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!
PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS ALL ABOUT SEX Posted: Monday June 22, 2009 at 7:29 pm EST by Judie Brown
The International Planned Parenthood Federation has just released a document that espouses a right to sexual pleasure. I have asked Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League, who has been fighting Planned Parenthood for over 25 years, to comment on this document as today’s guest commentator. Here is what Jim had to say:
In talks around the world over the last 25 years, I have always emphasized that Margaret Sanger's founding of Planned Parenthood was based on three underlying philosophies: uninhibited sexual activity to achieve unlimited sexual pleasure; birth control, including abortion, to achieve universal small family size; and eugenics to achieve a human race devoid of any dysgenic stock.
In recent weeks, an event took place that was clearly calculated to advance the first of these above-listed philosophies, thus revealing that it is very much alive and well in Planned Parenthood today.
That event is the International Planned Parenthood Federation's release of a document the news media is referring to as “the world's first declaration of sexual rights.” Specifically, the Inter Press Service reported the following on June 10, 2009:
In an effort to promote the free enjoyment of human sexuality, separate from reproduction, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) launched the world's first declaration of sexual rights in the Argentine capital on Wednesday.
"We want states to commit themselves to protecting these rights, and for the United Nations to adopt them in future meetings," Carmen Barroso, IPPF regional director for the Western hemisphere, told IPS.
"Sexual Rights: An IPPF Declaration," the result of two years' work by a multi-disciplinary team, proposes that "sexuality is an essential part of our humanity," and that its free expression "is a component of human rights." The Declaration espouses "the entitlement to experience and enjoy sexuality independent of reproduction."
So, here you have Planned Parenthood clearly stating what we have known to be its intent since its beginning: that the act of sex, in and of itself, without regard for its procreative powers, should be recognized as a “right to pleasure.” IPPF elaborates on this in its 29-page document, Sexual rights: an IPPF declaration, when it states in Principle 4,
Sexuality is not merely a vehicle for individuals to satisfy their reproductive interests. The entitlement to experience and enjoy sexuality independent of reproduction, and reproduction independent of sexuality should be safeguarded, paying particular attention to those who, historically and in the present, are denied such an entitlement.
All persons are entitled to the conditions that enable the pursuit of a pleasurable sexuality. Pleasure is based on individual and relational autonomy, for which the existence of public policies on sexuality education, health services, freedom from coercion and violence, as well as the development of a field of ethics on issues of justice, equality and liberty must be ensured. Given that pleasure is an intrinsic aspect of sexuality, the right to seek, express and determine when to experience it must not be denied to anyone.
It is clear, then, that Planned Parenthood believes that due to the stage it has reached in its own development and the world's current moral climate, the time is right to brazenly proclaim this “right” to sexual pleasure as a goal for everyone. Of course, in typical fashion, Planned Parenthood doesn’t see these rights as being just for mature adults. The IPS article quoted above also contains the following:
[IPPF’s] Barroso, an expert on sexual and reproductive health, said human rights in general gained ground in the mid-20th century, and expanded in the 1990s with the recognition of children's rights. In the mid-1990s, the U.N. affirmed reproductive rights, "but sexuality was tagged on as an afterthought," she said.
"People talked about sexual and reproductive rights, but in fact they meant reproductive rights only," she said. In 1995 at the World Conference on Women in Beijing, sexual rights were introduced in the negative, as "women's right not to suffer harm, violence or coercion" in sexual intercourse, she said.
"It was a step forward, but no one talked about the positive right to sexual pleasure, which is only now beginning to be discussed," she said. "That's why the IPPF is offering this Declaration as a tool for progress toward a specific concept of sexual rights."
The Declaration also recognises the sexual rights of persons under 18, who need individual protection based on the idea of their "evolving capacity to exercise rights on their own behalf." According to this idea, parental authority eases off as young people progressively gain in decision-making autonomy.
In addition, the Declaration says that "all persons are entitled to the pursuit of a pleasurable sexuality."
In this document, Planned Parenthood takes the position that young children have the so-called right to sexual pleasure when it says this:
IPPF understands that the rights and protections guaranteed to people under age eighteen, as a matter of international and national law, sometimes differ from the rights of adults. These differences relate to all aspects of human rights but require particular approaches in regard to sexual rights. IPPF begins from the premise that persons under eighteen are rights holders, and that at different points within the spectrum of infancy, childhood, and adolescence, certain rights and protections will have greater or lesser relevance.
Under Article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is stated that the direction and guidance provided by parents or others with responsibility for the child must take into account the capacities of the child to exercise rights on his or her own behalf. The concept of evolving capacity of children requires a balance between recognizing children as active agents in their own lives entitled to be respected as citizens, as people and as rights-bearers with increasing autonomy, while also being entitled to protection in accordance with their vulnerability.
The concept recognizes that the levels of protection from participation in activities likely to cause children harm will diminish in accordance with their evolving capacity. In addition, the principle of evolving capacity combines respect for children, their dignity and entitlement to protection from all forms of harm, while also acknowledging the value of their own contribution towards their protection. Societies must create environments in which children can achieve their optimal capacities and where greater respect is given to their potential for participation in, and responsibility for, decision-making in their own lives.
Several key principles govern the interrelationship between children’s rights and other interests. Among these are: the view of persons under 18 as rights holders; the best interests of the child; the evolving capacities of the child; non-discrimination; and the responsibility for ensuring conditions for thriving. In the context of sexual rights, these principles require an individualized approach, informed by demonstration of maturity and consideration of particular circumstances, such as the specific child or adolescent’s understanding, activities, physical or mental health status, relationship with parents or other interested parties, the power relations among those involved, and the nature of the issue at hand.
The key to understanding all this bureaucrat-speak is the last sentence. Let’s restate that line and add some emphasis in the form of underlining:
In the context of sexual rights, these principles require an individualized approach, informed by demonstration of maturity and consideration of particular circumstances, such as the specific child or adolescent’s understanding, activities, physical or mental health status, relationship with parents or other interested parties, the power relations among those involved, and the nature of the issue at hand.
What this means is that your child will not be safe from this ideology. For example, if Planned Parenthood can convince a judge that your child is mature and that the child is being stifled because of the Christian morality you are attempting to impose on his or her life, then the judge can declare your child to be emancipated in the area of attaining sexual pleasure. It means that that once the attainment of sexual pleasure is declared a right, you will be helpless to enforce any rules restricting your minor child’s sexual activity.
Perhaps a final quote from the main IPPF document will drive this point home. Planned Parenthood says,
All persons have the right to be recognized before the law and to sexual freedom, which encompasses the opportunity for individuals to have control and decide freely on matters related to sexuality, to choose their sexual partners, to seek to experience their full sexual potential and pleasure, within a framework of nondiscrimination and with due regard to the rights of others and to the evolving capacity of children.
