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!
APPEASEMENT OR COURAGEOUS ENGAGEMENT? Posted: Monday September 14, 2009 at 5:26 pm EST by Judie Brown
By Phil Sevilla
On August 26, the theologically dissident (and therefore misnamed) National Catholic Reporter published an interview conducted on August 12 with Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe. The National Catholic Reporter should not be confused with the National Catholic Register, where news and views more in keeping with Catholic thought and doctrine can be a legitimate source of information for faithful Catholics.
Why did Archbishop Sheehan choose to elaborate his views in a discredited and untrustworthy publication like the Reporter?
According to the Reporter, Archbishop Sheehan believes a majority of U.S. bishops disagree with the “loud tactics of some of their peers.” Who are these “peers” whose actions the archbishop deplores as a “hysterical reaction”? Highly respected American prelates who spoke up to oppose President Obama’s invitation to speak at the University of Notre Dame. Actually, over 80 bishops condemned the Obama-at-Notre Dame love fest that occurred in June. This number is hardly a small minority of bishops. Archbishop Sheehan disclosed that he spoke up strongly against the condemnation of Notre Dame at the last U.S. bishops’ meeting in San Antonio.
The archbishop is on the wrong side of history. In 1941, Bishop Clement-August von Galen was among the minority of German prelates who were speaking out against National Socialist (more commonly known as Nazi) policies. During the time of the Arian heresy in the fourth century, Saint Athanasius and a minority of Catholic bishops stood firm against the majority who went Arian. History shows being part of the majority doesn’t always mean you’re on the right side.
In his interview, Archbishop Sheehan spoke several times of differences on a “single issue,” defending Notre Dame and criticizing his fellow bishops who spoke out against Obama’s invitation. Let us be clear that the murder of countless preborn children is the “single issue” Archbishop Sheehan thinks we need to be more tolerant about in dealing with this newly elected president.
If anyone reading this article believes that making nice with Barack Obama, his senior appointees and nominees, including Kathleen Sebelius, Hillary Clinton, John Holdren, Janet Napolitano, Sonia Sotomayor and Eric Holder, as well as Democratic congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, will change hearts and minds and cause these administration, legislative and judicial officials to defend the traditional family, the consciences of pro-life and pro-family medical providers, the rights of pastors to speak publicly, and the sanctity of the human person from creation to natural death, please raise your right hand.
Cardinal Bernardin’s ‘seamless garment’
Father Michael Sheehan, previously bishop of Lubbock, Texas, learned at the feet of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who, the archbishop acknowledges, “taught me how to collaborate, how to consult.” Father Paul Marx, the great pro-life leader hailed by Pope John Paul II as the “apostle of life,” wrote that Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment” philosophy, enunciated in his 1983 speech at Fordham University, when he suggested that abortion could be equated with poverty, capital punishment and many other social problems, greatly undermined the pro-life movement [Fr. Paul Marx, Faithful for Life, p. 162].
According to the June 2000 issue of the Roman Catholic Witness, “Bernardin gave Catholic pro-abortion politicians cover by suggesting to Catholic voters that they could weigh the candidate’s negative voting record on overturning Roe v. Wade with a positive vote on passing a minimum wage law or outlawing capital punishment.” Bernardin’s shadow today still clouds the hearts and minds of many American priests, some chosen over the past 25-plus years to be bishops in American dioceses.
According to the late Monsignor George Kelly, in his book chronicling the deep divide within the American episcopacy (Inside my Father’s House, 1989), as late as 1987, Cardinal Bernardin was rejecting political candidates' stance on child murder through abortion as a litmus test for voting.
Cardinal Bernardin was wrong on a lot of other issues as well.
In 1988, he approved The Many Faces of AIDS: A Gospel Response, a document issued by the U.S. bishops, which promoted the acceptability of condoms to counter AIDS. In 1985, during his watch as chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Pro-Life Activities Committee, the bishops sent an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledging that abortion was accepted constitutional law (Roe vs. Wade). Bernardin engineered this at the same time the Reagan administration was asking the Supreme Court to reverse itself.
Bernardin chaired a bishops’ committee that drafted a pastoral letter on the moral and religious dimensions of war. Its published document, The Challenge of Peace (1983) was skewed from the beginning towards pacifism and against American defense strategy. It was bad theology, according to Monsignor Kelly, and contradicted Pope John Paul II’s 1982 statements at the United Nations indicating that deterrence was morally acceptable "in current conditions."
Towards the end of his life, this Machiavellian prince of the Church attempted to provide cover to dissenting voices in the Church by starting a new project, “Catholic Common Ground.” His brother Cardinals derailed it quickly, stressing that the Church already has common ground found in Scripture and Tradition, guided by the Magisterium and that truth and dissent from truth are not equal partners in ecclesial dialogue. Dialogue as a way to mediate between truth and dissent is mutual deception.
Father Michael Sheehan was an aide to Cardinal Bernardin. The cardinal arrived in Washington to make the formidable bureaucracy of the U.S. bishops’ conference independent of the Vatican. Bernardin’s role in creating a crisis in authority between the American bishops and the pope is well known. It is interesting to note that the present occupant of the White House spoke glowingly of Bernardin in his speech at Notre Dame. Bernardin, the consummate Chicago wheeler-dealer, compromiser and fixer fits Obama’s vision of an American Catholic bishop. Is the flawed Bernardin model of ecclesiastical leadership the road Archbishop Sheehan and other American prelates hope to follow?
Archbishop Sheehan and Governor Richardson
Archbishop Sheehan gloated in the interview, “[W]e’ve gotten more done on the pro-life issue in New Mexico by talking to people that don’t agree with us on everything.” What did the New Mexico bishops do to help pass Senator William Sharer’s bill for parental notification (for abortion on minors)? It died in committee.
In his interview and recent radio program (September 2), the archbishop took full credit for a lot of work done by a coalition of Catholic and non-Catholic lay people, along with various Protestant churches and advocacy organizations such as Right to Life of New Mexico, to defeat the domestic partners and embryonic stem cell research bills. The gallery at the capitol was packed with individual Christians, both Catholics and Protestants, not by any presence organized by the archbishop and his lobbyists.
Archbishop Sheehan is especially proud of the abolition of the death penalty in his state. Perhaps the killing of preborn children and the statutory rape of minor girls were less urgent matters for the New Mexico bishops than abolishing the death penalty—a hollow victory, considering New Mexico is a state where capital punishment has been rarely enforced. There has only been one execution in New Mexico since 1977 and a total of nine since 1930, while 6,200 preborn children are executed by surgical abortions in the state annually. Governor Bill Richardson lost no political capital by going along, and he got a nice “atta boy” in Rome for it.
What did the archbishop say to Richardson in Rome when he stood behind the governor who, mugging for the cameras cheered, “Viva President Obama!”? The archbishop said nothing in front of the international press, when he had a golden opportunity to speak the truth courageously and admonish the governor, who is supposedly Catholic, to work within his party to abolish the executions of American babies in their mothers’ wombs and to defend the sanctity of marriage.
Church leaders must stand united and strong
Once not terribly long ago, there was a British leader who wanted to “build bridges” with another aggressive change agent who was flexing his military muscles in Europe. For the sake of keeping the peace, British prime minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Pact in September 1938 with Adolf Hitler, to avoid confrontation with Germany over the Sudetenland. Chamberlain was hailed as a peacemaker at the time. His contemporary, Winston Churchill, was repudiated as a warmonger for warning England about the National Socialists. In March 1939, six months after he signed the pact, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia.
