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!
DEVELOPMENT, PEACE AND CORRUPTION IN CANADA – A CATHOLIC SAGA Posted: Thursday May 28, 2009 at 12:03 pm EST by Judie Brown
LifeSiteNews has been a mainstay of accurate reporting on breaking stories, not only on the North American continent but around the world. Its identification with cutting-edge coverage of crucial issues, particularly for pro-life Catholics, is legendary. So when its investigation uncovered support for pro-abortion organizations by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, we became more than interested on several levels. This organization was founded by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops as their “official agency for development work and emergency relief in the Global South.”
In order to confirm any concerns we might have, since we knew that the CCODP was accusing LifeSiteNews of reporting false information, we engaged the services of a researcher to independently investigate the reports that have all been posted on the LifeSiteNews web site. The news agency provided direct evidence from the web sites of the abortion groups in question showing their advocacy. Direct links to the web sites of the groups allow for verification of the facts.
We also noted, that, preceding the investigation, when the CCCB announced its annual collection for CCODP on March 18 of this year,V. James Weisgerber, Archbishop of Winnipeg and president of the CCCB stated,
The Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace is the official development agency of the Church in Canada, and respects the sacredness of human life from conception to its natural end [emphasis added]. By contributing to Development and Peace this year on 29 March, our gifts can bear fruit for the life of the world. To serve Christ, we are invited to follow his example – to give of ourselves, that others may live.
But apparently, respect for the sacredness of human life is not quite the way those administering the funds see things.
One of the most telling articles LifeSiteNews has published is the interview with Gilio Brunelli, director of International Programs for the CCODP. Even though his English is broken and his exact intent was not always easy to understand, it seems that what he is intending to convey is that Development and Peace has a certain agenda to follow regarding organizations involved in poor/third world countries. Below are his words as reported by Matthew Hoffman of LifeSiteNews:
That is a very good question, Matt. We have a number of tools by which we make sure that our money goes where we want it to go. Sometimes we target in a more direct way these monies for that particular piece of the program. Sometimes we have a mechanism by which we know that some organization already gives money for, let's say, the abortion clinic, if they have, or the lobbying for abortion so we know that our money will not be there. And that's part of the expertise that we have been building up over the last 40 years. We have a pretty good sense of where our money goes in the sense independently because we have a number of mechanisms to know that. What I can say, and I know that it's important for you to understand that, that certainly no money of Development and Peace goes into supporting lobbying for abortion or abortion practices.
Brunelli seems to be saying that CCODP supports organizations for certain aspects of what they do, because that particular activity supports the goals of CCODP’s agenda. Brunelli, however, does not seem to mind the other things these organizations may or may not do, and may not even bother to research or ask. It's almost as if those in charge of distributing the funds for the CCCB Development and Peace agency are turning a blind eye to the actions of the organizations they're trying to help. Or maybe, it just never mattered to them. And that's the difficult part to swallow – that an arm of the Catholic Church would be so nonchalant in its distribution of funds – especially funds that come, in part, from parishioners. We must, in all that we do, stand up for and convey what the Church teaches. Laziness, ignorance or indifference are not adequate excuses and cannot get in the way of the Church's mission.
The more one reads the interview with Brunelli, the more confused one becomes regarding whether or not CCODP is even concerned about whether or not its funding recipients approve of and advocate for legal abortion. Brunelli said,
As I was saying, we do not have a particular policy on abortion, something like that; we believe that kind of principle are coming down by the bishops not by (chuckle) an organization like Development and Peace. We receive proposals from a number of organizations across the world. They are analyzed and studied by our staff here in Montreal. They are sent back to local committees in the country. Our supporters, they don't track records on coherence and the relevance of the proposals. I take your word that we do not support pro-life organizations. That is new to me. For us, it is not a criteria. For us, the criterion is not pro-life or pro-abortion, it is “do the piece of work that they propose to us is something we want to support and something within our parameters?" If it is yes, we support them and if not, we don't. Or do they have the capacity for carrying out the piece of work that they ask money from us for. If they do have that capacity. So that is basically our role. When you come back to town – we can have a number of conversations. I am always at your disposal. We do not have a policy either for or against.
It occurs to us that, indeed, the CCCB should be doing a thorough investigation of the matter which, according to an official April 7 statement, is currently underway. The comments Brunelli freely told the LifeSiteNews reporter should have been sufficient to suspend the activities of Development and Peace until the investigation was completed.
That, however, has not occurred as far as we know. And there are others sounding the warning as well, for as one reporter put it, "Some groups, like Priests for Life Canada, say nothing short of a thorough, independent investigation will do. Granted, there's something a bit fox-like about CCODP examining its own henhouse, since it's accompanying the bishops on the investigatory trip."
Regardless of how this investigation is handled, one fact is clear. A Catholic charity, which is extending the hand and the money of the Catholic Church to those in need around the world should be totally faithful to Church teaching, regardless of what other work it is involved in. It would seem to us, at least, that the first priority would be to make certain that those charities receiving support are free of all advocacy for abortion.
I recall that when I was in Toronto last month delivering a series of speeches to Alliance for Life, a wonderful bishop, his Excellency Anthony Tonnos, stood up to speak to the audience at the April 24 gala banquet. In his presentation, he apologized to the attendees for the mess that been stirred up over the financial dealings of Development and Peace. He went on to explain that the CCCB was involved in an ongoing and thorough examination of the matter and he knew that a resolution would be reached that would be acceptable to all Canadian pro-life Catholics.
So, when I read the most recent report from LifeSiteNews, dated May 22, I was astounded. Apparently, CCODP is insisting that it was not involved in any sort of wrongdoing.
D&P continues to claim simply that it is "not supporting, has never, and never will support abortion or any programs that contravene our foundational Gospel values and Catholic Social Teaching." As LSN has reported previously, however, D&P's carefully chosen wording is deceptive, since LSN has never accused D&P of specifically funding abortion or pro-abortion "programs." Instead, LSN presented evidence that hundreds of thousands of dollars of D&P funds are being awarded to organizations that are involved in pro-abortion and pro-contraception advocacy – many of them quite heavily – ostensibly for non-abortion related projects. However, since D&P funds are fungible, the organization's sizable contributions to the pro-abortion groups have the effect of freeing up funds for their pro-abortion and pro-contraception activities.
Something is clearly wrong; there is indeed a bit of double-speak going on, and that does suggest corruption to us.
At this point, one can only hope and pray that when the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops investigation is completed, LifeSiteNews will be vindicated, CCODP will be cleaned out and Canadian Catholics can once again donate to a truly Catholic charitable outreach to the third world. It would be reassuring to know that from now on, Catholic donations are not in the least way involved with any organization that promotes the vile act of abortion, or provides contraception, sterilization or other such horrendous “services” to the poor.
I think that there are another couple of things to note.
The first one is that some of us do not even have a choice whether or not to donate to D & P. Their budget comes form the annual Bishops appeal at Easter time.