With this latest document, Planned Parenthood has declared war on our children and on traditional God-given morality. It is doing everything it can to get government approval for leading our children into lives of sexual sin. We must recognize this for what it is: an all-out effort to steal the souls of our children and lead them into lifestyles that will end with an eternity in hell.
I am amazed by your sense of entitlement regarding having your fringe beliefs regarding sexual morality enforced by the rule of law. Society has the right to expand its definition of human rights, with or without your permission.
The IPPF document is forward-thinking and progressive. Even if the document becomes an UN Convention, it would not be ratified by the US any time soon. As you mentioned the US government, being the embarrassment that it is, still has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This convention will be ratified long before the US ratifies a sex-positive convention.
I don't understand what you are so worked up about. Perhaps you are venting frustration that you overlooked the issue when it was reported last November: http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.886/pub_detail.asp
Your penchant for hyperbole never ceases to entertain. For example, if religious entities were to be proscribed from interference with sexual rights, this would amount to "requiring churches to support PP???s agenda" in your mind. I have news for you: non-interference does not equate to support. I do not interfere with anti-abortion protesters; this does not mean I support them. Arium | June 25, 2009
Dear Arium,
Thank you for your comments on Jim's commentary. Sadly, you have missed the point in the debate, which is quite simply that Planned Parenthood's agenda, which has been supported by the federal government for nearly 50 years, continues to fail, and a new approach is required.
It's time for the federal government to stop supporting godless programs like those espoused by Planned Parenthood and IPPF.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | June 26, 2009
I wonder if these people know how completely stupid, arrogant, and uneducated they sound! Here they are again trying to push their "beliefs" on people again! elisabeth | June 26, 2009
So the points of the commentary were not "We dare not be silent," access to contraception will condemn our children to hell, etc. These sure seemed to me to be the points.
The point was actually that Planned Parenthood has failed in carrying out Sedlak's disingenuous strawman characterization of PP's "underlying philosophies." Color me surprised.
In the mean time, PPFA (I don't know much about IPPF) has helped couples to prevent millions of unwanted pregnancies in the U.S. many of which would have otherwise ended in abortion. Yet to you PPFA continues to fail. Arium | June 28, 2009
Dear Arium
Mr. Sedlak's statements regarding the history of Planned Parenthood are all one hundred percent true, verifiable in texts that are not published by any ideological group within the pro-life movement and reflect a tragic situation that has poisoned the minds of young people for years.
Planned Parenthood "helps" avoid so-called unwanted pregnancies (your term, not ours) by deceiving women into believing that their birth control pills will not kill babies. One lie stacked upon another lie and then another and there you have the deception foisted upon the poor in the third world, and upon Americans who choose sexual freedom over the freedom to imitate Christ.
IS ANYONE REALLY PRO-ABORTION? Posted: Monday June 22, 2009 at 12:03 pm EST by Judie Brown
The guest commentary today was written by Dr. Donald DeMarco and was originally published in American Life League's bimonthly magazine, Celebrate Life (March-April 2009). Dr. DeMarco is professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, and an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut as well as Mater Ecclesiae College in Greenville, Rhode Island. He is also the author of 22 books and a corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
In his final debate with Senator McCain, Barack Obama declared, in his usual emphatic manner, “No one is pro-abortion.” Obama has an idealized notion of human beings (Republicans excepted), while perhaps feigning ignorance of what is really going on. Behind Obama’s declaration is the seemingly plausible hypothesis that no woman would ever get pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion. The grim facts, nevertheless, refute this hypothesis.
Aborting for bonus money
Consider the current situation in Australia. In an attempt to reverse the country’s plummeting birthrate, the government of Australia pays women $5,000 for each successful birth, as reported by LifeSiteNews.com (October 23, 2008). It also awards that same amount, on “compassionate” grounds, in the case of a stillbirth. However, since late-term abortions are registered as stillbirths, a woman choosing an abortion at this time in her pregnancy is also eligible for the $5,000. As a result, according to the Australia Associated Press, some women routinely conceive for the purpose of aborting late-term in order to collect the bonus money. One woman is reported to have had three such abortions.
‘Beautiful’ abortion
The Australian example is by no means unique. On February 1, 2002, LifeSiteNews.com reported that some female athletes were deliberately getting pregnant and having early abortions in order to improve muscle strength. In “The Choices,” an article appearing in the January/February 1994 issue of Mother Jones, a writer identifying herself as “D. Redman” confesses that she felt “almost heroic” after obtaining a chemical abortion because the procedure was then experimental and thus made her a pioneer for other women. “At last,” she writes, “the blood I’ve been praying for. I look at the women around me and think how beautiful we are in our rebellion…”
Abortion as religion, art and entertainment
Also consider Ginette Paris’ book, The Sacrament of Abortion, in which, from a purely pagan perspective, she describes abortion as sacred. Similarly, Brenda Peterson, writing for New Age Journal (“Sister Against Sister: Re-Thinking Abortion Rhetoric,” September/October 1993) refers to abortion as a “sacrament” and a “sacred act of compassion.”
Cold and callous indifference for unborn human life may have reached its absolute zero in the “art” project of Yale University student Aliza Shvarts. On April 17, 2008, the Yale Daily News reported that Ms. Shvarts claimed to have artificially inseminated herself over a nine-month period “as often as possible” and then induced miscarriages by means of herbal abortifacient pills. The filmed record of her activities (we cannot be too specific here) constitutes her senior thesis presentation. The April 18, 2008 Yale Daily News reported that the Yale Women’s Center defended Shvarts, stating, “Aliza Shvarts’ body is an instrument over which she should be free to exercise full discretion.”
The New York Times (November 10, 1985) reported that two abortions were committed on women at a feminist conference in Barcelona, Spain. When the bottled remains of the babies were presented to the audience of 3,000 feminists, according to Times reporter Edward Schumacher, “The hall rocked with cheers.”
Indeed, there are women who are truly pro-abortion in the sense of getting pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion. They do it for money, to gain a competitive edge, because they think it is a sacrament or a sacred act, for art’s sake or for the feminist cause.
A spreading plague
Abortion has radically dehumanized and devalued preborn babies. It has engendered attitudes of cold-heartedness, narcissism and violence. Who knows how far this contagion will continue to spread, how many people it will affect and in how many ways? Abortion is an evil, and it is the nature of evil to spread until it is checked. It is an unleashing of death that spreads like a plague throughout society in increasingly sinister ways. Abortion is a choice for death, and its long shadow haunts all of us.
In his 1968 novel, Couples, John Updike was being more prophetic than he realized when he noted the after-effects of abortion: “Death, once invited in, leaves his muddy boot prints everywhere.” Commenting on this episode in the novel, in which a character procures an abortion, constitutional lawyer John T. Noonan, Jr. writes, “Symbolically the abortion seals a course of infidelity. Conclusively it becomes death personified.” (How to Argue About Abortion, published by the Ad Hoc Committee in Defense of Life, 1974)
There is no middle ground between birth and abortion. The proper response to abortion is not to seek a middle ground that does not exist, but to end abortion and, in so doing, end the evils that follow in its wake.