Thanks to advice from Catholic quislings such as Doug Kmiec, Obama was holding his tongue before the election, to avoid alienating values voters, and he focused instead on secular issues such as the economy, Iraq, health care, etc. But once he was elected, the mask came off as evidenced by his appointments, nominations and executive orders.
Archbishop Sheehan should reflect on the serious flaws inherent in a strategy of appeasement. “Collaboration” and building “common ground” with forces working to directly undermine and destroy the moral foundations of our society is sheer folly and the height of idiocy. “Building bridges” on loose and shaky ground with no firm foundation on bedrock moral principles is a prescription for disaster, and further weakens and erodes the Church’s standing in society. Many more innocent babies will die, parental rights and marriage will be further attacked and marginalized, and many of our freedoms taken away. These are the bitter fruits of appeasement and cowardice.
In his interview, Archbishop Sheehan claimed, “We’d be like the Amish, you know, kind of isolated from society, if we kept pulling back because of a single issue.” Rather than becoming isolated like the Amish, we Catholics are called to evangelize our fellow Americans, and engage and transform our culture with our indomitable faith.
What we need in America is an uncompromising, principled Church. We cannot negotiate with evil. Catholics must be countercultural, ready to engage and must stand united. We are not called to fit in and go with the flow. More than a few American bishops have stood up boldly and raised their voices this past year. May God bless their courage and tenacity. We should follow them.
Phil Sevilla is executive director of Project Defending Life, a nonprofit Catholic pro-life ministry in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and an American Life League Associate group. Project Defending Life’s ministry office and chapel are located next to Planned Parenthood of New Mexico, the state’s largest abortion mill. Phil is also president of the Catholic Coalition of New Mexico, a 501(c)(4) educational and lobbying organization, promoting pro-life and pro-family values in legislation and in Catholic communities around the state.
Thank you for sharing this story about the history with the Bishops from Phil Sevilla.
I have been baffled with the USCCB News Release on September 10, 2009
USCCB OFFICIALS WELCOME PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATEMENTS ON ABORTION, CARE FOR THE POOR IN RESPONSE TO HEALTH CARE - (Washington)
Calling it an important contribution to a crucial national debate, officials speaking on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops welcomed President Obama's September 9 address on health care reform, particularly his statements regarding abortion and the uninsured.
"We agree that no one should go broke because they get sick," said Kathy Salle, Director of Domestic Social Development at the USCCB. "That's why the U.S. Bishops have worked for decades for decent health care for all. The Catholic Church provides health care for millions, purchases health care picks up the pieces of a failing health system, and has a long tradition of teaching on ethics in health care. Health care reform that respects the life and dignity of all is a moral imperative and urgent national priority. We welcome the President's speech as an important contribution to this essential national debate and task." http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-178.shtml
Maybe I am wrong, but I sense the Bishops feel that health care reform is more important than the abortion issue. Especially, when you see all the amendments to, explicitly, exclude abortions from health care reform have been voted down in both the House and the Senate. Don't the Bishops know this? I am, also, perplexed about when the Bishops are insistent that health care reform be "abortion neutral"? http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/faqs.shtml What do they mean when they say that? Sister Keehan said the same thing about Catholic Health Assn. How can a Catholic be abortion neutral?
The health care reform bill is very flawed in not only the abortion issue.
Hopefully, the Bishops will see this and start speaking out more on all the issues of concern with the health care reform to be voted in the end of September. We need to pray for our Bishops. We need to pray for our Nation, our children and the generations to come. We are in the midst of a battle.
Lord make haste to help us. Patty Palmquist | September 14, 2009
Thank you for the informative article. How much of Cardinal Bernadin's troublesome track record was already in place when Pope John Paul II named him Archbishop of Chicago and elevated him to the Sacred College of Cardinals? If Cardinal Bernadin's legacy is recognized as flawed, then why are his proteges chosen as bishops, as Archbishop Sheehan has been? David Volk | September 15, 2009
Judy, What are your academic credentials, and by what warrent do you set yourself up as a spokesperson for how the Roman Catholic population should think and act? Ignatius | September 15, 2009
Judie, What is natural death? I would like to die at home surrounded by a loving family. Instead, so many folks die while hooked up to all kinds of tubes, monitors, ivies, masks, etc. Is that natural death or a medically induced profanation of a happy death? frank McGinty | September 15, 2009
You are clearly more Republican than Catholic. More and more prelates are finally speaking up to correct all the deliberate misinformation you and your ilk are spreading. You should work for the church, not against it.
http://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/cardinal-martino-applauds-universal-health-care-initiative/ patty | September 15, 2009
Dear Ignatius
As a practicing Catholic I know as well as you do that the teachings of the Catholic Church are the same for each and every one of us. Nobody is telling anybody how to think or act; those who separate themselves from the Church by exercising their free will to break the commandments of God or ignore Catholic teaching need our prayers. Regardless of one's credentials, every one of us can know what is true because God has written that truth on our hearts.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 15, 2009
Dear Frank
One of my parents died at home and it was not at odds with Catholic teaching. Death comes to each of us, and in order to understand from the Catholic position what extraordinary means of treatment are, which is what I think you are wondering about, I recommend reading the Vatican Declaration on Euthanasia.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 15, 2009
Dear Patty
The author of this article, Phil Sevilla, is a wonderful Catholic man. Why would you think that makes him a Republican? I am confused.
Cardinal Martino's opinions are at odds with Catholic teaching on the fundamental question of subsidiarity, which means that the government should not control health care but should enable each person to choose for themselves what sort of health care they wish to have. There is no right to government controlled health care and the Catholic Church makes that perfectly clear.
This site’s purpose is to encourage adults to be the “cool aunt” in a child’s life. The “cool aunt,” it says, is “someone who isn’t afraid to answer the hard, funny and perplexing questions about sex.”
To some, this may sound harmless or even helpful. But beware. If you dig deeper, you’ll find that this “cool aunt” is really someone who would undermine a child’s parents by teaching intimate sexual details and answering questions about sexual morality “when parents, teachers, ministers and other mentors couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver answers.”
Still, maybe you’re thinking this “cool aunt” figure could be a good supplementary guide for a child with questions about sex. Think again. The words and phrases used to describe people who teach their children traditional moral values and chastity reveal coolaunt.org’s true intent: to counter the “fear-mongering forces that stigmatize sex.”
Fearmongering? Really? According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, a fearmonger (also known as “scaremonger”) is “one inclined to raise or excite alarms especially needlessly.” I’d say that when one in four people have a sexually transmitted disease, one-third of women get pregnant before age 20 and over 3,000 children are slaughtered daily (all of which is the result of unbridled sex), the alarm needs to be sounded. Children should have a healthy fear of premarital sex. To assuage these godly fears is irresponsible, unrealistic and just plain evil.
The web site continues its attack on righteousness by claiming that a “cool aunt” is needed to “confront abstinence-only education myths at a time when years of shaming young people about sex have led to a dramatic rise in the rates of STIs [sexually transmitted infections] and teen pregnancies.”
Confront abstinence-only “myths”? What myths? That abstinence is the only 100-percent effective way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? That’s an undeniable fact, not a myth. Come on!
And shaming has led to an increase in disease and pregnancy? What shame? Have these people watched TV lately? Sit through five minutes of a teen drama series and it’s obvious we have no shame! “You’re cute. I like you.” Cut to next scene: Teenager 1 and teenager 2 are rolling on a bed, removing clothing; it is implied that they have intercourse. And that’s a tame example.