The problem is that some Bishops, including mine here in Calgary, set minimum amounts that each Church MUST give. That means that if the appeal does not raise the minimum amount then the Church has to give it out of general revenue and has a liability to the diocese. What this means is that even if we chose not to give to the Bishops they would take the money anyways like a tax.
The second one is that D & P is VERY non repentant. One of my friends went and they all they were saying is how it was not their fault. All their motions at their meetings were of ways to absolve themselves. I have a copy of the motions at D & P's meeting if you would like to see them.
Here is one example:
Ottawa Diocesan Council (English Sector) # 1 (Re-proposed from 2007)
WHEREAS certain misrepresentations and untrue claims about Development and Peace continue to prevail;
WHEREAS active negative campaigns against Development and Peace, such as those associated with the 2000 World March for Women and false claims of funding support to pro-abortion groups, continue to exist within the community and in parishes;
WHEREAS Development and Peace members may be called on unexpectedly at any time to respond to these untruths;
WHEREAS newer members may not be aware of such campaigns and their history;
BE IT RESOLVED that National Council direct the National Office to provide Diocesan Councils with tools and information sheets containing official Development and Peace positions on, and responses to these myths and campaigns, as well as background information to enable members to understand how they started and to respond appropriately.
There are more as well. Also stated in that letter which I also have which Lifesite quotes from is this little Gem. Note the language used to define pro-lifers. Seems like reading form planned parenthood. There is more like that is it as well.
"This recent media campaign has not been limited to one country, either in the North or in the Global South, and now fully involves an international anti-abortion advocacy movement active within the Catholic Church. Modern Internet-based communications technology and networks have rendered this a controversy without national borders, and engages us in a global Church-wide dialogue."
Thanks for helping to publicize this. It is important to expose these things as they are happening. Please also give Lifesite a fund raising plug, I am sure they need it!
Thanks,
Nicholas McLeod Nicholas McLeod | May 29, 2009
Isn't it a Spiritual Work of mercy to admonish those bishops who are careless in their defense of life? They could do the most in clarifying the issues and removing the great confusion among Catholics. How else their vot for Obaba!!! I'm often told that I shouldn't criticize bishops, I answer that i don't criticize the bishops I only point out omissions, some are theirs, some are in the pro-life groups, most are among pro-abortionists; how else do we set our course back to the orthodoxy of the Magesterium. Judie, please keep up the great work, you are in our prayers. Prolifedigest is a new endeavor, once it is set up, I hope it will help. Writers for Life Charles N. Marrelli | May 29, 2009
Charles
I hear the same sort of admonishment from folks who do not understand the great scandal that these Bishops are causing by their failure to act with the courage of Christ's first Apostles. I think such people somehow believe that when a man is ordained Bishop he becomes perfect which of course is not so. Human beings are always who they are: sinful by nature.
Charles, thank you for your kind words and God bless you efforts.
CARITAS CHRISTI’S DEAL WITH THE DEVIL – II Posted: Wednesday May 27, 2009 at 1:29 pm EST by Judie Brown
The events in the Archdiocese of Boston that brought about the unbelievably bad news regarding the “joint venture” between Caritas Christi Health Care System and the Centene Corporation of St. Louis, Missouri, continue to unfold at a fast and furious pace. In view of public reports that Massachusetts regulators had approved a joint venture between the two entities in early March 2009, public expressions of alarm grew. Concerned Catholics could not help but say that this union would result in Caritas Christi being complicit in some way with providing or referring for surgical abortion, medical abortion, contraceptives or sterilization procedures – each of which are considered unacceptable according to Catholic teaching and Catholic healthcare ethics.
In early March 2009, headlines and subsequent expressions of serious concern finally led to Cardinal Seán O’Malley’s first statement on the announced business partnership. In response to the questions being asked, Cardinal O’Malley issued this statement:
While I appreciate the opportunity given to Caritas Christi to serve the poor through this agreement, I wish to reaffirm that this agreement can only be realized if the moral obligations for Catholic hospitals as articulated in the Ethical and Religious Directives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops are fulfilled at all times and in all cases. In order to assure me that this agreement will provide for the integrity of the Catholic identity and practices of Caritas Christi Health Care System, I have asked the National Catholic Bioethics Center to review the agreement and to assure me that it is faithful to Catholic principles.
The cardinal’s words might have set aside concerns for most Catholics if the fear had not persisted that an acceptable compromise was being forged in the shadows without all of the facts being presented by the cardinal’s office and/or the National Catholic Bioethics Center.
One observer astutely told me that
the legalistic fig leafs floated by the [a]rchdiocese so far cannot, and do not, conceal the glaring fact that, by entering into a partnership with Centene, and by agreeing to the immoral requirements of the Massachusetts universal health-care insurance program, Caritas will necessarily be doing and profiting from immoral services that are directly contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Another concerned Catholic wrote, in a letter addressed to officials at the NCBC,
You should know that in March of 2008, Attorney General Martha Coakley in her role of overseeing public charities, released a public report with the assertions that the Catholic Church was mismanaging the Caritas Christi Health Care System, and pressured the [a]rchdiocese to cede control of the operation of Caritas Christi Health Care System so that an independent board with expertise in healthcare management can run it.
This indicates the presence of serious financial problems, which might have led, at least in part, to the inauspicious announcement of the venture and backroom negotiations that were obviously ongoing.
It is apparent, from what we have been able to discern, that since the initial announcement of the joint venture between Caritas Christi and the Centene Corporation, details have been vague or simply do not exist. We have further learned that, as of this writing, the NCBC has not issued any type of definitive statement involving the acceptance or rejection of the agreement.
In the continuing controversy over the decision of Caritas Christi Health Care – a network of six Catholic hospitals affiliated with the Boston Archdiocese – to seek a state contract, which will require abortion referrals, there have been several new developments.
• On May 4, 2009, CeltiCare Health Plan of Massachusetts announced that Richard D. Lynch had been appointed Plan President and Chief Executive Officer. Based in their new corporate office in Brighton, CeltiCare is a managed care organization that will provide health insurance to Massachusetts residents enrolled in the Commonwealth Care program. CeltiCare’s participation in the Commonwealth Care contract comes as a result of the partnership between Caritas Christi and the Centene Corporation, whose wholly owned subsidiary, the Celtic Insurance Company, is the parent organization of CeltiCare.
• In response to an inquiry from the Catholic Action League, Brian Delaney, Director of Communications for CeltiCare, stated on May 11 that, “CeltiCare’s program has been approved by the Massachusetts Connector Authority. Under the contract, CeltiCare will be operational July 1, 2009, and will meet all the [s]tate’s requirements under the Commonwealth Care program, including providing family planning services as appropriate.” Assertions to the contrary by Cardinal O’Malley notwithstanding, this is the third time since February 26 that a representative of the Caritas/Centene partnership has affirmed that the Commonwealth Care contract will include abortion and contraception.
• It has now been more than two months since Cardinal O'Malley requested an advisory opinion on the contract from the National Catholic Bioethics Center. On May 14, Fr. Tadeuscz Pacholczyk, [d]irector of [e]ducation for NCBC, stated that, “The NCBC is not able to comment regarding on-going, confidential consultations. Your best source of information would probably be the [a]rchdiocese or perhaps Caritas Christi.” Later, when asked if the opinion had been given to the [a]rchdiocese, another NCBC official told the League “I’m not at liberty to say.”