I think you are using a few crazy examples to try to make a point. I understand where you are coming from and what you think is true. Elsewhere in your website you have this text disputing pro life violence and I quote: "Unfortunately, a small handful of people have taken the law into their own hands. All reputable pro-life groups, including American Life League, unequivocally reject violence as a means of achieving the goal of eliminating abortion. Pro-life people have also been the victims of violence, but such events are rarely reported by the mainstream media."
I use the same logic for this post. Unfortunately if these examples you give are true then a small handful of people are abusing a legal medical operation. Myself and a lot of pro-choice people "unequivocally reject" anyone who thinks the cases you state in your post are a normal ways of thinking. From my point of view you are being a hypocrite by choosing a few rare abuses to try to make a argument. Lawrence | June 22, 2009
Dear Lawrence.
Logically and ethically, there is no reason or defense for the position that acting to take the life of an innocent preborn child is to be equated with a "legal medical operation." While it is true that the Supreme Court redefined abortion as a decision between a "woman and her doctor," it is obviously true that if this woman were not an expectant mother, she would not be seeking an abortion. The abortion she is seeking will kill her child, and that, my friend, is an act of murder.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | June 26, 2009
I can not believe what I'm reading! How can a mother carry a child and the abort it for any amount of money? Women can abort just to get better muscles? Where do we draw the line? Something has to be done! How can people praise this horrible act of murder? elisabeth | June 26, 2009
BOSTON’S HOUR OF ACCOUNTABILITY DRAWS NEAR Posted: Monday June 15, 2009 at 4:40 pm EST by Judie Brown
The furor over the July 1 deadline facing Sean Cardinal O’Malley, of the Archdiocese of Boston, has been newsworthy for many weeks. Meanwhile, however, the clock is ticking and the fear is that Caritas Christi’s agreement with CeltiCare will go into effect with nary a whimper from the decision makers at the chancery. That would indeed be a tragedy of no small proportions.
While Catholics and pro-lifers around the country await a definitive statement from the Archdiocese of Boston indicating that it will not participate in or facilitate abortions or other procedures contrary to Catholic teaching, Cardinal O’Malley’s latest statement raises even more questions.
The archdiocese has acknowledged that an agreement has been reached with Celtic Group, Inc. – a subsidiary of St. Louis-based Centene Corporation – for a joint healthcare venture. We know that CeltiCare includes abortion and “family planning services” in its coverage and has promised to continue this policy after July 1.
The archdiocese’s statement also acknowledged that the agreement requires modification. This is a positive step, but certainly not acceptable as a final answer.
What is disconcerting is that Cardinal O’Malley and the Boston archdiocese have thus far failed to clearly explain how abortion and “family planning services” will not occur in Catholic healthcare facilities. The terms of CeltiCare’s contract with the state government specifically require coverage for abortions and other “reproductive health” services. How then could Caritas Christi – which owns 49 percent of the for-profit CeltiCare – justify its involvement and direct connection with this business while adhering to the Catholic Church’s unequivocal teachings on abortion, contraception and sterilization?
Even if patients seeking abortions or contraception will be outsourced to a third-party referral service, this does not remove the archdiocese’s culpability for involvement in procedures that violate the Church’s fundamental moral teachings.
Most concerning of all is the following quote from Mr. Ralph de la Torre, president of Caritas Christi: ‘When a patient seeks such a procedure, Caritas health care professionals will be clear that (a) the hospital does not perform them and (b) the patient must turn to his or her insurance for further guidance’ [emphasis added].
Boston Catholic commentator Carol McKinley responded well to this statement: When the patient “turns to his or her insurance company,” they are “turning” to the “HMO” [of] which the Cardinal and Caritas are co-owners, [CeltiCare]. Therefore, the Cardinal and Caritas are providing these services…
With the exception of removing family planning, abortion, sterilization, embryonic stem cell research and other moral evils covered under the HMO the Cardinal has an ownership interest in, there is no conceivable modification to the arrangement that could ever be in compliance with Catholic moral teaching.
Incrementally separating the Boston archdiocese from committing an abortion or from the provision of contraception, sterilization and other such ‘services’ does not negate the fact that, through this agreement, Catholic hospitals will ultimately be referring mothers to abortion and/or contraception facilities such as Planned Parenthood, if the deal between Caritas Christi and CeltiCare remains as it is now written.
Cardinal O’Malley can stop this today with one word. We beg Cardinal O’Malley and the Boston archdiocese to prevent yet another scandal by providing a clear defense of Catholic moral teaching, rather than a pact driven far more by financial interests than fidelity to the Catholic faith.
Further, McKinley, who is no stranger to controversy or making sure all the facts add up, wrote this last Saturday:
Can a Catholic Cardinal bid on a contract that includes performing abortions, give written assurances they will either perform them or contract with people outside of their network to perform them, create an entity to send the women to the abortionists and take 49% ownership in that entity who then hires subcontractors to perform abortions, hires bilingual phone operators who will give the woman the number of the abortionists they've subcontracted, tell their employees at the hospital to give the number out of their 49% owned corporation?
What level of ownership interest can they take in the set up that would make the arrangement consistent with the Gospel of Life and Catholic theology?
After they have set this all up, can they then submit a revision of a partnership agreement to reduce their interests to 3% ownership in the arrangement?
1% ownership in the arrangement?
After you bid on a contract that compels you to promise to perform abortions and you promise in writing to perform them - what is the structure in a corporation that the Cardinal can claim his arrangement meets compliance with Catholic ethics?
When the Cardinal placed members of NARAL as his Advisory Board Members in his new business venture, what kind of advice to you suppose he is seeking? What are the ramifications of such advice?
McKinley and the majority of those concerned about this grave situation in the Boston archdiocese have asked how, in God’s name, this agreement with the secular corporate structure of CeltiCare could possibly concur with the teachings of the Catholic Church, as set forth in Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae. Try as we might, we cannot find a statement in either encyclical letter that justifies accepting a little bit of evil in exchange for an allegedly greater good. As a matter of fact, Pope John Paul II taught,
The moral conscience, both individual and social, is today subjected, also as a result of the penetrating influence of the media, to an extremely serious and mortal danger: that of confusion between good and evil, precisely in relation to the fundamental right to life.
The condition the Holy Father described is so evident in so many corners of the culture today that we have to ask ourselves if perhaps, in his quest to aid the poor and needy in his archdiocese, the cardinal and his advisors felt pressured into making this deal for altruistic reasons. Perhaps they feel compelled to act without seriously considering the questions we and so many others have raised. While serving the poor is indeed a noble goal, this plan’s consequences are so serious that we have adamantly called for a reexamination of the agreement and dissolution of the contract before July 1.