Plus, there should be shame attached to sin. If the NSRC spent more time teaching sexual purity and less time fighting for a made-up right of “every person” to “healthy and pleasurable sexuality,” maybe then we’d see fewer disease-ridden, depressed and lonely kids.
Speaking of what the NSRC’s priorities are, one of the themes it emphasizes is teaching young people “sexual literacy.”
Sexual literacy? America’s public schools can’t even teach basic literacy, but the NSRC thinks sexual literacy should be a priority? Give me a break! Picture this: A teacher says to a classroom of children, “Since we couldn’t get you to master the traditional subjects of reading, writing and arithmetic, this year we are switching to sexual literacy, abortion rights and gender issues.”
Think this is far-fetched? Think the NSRC is a fringe group that has no impact on society as a whole? Wrong. Just read the United Nations’ recently released International Guidelines on Sexuality Education, which advocate teaching masturbation to five-year-olds.
As for being the “cool aunt,” you may not be viewed as “cool” any longer when the young person—whom you assured that sex is fun and no big deal—comes to you with herpes and a broken heart.
Telling a young person in this day and age to be chaste may result in rolling eyes and mockery, earning you labels such as “prude” or “goody-goody.” But is it such a bad thing? When I looked up the definition of “prude,” I found a description that I would wear proudly: “a person who is greatly concerned with seemly behavior and morality, especially regarding sexual matters.”
But Kortney, thinking kids aren’t going to have sex is unrealistic. Noooooo, thinking that giving kids so-called “comprehensive sex education” will protect them from the consequences of premarital sex is unrealistic. How many years of unaffected (or increasing) statistics will it take before we wake up? Teaching sexual purity and the life-altering consequences of the alternative is the only thing that works.
Kortney Blythe is the chapter and street teams coordinator for American Life League’s Rock for Life project, which brings the human personhood message to youth through music, education and human rights activism. This commentary originally appeared in the September 3, 2009 issue of the RFL Report.
Yikes...it seems that you're really afraid of sex. It's just a healthy human activity. If more "cool aunts" and cool, lukewarm, or cold parents were talking to their kids about sex, there would be a lot less to worry about. SIN, not likely. If so, then you as well as I are a product of SIN. Beth Houle | September 13, 2009
How could you possibly think it's better to lie to your children and let them discover some of the consequences of being sexually accident by themselves? I knew a lot kids that were raised this way when I was younger, and they all turned out to be the most promiscuous because of their lack of knowledge about the subject. Also, you are a heartless, undereducated know-it-all that needs to stop giving advice. Seriously. Aimee | September 13, 2009
I wonder why they didn't ask for men to be "cool uncles" in a child's life? Is sexual predation somehow acceptable when its promoted by a woman? Cathy Lemek | September 14, 2009
Dear Beth
Kortney is a lovely young woman who respects her sexuality and encourages all young people to do likewise. If that means being afraid of sex, then something is wrong with the vast majority of pro-life Americans, and I know that is not the case.
The "cool aunt" is in need of psychoanalysis.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 15, 2009
Aimee,
Kortney has not suggested that anyone "lie" to their children. Why would any good parent do that? What Kortney does encourage, as do most Christians who understand God's gift of sexuality, is that parents explain to their children the dangers of sexual relations outside of marriage such as disease, depression, and so forth. Not to mention, of course, that sex outside of marriage is a sin against God.
I think you are mistaken, Aimee. Where is a single shred of evidence to support your condemnation of our work? Why is that you have chosen name calling instead of setting forth facts?
We will remember you in our prayers.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 15, 2009
Cathy
If you examine the Planned Parenthood tactics of the past 40 years you will see that it is always a female who misleads, misrepresents and misadvises ... somewhat similar to the first woman who sinned against God and then talked her mate into it. We all remember Eve!
I am wondering greatly at the wording of the personhood initiative[s]. Why these words “…from the beginning of their biological development” [FHPA], or “…[from the] beginning of the biological development of that human being” [CPA], which seem so confusing, uninformative and subject to perversion by the pro-aborts? What do they mean anyway?
Fortunately, the question went to Dr. Dianne Irving, who has been the chief scientific and philosophical consultant on not only our FHPA language, but the language for human personhood initiatives in California, Colorado, Florida, Montana and elsewhere. Dr. Irving has always warned that if you can’t accurately define the material aspect of when a human being begins to exist, then you can’t correctly define when the human person begins to exist.
Dr. Irving wrote the following response:
I am very grateful for your important question and will do my best to answer it – without getting too scientific or philosophical. However, please keep in mind that the fundamental problem with the issue of “personhood” today is and has been that false science and very problematic contemporary bioethics “philosophy” has confused a great many people in this country today.
The words “beginning of the biological development of that human being” specifically bypass all the falsehoods of the pro-abortion and pro-human embryo research propaganda just noted, and instead do guarantee the personhood of each and every human being, leaving no one out – legally.
Let me start with the “legal” concern – and this has to do with how unethical legal “loopholes” are purposefully created. Many people do not realize that in legal documents (as distinct from normal conversation or other literature), usually the words chosen as the language for those legal documents are understood in the law to be “exclusive.” That is, usually, those things that fall out of the formal definition used in the legal document are not covered by the document. For example, if a legal document were to define “bears” as being “brown,” then that legal document would not apply to those bears that are white or black. Here, the term “brown” is used in an “exclusionary” way, and the courts will later usually rule according to the exclusionary language found in the formal definitions in the legal document. Thus, in this example, the use of an exclusionary term in the formal definition can be used as a loophole – so that the legislation does not apply to white or black bears.
Legal loopholes can also be forged by means of misdefining something in a legal document. For example, if a legal document misdefines a bear as “a member of the species Homo sapiens,” then that misdefinition could also be used as a legal loophole that would actually render the entire law concerning “bears” inapplicable, even unconstitutional, “due to vagueness,” etc.
I point to these legal problems, especially the formal definitions used in legal documents, because this is precisely how so many laws and regulations have been passed in this country for so long that are inherently unethical, and which especially leave many innocent living human beings out of legal protection.
For example, if you legally define “person” as “beginning at fertilization” (i.e., the use of sperm and oocyte), then you have legally left out of personhood all human beings who did not begin to exist by means of fertilization, e.g. those human beings asexually reproduced (i.e., without the immediate and direct use of sperm and oocyte). This would include one of every pair of naturally occurring human monozygotic twins reproduced within the body of the woman, as well as those human beings asexually reproduced in IVF [in vitro fertilization], ART [assisted reproductive technology] and other “fertility” laboratories and clinics. This constitutes a legal loophole that would then allow the abortion of one of two twins within the woman’s body, as well as all human beings reproduced asexually in laboratories and clinics, as well as human embryonic research, human cloning and other genetic engineering research.
If you legally define “person” as “beginning at fertilization in the woman’s womb,” then in addition to those innocent human beings asexually reproduced [that I] just mentioned, that would leave out of personhood even those human beings resulting from fertilization but still in the woman’s fallopian tube (that is, fertilization does not take place in the woman’s womb or uterus, but rather in her fallopian tube); the new human being then must travel for about 5-6 days down the fallopian tube before he/she enters the woman’s womb). This would constitute a legal loophole that would allow the use of abortifacients, prenatal genetic diagnosis, even “embryo flushing” in order to obtain embryos for all manner of destructive research purposes.