• On May 3, at the annual convention of the Massachusetts Knights of Columbus, the State Council repudiated a resolution by former District Deputy Joseph B. Craven Jr. opposing the Caritas contract with Commonwealth Care. The [s]tate [c]ouncil ruled the measure “rejected” and “out of order,” an impossibility under parliamentary procedure. State [o]fficers claimed that an unnamed [a]rchdiocesan official (reportedly one of the [c]ardinal’s two secretaries), stated that the resolution contained unspecified factual errors. Deacon John Baniukiewicz then told assembled delegates that “We can’t be more Catholic than the Church,” and “We can’t tell the [c]ardinal what to do.” The measure was defeated.
Catholic Action League Executive Director C.J. Doyle made the following comment: “It is clear that the Caritas/Centene partnership is proceeding with all deliberate speed towards the July 1 start-up date of the Commonwealth Care contract, while the [a]rchdiocese continues its efforts to suppress Catholic opposition to the arrangement. Given the prolonged uncertainty about the nature, or even the public availability of the NCBC advisory opinion, one might reasonably surmise that the [c]ardinal’s request for their involvement was a public relations tactic intended to buy time and diffuse pro-life opposition. Catholics need to keep the pressure up on the [a]rchdiocese to cancel the contract, and they need to keep Rome informed.”
Bill Cotter, head of Boston’s Operation Rescue and one of the heroic pro-life leaders of the state of Massachusetts, “believes the archdiocese was taken off guard by the Caritas move. ‘But,’ he said, ‘there’s been a terrible loss of credibility for the archdiocese. It must forgo the potential financial gain and refuse this pact with the devil.’”
As we mentioned yesterday, American Life League is well aware of the healthcare plans being orchestrated by the Obama administration. We are equally aware of President Barack Obama’s track record of using Catholics to his advantage and their willingness, for whatever reason, to be used. Obama’s relatively short history of appointments of totally pro-abortion Catholics, the Notre Dame scandal and other such events lead us to suspect that if the Archdiocese of Boston remains silent and does not demand immediate dissolution of the “joint venture” agreement, the death knell for genuine Catholic health care will have been sounded.
The evil that has gone unaddressed by Cardinal O’Malley, and persists in the context of unanswered questions and the absence of policies based on Catholic doctrine, is scripted by the devil himself. Of that there is no doubt. American Life League cannot be silent while such a dastardly plan moves forward with nary a whimper.
It should be obvious that the Archdiocese of Boston could, either knowingly or unknowingly, become the first Catholic casualty as it falls beneath the Obama nationalized health care bulldozer. Clearly if the Archdiocese of Boston succumbs to dollars over dogma, the end result could devastate Catholic health care nationwide.
As the wise director of Catholic Action League, C.J. Doyle, told Kathleen Gilbert of LifeSiteNews.com,
If Caritas actually intended to accept tax dollars while evading state demands for abortion coverage, every voice on the political left would be raised against it – in the media, in the [l]egislature, and among the advocacy groups. Instead, we have heard nothing but silence from the usual adversaries of the Church.
The only solution is for Caritas to withdraw from the contract.
If there is a morally acceptable justification for all of this, the archdiocese has not disclosed it, notwithstanding three months of raging public scandal. Not only that, but regardless of public opinion that there is little the archdiocese could do in this situation, our perspective is that there is plenty it could do, starting with revocation of the contract itself.
Want to voice your concern? Please do so, writing respectfully but firmly to Cardinal O’Malley. Remember: Time is of the essence.
Judi,
What do we do about things like this. A "catholic" Hospital in Kingston, barely an hour from poughkeepsie, has merged with the Local hospital. They have some place over on the side where the abortions are sent. St Farncis here in Poughkeepsie, rents space to a free ob/gyn clinic. They send people to PP/
Fidelis Care a NY State health Care Insurance has a priest CEO and they make money charging more to have another carrier covering contraceptives. That last I have given the info to Monsignor Barreiro of HLI in Rome. Though he reported Ct. Bishops allowing "Emergency Contraception" in their hospitals. Would not be surprised if St Francis and the Kingston "Catholic" Hospital does the same.
It was good of Monsignor to forward the information on Ct., but I don't see anything changing. Patricia | May 28, 2009
I hate to admit this, but I???m beginning to believe this has more to do with institutional and fiscal preservation. Can I expect anything more from an Archdiocese and Catholic Healthcare System that is increasingly administered by a lay professional class that is nominally Catholic at best. It???s all about the bottom line and preserving jobs in Boston. Truth and Bio-ethics are sadly becoming casualties. Serviam1 | May 29, 2009
Dear Patricia
It is one thing for Vatican officials to be advised of a breach of Catholic ethics and to then tell the Bishop that the situation must be corrected. It is another for the Bishop to act. It's, in far too many cases, all about the money!
Such situations are scandalous and escalating. The Church in America is in dire trouble, not financially but with the Lord!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | May 29, 2009
Dear Serviam
Indeed! This is so very sad, so very evil but so very true.
PANDORA’S BOX HAS NOTHING ON CARITAS CHRISTI Posted: Tuesday May 26, 2009 at 11:19 am EST by Judie Brown
Pandora’s box: from the box, sent by the gods to Pandora, which she was forbidden to open and which loosed a swarm of evils upon humankind when she opened it out of curiosity.
Most Americans are familiar with the term “Pandora’s box,” but that same percentage has no idea what a “Caritas Christi” is, so this is where my story must begin.
Caritas Christi was “established in 1985 [and is] New England's largest community-based hospital network [and is] a comprehensive, integrated health care delivery network providing community-based medicine and tertiary care in eastern Massachusetts, southern New Hampshire and Rhode Island.”
Being part of a Catholic Health Care System means that ours is a ministry with roots in the teachings of the Church and the Gospel message of Jesus. At Caritas Christi, we are not just another provider of health care. We are a continuation of the healing ministry of Jesus. Our Mission and Values are the forces that drive us toward achieving Exceptional Care.
Earlier this year, something changed in the CC dynamic when it announced a joint venture with Centene Corporation in a bid to provide government-subsidized health insurance in Massachusetts. In fact, the announcement sent shock waves through Massachusetts Citizens for Life, which immediately issued a press release stating,
Massachusetts Citizens for Life sent a letter on Thursday to the President and CEO of Caritas Christi, Dr. Ralph de la Torre, requesting a meeting as soon as possible to address the concerns members of the organization have about the Caritas Christi joint venture with Centene Corporation that offers insurance through the Commonwealth Care Health Plan.
Caritas Christi has said it will provide a full range of family planning services. The public has learned that this terminology is code for abortion and abortion-related services. Mass. Citizens sought the meeting to give Caritas Christi the chance to refute these assumptions and to assure the general public that it would not be providing such services.