Phil Lawler, a well-known Catholic commentator and reporter, examined the matter and wrote,
While pro-life activists in Boston have pleaded for Caritas Christi to withdraw from the CeltiCare initiative, abortion advocates have also been watching the situation closely and demanding reassurance that the new state-funded agency will impose no restrictions on access to abortion. The efforts of abortion advocates-- unlike those of pro-life activists-- have been successful. The Boston Globe reported:
Brian Delaney, a spokesman for CeltiCare, said an abortion rights group, NARAL Pro-Choice of Massachusetts, will serve on an advisory group for the health plan but he did not know whether any Catholic groups would be on the panel.
Boston archdiocesan officials have stressed that no abortions will be performed at the hospitals of the Caritas Christi chain. That claim is not in dispute. The question is whether Caritas Christi, through its partnership in CelticCare, will provide-- and perhaps even profit from-- abortions performed at other facilities. CeltiCare advertisements indicate that Planned Parenthood will be enlisted to provide "reproductive services."
The bottom line is that NARAL and Planned Parenthood’s involvement is the proverbial straw that has finally broken the camel’s back and thus the Archdiocese of Boston is officially ending the charade. But, as of this moment, neither the word “abortion” nor the abortion cartel’s involvement have been mentioned in a single archdiocesan document or statement. How can that be?
What is it going to take for the Archdiocese of Boston’s officials to take definitive action? Please keep them in your prayers and continue to communicate your concerns to them. The clock is ticking; the hour is late; the Boston Massacre of 2009 could be just around the corner ...
CONTACT:
Cardinal Sean O’Malley, OFM, Cap.
Cardinal Archbishop of Boston
Office of the Cardinal
66 Brooks Drive
Braintree, MA 02184-3839
617-782-2544
THE WAGES PAID TO THE CULTURE OF VIOLENCE Posted: Friday June 12, 2009 at 11:42 am EST by Judie Brown
A friend reminded me of some rather startling numbers that I would like to share with you. According to a 2002 report, one man was fined $2,500 for taking paddlefish eggs out of the state of Oklahoma. In addition to the fine, the individual could have spent 450 days in jail for smuggling the eggs.
Felony violations involving the destruction of various endangered species and their eggs, according to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act can amount to as much as $250,000 in fees for individuals and $500,000 for corporations and up to six months in prison.
A violation of the Eagle Act can result in a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment of up to one year. Penalties for subsequent offenses are significantly higher.
In all three of the examples provided, we are talking about laws that are on the books in our nation and are designed to protect the rights of wildlife including those belonging to endangered species. These are, I hasten to point out, not considered crimes against human beings, but rather crimes against various types of birds and animals.
Now compare these fines with those leveled against individuals who kill children who reside in the womb, in a Petri dish, or are newly conceived and on their way to implanting themselves. Regardless of which category of preborn child you consider, there are no fines and there is no jail time to be served when one of them is killed.
If this doesn’t make sense to you, then we are on the same page. But the point I want to make in this regard is far more serious than merely the incongruity of our laws when it comes to protecting wildlife versus protecting innocent human beings. What we have in America right now is a legal system that places more value on a bird’s egg or a fish’s egg, than on a human being’s life. Because of this disconnect with logic and common sense, very bad things happen, and they are happening in our communities on a daily basis.
Take the case of the child found in a dumpster in Las Vegas on Wednesday of this week. “Investigators think the child was between the age of 18 months and [two] years old. The coroner says the baby's death is the result of a homicide.” In other words, this child was brutally murdered by someone. At this time, “Detectives want to question 20-year-old Darrean Williams and 37-year-old William Marshall. Police believe Williams is the mother of the child and Marshall is her boyfriend.”
Consider the case of the five Arizona police officers who are currently on paid leave because a criminal probe is being conducted following the flushing of a preborn child down a toilet. Yes, that’s right.
Four officers responded to a call of a possible miscarriage Monday at the Motel 6 in Mesa where they arrested a man on suspicion of drug-related offenses and discovered a woman in the room apparently had miscarried a [four]-inch fetus that was an estimated 12 to 14 weeks old, according to [Police Chief] Gascón.
Although both Mesa fire and police were present in the motel room, Lt. Lynn Young told the officers and fire personnel over the phone not to take the fetus but to flush it down the toilet, according to Gascón.
Since this child was, according to our laws, not considered to be a full-fledged person, will the policemen go on about their daily lives as if nothing had happened? Will any charges be recommended in this case? Nobody knows at this point. The question in my mind is whether or not the public will want to know what would have possessed anyone to tell the officers to flush a preborn human being down the toilet rather than give him a proper burial. My guess is nobody will care!
Finally there’s the case of Arnold Ross, a Louisiana teen charged with rape and the murder of an infant. The report explains that Ross is suspected of having raped the eight-month-old baby boy Da-Von Lonzo and then beating the baby to death. The investigation in this case is ongoing, but as Mary Ann Kreitzer, founder of Les Femmes – The Truth, so aptly observed in her blog when she wrote about this tragic case:
The comments following the story express horror over what happened to this poor little baby. But I imagine some of the same individuals calling for the blood of the killer would describe themselves as pro-choice and excuse a similar crime provided the baby was murdered nine months earlier at eight months in utero.
That's what George Tiller did every day: injected saline solution to scald babies and burn off their skin, stabbed them in the neck and sucked out their brains, thrust a needle full of digoxin into their hearts to stop its [sic] beating – his methods changed over the years, but all guaranteed delivery of a battered and dead baby. Yet Tiller is a hero to the pro-abortion mob while Ross, no doubt, they would consider a monster. Tiller didn't rape the babies; he performed a mechanical rape on their mothers using sterile instruments to violate the sanctuary of the uterus. But he, we are told, was a brave man wielding his murderous instruments against the little ones. He was eulogized at his funeral as a "passionate and generous man who repeatedly overcame difficult challenges." A friend described him as "Mr. Enthusiasm," which was certainly true of his attitude toward killing children.
Well, Mr. Enthusiasm, meet your philosophical twin, Arnold Ross, a young man raised in a culture that allows the dismembering of near term babies in utero. He never knew a time that pornography wasn't rampant, fornication wasn't encouraged, and child killing wasn't legal. He grew up in an age where liberal policies destroyed the black family driving fathers from the home, encouraging mothers to replace them with Uncle Sugar and his welfare checks.
How can anyone be surprised when the young treat life as cheap and expendable? They've learned the lessons of the culture too well, perhaps. One can do whatever he likes and eliminate the consequences. The young find out too late that some killing is more equal than others.
