catholic matters regularly showing up in the media and that, reluctantly, I would have to let most of it pass.
However, "Dead-end discussion" in the Sept. 21 Crossroads by Brian Smith demands a reply.
The hint of bishops "meddling" in politics always has been red meat in American history, from the notorious editorial cartoons of Thomas Nast in the Know-Nothing/Nativist era to those of Pat Oliphant today. So, Mr. Smith had our hackles up already as he opened his piece by referring to the recent corrective given by two American bishops to a couple of prominent politicians, both of whom happen to be Catholic, on the issue of abortion."
Archbishop Dolan proceeds to explain who started the "rhubarb" and then extends to the readers a concise, clear picture of Catholic teaching. His exposition reveals not only what the teachings are but why acting against them is a grave sin for a Catholic. But perhaps his most stunning comment comes near the end of his rebuttal, when he tells the readers of this secular newspaper that Smith is dead wrong by
implying that bishops are out of bounds in clarifying the truth of their faith on this issue and that the powerful arguments of the growing pro-life movement hinder helpful conversation and lead to a political dead end. We cannot be mute on this premier civil rights issue of our day.
It is such a breath of fresh air to read the words of a Catholic archbishop who is clearly not cowed into silence by the oppressive, jaded attitude of the media. God bless him!
It is equally heartening to know that Catholics in the Scranton, Pennsylvania diocese will hear a pastoral letter from Bishop Joseph F. Martino, who as you may recall, when asked by the media if Communion would be refused to pro-abortion Democrat Joseph Biden, valiantly replied, "No Catholic politician who supports the culture of death should approach Holy Communion. I will be truly vigilant on this point."
Bishop Martino's letter to his flock, which his priests are required to read at all Masses and distribute to all parishioners, is inspiring. In the letter, he shares the history preceding the current confusion apparently reigning supreme among so many Catholics. He provides insight into the warning contained in Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, and he exposes the nightmare created by the contemporary media's misinformation on Catholic matters.
Bishop Martino points out,
Never have we seen such abusive criticism directed toward those who believe that life begins at conception and ends at natural death.
As Catholics, we should not be surprised by these developments. Forty years ago, Pope Paul VI predicted that widespread use of artificial contraceptives would lead to increased marital infidelity, lessened regard for women, and a general lowering of moral standards especially among the young. Forty years later, social scientists, not necessarily Catholics, attest to the accuracy of his predictions. As if following some bizarre script, the sexual revolution has produced widespread marital breakdown, weakened family ties, legalized abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, pornography, same-sex unions, euthanasia, destruction of human embryos for research purposes and a host of other ills. (emphasis added)
He reminds the faithful,
While the Church assists the State in the promotion of a just society, its primary concern is to assist men and women in achieving salvation. For this reason, it is incumbent upon bishops to correct Catholics who are in error regarding these matters. Furthermore, public officials who are Catholic and who persist in public support for abortion and other intrinsic evils should not partake in or be admitted to the sacrament of Holy Communion. As I have said before, I will be vigilant on this subject. (emphasis added)
He beseeches the faithful,
My dear friends, I beg you not to be misled by confusion and lies. Our Lord, Jesus Christ, does not ask us to follow him to Calvary only for us to be afraid of contradicting a few bystanders along the way. He does not ask us to take up his Cross only to have us leave it at the voting booth door.
The people of the Diocese of Scranton are fortunate to have the opportunity to hear the truth without apology from their bishop, who has a sincere desire to save souls, not win a popularity contest.
It is always a privilege to share uplifting commentary with those who read this column. In addition, it is a blessing to recognize the courage of Catholic leaders who have ordered their priorities according to a heavenly perspective. Praise God for them!
Dear Judie, Thanks be to God that our bishops are finally "waking up and smelling the coffee"!! Maybe they all read your book - Saving those damn Catholics! God bless you for all of your work on behalf of Life.
Carol S. Carol Stonelake | October 4, 2008
Bishop Martino of Scranton is a holy and humble Priest. May God bless him in his ministry.