Since we have not heard from Dr. de la Torre, Mass. Citizens must regretfully assume that, in fact, Caritas Christi would abandon its twenty-three year commitment to protecting the lives of unborn babies and their mothers.
Our members will be contacting the offices of Caritas individually to express their outrage that Caritas would take this anti-life position.
[I]t was awarded the contract to manage healthcare services for Commonwealth Care members in Massachusetts. The health plan is a partnership between Celtic Group Inc. (Celtic), a subsidiary of Centene Corporation, and Caritas Christi Health Care (Caritas). Effective July 1, 2009, the health plan will serve the Central, Northern, Boston and Southern regions of Massachusetts.
The Massachusetts Commonwealth Care program is a health insurance program for low-income, working adults (up to 300% of the Federal Poverty Level) who are not eligible for Medicaid or employer-sponsored insurance. There are currently approximately 165,000 Commonwealth Care members.
Commonwealth Family Health Plan is a new, innovative managed care solution that leverages local provider relationships, national managed care experience and Celtic’s expertise in the individual health insurance market. The health plan offers a greater pool of primary care physicians available to Commonwealth Care members, as well as a full spectrum of providers and managed care services to ensure comprehensive access to all benefits required under the Commonwealth Care program.
The facts about this “Commonwealth Plan” are disturbing on a very basic level. The Massachusetts Commonwealth Care plan is the very type of "universal health-care insurance" that President Barack Obama wants to impose on the rest of the country. Indeed, proponents of national health-care insurance always point to the Massachusetts program as a model of a successful plan.
Second, in order to be an approved health-care provider eligible for payment under the Massachusetts plan, the law requires that the hospital must provide the full range of “reproductive services," such as abortion, sterilization, contraception and counseling that recommends such services. All of these things are directly contrary to the teaching of the Church. This is what we have to look forward to from Obama's proposed national plan.
Furthermore, Caritas Christi cannot participate in the approved plan without agreeing to provide the mandatory “reproductive health services” that are in direct violation to Catholic teaching.
In order to avoid the direct provision of immoral services, CC has entered into a partnership with Centene, under which Centene will do all the dirty work and CC will claim that it is not doing anything contrary to the teaching of the Church. While this might sound like a little bit of compromise for the sake of the common good, it is no such thing! Cooperation with evil is not a part of Catholic teaching. It never has been and it never will be.
As a matter of fact, in Massachusetts law, Caritas must provide counseling that includes immoral "reproductive services" and must arrange for patients to receive those immoral services from Centene, even to the point of transporting patients to abortion facilities. Both Caritas and Massachusetts regulators have publicly confirmed this fact as Massachusetts Citizens for Life pointed out.
Furthermore, it is indisputable that, even if Caritas Christi itself does not perform any immoral services, its partnership with Centene means that CC will be profiting from the immoral services rendered by Centene. One can easily come to the conclusion that the entire partnership deal with Centene is driven solely and exclusively by financial motives.
This certainly begs the question, how could a Catholic entity such as Caritas Christi become embroiled in such a fiasco? How many evils will a Catholic health care provider accept as part of a deal that most assuredly was made in Hell?
Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God Himself (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).
To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself, the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good, would be radically compromised. What is at stake therefore is an essential right which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense, the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane.
Could anything be clearer?
So, I ask you, where is Cardinal Seán O’Malley, the one man who could put a stop to the Obama-nization of Catholic health care in Massachusetts?
I anxiously await tomorrow's answer as to where is Cardinal P'Malley. Last spring Cardinal O'Malley said, Caritas Christi will never do anything to promote abortions, to direct any patients to providers of abortion, or in any way to participate in actions that are contrary to Catholic moral teaching, and anyone who suggests otherwise is doing a great disservice to the Catholic Church." As far as I know Cardinal O'Malley never explained how this could be true. I have emailed him at, sdiago@rcab.org, asking him for such an explanation. He must be willing to provide an explanation, as he would not want us to continue "doing a great disservice to the Catholic Church." David Volk | May 26, 2009
What is their excuse for going against their convictions? Do they care more about money then anything else now?
Chantell Chantell | May 26, 2009
Well done.
I can't tell you how much this means to us.
Thank you!
Carol carol | May 26, 2009
Your concerns & efforts with regard to Caritas Christi and the Massachusetts hospital situation are very much in my prayers. I became conscious of the Massachusetts Catholic hospitals issue early on while working actively on the Notre Dame - Obama situation with Joe Scheidler and other pro-lifers with ND connections along with the student leaders (I sat in their shoes 30 years ago and saw some situations and had some conversations with Fr. Hesburgh that were questionable even then but now were obvious precursors to the present situation.)
What are Cardinal O'Malley and his bishops thinking? I know Massachusetts is feeling the pain of the clergy abuse scandal, financially and pastorally, in ways most or all of us beyond the commonwealth would have a hard time fathoming, whether in the roles of laity, clergy, or hierarchy, but a referral deal, even a back door referral deal -- much less say any form of strategic partnership with an organization either performing abortions or providing direct referrals? Obviously neither the USCCB or Rome (and at this particular moment I limit that reference to faithful Romans) would choose to fight the most serious volley of the conscience battle to date in Massachusetts, but that doesn't limit or excuse our responsibility to live and even die for the Faith. Or has Cardinal O'Malley forgotten why his robes are red?
Judie, is there a common denominator between this, Notre Dame consciously (I truly believe) rolling the dice on the fallout of both honoring and providing a platform to Obama, and the Vatican problems vis-a-vis the press office, the Pontifical Academy for Life, and L'Observator Romano (and possibly the Secretariat of State as well)? I've never even thought about this before in thirty plus years of pro-life involvement, but is there any chance that there is a substantial and influential group within the upper reaches of the Vatican that's ready to shift gears and live for another day (time -- and certainly not in our lifetimes) at least or even rewrite all theology, especially John Paul II's Theology of the Body, to capitulate on the life issues and "get on with life" at worst?
Did Fr. Jenkins know Obama would go directly after the abortion issue with far more than an acknowledgement of the opposition? Did he invite the president to do so? Has anyone put any meat on the skeleton of the purported sighting of Jenkins unanounced at the White House? Is Fr. Lombardi really slipping up repeatedly? With all the Church's experience with lost influence in Europe how could it dare to concede conscience through the back door in a heavily nominally-Catholic state without a well orchestrated overt challenge on the map anyplace else with a strong Catholic population at the moment?
In respect for every human life,
John Ryan
Oak Lawn, IL John ryan | May 27, 2009
How do contact Cardinal O'Malley David Olio | May 27, 2009
Dear John
There are a few things in play if we try to tie all these scandals together.
The first is the ineffective to nonexistent leadership of most of the Catholic bishops and the USCCB bureacrats.
The second is money!
The third is the temptation to accommodate the power of the world, thus ignoring the power of God.
The fourth is schism, and I truly believe that American Church is in schism from Roman Catholicism.