There's precious little difference between little Da-Von Lonzo and the babies killed at Tiller's abortuary – about ten pounds, in fact. But Tiller performed respectable murders that left him awash in money that he shared with liberal politicians. His politically correct killing filled Kathleen Sebelius' campaign chest and those of other liberal politicians. As the Bible says, "Love of money is the root of all evils" and it can buy a lot of approval from those who lust after it.
As for me, I can't see much difference between George Tiller, mass child killer, and Arnold Ross, killer of one. They were philosophical twins. The pro-abortion "martyr" and the child abusing "monster" had more in common than our society is likely to admit.
Kreitzer has hit the nail on the head. And while, at this moment, we do not know what sort of sentence will be handed down in the case involving 17-year-old Arnold Ross, we do know that Da-Von is dead.
And we also know that whether it is the Ross case, or the Mesa Arizona police case or the Las Vegas dumpster case, the bottom line is that we are living in a culture of violence. For more than 36 years, America has denied that aborting a child prior to birth is the moral equivalent of murder; in fact many have glorified abortion as a human right and charged those who know otherwise with disrespectful, dishonest allegations such as fanaticism, terrorism and anti-feminism. But the results of this disconnect between the price one has to pay for stealing a duck egg and the price one has to pay for killing a preborn child are all around us.
It’s time America woke up and saw the brutality that is spawned on a daily basis by America’s violent culture; a culture dedicated to denial, betrayal and sexual saturation. We are paying the price daily in human lives tossed on the trash heap of our inability to face reality.
An excellent letter to our local editor, which I want to share.
The propaganda war chest of the abortion rights crowd is stuffed with many refined irrationalities, emotionalisms and sentimentalities, all posing as high moral principles. This is understandable, for much babbling is needed to detract attention from the ever-increasing number of victims of their movement, living and dead.
For example, consider the baseless assertion that a person must be pacifist in regard to war, opposed to all incidences of capital punishment, and committed to every social welfare program under the sun, in order to be concerned about the right to life of the unborn without being guilty of hypocrisy.
Such an absurd statement hardly deserves a response. For the very opposite is actually the truth. There is no logical or ethical justification for protecting the guilty while ignoring the destruction of the innocent!
Just war, capital punishment and social responsibility for the disenfranchised are all subjects of ongoing debate in the pro-life community. But they are being debated in the context of proper sentiment ??? i.e., the sanctity of each human life from conception to natural death. It is possible to make a reasonable case for differing positions on these tangential issues from that fundamental ideal.
Absent this foundational principle, however, it is only irrational sentimentality that seeks to extend every protection and consideration to the criminals and terrorists and warmongers of the world, while at the same time allowing ??? or worse, promoting ??? the treatment of the most innocent and helpless of the human family with gross brutality.
Dennis W. Dillard
Hanna City David Volk | June 14, 2009
Judie,
I know that you like to use the term preborn and most of the time I think it is appropriate. However, in the above article, the fetus (aka baby) was actually born (very prematurely) so couldn't you say that the woman miscarried a baby and the tiny baby was flushed?
Laura Laura Gidley-Feltz | June 15, 2009
The four Catholic hospitals in the State of Connecticut remain committed to providing competent and compassionate care to victims of rape. In accordance with Catholic moral teaching, these hospitals provide emergency contraception after appropriate testing. Under the existing hospital protocols, this includes a pregnancy test and an ovulation test. Catholic moral teaching is adamantly opposed to abortion, but not to emergency contraception for victims of rape.
This past spring the Governor signed into a law “An Act Concerning Compassionate Care for Victims of Sexual Assault,” passed by the State Legislature. It does not allow medical professionals to take into account the results of the ovulation test. The Bishops and other Catholic health care leaders believe that this law is seriously flawed, but not sufficiently to bar compliance with it at the present time. We continue to believe this law should be changed.
At the time, the CCC argued that the Catholic Church’s magisterium “has not definitively resolved this matter and since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work, the Catholic Bishops of Connecticut have stated that Catholic hospitals in the State may follow protocols that do not require an ovulation test in the treatment of victims of rape.”
In the aftermath of the CCC decision, American Life League, Human Life International and noted moral theologian Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner agreed that the CCC decision was fraught with error. All to no avail.
As Fr. Fehlner pointed out at the time, "The fact is, if we have any doubt about whether a given action would directly risk someone's life, entail a violation of justice or threaten the salvation of a soul, we may not act on the basis of a scientific probability. That means even if the pill in Plan B is only 'dubiously' abortive, we simply may not use it at all."
We understood that the Connecticut state law mandated that the abortive drug be provided, but we also encouraged the bishops of Connecticut to stand their ground and argue that their hospitals had every right under the law not to participate in any action that was contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. The pleas we and many others made had literally no effect. Bridgeport Bishop William Lori wrote in 2007 regarding Catholic hospitals’ administration of Plan B to rape victims,
The administration of Plan B pills in this instance cannot be judged to be the commission of an abortion because of such doubt about how Plan B pills and similar drugs work and because of the current impossibility of knowing from the ovulation test whether a new life is present. To administer Plan B pills without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act.
That was then and this is now. As I write, Connecticut’s Office of State Ethics is putting unbelievable pressure on Bishop William Lori and the priests of his diocese. But this time, Bishop Lori is fighting back. American Life League first learned of this from the Creative Minority Report, which explains:
The state government of Connecticut might just be the epicenter of state sponsored anti-Catholicism in the country right now. The state is seeking to silence the Catholic Church. Again.
Ever since the Church's stance supporting traditional marriage or at least for a conscience clause for religious organizations, many in state government have sought to punish the Church or at least silence it.
If you'll recall a few months ago two Democrat state legislators proposed a bill targeting Catholic parishes by instituting elected boards to oversee parishes. This, of course, caused an outrage as the government had no right to intervene in the Church's affairs.
Church officials mobilized against the bill, with the Bridgeport Diocese web site again asking Catholics to call their lawmakers. But then the church committed the cardinal offense, the act that compelled the Office of State Ethics to crack down: The diocese rented buses to bring parishioners to the state Capitol in Hartford for a rally against the bill on the day of the public hearing.
The public uproar spurred the bill’s sponsors to withdraw it and cancel the hearing the night before. But the church-sponsored rally went on anyway, making the diocese a renegade lobbyist.
Bishop Lori does not for a minute believe that his actions in decrying state efforts to step in and control Catholic parishes should be legitimately or logically defined as “lobbying.” He wasted no time in issuing a public statement against the state’s assault on religious freedom:
We believe firmly that it is unconstitutional to apply the state lobbying statute to our Diocese for having exercised its constitutional rights by participating in a rally at the State Capitol and posting information on its website, to protest an unconstitutional attempt by the State to reorganize our Church.
We are pursuing this matter through the judicial system… Fundamental constitutional rights include the responsibility to express our views in a civil and lawful manner.
Visiting the Diocese of Bridgeport’s web site provides an opportunity to review the history of this case, the relevant legal documents and additional background material.