If you legally define “person” as “beginning at conception,” and if “conception” means “fertilization,” then the same consequences would follow as noted above. Even worse, the term “conception” is now formally legally defined in many state laws as “beginning at implantation.” This is, of course, scientifically absurd, but that is their law, and [this] would also constitute a legal loophole that would endanger many of the innocent human beings noted above and preclude them from personhood.
I would also note that, for years, the false definitions used at the beginning -of-life issues have been transferred to the end-of-life issues, and even issues throughout the life spectrum – especially the definition of “person.” Thus, many human adults who are elderly, mentally ill or retarded, comatose, disabled, etc., have been deemed “nonpersons” – legally providing for euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, organ removal and transplantation, used as research subjects, etc.
In it, I provide several important references documenting what I have noted above.
Clearly, those who are anti-life have taken advantage of many legal loopholes over the years, rendering many laws essentially unethical and preventing true legal protection for all human beings as persons at both ends of the life spectrum (and in between). Usually, they get away with this by using false scientific definitions. Instead, the current Colorado personhood mission uses scientific language which is accurate, universally documented and accepted scientifically, which would apply to all human beings and which could not be used to create unethical legal loopholes. That is, all living human beings, whether sexually or asexually reproduced, whether in vivo or in vitro, would be legally protected as persons.
Dr. Irving’s focus on scientific accuracy has created many challenges to American Life League’s position, including the argument that we place too much emphasis on the scientific facts and far too little on the philosophical aspect of the human person, including his dignity and identity as a member of the human race. This is incorrect. As Dr. Irving has written,
The issue of when a human being begins to exist is strictly a scientific one, and has been known scientifically internationally for over 125 years (Wilhelm His 1883-5). The scientific details of human embryonic development have been internationally systematized for almost 70 years now, as consistently and continuously documented in the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development (see all 23 stages itemized at: http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/anatomy.htm)...
The issue of “personhood” is not a scientific question, but rather a philosophical one.
The two aspects of the human person are not mutually exclusive; they are complementary. However if the facts of human existence are confused on one level, then clearly human persons can be dismissed from existence as nonpersons. That is the point.
Most recently, the case of the Department of Veterans Affairs booklet Your Life, Your Choices made this painfully clear. There is no such thing as a life unworthy of living. Therefore, there must not be a flawed approach to human personhood. This is why American Life League demands the right mix of accurate scientific evidence and philosophical truth.
This is the only way to assure the respect proper to the dignity of the human person. And that, in turn, will ultimately result in a culture that will stop the senseless rush toward killing the helpless, the inconvenient, the aging and the preborn. Let’s get it right. Human beings’ lives depend on it.
Judie,
This personhood debate is really heating up here in Tampa Bay, Florida. Check out this article here: http://tbo.com/content/2009/sep/10/110946/would-proposed-amendment-make-birth-control-illega/c_2/#comments
If the link doesn't work, just go to tbo.com and the article is on the home page. I must warn you about the comments people are posting below the article because they are anything but kind or charitable. You really get a sense of how pervasive the contraceptive mentality is in our society. Very sad and scary. Much prayer is needed. Elizabeth | September 11, 2009
Elizabeth
The link worked, and as you suggest, there are so many misguided folks out there that one is left in a state of sorrow for the tragedy of sexual promiscuity run wild in America. The personhood discussion, by the way, is about affirming the dignity of the human being from his very beginning. Apparently those who are brainwashed by contraceptive mentality advocacy have lost sight of the obvious - the own personal human dignity is at risk.
We must pray for them and continue spreading the truth.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 15, 2009
Is human dignity at risk? Perhaps, but a constitutional amendment cannot cure anyone's dignity. Such initiatives flies in the face of freedom of choice and takes us one step closer to a dictatorship.
If you want to preach, become a preacher but leave the law and government out of it unless you intend to use the government to do good for all.
For starters, if you want an amendment, get one passed to guarantee no one will ever have to do without health care.
Pass an amendment to end capitol punishment. I am sure you are on board with this being Catholic and Pro-Life.
But defining when life begins in a man-made law is so outlandishly selfish and arrogant that it defies understanding. That is not a Christian response to a moral question. If you are a Christian then you have to admit that your God decides when and where life is to begin...not you and not some amendment to man's laws.
When you mix religion with politics you are in bed with the devil. Paul Kruger | September 17, 2009
Dear Mr. Kruger
My goodness, you appear to have a very strange concept of the logical behind the personhood argument, which is not a religious argument but rather a philosophical, scientifically based presentation of the reasons why every human being deserves equal protection under the law and in society.
Health care cannot be compared with personhood. Health care is not the responsibility of government nor should it be; what should be the responsibility of government is ending graft, excessive waste and all the other abuses of power that create a situation wherein the poor are left with nothing while the bureacrats get fatter and fatter.
On the other hand, personhood has always been in the foundational principles of the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence. It is a recognition of the human being as someone welcome in our society and deserving of respect and human treatment.
To argue that the law must not recognize the fundamental principle of who is a human being and why they should be recognized as such is folly, Mr. Kruger. The devil is the father of lies, and to stand up for the truth drives the devil mad; that's what we are doing. Join us, won't you!
THEY DIED 'ON THE WRONG SIDE OF KENNEDY'S POLITICS' Posted: Wednesday September 9, 2009 at 3:18 pm EST by Judie Brown
Eileen Smith’s daughter and grandchild were killed in Hyannis, Massachusetts, just two short years ago. The tragedy is that they both died from a “safe and legal” abortion. When she wrote her story, a good friend and reporter, Gail Besse, e-mailed me about it. I then got in touch with Eileen to ask if she would like to expand on this real-life horror story herself. She replied, “I will defer to you and yours to write it. I am available for any questions or clarifications. I just want to get it out.”
I accepted the challenge, and here is what needs to get out:
Laura died on the wrong side of Kennedy’s politics
By Eileen Smith
Laura Hope Smith died from a botched abortion in a doctor’s office in Hyannis, Massachusetts, on September 13, 2007, down the street from the Kennedy compound. I raised my family on Cape Cod, near the medical mecca of the world (Boston), with a false sense of security. Surely all our medical needs would be taken care of with the latest of technologies and the best doctors. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined my daughter would be “killed” by a Harvard fellow doctor [a recipient of a Harvard Medical School fellowship] who practiced 3rd-world medicine.
In January, a few months after my daughter’s death, I knew I had to contact Senator Kennedy, the head of the U.S. Senate Health Committee. Surely he would want to know what was happening in his own back yard in Hyannis. He certainly would not stand for such “abortions.” I had visions of him personally closing down the office in righteous indignation. I had not followed Kennedy’s political career and did not know he left his Catholic moorings of “respect for life” and joined the “choice” group. I was unaware of life politics at the time. I thought all Catholics were for life. It was a given. After all, the pope was watching!
I made a personal visit to the senator’s Washington, D.C. office at the Senate, by appointment, and met with one of his aides. We spoke for almost an hour; she was polite, listened and took notes. She assured me I would hear back from her or someone else. One month went by. I called her, reminded her who I was and refreshed her on my story. Again I was assured I would hear something. I never did. Never got a call back. Never an ounce of concern came from Senator Ted Kennedy or his office regarding my daughter, whose life was [cut] short, carelessly, by [a] Harvard fellow. To this day, I cannot dignify him with the title of doctor. I refer to him by his first name, Rapin. Ironic, isn’t it? Rapin? I feel my daughter’s life was raped from her, along with my grandchild’s.