We have to face the facts, rededicate ourselves to defending the truth and Christ's Church and let the chips fall where they may.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | May 29, 2009
Chantell
Yes, money, money, money and of course worldly power.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | May 29, 2009
Cardinal Sean O'Malley
66 Brooks Drive
Braintree, MA 02184
Telephone: 617-254-0100
e-mail form: http://www.bostoncatholic.org/ContactUs.aspx Judie Brown | May 29, 2009
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN HOSPITAL’S MACABRE MONIKER Posted: Friday May 22, 2009 at 10:40 am EST by Judie Brown
Over the years there have been a number of universities in the United States that have distinguished themselves either because of something unique that places them in the limelight and defines their appeal for years to come, or a consistently outstanding football team. Something like that is happening right now at the University of Wisconsin Hospital, Madison, but I really doubt that the university will look back on this with pride in the coming years.
In February of 2009, the university’s hospital board voted in favor of a plan to create a facility, Madison Surgery Center, where second trimester abortions would be performed. News reports explained
The surgery center is owned by UW Hospital, the university's doctor group and Meriter Hospital. Boards of those organizations recently approved the plan, despite protests and petitions from opponents. Friday's vote by the surgery center board was 6-0.
Organizations like Pro-Life Wisconsin put a great deal of pressure on the university and used their public relations prowess to bring attention to this disturbing turn of events. In fact, on April 23, PLW noted that MSC had not yet begun to perform abortions. On a special web site created about the opposition to the UW plan, activists are invited to do the following:
Sign [a] letter refusing treatment at the MSC;
If you are an employee of UW or Meriter Hospital, download a letter refusing to participate;
Sign [a] petition opposing Madison Surgery Center late-term abortion center;
Find contact information to call, e-mail, or write in opposition to the Madison Surgery Center's late-term abortion center. Contact Meriter Hospital, UW Hospital, the UW Medical Foundation, and the Madison Surgery Center;
Join us in prayer outside the Madison Surgery Center! Pro-Life Wisconsin's Dane County affiliate, along with Madison's Vigil for Life, prays outside the Madison Surgery Center on a regular basis. Trust us – this makes doctors, nurses, patients and patients' families uncomfortable; they do not want to identify themselves with a medical facility that performs abortions.
Commit to support this highly effective campaign!
Clearly, the campaign is paying off. However, it is not clear that the University of Wisconsin and its allies are backing down, at least not yet.
But something else occurred at the UW Hospital that has gone practically unnoticed by the wider community, and it is as troubling and depraved as the idea of approving late term abortions. According to recent reports,
an advocacy group is alleging that doctors at UW Hospital broke the law by withholding treatment from two developmentally disabled patients with apparent cases of pneumonia.
The guardian of one patient, who survived, at first went along with and then later disagreed with the decision to withhold care, the lawsuit by Disability Rights Wisconsin alleges. The parents of the other patient, who died, pushed for the withdrawal of treatment, according to the group’s complaint filed Thursday in Dane County Circuit Court.
But a spokeswoman for UW Hospital said the hospital acted in the best interests of both patients and tried to follow the wishes of their families….
The “treatment” being discussed in these cases, by the way, is food and water! In other words, the patient was not dying from a condition, but would, and in one case did, die of starvation. What sort of medical care is that?
As the disability rights group Not Dead Yet has pointed out, with this case and another in Pennsylvania of the same type, one has to wonder just how many such cases occur in hospitals around the nation but never come to the attention of advocates who might be able to help the helpless patient survive!
So what is going on at the University of Wisconsin-Madison? Is this a coincidence and nothing more than a fluke that the same university appears dedicated to the principle that vulnerable human beings, whether born or preborn, are frequently better off dead?
Clearly, the mentality that fosters a culture of death has taken hold at the university and, just like cancer, has spread from the expectant mothers in their care to the needy patients in their care who are helpless, and in some cases, have no one to defend their human dignity and their human rights.
The common denominator that links the disability rights case to the late term abortion facility is obvious. Disregard for the human person takes on all sorts of identities and excuses depending on who is setting the policies. If it is acceptable to kill the preborn, why not the already born who are in need of special care? As one medical ethicist put it, “How much power do families and guardians have to make medical decisions for vulnerable patients such as children and the developmentally disabled?”
The answer is that if the vulnerable individual is a resident of his mother’s womb, then that mother has total power to choose life or death for the child according to the law. And very soon the law that sanctions death at the beginning of life could well sanction it at any point during another’s life, depending on whether or not the patient can speak up and defend himself. Such acts of course, will not, be defined as murder, but rather simply as exercises of a right to choose what is best for everyone involved.
…while the climate of widespread moral uncertainty can in some way be explained by the multiplicity and gravity of today's social problems, and these can sometimes mitigate the subjective responsibility of individuals, it is no less true that we are confronted by an even larger reality, which can be described as a veritable structure of sin. This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable "culture of death". This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favored tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a kind of "conspiracy against life" is unleashed.
The University of Wisconsin Hospital: this week’s winner as the best example of the “Conspiracy Against Life.” It is a macabre moniker, but an honest one.
THE CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF ROCHESTER AND THE NAZI HOLOCAUST Posted: Thursday May 21, 2009 at 11:35 am EST by Judie Brown
There have been times when American citizens have argued vehemently with me because I have compared the Holocaust that occurred during World War II with the current war on the preborn occurring on our own soil. Many of us in the pro-life movement see a stark similarity not only because of the unbelievable horror of the manner in which innocent victims were and are brutally murdered but the fact that in each of the two cases the law protected the evils being perpetrated.
When we pro-lifers talk about America’s Holocaust, we have photographs and images equally as horrific as those from Hitler’s era. Still many argue that there really is no comparison. However, as researcher Steven Kellmeyer has pointed out,
The Holocaust grew out of scientific work and legal precedent begun in England…so legal abortion expresses today’s economic and psychological science, which assume economic and psychological harm to women will be reduced if their children are killed. The rhetoric used by the advocates of legal abortion against the child in the womb (a “disease,” “bacilli,” “parasites”) repeats the Nazi rhetoric against the Jews. Both German and U.S. courts stripped their victims of all rights prior to destroying them. In both cases, medical experimentation of living and dead victims grew as time went on and the number of deaths grew….
So when I became aware of a recent event in Rochester, New York, I thought about those arguments regarding the Holocaust and I concluded that there are deeper reasons for such arguments.
Rochester New York’s Democrat and Chronicle ran a report about a month ago entitled “Rochester community seeks more interfaith dialogue.” The main purpose of the news item was to focus attention on a Jewish-Christian program, “The Two Thousand Year Road to the Holocaust.” The program marked a turning point in the cooperation occurring between Jewish organizations and interfaith organizations including the Catholic diocese of Rochester. Among those who currently participate in the program, designed to raise awareness about the Holocaust that occurred during World War II, are Catholic Deacon Thomas Driscoll, Deacon Anthony Sciolino and Morris Wortman, M.D., an abortionist.
Wortman’s medical bio states, “Dr. Morris Wortman at The Center for Menstrual Disorders and Reproductive Choice offers services such as endomyometrial resection, GYN services, and pregnancy termination.”