Carney’s report, which is based on his investigation of this matter, is revealing:
I asked the Office of State Ethics about the ramifications of dubbing the diocese a lobbying organization. Would priests need to fasten “LOBBYIST” badges to their vestments whenever speaking from the pulpit about the death penalty, abortion or future state attempts to micromanage parishes? Who would enforce this? Would the state deploy ethics officers to regulate Masses so that no unauthorized lobbying occurred?
Would the diocese Web nerd need to clock in as a lobbyist for the time it takes him to write, “Tell the Governor to Repeal the Death Penalty” and upload that message to the site? A spokeswoman said, “We really don’t have opinions that specifically address those matters.”
The diocese has sued in federal court to block the state from enforcing the lobbying laws against it.
Connecticut recently ramped up its ethics enforcement in response to government corruption and abuse of power by former Republican Gov. John Rowland. Today, the lobbying laws look like another tool for government to use to control meddlesome priests who resist the politicians’ agenda.
The stark contrast between the 2007 joint decision of three Catholic bishops regarding Plan B and this latest turn of events in the Bridgeport diocese is interesting. How can it be that the 2007 state requirement met with hesitant but willing agreement, while this latest state action is meeting total, absolute opposition? We pray the answer is that Bishop Lori is not going to let the State ramrod him into accepting an agenda that compromises Church policies or moral principles ever again!
One has to wonder if, in retrospect, the little bit of evil which the Connecticut Catholic Conference accepted in 2007 by choosing to accommodate the State, rather than Catholic teaching, has permitted and even encouraged the evil that the State is now attempting to impose on Bishop Lori. Only time will tell.
The more fundamental issue is that if it succeeds, Connecticut’s current move against the Bridgeport diocese could have a chilling effect on Catholic parish priests and bishops elsewhere in that state and the country.
There are political agendas at work in the current situation, but they are no different today than they were in 2007. The State pressed the bishops in 2007 and won; this time around, it is our prayer that they don’t even come close. We pray that Bishop Lori continues his courageous resistance and that he succeeds in convincing the State of Connecticut that Catholics have the same rights and freedoms to which all Americans are entitled.
Bishop Lori said recently, "I believe that an order from the Court barring Mr. Jones and his colleagues at the (OSE) Office of State Ethics from applying the lobbying laws to the Diocese in this manner is necessary to enable the Diocese to continue to carry out its mission without fear of incurring civil penalties, exposure to possible criminal prosecution, burdensome administrative requirements, and intrusive oversight by the State.”
Please encourage Bishop Lori via mail or phone:
Most Rev. William Lori
Diocese of Bridgeport
Catholic Center
238 Jewett Ave.
Bridgeport, CT 06606
MEDIA MADNESS: MEN AND ABORTION Posted: Wednesday June 10, 2009 at 1:31 pm EST by Judie Brown
The planet is a strange place these days where hyped political rhetoric continues to grow ever more bizarre. Take, for example, the recent comments by Adam Reilly in his article, “The Blessing of Abortion.”
The man has a penchant for using emotionally charged words to misinform his readers regarding basic differences between those who support aborting children versus those who abhor it. For example, he focused on the pro-abortion zealot Katherine Hancock Ragsdale about whom I commented awhile ago.
She is the woman, you may recall, who defined abortion as a “blessing.” Reilly is using Ragsdale’s words to present his side of the discussion on abortion, not to mention his desire to paint pro-life Americans as unreasonable and uncaring. The single most chilling quote from Ragsdale’s speech being
And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion — there is not a tragedy in sight — only blessing. The ability to enjoy God's good gift of sexuality without compromising one's education, life's work, or ability to put to use God's gifts and call is simply blessing.
These are the two things I want you, please, to remember — abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
Reilly uses Ragsdale’s comments to assure his readers that according to Ragsdale’s worldview, abortion is a good: “Something to be cherished and celebrated.”
In addition, he opines that it is perspectives like hers that create a chasm of disagreement that does not permit a scintilla of common ground from existing. On that, he is totally correct. While he has missed the callous disregard for the baby, which is Ragsdale’s biggest failing, he has also avoided admitting that the very decision a mother makes to abort her baby creates a deep scar emotionally, spiritually and physically that will not soon disappear. Not only that, but in Reilly’s world, he has to be dismissive of any commentary pro-life Americans might make on the subject. He chooses to portray us as people whose arguments are steeped in venom and are a type of hate speech designed to create division rather than promote cooperation between the two sides.
In the end, one surmises that Reilly is conflicted. He cannot figure out how Ragsdale’s comments play on the stage of public opinion. My guess is that he is confused because he has failed to take note of the fact that there are two people involved in a decision about abortion: a mother and her preborn child, each of whom would have equal human rights if indeed we lived in a sane society.
There is another gentleman who has recently given his opinions on abortion and his name is Ross Douthat. Douthat is a commentator and senior editor at Atlantic Monthly. His recent New York Times commentary, “Not all abortions are equal” is another example of problematic rhetoric masquerading as common sense. My view is that Douthat’s premise is flawed, but see for yourself:
The argument for unregulated abortion rests on the idea that where there are exceptions, there cannot be a rule. Because rape and incest can lead to pregnancy, because abortion can save women’s lives, because babies can be born into suffering and certain death, there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.
As a matter of moral philosophy, this makes a certain sense. Either a fetus has a claim to life or it doesn’t. The circumstances of its conception and the state of its health shouldn’t enter into the equation.
But the law is a not a philosophy seminar. It’s the place where morality meets custom, and compromise, and common sense. And it can take account of tragic situations without universalizing their lessons.
Indeed, the argument that some abortions take place in particularly awful, particularly understandable circumstances is not a case against regulating abortion. It’s the beginning of precisely the kind of reasonable distinction-making that would produce a saner, stricter legal regime.
Note his propensity to assign the “fetus” to a status of being a debate topic, a quasi-problem or a topic for a legal discussion, rather than admitting that when we discuss an expectant mother, we are also discussing her preborn child. The preborn child is not only an individual human being, but also someone whose human rights are equally as important as his mother’s. This is not a philosophical position but rather a fact based on biology and human embryology. That being said, Douthat is suffering from a moral dilemma … he like Reilly, wants to consider the preborn child as an entity that has the same standing as a bank bailout. In other words, the “fetus” is a topic for political debate rather than someone who should be recognized as having the same status as Douthat himself: human person!
While Douthat would like to see a “saner, stricter legal regime” for choosing which abortions to permit, those of us who know exactly who that preborn human is want to see his/her human rights protected regardless of the circumstance surrounding his/her existence. But as you have already recognized, it is the perspective of the Douthats of the world that wins the day with the media. The mainstream media are genuine lapdogs for the intolerant pro-abortion cartel. In their circles, phrases like “preborn baby” and “preborn human being with equal rights” are a no-no.