Much later, I heard that Kennedy came down with brain cancer. I am sure he had the best of care by [the] highest caliber of doctors. But in the end it didn’t matter; it was terminal. At least his family knew his end was near and could say goodbye. Laura and I never had that chance.
A few weeks after Laura and the baby died, Troy Newman of Operation Rescue issued a media release in which he explained that just 10 days after the two had died, the abortionist, Rapin Osathanondh, met with Eileen in what can only be described as a macabre encounter:
He required that Smith meet him alone and in a public place, refusing to allow even Smith’s husband, Tom, to accompany her. During that meeting Osathanondh showed Smith Laura’s medical records, but would not allow them to be copied. Smith was upset by what she saw, and decided to take legal action to obtain access to the records.
“Although they are not in our hands yet, but should be soon. Let’s hope they are the same records that I saw the first time,” Smith told Operation Rescue.
“Osathanondh resigned his medical license in February [2008] after the medical board accused him of misconduct, and he was permanently barred from practicing medicine in Massachusetts,” the Boston Globe reported. Further, an investigation conducted by two law enforcement agencies and the Massachusetts state medical board concluded that the abortionist’s conduct was “willful, wanton, and reckless.”
In March, the Cape Cod Times reported on the upcoming trial, which could take place within weeks:
“Laura Smith was about 13 weeks pregnant when she went to the Women’s Health Center in Hyannis. She was engaged to her first boyfriend from high school with whom she had reconnected over the previous year, according to her mother.
“Today I am picking out her tombstone when I should be picking out my mother of the bride dress,” Eileen Smith writes in the Aug. 6, 2008, affidavit. “Rapin Osathanondh has caused great harm and there is no end in sight.”
Last year, Besse reported on Eileen's campaign for justice:
Vowing that her daughter’s death would “not be swept under the rug,” Smith has spoken tirelessly on the pro-life circuit after Operation Rescue in Kansas first contacted her…
“I believed if I lived my Christian life, preached the gospel, raised my children with Christian principles, that not only would abortion not touch my home, but we could make converts to Christianity and thereby lower the numbers. I was wrong on all counts,” she said.
She now realizes that God “is the head of the pro-life movement and He will guide and direct and empower us if we but hear His voice and follow His heart.” All Christian leaders need to “make life a major priority in their mission and pulpits,” she said.
What is fundamentally troubling about this case, however, is what I learned this past week, when I first heard about Eileen Smith and started communicating with her. Her daughter’s death – at the time it occurred and in the months and years that followed – was never reported by mainstream national media. There were, of course, as we have mentioned, a few local stories about Laura’s demise, but when one compares this tragedy, involving the direct acts of an abortionist, with the death of abortionist Tiller and examines the coverage each event received, the mainstream media’s unseemly and unfathomable insensitivity takes on an entirely new dimension. As the Christian Examiner reports,
Eileen Smith said she fought for months to get mainstream media outlets to cover the September death of Laura Hope Smith, who died on an abortion operating table, yet Tiller’s death brought an outpouring of national media headlines and Congressional condolences to his family by a resolution approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.
The bereaved mother said most news reports about her daughter came from nonprofit organizations, religious news and other alternative media.
”Where was the press when my daughter Laura died at the hands of an abortionist?” Smith asked, adding that Laura’s death was finally mentioned 10 months later in one major publication, The Boston Globe, when the abortion doctor was indicted for manslaughter.
It was six weeks before her local paper, The Cape Cod Times, mentioned Laura’s death, although it sought out her mother for a two-hour interview just two days after Laura’s death. Smith says the local newspaper rationalized delaying a report on Laura’s death so it could corroborate it with an autopsy report…
In expressing her frustration, Smith said she is not minimizing the tragedy of Tiller’s murder. At the same time, though, she pointed out that as many as 60,000 viable babies are believed to have been aborted by Tiller.
”His death is a tragedy, but so are all the lives that were taken by him and the lives of over 400 women who have died as a result of an abortion,” Smith said.
“I call on the media to report deaths like Laura’s. If Tiller’s death merits national news, so does a death at the hands of an abortionist.”
We cannot say to a valiant mother and grandmother such as Eileen Smith, “We feel your pain,” because we do not, unless we have lost two loved ones at the hands of an abortionist. What we can do is hearken to her plea for fair news reporting. Laura and her baby were no less important to the human family than Dr. George Tiller or Senator Edward M. Kennedy. In fact, in the eyes of God, each human being is invaluable, unrepeatable and equally precious.
Each of us can do something about this tragic loss. The first thing we can do is pray for this family, for it is certain that during the upcoming trial, great anguish will be experienced as the wounds of loss are reopened and examined under a court microscope. We can let Eileen Smith know of our concern and our support for her at her blog site.
We can share this story with our family, friends and church members. We can ask our local media where they were two years ago. Where are they now? When will the truth be told?
The act of abortion is not safe and according to the laws of God, it is not legal. Tell the truth.
What a tragic and sad story. I wonder how many stories like this go unreported.
Thank you for shining the truth.
The more people who know the truth, the better.
I am still appalled with the Kennedy funeral scandal.
The Bishop who turns a blind eye to a pro-abortion Catholic politician in Holy communion does no one any favors. Let us pray for God's wisdom and courage for all our Bishops and Priests in all matters of life. Let us pray for all the babies aborted, their mothers and those who bought into the lies of abortions. Let us pray for conversion of our nation and leaders who are pressing at this time to include abortions and other evil mandates in the health care reform. Let us pray for God's Divine Mercy once again and the end of abortions, just like slavery.
Charity in God's Truth and Justice.
Thank you Judie Brown, Leslie Tignor and American Life League
Patty Palmquist | September 10, 2009
This is a tragedy all around, but one aspect is unfortunately missing. At no time does Laura Smith's mother indicate that her daughter is responsible for her grandchild's death.
This is a weakness which is common in our movement. There is this feeling that somehow mothers (and fathers) are not responsible for their decisions to kill their unborn children. We make it appear that the criminal abortionist alone is responsible for the crime of killing the unborn child. Parents who freely choose to kill their children are equally responsible for the crime and must be held criminally accountable by society.
When we are finally able to prohibit prenatal homicide under law, we must have statutes which not only apply to the criminal abortionist but also prohibit the mother from killing her child herself or hiring someone else to commit the crime. Joe | September 13, 2009
WHAT OBAMA WILL NOT TELL THE JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS Posted: Tuesday September 8, 2009 at 2:36 pm EST by Judie Brown
The president of the United States will address a joint session of Congress tomorrow evening. In the interim, the talking heads on both the left and the right of the health care “reform” debate appear to be narrowly focused on but one topic: “single-payer” health insurance coverage. One would think that the White House had orchestrated the perfect storm: opposing parties discussing the one question that has nothing to do with the deadly aspects of the Obama health care “reform” agenda.
Think I’m joking? Think again.
The White House web site features a page ostensibly dedicated to women’s health and well-being, which includes the following statements: “President Obama has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and believes in preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade. At the same time, he respects those who disagree with him. The [p]resident believes we must all come together to help reduce unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion.”
As analysts of the various health care reform proposals have repeatedly pointed out, abortion is included in each bill as part of “reproductive health” policy. In other words, Obama may not address this tomorrow evening, but the fact is that so-called reproductive health care – including abortion, contraception and sterilization – will be there.