Dr. Wortman’s “Holocaust Road” bio states that he is a child of Holocaust survivors and the coordinator of The Holocaust Study Group.
Dr. Wortman’s professional background shocked me into wondering how he could possibly be involved on one level with a project designed to remind America of the horror of the German Holocaust, while at the same time participating in the American holocaust, which has, by far, robbed many more innocent people of their lives.
I further wondered how representatives of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, could possibly justify collaborating on a project with a man known to the community, not only as the child of Holocaust survivors, but as a doctor who makes his living killing innocent babies prior to birth.
Today’s D&C has an article about yet another interfaith collaboration in the Rochester area. This latest one involved the presentation of a program called "The Two Thousand Year Road to the Holocaust." The presentation took place at Temple B’rith Kodesh in Brighton. There are several aspects of this presentation that bear examination.
First of all, the presentation was part of a series of talks that has been spearheaded by Morris Wortman, one of Rochester’s most prominent abortionists. Wortman is not exactly shy and retiring when it comes to his advocacy for abortion. He has come out publicly a number of times in support of taking the lives of the unborn. In fact, because he is such a notorious abortionist, there is a pro-life Rosary prayed every Friday in front of his clinic. His clinic is also the destination for the annual Good Friday Stations of the Cross in Reparation for Abortion.
What is especially galling about this latest interfaith gathering was the participation of two local Catholic deacons. Both Deacon Thomas Driscoll and Deacon Anthony Sciolino were presenters at this forum. Here is what Deacon Sciolino had to say about the event:
Something then went terribly wrong for Christianity during the Holocaust. And what resulted from the obvious disconnect between Christian belief and Christian behavior was the worst catastrophe in human history. Jews ponder the Holocaust and rightly ask: Where was God? Christians must to do the same and, in addition, ask: Where was the Church?
So, there you have it: an interfaith event, spearheaded by Rochester’s most prominent abortionist, at which one of the DOR’s deacons seems to blame Christianity and the Catholic Church for the Holocaust.
Many pro-life activists have characterized the taking of innocent life in the womb as the “abortion holocaust.” How unfortunate that these two deacons fail to see the irony of their collaboration with Dr. Wortman on this project.
Sadly, I agree with every word that Mr. Michael has written, but I also feel strongly that if Deacon Sciolino truly wants to understand the tragedy of the first Holocaust, he should become familiar with the full body of facts required to support a credible presentation. As a Catholic, it is hard for me to see how Sciolino could blame Christianity for anything at all when millions of Christians were murdered during the Nazi atrocities as well.
At the same time, it is in the paradox of the collaboration between the abortionist and the Catholic deacons that the answer to this unexplainable association occurs. Their joint project is designed to raise awareness about the ugliness of murdering innocent people while avoiding the obvious contradiction that is occurring in their midst.
Sciolino, by deferring attention away from Wortman’s everyday practice and focusing in on the disconnect between Christian belief and Christian behavior, probably feels comfortable working side by side with a man who perpetrates the very same crimes against innocents that he is exposing in a partnership focused on the German Holocaust. Perhaps this same therapy of denial provides a healing salve to the conscience of the abortionist who can look the other way when confronted with the reality of what he does every day as he begs America to learn from the lessons of history and remember those who died more than 50 years ago.
Obviously, there are deep-seated reasons why some do not want to compare the Holocaust of yesterday with the Holocaust of today.
“Strange bedfellows” indeed! If I had to ask questions about this Rochester, New York conundrum, it would be Bishop Matthew Clark, shepherd of the Catholics entrusted to his care, to whom I would go for answers. I would ask quite simply
Your Excellency,
How can it be that two of your ordained deacons are collaborating with an abortionist on a project dealing with the World War II Holocaust when the parallels between the German Holocaust and the American Holocaust are so vividly evident?
What good can be accomplished as long as a perpetrator of the current Holocaust is so publicly identified with your deacons?
What sort of a message does this send to the Catholics in your care, not to mention the entire community?
Sincerely awaiting your response, I am respectfully
Judie Brown, President
American Life League Inc.
Perhaps you have the same questions. Bishop Clark’s contact information is
Pastoral Center
Diocese of Rochester
1150 Buffalo Road
Rochester, New York 14624
As a parishioner who currently lives within the boundaries of the Rochester Diocese, I wish you the best of luck in eliciting a fair response from Bishop Clark. I'm sure you've done your research and know what a terrible, rebellious mess he has made of this diocese, and I'm sure it is no surprise that my family and I choose to travel 70 miles roundtrip each Sunday to attend Mass in the Buffalo Diocese rather than walk up the road from our house to attend in the town where we live.
If you receive a response from him, I would be most interested to hear about it, especially if he doesn't blow you off and make you seem like a crazy woman for suggesting a link between abortion and the Jewish holocaust.
All my best to you and your ministry!
Sincerely,
Amanda Amanda Cayouette | May 21, 2009
Dear Amanda
If we receive a response from Bishop Clark, rest assured we will publish it here. On the many occasions when we have written to him, his silence has been deafening.
I don't blame you one bit for travelling so far to attend a Mass at which you can feel the peace of Christ.
God be with you.
Judie Judie Brown | May 23, 2009
Judy, I lived in Rochester most of my life and Bishop Clark IS the problem. He allows these things to take place, and in some cases applauds (or spearheads) them. I believe the Vatican has even reprimanded him in the past for his actions. There is a huge Catholic population in Rochester, but I worry that many have been misled under the direction of Bishop Clark and his close supporters - which would explain this strange mesh of 'bed fellows.' And on top of it all, Wortman's office is just feet away from a Catholic high school. Thank you for giving this story the public attention it deserves. cara | May 26, 2009
Judie, your leap from asking where the church was during the Holocaust and saying that Deacon Sciolino blamed the "church" for the Holocaust is something you made up or is a delusion on your part. Deacon Sciolino did not say that!
Secondly Judie, during the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul XXIII had required inclusiveness and openness as a necessity to any meaningful dialogue. Please keep the Holocaust separate from Abortions it is not helpful and is not conducive to discussions of either cause for you confuse the two.
And finally it is just not true or delusional to conclude that to collaborate on the Holocaust means that one is collaborating on Abortion. Again that is utter fiction or a delusion on your part.
Please think rationally about the Holocaust and Abortions as two separate issues. For you to say one follows the other is pure fiction or a delusion. PLEASE WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT DEACON SCIOLINO SUPPORTS ABORTION. You can't because you created in your mind.
Do we need to have a serious dialogue with the doctor who performs abortions, yes! Can you jump from that to saying Deacon Sciolino supports abortion, no.
May Christ's peace be with you,
Diane Zemla, BSN, RN
Student of Theology & Ministry Diane Zemla | July 25, 2009
Dear Diane,
We don't make things up here at American Life League; we document each and every thing we report. I believe you should read this report at the REMNANT web site, which is one of many we have seen: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0630-alessio-news.htm
May i remind you that the Holocaust was a tragedy of enormous proportions, as millions of gypsies, Jews and Christians were murdered. But today in America, we have thusfar murdered more than 50 million citizens because they were living in the wombs of their mothers. There is a comparison, whether anyone likes it or not. INCLUSIVENESS does not preclude truth.