Finally, there is Doug Feaver who recently posted a blog on theWashington Postweb site. His task in his June 9 collection of comments appears to be providing a rant platform for those who want to say something one way or the other about abortion. His entry, titled “No Middle Ground on Abortion” gets off to a rocky start as he writes: “One question that never leaves the national agenda is abortion rights, and Our Readers Who Comment are involved in an often crude discussion this morning about Peter Slevin's story documenting how anti-abortion forces are concentrating their efforts on imposing state controls in the absence of gaining a federal ban.”
First off, Slevin’s report covers abortion regulation measures, many of which are being considered in state legislatures across the land. Since I have a definite negative attitude toward regulating how, when and at what time a child in utero can be murdered, we will not address the Slevin article per se. What I am most interested in is Feaver’s conclusion, upon reviewing what readers are saying, that, “Our readers find no middle ground. Abortion is murder for one side; for the other, laws making abortion difficult are a profound violation of a woman's right to control what happens to her body. Restrictions such as those documented in Mississippi fall hardest on the poor at a time many states are cutting supportive programs for budget reasons.”
Right there we have the age-old pro-abortion argument that the poor are being discriminated against by laws that propose to regulate abortion in some way. Pro-abortion commentators have been using that tired argument for years, and it is as ridiculous now as it has always been, but it makes good press and it convinces people that pro-life Americans are heartless, cruel individuals who care little to nothing for the poor.
Personally, I have never been able to figure out how it is charitable to help someone poor kill her baby rather than help her welcome her baby and improve her state in life. To my mind, it is the pro-aborts who are disingenuous when they say on one hand that they care about the poor, but on the other, present the poor with the only option that is viable to the pro-aborts: killing their children. Somehow that makes no sense to me at all, but then again, I hope that my thought process is a bit more logical that that of my opponents.
Speaking of logic, here is but one of the many comments Feaver’s blog featured yesterday:
One reason so many Pro-Choice people can't understand the general Anti-Abortion crowd is that the very people wanting to outlaw abortion are the same ones preventing teenagers and poor women from getting sex-education and contraception in the first place. If you truly want to prevent pregnancies, hand out condoms the first day of middle school, teach the teenagers about real life and how sex fits in, but don't tell them 'just say no' and then demonize them for acting like everybody else does.
This is an example of the apparently popular view that the only way to “prevent abortion” is by marketing contraception. Such silliness completely avoids the fundamental problem facing the culture today: a complete and total lack of respect for the integrity of the human person. The child who is handed a condom instead of challenged to live a life of moral courage is a child who has become the victim of the culture of death. It is a vicious circle that must be broken and the men of the media could be part of the solution instead of the problem they seem to enjoy advocating.
If I had but one wish to make for these men of the media, it would be for each of them, Adam Reilly, Ross Douthat and Doug Feaver to take a moment and consider who they really are and how fortunate they are that their mothers did not have the fetish for aborting children that they seem to have.
I can not believe what I just read! Abortion is a blessing? To who? The parents of the dead child? God is the one who gives us these children and he wouldn't give us something to interfer with his gifts/talents etc that he's given us. Gods "gift" of sexuality, is to be enjoyed by two adults, male and female, who are married- not people to go and have sex whenever they want and not accept the concequnces... elisabeth | June 11, 2009
CATHOLIC DETRACTORS CANNOT DERAIL TRUTH Posted: Tuesday June 9, 2009 at 11:13 am EST by Judie Brown
Many foolish statements have been made over the past several days. What is curious is that the statements are being made by or about Catholics who have an obvious affection for misrepresentations, deceptions and assorted flagrant flirtations with all things consistently offensive to Christ and His Church.
For example, the infamous Catholic Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, recently remarked to Nancy Reagan upon the unveiling of a statue of the late president, Ronald Reagan, "Your support for stem cell research has made a significant difference in the lives of many American people. It has saved lives. It has found cures. It has given hope to people."
But as the facts will expose to anyone with the ability to read, human embryonic stem cell research has produced not a single positive result. The only success in the field has come about because of the work being done with non-embryonic stem cells.
Then there’s the comment recently made by Catholic moral theologian and world-famous Catholic dissident, Professor Daniel Maguire, who opined regarding the murder of abortionist George Tiller:
It has become American policy to use torture, bombing, and killing to achieve our ends. George Tiller believed that women must be able to exercise their legal and constitutional right to abortion in problem pregnancies. For honoring the law of the land, he and his family and medical staff were for years tortured, even bombed, and [sic] now he is now killed. He is not the first doctor to so die and unless we get serious about this form of terrorism, he will not be the last. Religious and political leaders who fan the flames of anti-choice, anti-woman fanaticism are not without guilt.
Pardon me, but exactly who is the fanatic? My opinion is that it is Maguire. He has apparently never met a fact he could welcome and appreciate. Since when does a Catholic theologian argue that killing a child in the womb is a “constitutional right?” He ought to know that any manmade law that contradicts God’s law is in fact an unjust law and must be exposed as such. Is he actually suggesting, as many equally disingenuous political types have, that pro-life Americans must be tarred with the same brush used to paint the sordid portrait of the deranged man who acted alone and did in fact commit the act of murdering George Tiller?
It is very difficult for me to understand how Maguire retains his tenure at a Catholic university, not to mention how he has been able to avoid public excommunication from the Catholic Church. His form of theology has gotten the Catholic Church into so many difficulties over the past many years and continues to go uncorrected by even the highest officials in the Catholic Church.
This brings me to another dissident by the name of Miguel Diaz. When President Barack Obama nominated Diaz to be his ambassador to the Vatican, many of us groaned in dismay, hoping that the Vatican would once again say no. But it is with the deepest regret that we report quite the contrary result. Recently apostolic nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, commented that Diaz is, "an excellent choice because he knows very well the United States and because of his background in the Catholic Church."
Catholic News verified, “Diaz served as a member of Obama's Catholic advisory team during the campaign and was a regular campaign spokesman on Obama's behalf, particularly in the Spanish-language press.”
It is mind boggling to consider the actual fact that Vatican officials are looking the other way, ignoring the Obama fetish for abortion on demand and pandering to Hispanic Americans who have received a nod from Obama without regard for the treachery such people have and will undoubtedly continue to cause! The very fact that Diaz served as a theological advisor to the social justice organization, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, should have disqualified him in the eyes of any right-thinking, faithful Catholic, regardless of the politics.
And while I’m speaking of CACG, it should be noted that Alexia Kelley, who was CACG’s executive director and a huge Obama supporter, has just been chosen to become director of the Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in pro-abortion Catholic Kathleen Sebelius’ Department of Health and Human Services.