While the White House has made it clear that Obama believes “a government health insurance option” should be included in any health care “reform” plan, the overarching means of achieving this goal – cutting costs by denying expensive treatments to certain classes of patients – will not be touched with a 10-foot pole.
Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress -- coming 16 years to the month after Clinton used a similar strategy to begin his health-care effort -- is intended to “refocus the debate back on why we need to do this,” administration spokeswoman Linda Douglass said.
Liberal Democrats, with a nod from Obama, have pushed for the public option as a way to hold down insurance costs. But the industry, Republicans and some conservative Democrats argue that it could undermine the existing marketplace if it has the power to set prices. On Sunday, administration officials walked a fine line on the topic, maintaining that the president still prefers the option as a “tool” for creating competition in the health sector.
If this is so and if the marketplace is indeed the focus of the president’s call to action for the uninsured, then why would palliative care specialists, such as Robert L. Fine, M.D., still be getting ink from major newspapers at the 11th hour? Fine wrote in Sunday's Washington Times,
Those who try to politicize the end-of-life care to further their own agenda only serve to tear apart our civic fabric. They ignore the fact that since 2005, Medicare has paid for counseling about end-of-life care as part of the “Welcome to Medicare” physical and mental assessment.
They overlook the provision in the Patient Self-Determination Act, passed by Congress as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, that requires Medicare-participating hospitals to provide patients with written information regarding their right to accept or refuse medical treatment offered and their right to make advance directives. They distract us from remedying one of the leading causes of premature death in America -- lack of health care insurance.
Although Fine extols the Texas Advance Directives Act for supposedly protecting “patients and health care professionals with a balanced living will and a fair mechanism for facing moral disagreements at the end of life,” in an earlier Times commentary, malpractice attorney Robert W. Painter warned that the very same law authorizes death panels.
So, who is the public to believe? Why doesn’t the president plan to set the record straight, once and for all, about his attitudes toward health care and the dignity of the human person? Why isn’t David Axelrod telling the media that the president wishes to assuage concerns about conscience protection by setting forth a principled response to his critics? Why are all his minions stuck on the “single-payer” option and a public program?
It doesn’t take a Harvard degree to figure out the answer. As the Illinois Right to Life Committee’s executive director, Bill Beckman, pointed out in his August 12 e-mail to other pro-life leaders,
How much greater potential for violation of conscience rights will exist when government administrators will be empowered to establish what is covered, what is not, and under what criteria? They will be able to mandate these features both for the government health plan and for other health plans, assuming these other health plans will even remain in existence, given provisions that clearly push everyone into the government plan over time as changes occur.
The clear evidence that the health care bill will provide means for government administrators to deny medical treatments based on “quality of life” criteria, and other means to ration health care, are not being addressed in any visible way by the communications issued by the Catholic Church. Given that past statements by key leaders in the administration reflect the concept that cutting health care costs will be achieved by denying services based on arbitrary “quality of life” criteria, ignoring this threat to respect for life is a significant omission (e.g. Ezekiel Emanuel, saying medical benefits of a government-controlled healthcare plan would not be given to patients with dementia (LifeNews.com: http://www.lifenews.com/bio2908.html) Emanuel’s statements are just one of many examples of the potential anti-life agenda built into this health care bill.
Why would the Washington Post, of all newspapers, publish an article by physician Marshall Ackerman in which he asks for a little respect for doctors in the health care "reform" debate, suggesting to readers,
At your next visit to your specialist, take a tip from the drug company ads and “ask your doctor”: Does he or she plan to retire early if reform legislation passes close to its present form? Does he or she plan to continue to participate with Medicare/Medicaid or participate with insurers that will not reimburse adequately? How does your doctor think health-care reform will affect the care you receive in his or her specialty? Access to a waiting list is not access to health care. Let’s stop pointing fingers and start considering the real flaws and strengths of our system and how to improve it.
And while we’re discussing the lack of transparency that will be painfully obvious tomorrow evening as Obama attempts to assuage our fears, let’s not forget the infamous Department of Veterans Affairs booklet Your Life, Your Choices. This publication identifies circumstances in which a life may be judged as supposedly not worthy of living (depression, disability, cost of care, etc.). Though the DVA claims it is being revised, the booklet remains on its web site, accompanied by this caveat: “It is the policy of the Obama [a]dministration to make available to the public scientific and technological information that is developed and used by the [f]ederal [g]overnment.”
Moreover, President Obama has assured veterans that “a proposed overhaul of the nation’s health care system is not going to change how veterans get their medical services.” So, is the Your Life, Your Choices booklet going to become required reading for all Americans? Will each of us have to fill out the forms therein before we can get health care after age 65?
Will the president address these concerns?
Obviously, those who raise such questions – whether it is me, Sarah Palin or countless others – are relegated to the classification of “wing nut” by the Obama operatives. But a word to the wise is sufficient.
• Pay close attention and listen for the words “respect for the dignity of the human person” tomorrow night.
• Wait with bated breath for the president to assure his fellow Americans that any health care reform plan will honor the solid, ethical health care principles set forth in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.
• Listen for welcome assurances such as these:
There will be no provision in any health care reform bill for taxpayer funding of abortion, contraception, sterilization, human embryonic stem cell therapy, euthanasia or assisted suicide. We will not encourage health care rationing. We will eliminate abuses in palliative care so that the dying are treated with dignity, because it is the right thing to do, not a matter of cost. We will respect the dignity of every single American citizen, including those not yet born and those facing death.
If you hear anything even remotely similar to this, I will publicly eat my own tennis shoes.
Dear Judie: I just read your commentary on what Obama will NOT say in his speech to Congress on Wed. nite. Good work! My only comment: don't bother rifling through the fridge looking for the catsup: I don't think you're going to need it. Carol Luscomb | September 9, 2009
you won't be eating your tennis shoes joseph weaver | September 9, 2009
COURAGEOUS BISHOPS DEFINE GOVERNMENT’S PROPER ROLE IN HEALTH CARE REFORM Posted: Friday September 4, 2009 at 12:07 pm EST by Judie Brown
A short time after I wrote a commentary on what Christ-centered health care would look like, quoting Professor Jeffrey Mirus, a gentleman contacted me to say that he found the entire question of Catholic teaching on subsidiarity difficult to understand.
Since I wrote that commentary, several Catholic bishops have made statements that clearly identify and explain the problems with current health care reform proposals. They have, thank God, focused on the principle of subsidiarity as a mandatory aspect of any genuine health care reform. In his open letter, Bishop Samuel Aquila, of the Diocese of Fargo, North Dakota, explained the following to his flock:
I want to offer you some key principles that should always be used when evaluating the moral value and justice of a given plan to provide health care. The following is a brief summary of these principles, after which I will offer further explanation and application:
o Any provisions for actions which deny the dignity of human life, especially abortion, euthanasia, whether passive or active, and embryonic stem-cell research must be excluded from all health care plans.
o The freedom of consciences must be safeguarded. The moral voice of individual doctors, nurses, health professionals, as well as the general public, deserve reverence and respect.
o Access to health care ought to be available to all people, including the poor, legal immigrants, the handicapped, and especially the elderly and unborn members of society.
o The means of providing access to health care should be governed by the principle of subsidiarity, being reasonably and equitably distributed among members of society.
Bishop Aquila them goes on to provide a clear explanation of subsidiarity – a definition that comes from the heart and mind of a fervent man of God. He writes,
Subsidiarity
Subsidiarity is the principle that states “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1883).