I recommend that you continue your studies and get all the facts before you challenge the veracity of my commentary. I do thank you for your remarks, but clearly do not agree with your conclusions.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | July 29, 2009
Julie,
May Christ's Peace Be With You! Diane Elizabeth | April 23, 2010
THE LESSONS OF NOTRE DAME Posted: Wednesday May 20, 2009 at 3:10 pm EST by Judie Brown
The events of this past weekend at the University of Notre Dame exposed the stark divisions within the Catholic Church as never before. A great deal of work needs to be done to restore the one true Church to its original design, as carefully provided by Christ Himself. To my mind, the best way to begin that effort is to understand what really happened on that campus, and I think Ralph McInerny has given us the most definitive explanation that I have seen.
McInerny is a writer of philosophy, fiction and cultural criticism. He has taught at Notre Dame since 1955. His commentary, released Monday and entitled “A House Divided,” exposes the true nature of the crisis that has existed within the Catholic Church for some years now.
A retrospective review is always good for those who wish to learn valuable lessons from painful experiences. This piece places the dramatic clash between holiness and worldliness in precisely the proper context. It is a privilege to reprint it here as a guest commentary with full attribution to the writer. American Life League is grateful to Professor McInerny for these profound words.
There were two commencement ceremonies at Notre Dame on Sunday. One was the media event in which alleged prestige trumped the truth that you cannot honor a man, president or not, whose policies are unabashedly pro-abortion without honoring abortion.
The other took place at the grotto and on the west mall, untelevised, in the shadow of Rockne Memorial, at which the Mass and prayers, principally the rosary, were offered in reparation for the administration’s unconscionable sleeping with the enemy. And speeches were made, most notably by Father Wilson Miscamble, CSC; Professor David Solomon, director of the [Notre Dame] Center for Ethics and Culture; Chris Godfrey; and Father John Raphael. The Orestes Brownson Society gave their Bishop D’Arcy award in absentia to Mary Ann Glendon.
Of course the administration has tried to call black white and portray its betrayal as somehow a statement of its largely muted pro-life outlook. The fallacious defenses on the part of a once stellar philosopher, Father John Jenkins, continued in his introduction of the president, exhibit how corruptive of clear thinking holding high office can be. Not since the local lands were wrested from the Indians has a white father spoken with such forked tongue.
It is the students who have stood tall, retained clarity of mind, and refused to accept that their Catholicism could be switched off in order to sup with the devil. Among those at the alternative commencement, the one in fundamental continuity with the noble tradition of a great Catholic university, were some graduating seniors.
It might be thought that it would require something far less momentous than this moral crisis to make absence from a commencement ceremony, even one’s own, unattractive. Nonetheless, most seniors, many with misgivings, attended the equivocal occasion under the dome of the Joyce Athletic and Convocation Center. There, smooth talk reigned and listeners were invited to view this shameful occasion as fulfilling the wishes of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. (In a later column, I will discuss the notion of "dialogue" that was invoked in the Joyce Center.) The senior class was divided by this unfortunate invitation; so was the university, so were the alumni and so were Catholics throughout the nation.
This division among Catholics has been widening for more than forty years. How did it come about that so many Catholics have such a mushy notion of what it means to be a Catholic? The teaching of the faith since the close of Vatican II in 1965 has been scandalously inadequate. In many cases it has been the deliberate substituting of stones for bread. It began with waffling on contraception when theologians, real or self-proclaimed, impudently rejected Humanae Vitae, one of the great encyclicals of modern times. The scandal of the encyclical was that it placed Catholics on one side of a line and the zeitgeist on the other. Yet dissent from it was allowed to flourish. Moral theology went into steep decline and the official body of Catholic theologians issued Human Sexual Morality in which doubt was cast on the long tradition of teaching on pre-marital and extra-marital sex, abortion, masturbation, homosexuality, divorce – a systematic dismantling of Catholic moral teaching.
All that is an old and oft-told story, still largely ignored officially. There grew up the notion that dissent from clear Church teaching was okay. With time, the difference between the moral teaching of dissenters and what was dismissively called "official" teaching blurred. Generations have been given a distorted notion of the faith. It is no wonder that Catholic politicians undertook to support policies in flat contradiction to what they purportedly believed privately. And so it was that on Sunday at Notre Dame faithful Catholics were regarded as dissenters. To such disfavor we have come.
If the Obama invitation has stirred such passionately prayerful reaction from an heroic band of students, from alumni and Catholics across the country, and – mirabile dictu – from more than seventy bishops, it may prove to have been providential, an opportunity for Catholics to recognize that their house is indeed divided.
Anathemas have been called for. Some long to have Notre Dame declared non-Catholic. Perhaps it will come to that, but the awakening of the laity, simple priests, a large number of the bishops, suggests that this is a possible epiphany. The sad fact is that people act contrary to the faith without realizing that that is what they are doing. A heretic chooses the opposite of the faith, but when in the present confusion as to what is in and what is out, heresy is not the appropriate word.
And so, on Sunday, surrounded by priests and all the panoply of Notre Dame, the smiling Caesar, thumb turned down on life, was engulfed in allegedly Catholic applause. Elsewhere on campus, faithful Catholics gathered and sent up prayers of reparation.
If you have not noticed my few emails from various websites that I hoped you would see, I will take this as an opportunity to let you know that what is contained in those emails is very serious and I would like my words to be recognized in some way. I have a question, now I don't know as much about theology as you clearly seem to so I would like to ask how can you claim that Catholicism is the one true church provided by Christ himself when Christ himself was a jew? Also I would like to point out that constantly referring to anybody that is not Catholic as the enemy or your opponent is not doing you or your church any good. It comes across as rude, arrogant, hateful, judgmental, uninviting, and not in the least bit humble. I expect that since you seem to know so much about who God is that you would realize that this is no way to bring others to Him. Please reply. Thank you for your time. Luke | May 20, 2009
Judi,
Thank you for having Dr. Ralph Mcinerny as your guest with his excellent comments.
One thing I pray, is the Notre Dame will continue as a Catholic Institution, by getting rid of those that are not Catholic.
You have asked we contact the proper authorities in Rome on the, matter of clerification regarding the abortions of the nine year old's twins, I have shared that request.
Wel I for one, since no one else is picking up on it intend to write the Holy Father every month with the same letter requesting those not really Catholic be not only removed from their positions as Father Charles Curren was, but they be unfrocked, as they should be. At the same time I will plead his inervention in restoring the falculties of the 1000 good priests in the country. THese men have had their faculties removed for no better reason than that they preached what Dr. McInerney iterated here. Some because they offer only the Extroidiary Form of the Mass.
I know the Church is not a democracy, but nether ist it to promote injustice. Patricia | May 21, 2009
Beautiful, beautiful commentary. Insightful, intelligent, truthful, and compassionate. I am proud of the students and faculty members who held their own kind of graduation ceremony. Thank you for sharing! cara | May 21, 2009
Dear Luke
The history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ, the Son of God and of Man. His human history and his divine history are part of the mystery of our faith for Christ is truly God and truly man.