As Catholic News Agency reports, Kelley along with her ally Kris Korzen:
[S]upported controversial political decisions and appointments made by the Obama administration, including the suspension of the Mexico City Policy and the decision to allow federally-funded [sic] embryonic stem cell research. Kelley and Korzen lent their support despite both measures drawing criticism from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
To continue presenting the diagram of dissent being carefully drafted by President Obama who is no friend to real Catholics, we come to Harry Knox, a very controversial individual, who is not a Catholic, but has made it his personal mission to attack Catholics and the Church whenever he gets the chance.
The White House spokesman has said that President Obama is “comfortable” with the makeup of his faith-based advisory council despite protests alleging anti-Catholic bigotry from one appointee who characterized Pope Benedict as a “discredited leader” and called the Knights of Columbus “foot soldiers” in an “army of oppression.”
Harry Knox, the controversial appointee, is a former licensed minister of the United Methodist Church and a leader with the homosexual activist group Human Rights Council.
Before being appointed to the president’s advisory council on faith-based partnerships, Knox had attacked Pope Benedict and some Catholic bishops as "discredited leaders" because of their opposition to same-sex "marriage."
Finally, we come to the legal professor who turned a blind eye to Catholic teaching so that he too could become an advisor to President Obama, Douglas Kmiec. He recently participated in a debate with astute, learned Princeton Professor Robert George. Apparently, the debate between Kmiec and George caught Jill Stanek’s attention because she personally attended the debate. After the event, Stanek explained in her blog what occurred. Because Kmiec made unfavorable comments about her to the infamously left-leaning National Catholic Reporter, Stanek followed up on a brief discussion she had had with Kmiec with an e-mail, which states in part:
You also stated, "[T]here isn't a county recorder in the country who would record a live birth" of a "temporarily alive" child. In fact, the State of IL, and I'm sure many more, requires that ALL babies born alive, no matter what gestational age and no matter how fleeting their lives (even with transient heartbeats), be issued legal birth certificates. To subjectively determine which live born babies receive birth certificates would introduce chaos into IL law.
By your definition, very premature babies whose lives are fleeting are not legal persons. If this were true, bashing them over the head to expedite the end of their "temporarily alive" status would be legal, would it not?
I look forward to your thoughts on the information I am presenting you, Professor Kmiec.
My guess is that Kmiec will not respond to Stanek because he is all wrapped up in his personal Obamaland cocoon and is no longer feeling accountable to anyone who challenges his inane contradictions to common sense. After all, this is the dissident Catholic law professor who recently chided the American bishops who have refused to give holy communion to pro-abortion Catholics, claiming that their action in defense of Christ in the Eucharist was “not taking the ‘Catholic’ approach!”
My guess is Kmiec’s version of Catholic would not be discernable to any of us who actually love our faith, our Church and Christ’s truth.
If this set of snippets from the past week creates the impression that it’s old home week in the White House for the detractors of valid Catholic teaching then you have a very good grasp of the current situation on Obamaland.
But try as they may, these ludicrous lightweights in matters Catholic cannot derail the fullness of truth that is indeed Catholic teaching.
How much sense does it make for our bishops to ask Catholics to send post cards and letters to the current administration opposing this, that and the other issues when there seems to be an apparent refusal to draw the line with Catholics who teach in private Catholic Institutions, theology contradictory to the faith. We can send postcards and pray, but ultimately we do not hold the rod of correction and when teachers who dissent are not disciplined, when politicians who dissent are not disciplined, and when Catholic Institutions compromise sound teaching and principles in favor of public opinion and government grants and the same bishops do not lift a finger to stop this, how are we, little people, to bear it? Who has been given the authority in our Church to stop this? We are currently reaping what has been allowed to be sown in our own Catholic Institutions. Lord, have mercy on us! Catherine Lemek | June 9, 2009
Don't forget Nicholas Cafardi, current canon lawyer and consultant to the Diocese of Pittsburgh and USCCB. He also campaigned for Obama stating that "he is a moral choice for Catholics!?" Mary Kay Brown RN | June 9, 2009
Dear Catherine
The Bishops have the authority to stop all of these scandals by being firm, dedicated apostles who put Christ, His Church and His sheep before all else. The problem is that in the vast majority of cases these Bishops are simply disinterested in doing that which they have been called to do, and therefore, as you suggest, the Church is reaping what has been sown.
I am always assured to know, however, that Christ promised us that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. God help us!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | June 9, 2009
Does the Vatican not see the wedge Obama and his operatives are trying to drive into the Catholic Church in the United States, especially after the vast strengthening (albeit incomplete) of the episcopacy over the last 25 years? Obviously there is some merit in keeping any plausible channels of communication on substantive issues open between the Church and the the most powerful secular government on the planet, but the current degree of diplomacy only seems to be aiding and abetting the confusion Obama is consciously attempting to create within the Church in the U.S. John Ryan | June 10, 2009
Thanks Judie. I watched the debate between Kmiec and George on the AUL website last night. I cringed when Kmiec used John Paul II words to justify Catholics voting for pro-choice candidates. My own priest is a HUGE Obama supporter and the pro-life message is almost mute in our Church. Lee Richard | June 10, 2009
Dear Judie As always you are a pleasure to read.Why is not the hierarchy paying attention? Who is ultimately responsible and has the authority to put and end to those who use their positions to "abuse" the faith?It seems that we have so many bloggers,and commentators. Everyone has a comment- Everyone is upset with what is going on- BUT nothing changes.WHAT CAN WE DO to move change along. sincerely sal sal bonavita | June 10, 2009
Dear John
I think there is a huge power struggle going on in the Vatican right now between those who support Obama, like the editor of the Vatican newspaper, and those who do not, including the Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone. Over time I expect that the righteous will prevail, but in the meantime there is a huge problem because as you already pointed out, Obama is intentionally trying to attack the Catholic Church from within by using willing shills who claim to be Catholic.
Why the bishops don't see this is beyond me!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | June 10, 2009
Dear Lee
Kmiec, like so many others, manipulates words such as those written by Pope John Paul II for their own devious goals, none of which are truly Catholic. What is really shocking is that through all this the vast majority of bishops have said nothing!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | June 10, 2009
Well while Mr. Tiller is in hell for murdering children they can continue to say that abortion is right. If it wasn't meant to be we wouldnt get pregnant or we'd miscarry. Not every prolife person is OK with any kind of killing, including his. And for them to say we are terrorists is disgusting elisabeth | June 11, 2009
Dear Sal,
We can pray for our bishops and priests, continue to charitably ask that they do their duty, teach the truth about Church teachings and stop using pulpits for politics.
Every parish should have a grassroots organization that offers to help the priests in doing whatever they need to do to teach their parishoners the Catechism of the Catholic Church. "Feel-good" sermons are simply not helping these days.
Pro-Life Story: My Life Forever Changed Posted By Melissa on Nov, 28 2006 When I was about twenty-two years old I was living in San Francisco with a boyfriend. It was the first time I had lived away from my family. When I found out that I was ... Read