Thank you for sharing this good news. Fr. William J Kuchinsky | October 4, 2008
IS YOUR LIFE A LEGAL QUESTION? Posted: Thursday October 2, 2008 at 9:59 am EST by Judie Brown
Yesterday, Lillie Reynolds' grandson lost his life in a tragic automobile crash.
Logan Troy Taylor was living in his mother's womb, was eight months of age and was somehow ripped from his mother's womb during the crash. This is a very sad story, as are all those involving the deaths of preborn babies, but this one has a twist to it.
The reporter writing the story states, "The question remains, however, whether he [the baby] ever really lived." While I find this an astounding statement for anyone to make, the fact of the matter is that in a legally schizophrenic country like the United States of America, the question is legitimate.
We all know the reasons why. Laci and Conner's Law, known officially as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed by Congress in 2004, makes it clear that in this case there was a human being whose life was wanted by his mother. However, nothing about the preborn child is obvious due to our culture's duplicitous attitude toward the resident of the womb.
Pro-life leader Judy Zabik spoke to reporters about Logan's death and said, "We expect (the same) prosecution regardless of whether the baby was in a car seat in the backseat or in the mother's womb."
Indeed, every thinking human being should expect that justice will be done in this case, and even Logan's grandmother argued, "You don't put clothes on a fetus."
Technically she is wrong, of course, because the Latin word fetus means "little one" or "child," but I can see why she made the point. Few people realize who lives in the womb during pregnancy these days and that, scientifically, they are human beings.
But again, this is exactly what the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court decisions have created in America: confusion about whether or not, and when, this child was really a child.
I am sure there will be intense debate about Logan's death before law enforcement personnel deciding what their course of action will be. And in the midst of the debate, the reality of why there has to be a debate in the first place will be all but lost.
So just in case you want to get my perspective on this, let me make something perfectly clear. In the years following the Roe and Doe Supreme Court decisions, numerous pro-life legislative efforts have been pursued and some have been successful. But the reality of the situation is that while these laws are described as incremental steps toward ending abortion, some of them undermine the goal of overturning the Roe and Doe decisions.
When laws like the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and their state counterparts are enacted, they provide cover for the abortion industry and for those two dreadful decisions. For example, the UVVA states,
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law.
Therefore, the law protects only those preborn human beings whose mothers choose to carry them. If Logan's mom had gone to an abortionist on the day of the accident, his death would not be a question of criminal behavior because the abortionist is merely doing what he was paid to do. Logan would have, as if by magic, become an unwanted child instead of a wanted child.
This is what happens when laws pander to the Roe and Doe decisions, thus legitimizing them while claiming to be pro-life. I would guess this is also why Logan's grandmother is confused about the use of the word fetus to describe her grandson.
Cases like Logan's remind us of the tragic conditions that our nation faces daily, due to our inability to recognize the preborn baby as a member of the human family. When medical dictionaries define the word fetus as "unborn offspring," and the definition of offspringis "the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant : young, progeny : child," it becomes obvious that the contradictions I have pointed out are simply mindless.
It probably sounds far-fetched to some to go to this extent to make my point. But regardless of your opinion on the usage and meaning of certain terms, the crisis our preborn brothers and sisters face was created because words were manipulated. Seven men sitting on a Supreme Court bench decided what they should mean. And so, according to current law, maybe Logan is a child and maybe he isn't, but according to everything we know about pregnancy and the product of procreation, it is not confusing.
A baby boy died during the car accident in Genesee County, Michigan, and a baby dies every single time an act of abortion occurs.
As plain as this fact is, the real question is extremely troublesome, but must be asked: If the law can render some persons as undeserving of recognition as persons simply because of where they live, what is to prevent the law from reclassifying others because of how they look or how dependent they are on others?
Pro-Life Story: "Million Voices" Posted By Robert Ryan Capeder on Apr, 19 2007 The following is a poem I wrote at a men's retreat in Cold Springs (and yes it was cold there is your wondering) GOD stired an amazing brokeness in me for the generation that ... Read