I have never referred to anyone who is not Catholic as an enemy and have no clue where you got that idea. I do not think, Luke, that anyone knows with certainly all there is to know about God and we won't until we meet Him face to face in eternity. Let us pray for one another.
LIFE OF THE MOTHER OR LIES OF BIG BROTHER Posted: Tuesday May 19, 2009 at 1:51 pm EST by Judie Brown
The claims of our opponents always tend to mystify me because when put under the microscope of logic, they usually look very much like a fairy tale. Take for example the YouTube video that circulated last October when Colorado and South Dakota voters were getting ready to vote up or down on measures that, to say the least, would have caused big headaches for the abortion industry.
The title of the video is Anti-abortion measures can hurt ALL women. The point of the presentation is to reinforce their argument that if personhood were established for the preborn child, the expectant mother who was facing a problem with her pregnancy could die because the child would be deemed to have more rights than she had. And according to the narrator, Lynn Paltrow, this would include expectant mothers who actually wanted to carry their pregnancy to term.
The first case we hear about involves Amber Marlowe who, in 2004, was expecting her seventh baby. Amber, according to the news report on the Advocates for Pregnant Women web site, said no to an emergency Caesarean section.
After she said no to surgery, doctors spent hours trying to change her mind. When that didn't work, the hospital went to court, seeking an order to become her unborn baby's legal guardian. A judge ruled that the doctors could perform a "medically necessary" c-section against the mom's will, if she returned to that hospital. Meanwhile, she and her husband checked out against the doctors' advice and went to another hospital, where she later gave birth vaginally to a healthy 11-pound girl. "When I found out about the court order, I couldn't believe the hospital would do something like that. It was scary and very shocking," says Marlowe. "All this just because I didn't want a c-section."
Clearly, the problem she faced had nothing to do with personhood but everything to do with a hospital interfering with her rights as a patient.
The second case addressed in the video involved the 1987 case of Angela Carter, another expectant mother whose physicians sought a court order so that they could perform a Caesarean section against her wishes.
In Carter’s case she was suffering from terminal cancer but wanted to wait until her baby was at least 26 weeks gestational age before having the baby delivered because she knew that the baby’s survival rate would be much better. Her condition continued to worsen, and according to court transcripts
The court heard testimony on the facts as we have summarized them, and further testimony that at twenty-six and a half weeks the fetus was viable, i.e., capable of sustained life outside of the mother, given artificial aid. A neonatologist testified that the chances of survival for a twenty-six-week fetus delivered at the hospital might be as high as eighty percent, but that this particular fetus, because of the mother's medical history, had only a fifty to sixty percent chance of survival. Dr. Edwards estimated that the risk of substantial impairment for the fetus, if it were delivered promptly, would be less than twenty percent. However, she noted that the fetus' condition was worsening appreciably at a rapid rate, and another doctor-an obstetrician who was one of Ms. Carter's treating physicians-stated that any delay in delivering the child by [C]aesarean section lessened its chances of survival.
The court subsequently authorized the doctors to perform the Caesarean section and both mother and baby died. This case was extremely complicated due to the fact that Carter chose to ingest a palliative (pain killing) drug even though she knew it might endanger her preborn child.
At issue in this case are complex medical ethics questions about whether or not physicians should take action to save at least one of their patients. However, the personhood of the preborn would not have altered what we know in this case, so why is it being used to argue against personhood? Creating fear in the minds of those who listen would be my guess.
The third case dealt with in the video involves Laura Pemberton. This 1996 story was strange, but it seems to epitomize the notion that doctors always know better than the patient. This has nothing to do with pitting one life against another, nor does it have anything to do with abortion. This was a procedural matter dealing with doctors' opinions regarding the right course of action being imposed upon a patient, regardless of whether the patient wanted treatment or not. This sort of thing happens in cancer cases and many other serious illnesses and conditions, regardless of whether we are dealing with one life or two. The personhood of the baby is tangential to the bigger problem, which is being ignored.
When one reads the detailed account of Pemberton’s tragic experience, and how she went on, after moving away from Florida, to deliver four more healthy babies, it is clear that again what is going on with this case is medical practice run amuck!
Finally, there is the 2004 case of Melissa Rowland who was charged first with child endangerment, and then with murder because she was carrying twins, refused a Caesarean section, and subsequently delivered one dead baby and one living baby. The twin that was born alive had alcohol and cocaine in her system, as did Ms. Rowland. Furthermore, rumors stated that Rowland refused surgery because she didn't want to be cut, and stated that she didn't care if her preborn babies lived or died. It's interesting what you find when you put everything in context. It is also interesting that the murder charges against Rowland were subsequently dropped.
We don’t see a connection, whether discussing Marlowe, Carter, Pemberton or Rowland between the human rights of a preborn child and the current alleged right of an expectant mother to pay someone to murder her baby by abortion. What we do see in these four cases are serious medical ethics questions that have not just come about in the past couple of years, but have been confronting expectant moms for a very long time. These cases are not about personhood or abortion; they are about bad ethics within the medical establishment, pure and simple.
Lynn Paltrow, PhD, who is the President of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, and is the producer of the YouTube video in question, is totally dedicated to abortion as one of those many rights she thinks women need to have. Paltrow has had previous experience with the ACLU, Planned Parenthood of New York, the Center for Reproductive Law and is a current commentator for the Huffington Post among other leftist web sites.
Paltrow wrote, when encouraging voters to view her production
As the abortion issue takes center stage and we count down to Election Day, NAPW has produced a video about the proposed measures in Colorado and South Dakota supporting "fetal rights" – laws which assert the unborn has separate and greater rights than pregnant women – and how they are being used to punish and hurt all pregnant women, including those going to term.
Note, please, that she goes so far as to deceive the public into thinking that personhood would somehow endow the preborn with rights “greater” than those of their mothers, rights which in her view, give her free license to distort and misrepresent medical ethics abuses in the practice of obstetrics and gynecology in order to further her pro-abortion agenda.
No wonder Americans are getting wise to these deceivers. It’s about time!
These two cases really don't have anything to do with the other. They aren't even about abortion, so what are they trying to say?
Chantell Chantell | May 19, 2009
Judi,
That is why for illlness and such I let the M.D. diagnose, but I seek alternitive medicine with ny nutrition councilor. Chropractor who uses homeopath. Patricia | May 20, 2009
Chantell
Those who support abortion always reach for straws and create hysteria based on a fabrication of their vision of what the facts are. The reason Paltrow used each of these four cases was to frighten women into believing that if a personhood amendment passed, a woman's life would be diminished in value and the preborn child's life would be of great value. Ridiculous, of course, but so is everything the pro-abortion movement stands for.
Pro-Life Story: pro-life for sure! Posted By Samantha Rozzell on Jan, 25 2007 My mom is a single mother and I have been raised by her since the day I was born. My mom's boyfriend walked out on her the minute he found out that she was pregent. I was about 12 ... Read