As a society seeks to bring about any good such as health care, there are many organic and intermediate groups which cooperate together to reach the desired goal. There is a danger in being persuaded to think that the national government is the sole instrument of the common good.
Rather, according to the classic principle of subsidiarity in Catholic social thought, many different communities within society share this responsibility. These various strands of community life within society build up a strong and cohesive social fabric that is the hallmark of a true communion of persons.
States, towns, fraternal organizations, businesses, cooperatives, parishes and especially the family have not only legitimate freedom to provide the goods they are rightly capable of supplying, but often times do so with far greater efficiency, less bureaucracy and, most importantly, with personalized care and love.
This is especially the case in the tremendous work that the Church has done in successfully bringing health care, from early hospitals to modern research centers, to more and more people. We see this truth vividly in the Catholic health facilities in our rural areas.
As our society seeks to achieve the goal of ensuring access to health care for all, the federal government surely has a role to play, but definitely not the only role, or even the primary role. Working together with individual states to foster an environment where greater insurance options are available to all, fostering the formation of new and creative associations and finding ways in solidarity to assist financially and coordinate, when necessary, local and private entities are all desirable starting points for a task of such great scope.
Honoring the principle of subsidiarity will enable all men and women to be true participants in contributing to the goal of providing greater access to health care.
We are so very thankful for Bishop Aquila’s marvelous letter and encourage you to read it in its entirety.
The day after Bishop Aquila’s letter was published, we received word that Archbishop Joseph Naumann, of the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kansas; and Bishop Robert Finn, of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Missouri; had issued a joint pastoral letter on the subject of health care reform, echoing the very principles set forth by Bishop Aquila.
In their pastoral letter, these two bishops express the sense of Catholic community based on compassion grounded in Christ, as they write on the principle of human solidarity:
The principle of human solidarity is a particular application – on the level of society – of Christ’s command to love your neighbor as yourself. It might also be seen, in other terms, as the application of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.” Solidarity is our sense of “connectedness” to each other person, and moves us to want for them what we would want for ourselves and our most dear loved ones.
In regard to health care this might require us to examine any proposal in terms of what it provides – and how – to the most vulnerable in our society. Dr. Donald P. Condit in his helpful treatment of the principle of Solidarity in “Prescription for Health Care Reform” reminds us of the proverb attributed to Mahatma Gandhi: “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”
For example, legislation that excludes legal immigrants from receiving health care benefits violates the principle of solidarity, is unjust and is not prudent. In evaluating health care reform proposals perhaps we ought to ask ourselves whether the poor would have access to the kind and quality of health care that you and I would deem necessary for our families. Is there a way by which the poor, too, can assume more responsibility for their own health care decisions in such manner as reflects their innate human dignity and is protective of their physical and spiritual well being?
In closing, they express to their people a request that should resound in each of our hearts in the coming weeks:
We call upon our Catholic faithful, and all people of good will, to hold our elected officials accountable in these important deliberations and let them know clearly our support for those who, with prudence and wisdom, will protect the right to life, maintain freedom of conscience, and nurture the sense of solidarity that drives us to work hard, to pray, and to act charitably for the good of all.
Finally, as if these inspiring words were not enough, I would be remiss if I did not also quote some of the extraordinary words of Bishop Michael Pfeifer, of the Diocese of San Angelo, Texas:
In its present form, the Obama health plan is indeed deadly for the beginning and the end of human life, but in many ways is deadly for the lives who are in between the beginning and the end. There is concern that this plan would also affect, in a deadly way, many mentally ill and incapacitated persons, whose lives could be shortened because their lives are not considered to have value, and they are not considered to be productive people.
Bishop Pfeifer has gotten to the heart of the matter in very few words. If one stands back and carefully examines the well-crafted statements of these Catholic bishops, this fundamental truth comes to the forefront: Obamacare is not the answer.
No matter how many joint sessions of Congress President Obama addresses, the fundamental requirement for genuine health care reform – respect for the dignity of the human person from his creation to his natural death – will not be his focus. We know this, we understand this and, therefore, we must spread the word.
Praise God for these four Catholic bishops and all those bishops who have stood up to clarify what is and is not of Christ!
Please express your gratitude to each of these heroic prelates:
Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila
Diocese of Fargo
5201 Bishops Boulevard, Suite A
Fargo, ND 58104-7605
701-356-7944 sja@fargodiocese.org
Most Rev. Robert W. Finn
Diocese of Kansas City–St. Joseph
300 E. 36th St.
Kansas City, MO 64111
(816) 756-1858, ext. 221 bishopsoffice@diocesekcsj.org
Most Rev. Joseph F. Naumann, D.D.
Archdiocese of Kansas City
12615 Parallel Parkway
Kansas City, KS 66109
913-721-1570
Most Rev. Michael D. Pfeifer
Diocese of San Angelo
P.O. Box 1829
San Angelo, TX 76902
325-651-7500
The bishops are nothing more than Republican wolves in shephards clothing. Jimmy | September 4, 2009
Thanks for letting us know weh have some good bishops.
I do have a comment and a question. The first bishop speaks of, "Immigrents", you speak of, "Legal Immigrants". Certainly I believe that even illegals should get life threatening emergency care, but as soon as they are well enough send them back.
Regarding something many support, tort reform are also for expanding competition for health insurance beyond the state. How does this square with the principle of subsidirity? Patricia TobinKennedy | September 4, 2009
Dear Jimmy
Apparently you have an axe to grind with Catholic teaching, but I presume you are not a Catholic anyway. God bless you.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 5, 2009
Patricia
Bishop Aquila and Bishops Finn and Naumann speak of "legal immigrants" so I am not quite sure to what you are referring.
The principle of subsidiaty is beautifully explained by Pope Benedict XVI in "Caritas in Veritate":
"Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility. Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state."
Tort reform and expanding competition among insurance companies does not impact on this principle which fundamentally upholds the dignity of the human person as the primary focus of any governmental effort. As you know, this is sorely lacking in the USA.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 5, 2009
Jimmy: Your comment is 100% at the heart of what is wrong with such jaded beliefs. Do you think God cares for political parties? He cares for truth. The Catholic church is the universal church. So if a bishop standing up for the truth angers you, and you choose to lable him a "republican" you are mistaken. I would also encourage you to brace yourself, for the Bishops of Poland just released a pastoral letter and part of it read that "a public official who publicly supports abortion in any way, excommunicates himself immediately." This is truth. The fact that it has not happened here to both liberal and conservative politicians is based only in the fact that American bishops have not the moral courage. But it is coming and as the Holy Father siad, "this is noithing new." Hugh | September 6, 2009
Judie,
Jimmy is just being judgmental. Thank God that we have bishops who actually have heads on their shoulders. Pray for the Church. Nick | September 7, 2009
BRAVO! A VERY important principal (subsidiarity) explained well!
I think that this principal can be made very accessible with the right analogies perhaps to the common man.
From the polling and comments from the citizenry it seems that folks are "afraid" of the push for THIS health care reform - why? because it is too BIG.
(not denying that reform is needed - hopefully our Shepherds and the leading intellects can help us arrive at realistic and JUST reforms!) Fr. William J Kuchinsky | September 7, 2009
In defense of our Bishops, I'd like to quickly say to Jimmy that this is not about politics. This is about the defense of all human life, from conception to natural death. The current health care proposal will destroy, or at the best severly weaken, the protections for all human life.
God Bless those who stand for what is right, regardless of the cost. Russell Joy II | September 8, 2009
'PILLERING' WOMEN Posted: Thursday September 3, 2009 at 1:40 pm EST by Judie Brown
Webster tells us that the transitive verb "pillar" means “to provide or strengthen with or as if with pillars.” At the opposite end, we find those who “piller” women – that is, they weaken them by prescribing chemicals to ingest that will eventually damage them physically, emotionally and/or spiritually. To make matters even worse, many medical practitioners do so with impunity.
Indeed, the birth control pill is a recreational drug with serious side effects. The most recent example of this is the story of Patti Kelly of Austin, Texas, who
was in a hospital bed this time last week, unsure if she'd make it out alive. In one day, her health plummeted.
"I woke up last Thursday morning with shortness of breath. I actually tried to work out that morning, and I had to stop because I could not breathe. Then, I actually coughed up a little blood so that was alarming, but being 28 and healthy, I just didn't really think much of it,” she said.
But the pain got worse and at the urging of her mom, who is a nurse, she checked herself into the emergency room. A CAT scan revealed blood clots in her lungs.
"When I was in the ER they came in and said you have multiple in both lungs and that was shocking. It wasn't just like I had one. I had multiple. I said ‘Well, how many is multiple?’ and he said, ‘I can't really count them.’ He told me if I did not come to the emergency room when I did, I could've died instantly,” she said.
It wasn't until that moment that Patti learned she was genetically predisposed to the condition. Her mom also survived a blood clot earlier in her life. It just wasn't anything they talked about.
"The doctor said that could've been a factor but the birth control is definitely a big factor,” she said.
Blood clots have been a known side effect of the birth control pill for many years now, and the anecdotal evidence is mounting, not to mention clinical studies that have tied the pill to the same side effect.
As Marie Hahnenberg, director of American Life League’s The Pill Kills project, said when asked about the Kelly case, “We are constantly hearing about problems that stem from the dangerous drugs used in hormonal contraception. Women have been told for years that the birth control pill is the answer to their medical complications, when it is only causing more problems – even death.”
Further, this is not only the opinion of pro-life organizations such as American Life League. There are other Christian organizations that have provided documentation on these side effects of the pill as well, including QuiverFull and One More Soul.
A very good example of secular news agencies' selective reporting is the study on hardening of the arteries that was conducted in Belgium a year ago. LifeSiteNews.com reported,
Researchers at the University of Ghent, conducting a long-term study on 1,300 healthy women aged 35 to 55 living in a small town in Belgium, have observed that those women who take oral contraceptives may have more plaque (a hard, fatty deposit) buildup in their arteries.
Atherosclerotic plaque is comprised of cholesterol, bacteria and calcium which adheres to the inner lining of arteries.
Approximately 81 percent of participants had taken birth control pills for at least a year at some point in their lives, and 27 percent were currently taking the contraceptives.
However, the secular media remained virtually silent on this study. It would seem that whether the story is about a woman who almost died from a side effect of the pill or a group of 1,300 women who participated in a clinical study, the majority of America’s secular media is reticent when it comes to publicizing negative findings about the use of birth control chemicals.
Tragically, this type of self-censorship results in physical harm to women, and as we have repeatedly explained, the deaths of literally millions of preborn children whose lives are snuffed out prior to implantation, due to the pill’s abortifacient effects.
When Dr. Joel Brind presented his findings on how the steroidal compound found in the birth control pill contributes to an increased risk of liver cancer, breast cancer and cervical cancer, his documented evidence was not publicized. In fact, dead silence ensued. Even though the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute (headed by Brind) has made his research available online, we have not seen him interviewed anywhere – including the Dr. Oz portion of the Oprah Winfrey Show. I wonder why?
Brind writes, “The dangerous performance enhancing steroids taken by athletes are male steroid hormonal drugs that build muscle. One of their risks is liver cancer. Similarly, female steroid hormonal drugs build breast tissue. They not only increase the risk of liver cancer but breast and cervical cancers as well. These powerful steroid drugs are taken by millions of teenage girls as birth control pills.”
Two days ago, Jill Stanek reported on her blog that the World Health Organization has defined the pill as a Group I carcinogen:
The reasoning behind a combination of estrogen and progesterone/progestin is that estrogen given on its own increases the risk of uterine cancer. Taking a combination of the 2 confers protection from uterine cancer but increases breast cancer risk.
In short, the science behind the increased breast cancer risk stems from 2 primary mechanisms. In both instances, progesterone/progestin becomes a double-edged sword, as it confers protection from increased uterine cancer risk but "gives permission" for estrogen to negatively affect breast DNA.
Brind, Stanek, Belgian researchers and near-death experiences are all valid reasons for the media to get on the ball and report the facts. In view of the fact that a growing number of teenage girls is being exposed to these chemicals (due to the acquiescence of many parents, who prefer the pill to teaching chastity), doesn’t the medical profession have an obligation to be honest? Doesn’t the government have a responsibility to protect citizens from dangerous chemicals that can result in death? Don’t reporters have a duty to honestly report the facts? But that is hardly what occurs.
Father Tom Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, recently opined,
The only reason we have our elderly being set up for systematic extermination now is because our culture has been so deeply brainwashed by the contraceptive and abortive mentalities that come from decades of “family planning” propaganda. The devaluation of human life at one end of the spectrum leaves the other end of the life spectrum completely vulnerable to the depredations of the power-mongers in Washington. Albert Schweitzer said that “if a man loses his reverence for any part of life, he will lose his reverence for all of life.” In terms of the current healthcare debate that would mean: when you sow family planning, you reap death planning. It's that simple.
I think he’s on to something; in fact, I know he is. The truth is that sexually saturated societies do not heed warnings or, for that matter, even provide them. And after more than 40 years of contraceptive overload, two generations have accepted contraception, chosen to practice contraception and have a tough time telling their own children to say no to sexual relations, regardless of the child’s age or marital status.
The birth control pill and its progeny are sacred to the proponents of the culture of death. They have become a mainstay of American life. But as Father Denis O’Brien, MM, American Life League’s spiritual director for many years, said in 1994,
Parents are the ones charged solemnly to raise their children in accordance with the eternal law, and will answer to God. To what lengths would parents go to save their child's life? To what lengths should they go to save their children's soul?
They may not wash their hands with the excuse "Well, the school board says…" or “The doctors say…” or “The teacher says…” That's what Pilate did, wash his hands.
So as we once again contemplate the fallout from the pill, and regardless of our profession or state in life, we should seriously consider these wise words from the pen of Pope John Paul II: "If the object of the concrete action is not in harmony with the true good of the person, the choice of that action makes our will and ourselves morally evil, thus putting us in conflict with our ultimate end, the supreme good, God himself" (Veritatis Splendor, 1993, Section 72).
Pillering women has devastating consequences. The only way to avoid them is to understand them. Share these facts with those you care about. Spread the word, spread the truth!
It is obvious to me that the development of the "pill" - and the contraceptive mentality have opened a "Pandora's box" of evils that harm society. Since the '60's we've seen girls die from pill side effects. More notably we also have a massive S.T.D. epidemic due to schools etc. telling kids they can have promiscuous sex "safely". Neither the pill nor condoms stop spread of HPV or AIDS as well as other problems too,- and no one sees this?? P.P. teachings are the root of this. Grace Harman | September 3, 2009
Pro-Life Story: My Daughter is My Life Posted By Sharon Hatala on Jul, 15 2007 I got pregnant when I was 17. I was about to graduate from a Christian school. If my school found out, I would of been kicked out. If my parents found out, I would of been kicked ... Read
